Loading...
2002-01-09 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 01/09/2002 Type of Meeting: ❑ Special Meeting SPECIAL MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION January 9, 2002 Jacobs Homes, proposed Noah's Landing townhome development, North side of IL Route 22 and east side of Prairie Road, Rezoning To the R-8 District and approval of a Preliminary Plan Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 11:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Trilling Mr. Feldgreber Mr. Panitch Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Commissioner absent: Ms. Dunn Also present: Mr. Paul Shadle, Piper, Marbury, Rudnick& Wolfe Mr. Keith Jacobs, Jacobs Homes Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Richard Vane, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Jeff Braiman, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 5, 2001, subject to the corrections noted by Commissioner Samuels. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion as amended and the motion passed unanimously. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Panitch attended the Village Board meeting of January 7, 2002 where the Board approved the addition for the Teriyaki Box restaurant. They also deferred discussion on the amusement tax. JACOBS HOMES, PROPOSED NOAH'S LAND TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, NORTH SIDE OF IL ROUTE 22 AND EAST SIDE OF PRAIRIE ROAD, REZONING TO THE R-8 DISTRICT AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Panitch to recommend approval to the Village Board of the petition for approval of rezoning from the residential Estate (RE) District to the R-8 Multiple-Family Dwelling District with a Residential Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and approval of a Preliminary Plan with the following variations: ZONING ORDINANCE — Section 17.40.040.C. (to permit yards and building setbacks as dimensioned and shown on the Envelope Plan dated December 19, 2001 and as depicted on the Preliminary Plan submitted for the public hearing); Section 17.28.050.E.4.c.(iii) (to permit a front-to-side separation of 24 feet between Buildings XIV and XV as depiced on the Envelope Plan and Preliminary Plan);Section 17.28.050.E.4.b. (to permit a perimeter boundary setback of 24 feet adjacent to Building II as depicted on the Envelope Plan and Preliminary Plan); DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE— Section 16.50.070.D.2. (to permit a residential street right of way of 52 feet instead of 60 feet as depicted on the Envelope Plan dated December 19, 2001 and the Preliminary Plan submitted for the public hearing); Section 16.50.080.A.1. (to waive the requirement for a sidewalk on the north side of the street extending from Prairie Road as depicted on the Preliminary Plan); Section 16.50.080.A.1 (to allow the existing sidewalk along the north side of IL Route 22 to remain instead of relocating the sidewalk to within one foot of the right of way to be dedicated along the north side of Route 22 as depicted on the Preliminary Plan); Section 16.50.040.C.4. (to permit landscape grade transition structures and side slopes of 4:1 for the stormwater storage facility as depicted on the Preliminary Engineering Plan submitted for the public hearing); and to the Zoning Ordinance Section 17.20.030.H. with regard to two-story bay windows to permit encroachment into the required yard of a two-story bay instead of a one-story bay, subject to terms and conditions to follow so that the applicant can build his proposed subdivision and remove the existing structures and construct 53 new townhome units upon the property commonly known as the approximately 7.9 acres on the north side of IL Route 22 across from the Powernail property and along the east side of Prairie Road across from the Wilson Enterprises property, pursuant to the testimony produced at the public hearing and the documents and evidence submitted in support thereof and testimony of all parties, subject to the eventual agreement of the Commission with regard to the elements of aesthetic nature of the townhouses and appearance review. Commissioner Samuels stated there has been quite a bit of movement from the day this project was initially referred to the point reached tonight. All of this movement has been in a good direction and has shown a lot of flexibility on everyone's part. There has been a lot of discussion on issues regarding school districts and type of development. What has emerged now truly resembles an empty nester type of development that will have a limited number of children brought into the area. He noted that he feels that when the Village annexed the property with the understanding that a PD6 development would be appropriate, they opened the door to a higher density development. The developer has reduced significantly a number of units. The difference between 48 units and 53 units with regard to fire response time is absolutely insignificant. Strong efforts should be made to lobby the State with regard to maintaining or providing some sort of emergency access ability to cross Prairie Road. He noted, however, that no one has suggested that they plan on putting a barrier median at this point. Most of the emergency equipment is capable in a true emergency of surmounting an unmountable median and actually getting through. He further stated he would reserve his comments about aesthetics to discussions to be held later. He stated the developer has a first class reputation wherever they have built. Commissioner Panitch stated today's plan is an incredible improvement. He noted he is not upset with the density. He stated the plan works and it will sit on this corner proudly. He noted he trusts the developer to do everything humanly possible to ensure the water goes where it is supposed to go Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Samuels, Trilling, Panitch, Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka NAPES: Feldgreber, Ottenheimer ABSENT: Dunn ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 6 to 2. