Loading...
2006-11-01 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 11/01/2006 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION November 1, 2006 Amendment of the Village Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the Provisions of the Illinois Municipal Code 65 IL,CS 5/11-12-7 concerning Village Transit Station Areas Plan Buffalo Grove and Prairie View Metra Station Areas Chairman Ottenheimer called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Arboretum Club, 401 Half Day Road, and Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Chairman Ottenheimer read the Notice of Pubic Hearing as published in the Buffalo Grove Daily Herald, explained the procedure to be followed for the public hearing, and swore in all persons who wished to give testimony. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Mr. Podber Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. William Brimm, Village Manager Ms. Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Manager Mr. Barry Gore, Camiros Mr. Jeffrey Braiman, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Ms. Nidhi Vaid, Associate Planner Ms. Heather Tabbert, Regional Transportation Authority The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit 1: Concept Plan, undated Exhibit 2: Illustrative Site Development Plan, undated Exhibit 3: Illustrative Site Plan with Density Exhibit 4: Illustrative Site Plan of Main Street Exhibit 5: Implementation Plan—Future Land Use, Zoning Concept, Phasing Strategy Exhibit 6: Circulation Plan Exhibit 7: Letter from the President of the Village of Lincolnshire dated October 25, 2006 to Mr. Elliott Hartstein asking the Commission to consider a plan consistent with the boundary agreement Exhibit 8: Letter from Robin Stiebel to Ms. Ghida Neukirch dated June 13, 2006 Exhibit 9: Boundary and Planning Agreement Area Description and Land Use pared by the Village of Buffalo Grove, Division of Planning Services with Lincolnshire dated April 27, 2005 Exhibit 10: Mr. Pfeil's memo dated October 27, 2006 with document entitled "Village of Buffalo Grove Transit Station Area Plan, A Document of the Buffalo Grove Comprehensive Plan, public hearing draft, 2006" Mr. William Brimm, Village Manager, stated the process this evening is the continuation of a long and deliberate process that has been ongoing for about one year. This process is to develop plans along the lines of transit oriented development which the Village has identified as our transit station area planning objectives. A series of meetings have been held on January 12, 2006, April 19, 2006, and June 7, 2006 which were general public meetings to discuss the Prairie View objectives as well as Plan Commission meetings on May 17, 2006 and August 16, 2006 where preliminary findings were presented in terms of the project objectives and also for feedback as the process continued. Mr. Brimm stated tonight's objectives are to discuss with the Commission and before the public our concept plan and objectives for the Prairie View area. Ms. Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Manager, stated we are currently in the process of updating the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. That plan serves as a guide to the Village and it sets forth land use designations for various unincorporated properties. As part of that update, in 2005 the Village conducted a community opinion survey. Buffalo Grove residents and businesses shared with us their interest in seeing transit oriented development around the Buffalo Grove train station and the Prairie View train station. We were fortunate to secure a grant from the RTA to hire a land use and planning consultant to assess the feasibility of that study. What we are really looking for is mixed uses around the train station. The Village hired Camiros who has a consultant team that has been working with them on this project. We have put together a steering committee to help go through this project and this committee consists of not only Village representatives but also representatives from the RTA, Metra, PACE and Lake County. We have also had a significant amount of public opinion and feedback as part of this process. In addition to the meetings that we had with the residents we have also met one on one with businesses, school districts, and park districts. We presented the plan before the Lake County Regional Plan Commission and also the Lincolnshire Village Board. Ms. Neukirch noted that the report references a boundary agreement that the Village of Buffalo Grove has with the Village of Lincolnshire. In April, 2005 the two Corporate Authorities adopted an agreement which basically divided more than 400 acres of property along both of our jurisdictions and set forth which properties would be part of Buffalo Grove and which would be part of Lincolnshire. As it relates to the Prairie View plan there is approximately 46 acres which if annexed and developed they would not only require approval from the Corporate Authority of Buffalo Grove but from the Village of Lincolnshire if we exceeded the densities as set forth in the boundary agreement. We are proposing densities which are greater than those set forth in the agreement. Ms. Neukirch addressed the question received of how this plan relates to the densities in other communities. She cited examples of the downtown area of Deerfield which is about 17 acres in total. Their densities range from about 10 units for multi-family residential to 73 units per acre. Lincolnshire's downtown area ranges in densities from 8.47 to 25 units per acre. Recently there was property assembled which has a Vernon Hills address but is very close to Prairie View at Half Day and Milwaukee. Edward James is developing a mix of condominium and townhomes at a density of 11 dwelling units per acre. These areas are very different from Prairie View and we are not suggesting that we want this type of development in this area. We want to be creative and have a plan where we could manage the teardown of the single family homes and assure that redevelopment, specifically of single family homes on the west side of the track are consistent in scale to what we want to see and what is there. We also want to preserve the architectural character of all the properties and model this architecture in new developments. We wanted to develop mixed uses which have been very successful in other communities and have architectural standards which appeal to the Prairie View area. We wanted to improve pedestrian links throughout the area and enhance the use of the expanded rail station and have an environment which allows people to walk to the train, walk to shopping and walk through everything throughout the area. We wanted to also retain and enhance the Prairie View element which could be architectural guidelines, an entrance sign, streetscape, banners and unique lighting. Ms. Neukirch further stated this plan sets forth a gradual implementation. We will probably go through another comprehensive update before all this is done. This calls for an implementation plan which sets forth various phases. Mr. Barry Gore of Camiros stated that as density becomes greater in future years the land use planner must deal with realities and one of the ways to deal with them is through transit oriented development. He noted the most efficient way to move people around the region is through transit. The most efficient way for anyone to access that transit is by walking. Some of the other things discussed in the plan are quality of life and place making out of the transit stations. The exciting opportunity at Prairie View is that we already have a place. Mr. Gore reviewed the Concept Plan noting they are proposing a residential component with some mixed use at Main and Half Day. At the Stancliff property they are looking at a residential subdivision and some sort of park component to it and a pedestrian component that leads down to the station and then they are looking at potential multi-family south of Half day next to the railroad tracks and multi-family directly across from the train station and then gradually stepping down in the density in the type of unit as we move away from the station up towards Stancliff. Mr. Gore noted the key features of the overall Concept Plan are: 1. Conservation of Prairie View character 1. Mixed use shopping and residential at the corner 1. New sidewalk on Main Street 1. New neighborhood subdivision up at Stancliff 1. Gradual long term redevelopment east of the station Mr. Gore noted there are about half a dozen houses there right now and they know from the last meeting that people have been approached by developers. It is up to the property owner as to what they want to do so it could take a long time for the east side of the tracks to go. Mr. Gore stated that Main Street does not have a sidewalk now so getting people to walk to the train station is not safe. Mr. Gore reviewed the illustrative site plan which does not mean things will be developed as shown. He noted the plan helped them decide they did not really want to do much with Easton. As far as the plan goes Easton is most likely to remain single family because you have that character now, but you will see some tear down especially if sewer and water services comes in. Mr. Gore reviewed the Stancliff property which is agricultural now. Everything surrounding it is residential. They did a design for single family homes to be compatible with existing homes. He noted they put a park in the center of the development and looked to using it to form the subdivision and have townhouses facing it around the circle. The pedestrian greenway was added as a shortcut to the train station. The idea of mixing single family with some townhouses on that property is one that the plan recommends. He noted they put a little road in, in the event a road connection is ever allowed into Apple Hill Lane. This is strictly hypothetical and if someone wanted to sell their house it would be a nice connection. The shape they are working with is taken from some of the best examples of urban design. This plan calls for 49 single family homes, 66 townhomes for a total of 115 units which works out to a little less than 3 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Gore reviewed the plans for Main Street at Half Day where they are looking to create a pedestrian type of shopping district. The whole idea of transit oriented development with the mixing of uses fits in perfectly with the character of Prairie View. He noted the corner is composed of the Fiore Nursery property, the recycling property and the portable toilet distributor and those three really need to be assembled into one site so that you can get the kind of development on the corner that Main Street deserves. He further noted they are looking at probably three story buildings with the first level ground as retail. A second level would be condominium or apartment units and a third level above that. The US Equities team member stated that the way to get the smaller boutique shops is to put condos or apartments up above the retail as that is what makes the money. The Village might consider putting into their zoning code that you can build units above retail but it must be retail on the ground floor. You actually end up getting cheaper retail space that way and you can get the non-franchise stuff in that people want. He further noted they are recommending a wide sidewalk on Main Street, street trees, pedestrian level lamps, street furniture and banners for a nice main street character. He noted there could be a mixed use courtyard in the internal area at Main Street and Half Day. He further noted that it might be nice to realign First Street up and put some homes back there. Mr. Gore reviewed Site 7 which is south of Half Day next to the railroad tracks which they think something like Waterbury could be done. There are some single family homes being built there right now. Some attached townhomes could be added and as you get closer to the station and the four lane highway you can put some multi-family pointed right at the station. Along Prairie Road where there is the boundary agreement, Mr. Gore stated they would