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil noted there would be a meeting on January 23, 2002. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Trilling, seconded by Commission Smith and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 11:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 01/09/2002 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION January 9, 2002 Jacobs Homes, proposed Noah's Landing townhome development, North side of IL Route 22 and east side of Prairie Road, Rezoning To the R-8 District and approval of a Preliminary Plan Chairman Ottenheimer called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Chairman Ottenheimer read the Notice of Public 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. Samuels Mr. Trilling Mr. Feldgreber Mr. Panitch Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Commissioners absent: Ms. Dunn Also present: Mr. Paul Shadle, Piper, Marbury, Rudnick& Wolfe Mr. Keith Jacobs, Jacobs Homes Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Richard Vane, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Jeff Braiman, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit 1: Aerial photo of site Exhibit 2: Original Concept Plan, revised, dated June 11, 2001 Exhibit 3: Preliminary Plan, revised dated December 19, 2001 Exhibit 4: Concept floor plans dated December 19, 2001 Exhibit 5: Preliminary Engineering Plan, revised, dated December 19, 2001 Exhibit 6: Sample Grading Plan Exhibit 7: Preliminary exterior building elevations dated December 19, 2001 Exhibit 8: Material Sample Boards dated December 19, 2001 Exhibit 9: Preliminary Landscape Plan, revised, dated December 19, 2001 Exhibit 10: Building Foundation Planting Plan, dated December 19, 2001 Exhibit 11: Detention facility landscape plan dated December 19, 2001 Exhibit 12: Model of Preliminary Plan Mr. Paul Shadle of Piper, Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe, stated they are requesting a positive recommendation to the Village Board for a proposed development of the recently annexed site located at the northeast corner of Route 22 and Prairie Road. Specifically, they are seeking approval of a rezoning of the subject property to the R-8 District and Planned Development approval and Preliminary Plan approval for the 53 unit townhome project on that site. Jacobs is also seeking a number of variations from the requirements of the Village's zoning ordinance and development ordinance. Mr. Shadle noted the proposal has been substantially revised in response to comments received at the original referral and during discussions in the workshops. The most significant change is that Jacobs now proposes to construct 53 townhomes rather than the 65 original requested. The proposed project is to be built on land owned by the Giametta and Nelson families. Both parcels were annexed pursuant to annexation agreements with the property owners and the proposed development conforms to the development of the property that is contemplated by those agreements. Mr. Shadle noted the traffic consultants, KLOA, have concluded the existing traffic system and the proposed development would together provide sufficient and safe traffic movement between the development and the adjacent roadways. Mr. John Green of Groundwork, Ltd. stated the 7.9 acre parcel was annexed by the Village with the understanding in the annexation that its intended use would be developed under the PD6 Planned Development program. This seemed appropriate considering the location of the site with industrial uses to both the west and to the south and with the Wisconsin Railroad immediately to the west. Mr. Green stated they have made significant improvements to the plan since the original plan was developed. The current revised plan addresses all of the initial items plus a number of other discussions held during the workshops. It is a PD6 development with an underlying R-8 zoning. It has been reduced to a density of 6.7 dwelling units per acre with a total of 53 units. As a planned development, it comes with a variety of amenities and some requests for consideration. Section 17.40.040.C., to permit yards and building setbacks as depicted on the envelope plan, is requested because as a multi-family planned unit development, they are dealing with building envelopes instead of traditional lots. That is why they have created the document showing the separation, setbacks and perimeter boundaries. Section 17.28.050.E.4.e.