look to add three apartment buildings, three stories high with some townhomes behind it right across from the train station. Then as you go further north some 400 feet or so they thought some six flats with townhomes and then up to the townhomes and the single family at the three dwelling units per acre. This is just illustrative but what it is showing is the idea that the density should be highest next to the station and falls back down as you go further from there. Mr. Gore stated they are recommending that the Village create a transit oriented development zoning code. One of the advantages of this for Prairie View is that the Village could probably develop it with its existing code. However, if you create a zoning code that a developer can pick you can bargain with him by giving him some higher density on the promise of sticking to the Village's architectural design guidelines. Mr. Gore reviewed the areas in Phase 1 which are the properties which might go in the next five years or so, including Stancliff and a property directly south thereof. Phase 2 would be at the corner of Half Day and Prairie and then Phase 3 would be north on Brockman. However, something labeled 3 or 2 might happen even faster than something labeled 1. Mr. Gore stated the plan also includes a circulation plan which is another policy recommendation. What it does is shows where roads need to line up. Some of the other things that will be required is there has to be a sidewalk on Main Street. Anyone who develops along the east side of Prairie Road will have to have a sidewalk along that. Mr. Michael Rylko, Executive Director of Buffalo Grove Park District, reiterated the Park District's request to have five plus acres of the Stancliff property for a future park development and more so in a square or rectangle parcel to be made useable for active recreation and not really for detention. He asked for reconsideration for the concept plan to go back to the original plan, if possible. Commissioner Smith asked how the proposed density relates to the boundary agreement. Ms. Neukirch stated the 40 acres of the Stancliff property in the boundary agreement is designated as two dwelling units per acre. What is being proposed in the plan is 2.9 units per acre. There are approximately 3 acres just south of the Stancliff property which is designated on the boundary agreement as 2 units per acre. Mr. Gore stated they actually remeasured the site again and it is different from what is in the draft. The area turns out to be about 4.6 acres. North of Brockman it turned out to be 13 dwelling units per acre and south of Brockman it is 24 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Newkirch noted the boundary agreement sets forth south of Brockman as 6 units per acre. The boundary agreement has properties which are off of Prairie Road but designated for Lincolnshire. Just for a more efficient planning process it was rounded out those borders so there are not two houses immediately adjacent to each other belonging to different villages. Mr. Gore repeated the numbers, noting on Stancliff we are at 2.9 dwelling units per acre in the illustrative plan. North of Brockman is at 4.6 acres which comes out to about 13.5 dwelling units per acre and those are the flats and townhouses. South of Brockman they have three apartment buildings which they are suggesting could be 3 stories tall with some townhouses behind it and that comes out to 24 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Smith asked if the reason for the high density is because it is needed for the desired mixed use. Mr. Gore stated that is one of the benefits. He noted the higher density is because of the regional transit facility that is directly across the street. The thought from a land use plan of view is to see if we can get more people who can walk out their front door into the train station. The whole idea of transit oriented development is to have the types of units in the densities that allow people to do that. He noted the tricky part of the density calculations is that 24 dwelling units per acre may sound high but it really only means it is an apartment building. In this plan there are three apartment buildings on that property with some townhomes behind it. It is only 4 acres for the 24 dwelling units per acre. When we move directly north it is cut into half and so on. Commissioner Smith asked what the commercial consultant notes as viability for commercial and what types of stores. Mr. Gore noted the plan shows about the maximum on the west side of the track at about 60,000 square feet possibly. The illustrative plan is looking at what could fit in here and then the market will have to decide. The commercial consultant told us that creating retail development is tricky. What he has said about Prairie View is that he liked it as a setting but he did not think the smaller buildings would work as it is very difficult for a developer to make any money off of that and that is why they have planned for two levels of apartments and condominiums above it to help pay for it. If you make the zoning code say that you must put retail on the ground level along Main Street but you can build two levels of units, it is very possible the market will bite on that just because they want to sell those units directly across from the train station. Commissioner Smith asked if there have been any comments from the school districts. Mr. Brimm stated they have not heard anything adverse. He stated they have met with the representatives of District 103 who have taken the draft plans under advisement but have not submitted anything formally. Some early planning has been provided to Stevenson High School and nothing formal has been received from them. Commissioner Smith asked if any kind of traffic studies have been taken. Mr. Gore stated no. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated she was concerned about the traffic particularly in light of the limitations on Prairie Road. Many of these people along Prairie may take the train in the morning but they will come home and use their cars to shop and do errands elsewhere. Anyone wanting to go east on Route 22 will have a difficult time and she does not see this working for this number of people. The density of the plan bothers her. She noted she is also concerned about the park district's request for a larger piece of property than the 2 '/2 acres planned. It seems the shape and configuration of the park will make it difficult for them to have the maximum use out of the field. In addition she does not see where any parking has been allocated for that area. While it is well and good to assume this will only be a neighborhood park, the fact is that there will be kids coming from all areas and there must be facilities for cars to come in here. Commissioner Teplinsky asked about the mechanism in the boundary agreement to which would allow the village to attain the density that is being proposed. Ms. Neukirch stated the way that the boundary agreement is written and the process to be followed if there is a development project that is before the Village it would be necessary to annex the property and then if the densities exceed those that have been identified, the petitioner must go through the development process in the Village of Buffalo as well as receive approval from the Corporate Authorities in Lincolnshire. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if there has been any provision for increasing the parking around the train station. Mr. Brimm stated that the parking immediately at the depot on both the east and west side is at its maximum build out which has been approved by Metra. Commissioner Teplinsky noted there is the potential for many more train users who would not all walk to the train. Mr. Brimm noted there is a potential for more. Commissioner Bocek noted that even with this plan each one of the parcels comes through the whole process and will probably evolve throughout the course of time. Ms. Neukirch stated that was correct. After the public hearing process this document, if approved by the elected officials, serves as a guide to the Village for future planning efforts. If a developer or property owner comes to the Village and if interested in redevelopment of their property or selling their property and wants to explore the annexation process, the Village would go to the planning document to use it as a guide to plan that property. There have been occasions when the Village Board has not been consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because after several years they found that there is perhaps a better zoning for a specific site. Commissioner Stark asked once again if Lincolnshire would have to approve any development if the Village of Buffalo Grove wants to go beyond the density. Ms. Neukirch stated it would be just for those specific properties that are referenced in the boundary agreement. Commissioner Stark asked if Site H could possibly be made less dense particularly the area directly adjacent or west of the back yards of Richards. Mr. Gore stated yes it could be made less dense. He noted they actually were asked to put some more in there. He further noted they do not have the time or budget to go back and redo the plans now which are only hypothetical and illustrative. Chairman Ottenheimer noted these are not firm plans at all and we do not need to get caught up in the specifics of certain areas. Commissioner Stark asked if there was any idea of what Lincolnshire is thinking in terms of moderating the density for the proposed plan. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that the 2.9 is not a fixed number now and is only a concept now and this is asking them to hypothecate on what may or may not be. Mr. Neukirch stated that at the meeting one elected official indicated a willingness to explore opportunities to revisit this. Overall the feedback was that they approved the boundary agreement and just stick to those densities. Commissioner Podber noted he does not see any kind of detention or retention associated with any of the multi-family units and asked if it was left out for any particular reason. Mr. Gore stated they actually went back and eliminated a few of the things that were on the Stancliff property so that they could put retention ponds into the illustrative drawing there. He stated on the west side of the tracks they do have the big pond next to Fiore nursery now which has been retained. The thought was that could probably serve, albeit bigger, for that development. He noted it is a detail issue that they did not quite work out for every one of the sites. There are other approaches to stormwater retention also. Commissioner Cohn asked how many acres is the total development of the Prairie View station. Mr. Gore stated he was not sure although it covers almost everything on the east side of the tracks except for the Jesperson/Olson property on the corner. Commissioner Cohn asked if everything else would be feasible if Lincolnshire were to stand firm on the boundary agreement. He asked if the commercial development and the mixed use development and other portions of the plan still be feasible. Mr. Gore stated he thought it would. He noted you might end up with less square footage of the retail but would still be feasible. He noted that the possibility of going to the five acre park in the Stancliff property might take care of the density problem. He further stated that from his point of view having park space next to the train station does not really get him anything. It is not a bad thing but it was not the primary goal. Commissioner Smith asked how long something like this will take. Mr. Gore stated it has already begun. The Waterbury development stands out as the best transit oriented development going now. The easier properties could go within the next 5 years and the more difficult ones could take quite a long time. If the people on the east side of the tracks don't want to sell their homes they just don't have to. He stated he feels the value of the property right next to the train station will keep going up exponentially as long as the commute times keep going up and the price of gasoline