(iii), to permit a front-to-side separation of 24 feet between Buildings XIV and XV, is where two buildings are set at right angles to one another and the overlap is minimal. Section 17.28.050.E.4.b., to permit a 24-foot side setback at Building II, was actually suggested by staff after the last workshop, to open up the entrance area as it is the primary entrance to the site. This will allow for better separation and a nicer feel. Section 16.50.070.D.2., to permit a 52-foot right-of-way instead of a 60-foot right-of-way, is requested because part of the amenities and features that were requested would be better by increasing the spacing between buildings. He noted they have added a third pedestrian walkway on their east west street. They expect no negative impact from this request because of the relative isolation of this development. Section 16.50.080.A.1., to allow the existing sidewalk along Route 22 to remain where it is currently located, is due to the fact that as part of the annexation the Village had requested and required that an additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be dedicated along Route 22 so that if and when Route 22 was expanded, the right-of-way would already exist. He further noted there is also an existing hedge that extends along about two-thirds of the property just inside of that sidewalk and they would also like to leave that hedge which they believe will be a nice feature during the maturation of the proposed plantings. Section 16.50.040.C.4, to permit 4:1 side slopes and transitions at the storm water facility, which allows the detention facility to become an amenity and still work properly. Mr. Green stated the plan reflects a number of adjustments from the discussions at all of the workshops, including: 1. The buildings now have a maximum of four units, which is consistent with the R-8 underlying zoning. 2. Several of the eight side to side building separations exceed the 15-foot minimum that is permitted, with five of those at 24 feet and two of those at 20 feet. 3. The minimum driveway length is 21 feet from building to the right-of-way line. In addition there is another 1 foot from the right-of-way to the sidewalk and the unit types are actually different depths so they vary from 21 feet to 23 '/z feet. 4. They also have 12 '/z feet of walk and parkway on each side of the paved road so they will be creating the streetscape with the parkway and the Village standard walk and all streets are constructed to Village standard with Village standard construction. 5. The plan now includes a secondary pedestrian way through the site. They have also now included another leg that goes to the north between Buildings XII and XIII, which now brings you down to the two gazebos in the center of the site. 6. The right-of-ways have been extended as requested both to the north and the south so that the parcels of land to the south and north can alternately be developed or re-developed in a consistent pattern with the Village's intent and desires and to preclude a need to have them be serviced off of Route 22 or Prairie. 7. They have curved the intersection between Noah's Landing and Chelsea Street so that they are not giving anyone the idea there is an opportunity to drive straight through as you are going in either direction. The right-of-way does extend all the way to the north end of the site. 8. With the driveways finalized, they can accommodate up to two additional cars parked on those driveways. They meet the ordinance requirement of two parking spaces per unit because all units have two-car garages. 9. They were also requested to designate three parking spaces where the road dead ends near the activity area on the street. Mr. Green stated they have received preliminary acceptance from IDOT for the right out onto Route 22. This serves a number of purposes. Rather than having a long dead cul-de-sac that goes nowhere and exceeds 500 feet, or an emergency access that would have a restricted opportunity to get in, they have created the right out only. IDOT had indicated they were willing to consider and accept a right in and right out. However, some of the earlier conversations had indicated that could invite cut through traffic through the neighborhood as people tried to avoid any backup created by the traffic light at the intersection of Prairie Road and Half Day Road. Therefore, they have eliminated the right-in and doing the right-out only. That allows people in the development and school buses to exit out and also provides an emergency opportunity for a second egress and ingress point at this time. Mr. Green stated during the process they have moved from a single box size to a variety of box sizes. Unit widths now vary from 26 feet wide to 30 feet to 35 feet wide. Unit depths also vary from 49 '/2 feet to 48 '/2 feet to 47 feet. As a result of this, they are able to create facades that have a considerable amount of movement. They have also eliminated any fourth bedrooms. There are now nine different combinations of units. That adds to the overall development. The unit sizes range from 1,975 square feet to 2,550 or 2,620 square feet. The larger units have two floor plans, which provides the opportunity to have a master bedroom on the first floor if they wish. Mr. Richard Vane of Groundwork, Ltd. reviewed the Preliminary Engineering plan. He noted the Village already has a water main at Prairie Road and Route 22 and they will be looping the water system so that it connects to both of those elements and is available to be extended either to the north or south whenever those parcels come for development. There is a sanitary sewer on Route 22 and they will be connecting to that. The site has to be completely storm water managed and the entire site will be draining to the main detention basin. The detention basin is oversized per the Village's request to include volume for the remaining parcel if it should ever develop. They have increased the