keeps going up and as long as the population keeps going up. There will be a lot of forces coming down. He further noted he has worked with traffic engineers and has even seen the report on the Waterbury development. Sure traffic is going up, but that does not mean the land should not be developed. He noted that the traffic engineers will look at traffic patterns one mile, two miles and five miles out and they will say traffic will be more in that whole area. To try to get a calculation localized down to the three apartment buildings on the east side of Prairie Road which are proposed is not really possible. Mr. Malcolm Rice, 23043 Prairie Road, asked about wetlands. Mr. Gore stated there are some wetlands south of Half Day and also behind Easton between Prairie View and the Woodlands to the north which already has a conservation area. Mr. Rice stated the land south of Half Day and Prairie is an actual designated wetland. He noted there is supposed to be an agreement that Buffalo Grove is to watch over this area and protect this area. He stated the wetland expert in Lake County has informed him that this is definitely a wetland. Mr. Kuenkler stated the area referred to clearly has characteristics of wetlands and it would have to be addressed in accordance with the regulations of Lake County if it were to be removed. Mr. Gore noted they are calling that area Site J. He noted their engineer stated Site J required detention to be developed. Existing depressional storage on this site will need to be preserved and may not be counted toward the required detention for the site. He stated they may have missed that in the illustrative drawing but it clearly states required preservation in the text. Mr. Rice stated he has been told that there will be more drainage coming from the Chestnut Meadows development which will all head north into the area and there will be even more water there. He wanted to see the area preserved for wildlife. Mr. Ron Salway, 23026 N. Main Street, stated his is the frame shop that has been designated too close to the road and he would like to know why that is so. He noted the grass in the right of way has been maintained by them and there is 10 feet of flowerbeds and trees between the shop and the road. All their customers drive down the road and park in the back at least 75 feet away from the road. Mr. Gore stated what he is talking about there is whether or not they can get sidewalk along Main street. Mr. Salway stated that it would be even more difficult to get sidewalks in front of the restaurant and the antique shop which all park on right of way. Therefore, if his shop is a problem why are the other shops not a problem. Mr. Gore stated they were just looking into getting a sidewalk in front of Mr. Salway's building. He stated it may be possible to get a sidewalk in front of the building. As far as the other stores along Main Street, the illustrative plan looked at moving that parking to the back or the north and putting a sidewalk in front. He stated he feels it is very appropriate and a very good idea to have a sidewalk leading to the train station. If that can be done without taking anyone's property with or without having to redevelop anything that would be good. Mr. Salway stated he is one of the only American Indian businesses in the community and you would be kicking them out. He also noted there is a building permit stapled onto the tree in front of Half Day on the wetland property. It looks like they are trying to run a road there. Mr. Brimm stated it is not in the Village of Buffalo Grove and they would have no jurisdiction over that. He stated he knows there was demolition there and a house was removed in conjunction with the road project. Chairman Ottenheimer stated they will check with the building department for that answer. Mr. Gore stated he feels the frame shop is exactly the kind of boutique shop that we want here. Many times in redevelopment if you are willing to redevelop that property you would want to work with the developer to put the shop in the ground level of any new building. Mr. John Rocheleau, 23184 N. Richards Court, stated there will be increased traffic because not that many people in the proposed townhouses will use the train. He asked if it is going to become necessary to double size Prairie Road, Brockman and Richards Court, Prairie Lane, Lee Lane. All of these cars are going to be cutting through the area which is already overcrowded. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that when the plan comes to fruition and there is a specific development for it, at that point one of the issues the Plan Commission always addresses is traffic. He noted there are numerous ways to prohibit the type of situation noted here. Mr. Gore stated he does not ever see Prairie Road going four lanes or Port Clinton or Brockman or Richards. He stated he does feel the development history of the area and now with the expansion of Half Day Road and the closing of the turning movement, it has put this area in a tough spot. Mr. Rocheleau stated he never has received any notice of these meetings from Buffalo Grove and he is very upset about that. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that his name has now been filed and obviously will be notified. Mr. Gore stated the way that the development has played out on the landscape and a number of years of different development have created this situation. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that traffic is a major component of any plan the Commission looks at. There is no specific plan before the Commission now so they cannot comment. Mr. Rocheleau noted his concern with the loss of aerable lands and the increased flooding potential as well as the loss of flora and fauna. He noted his concern with the loss of privacy from proposed larger structures. Lastly, he noted his concern with the retention ponds which appear to be a safety issue for children. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that when certain property becomes part of Buffalo Grove, there are certain engineering requirements and certain specifications that must be followed in order to prevent safety issues. Mr. Rocheleau asked where parking would come in for all the proposed condos and business on Main Street. Mr. Gore stated the main parking area at the corner of Half Day and Main would be behind the buildings or also along Half Day Road. He stated they feel that is enough parking for the square footage of retail being discussed. He noted they also added another parking lot behind where First Street is right now. The alignment behind the Prairie House was turned into a parking lot as well. Mr. Rocheleau stated caution is needed regarding the traffic now along with high densities creating more traffic. He did, however, note there are many storefronts in Buffalo Grove that are vacant right now so how many more stores do we need here. Mr. Gore stated their market analyst did look at that and at Woodland Commons the leasing rate is at 90 percent and the leasing rates are where they want them. He did not feel there was any real problem with the retail market in Buffalo Grove. Mr. Brimm noted the answer to Mr. Salway's question is that the wetland is not at Site J which is at the southeast corner of Prairie and Half Day. But it is the parcel at the northeast corner of Easton and Half Day. The Fiore nursery has applied for a driveway permit because although the property is in unincorporated Lake County they need to access a municipal street. The development ordinance requires an access permit which is the permit on that property. Mr. Mark Candotti, 16373 Menna Lane, noted that when Noah's Landing was proposed they said there would be no water problem. Hopefully they do a study so they understand what the property is like. Before it had city sewer and water from the Village of Lincolnshire and there was a reason why they went from wells and septic to city water and sewer which was because the property would not take their water anymore because it was so dense. Hopefully Buffalo Grove will do a better job of letting the people in his subdivision know what is going on before anything is started. If there is a way of putting in the townhomes and condos without having streets come into Brockman and go through the subdivision to head east on Route 22. Chairman Ottenheimer noted those points will be covered if and when that development does occur. If your name goes on file with the Village notice will be sent. Mr. Candotti stated that putting single family homes up against single family homes is a good idea but why not carry that out to the homes on the east side as well. Mr. Gore stated what they did in the illustrative plan was to have a gradient between the existing half acre lot single family detached and the first thing that happens directly west of that is townhomes. He noted there are townhomes behind them now at Noah's Landing and then it goes to flats or apartments. Usually you would look at the bigger apartment buildings or flats along the busier road which is what they tried to do. He noted they have varied the building types from north to south and east to west so they have higher density types along Prairie Road and in the middle are attached townhouses which go to single-family homes in the older subdivision. The idea was to get a little bit higher unit counts directly across from the train station. Mr. Ed Walters, 23171 N. Prairie Lane, noted that Phase 3 appears to be Lincolnshire property. He noted at the last meeting the area was shown as Lincolnshire property. Mr. Gore stated there was a boundary agreement and actually excludes the lots directly adjacent to Brockman both to the north and south so that the boundary line agreement basically goes around those four parcels. For illustrative purposes or even planning purposes they did not see how they could go around them which is why they are included in the plan. Ms. Neukirch stated the boundary agreement does call for those properties immediately north and south of Brockman to be designated to Lincolnshire. But for planning efforts they basically rounded out the area. She stated they did advise the Lincolnshire Village Board in their presentation to them that they have done that. What would happen in moving forward when a real development proposal comes forth the Village of Buffalo Grove would have to get approval from the Village of Lincolnshire to proceed since this is inconsistent with the terms of the boundary agreement. Mr. Walters noted it might be better to get permission from the people who own those homes as to whether they want to stay in Lincolnshire or go with Buffalo Grove. Mr. Neukirch stated what would happen is a developer would likely talk to the property owner. A developer cannot come before the Village and represent a property without the property owner's interest. The Village will not hear any petition from a developer unless they have the owner signing the petition. Mr. Walters asked about a study of the impact of development here for Stevenson High School. Chairman Ottenheimer noted there had been some long term studies done on the high school and the results were that Stevenson is almost or about to peak in terms of its population. Then enrollment will once again start to decline. Mr. Walters noted that Prairie Lane these days has cars backed up on it daily. Ms. Robin Stiebel, 23065 Prairie Road, stated she cannot imagine that people are actually going to be happy to hear the train noises. She stated it was supposed to be a quiet zone almost a year ago. Mr. Brimm stated he has been chairing the study group on the train noise. The quiet zone to be established will run from Antioch to Prospect Heights. He stated they are just about complete with the study and everything has been submitted and there have been signoffs on the study by the Illinois Commerce Commission, Federal Railway Administration, and the Lake County Department of Transportation. The Canadian National has finished the technical work required by the railway administration and that has also been submitted. The entire study sits with the Illinois Department Transportation and is waiting on some validation of traffic counts on some streets in Antioch which is almost complete. Once IDOT signs off on that the report will go back to the Federal Railway Administration which is anticipated this month. Our consultant now believes the zone will be quiet by the end of this calendar year. Our only requirement in Buffalo Grove will be the posting of some signs at the Prairie View Train Station and the Buffalo Grove station. Ms. Stiebel asked how much longer it will be before they can go east again on Prairie Road. Mr. Brimm stated that road has been designed for no left turn eastbound on Half Day and no left turn eastbound on Half Day from Prairie. Ms. Pam Newton, County Board District Representative, stated this area is unincorporated jurisdiction for planning and zoning. She noted this land is under the jurisdiction of unincorporated Lake County and has regional impact on Vernon Hills, Long Grove, unincorporated Lake County, Lincolnshire and Buffalo Grove. She asked why this plan has not gone through the regional process with the RPC of Lake County government that is currently in place to deliberate on this type of regional impact and vote on this proposal. Mr. Gore stated that should be directed to staff and mentioned that there was Lake County staff at all steering committee meetings. Ms. Neukirch stated that when the existing commission's report was prepared they did present an overview of this project and that report to the Lake County RPC at which Ms. Newton was in attendance. Mr. Dennis Sandquist has been part of the project steering committee serving as a representative of Lake County and they felt they had that ongoing communication with Lake County. Ms. Newton stated he felt that the RPC has not deliberated or voted or even given any opportunity for opinion. He was given one opportunity of opinion and there were serious concerns about the character and development and density of this project. She stated the Plan Commission has an opportunity to voice a position on this if there was time available for input and feedback in this process. Chairman Ottenheimer noted this is just one step in the process. Certainly the Commission welcomes as much input from wherever to make the project the best available for everyone. Ms. Newton stated that is absolutely the right position as it is going to impact the entire region. Ms. Vicki Dellinger, 16476 Brockman Avenue, stated asked what was the feasibility of congregating the density of the buildings more along Prairie Road and Port Clinton away from the other residents in the Crestview Acres and also preserves more open space. Mr. Gore stated that was a point of discussion in the steering committee and they were originally looking at putting multi-family along Prairie Road, but they decided not to go in that direction given the desire to keep the density down. At one point they could have decided to put 2 acres per unit on 40 acres and have an 80 unit development. Ms. Dellinger asked what the reasons were for not doing that. Mr. Gore noted it would be a very large building. Ms. Dellinger stated it would perhaps work by putting 80 units on 20 acres and leaving the other half open to be park. Mr. Gore stated they were trying to look toward the future. How much land you reserve for a park will depend on the park district and the Village but as stated before the idea that we are not going to develop half of this land within a 10 minutes walk of the train station does not make much sense specifically from a regional planning point of view. Ms. Dellinger mentioned that in some areas of the country developers are buying development rights to properties, letting the property owners leave their properties as is to be able to do higher density elsewhere which is something that might be possible here as well. Mr. Joel Resnick, 2990 Roslyn, Buffalo Grove, asked why extremely high population density a benefit to the community. Mr. Gore stated he would not characterize anything in the plan as extremely high density. Mr. Resnick stated that if they wanted a high density area they would not have moved into this area. The implications on traffic are obvious with what is going on already. He asked about the property across from Roslyn Lane. The farm is a beautiful property but in the event the property does get developed will it remain a 2 unit per acre zoning as originally proposed or will that change. Ms. Neukirch stated the 1998 Comprehensive Plan designates that site as single family residential. The boundary agreement again designates this area as 2 units per acre. She stated the Village is looking at this plan with 2.9 acres per unit. She noted they want to explore the feasibility of having a variety of housing types close to the train station and creating a community within a community. Mr. Resnick stated they moved up here from the Lake Cook/Weiland area and all its congestion and asked that this area not be ruined by permitting high density. He noted he does, however, love the idea of retail along Main Street and will be an attraction for the area as long as it is kept within the elements that are there currently. Ms. Linda Rice, 23043 N. Prairie Road, stated the planned location of the park within the center of the development is usually exclusive for the persons within that development. She stated it would be better to place a park where it is accessible from Prairie Road. Ms. Sandy Gordon Stiebel, 23065 Prairie Road, stated this is actually the first public meeting the residents were invited to as they were not informed when Buffalo Grove formulated the plans to take over Prairie View. She stated the people of Prairie View did not know about this. Several months ago there were some meetings where people were divided into committee and no outcome is known from those meetings. She asked the Plan Commission not to start any condemnation proceedings of properties. Chairman Ottenheimer stated they could not do that even if they wanted to. He stated the Plan Commission is a recommending body only and they have no authority to make policy or to make decisions. Ms. Stiebel asked who the residents could go to in order to ask for an assurance of this sort. Chairman Ottenheimer stated it is the Corporate Authorities from the Village of Buffalo Grove that do have the power and authority to do the acts of which she speaks about. Ms. Stiebel asked if the people of Prairie View could organize into their own governing body and take over the rights they have so far neglected. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he is uncomfortable giving the answers to those questions because this is a planning and land use commission and not a legal advisory commission. Ms. Newton stated she has had the opportunity to hear many of the voices from this community. There is one unified theme and that is the preservation of this unique oasis in Lake County. She stated she has fought for 14 years to protect this community. She stated she is a big fan of transit oriented development and pedestrian oriented development. However, this type of land use is wonderful, but in Buffalo Grove. Prairie View is one of those rare places left in our County that time has forgotten and people like it. She asked the Commission to respect the character of this community in their planning. Plans can take on a life of their own and once you have a comprehensive plan it will be used against you. Mr. Malcolm Rice stated when he checked with the wetland expert he expressed his opinion that the wetland area was clearly within the boundary of Buffalo Grove and he would like this to be checked into again. Mr. Brimm stated they will check this once again but is certain the Fiore property is in unincorporated Lake County. The pond just immediately to the south on Parcel J is not in the Village of Buffalo Grove. Mr. Rice stated the plan for the Stancliff property which includes the straight line to the train would tend to be stressful. It might be nicer to have a meandering path instead of a straight line. Commissioner Podbur asked Representative Newton what she would propose for the large farm parcel. Ms. Newton stated she talked with a member of the Stancliff family recently and some of the proposals she has heard have been a strip center retail mall including a quick food mart. She stated her anticipated reuse of the entire area would be things like ice cream shops or bed and breakfasts, restaurants of the type in Long Grove, coffee shops, and bakeries. For the Stancliff property itself her best guess would be for single-family and low density. Commissioner Podber asked how coffee shops and what not differ from the presentation just given. Ms. Newton noted the presentation given showed the complete usage of the land. She stated she is talking about something much more quaint, walkable and sustainable for this type of community. Mr. Gore stated some of the ideas just heard were considered. Any kind of commercial on the Stancliff property would be difficult given the turn movements and traffic. What they tried to do was to keep the retail on the west side of the tracks. It is difficult to convince local communities that they should take on part of the regional burden of population growth. When we have a regional facility such as this train station that is exactly the place where the higher density development should go. It shouldn't always go somewhere else. Mr. Joel Resnick asked if there has any study done on how many people in the area actually use the train. Mr. Gore stated the only data they have is utilization of people on and off the train. He noted this is the third highest ridership on the North Central service line. The Buffalo Grove station is by far the highest. Otherwise Metra has taken a survey and an account of how people access the station. At this station it came out to 9 percent of the ridership access this station by walking. The train has only been there for about ten years now and all up and down the line the land use pattern and people's lifestyles are adjusting to the presence of that transit facility so over the next 20 years there will be a good percentage of people who live within the half mile walking distance. Mr. Resnick stated he feels there is a need to see how many people would use the train and how many people would actually move into homes just for the train. Chairman Ottenheimer continued the public hearing to November 15, 2006 at 7:30 to be held in the Council Chambers at the Village of Buffalo Grove at 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully yours, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 11/01/2006 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION November 1, 2006 Village Transit Station Areas Plan Buffalo Grove and Prairie View Metra Station Areas Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 10:10 p.m. in Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Mr. Podber Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. William Brimm, Village Manager Ms. Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Manager Mr. Barry Gore, Camiros Mr. Jeffrey Braiman, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkl er,Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 16, 2006. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Teplinsky and Podber abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Bocek attended the Village Board meeting on October 9, 2006 and stated there is a referral on the Turnberry development. They have re-planned the second building. They originally requested townhouses, which the Village Board did not support. The current proposal is one condominium building, but rectangular instead of the "L shape" on the approved plan. The exterior materials and the interior finishes will remain the same, but the units will have smaller floor areas than the original plan. TRANSIT STATION AREAS PLAN- DISCUSSION Chairman Ottenheimer stated that this matter would be deferred until the public hearing is completed on November 15, 2006. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next public hearing will be held on November 15, 2006. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 10:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair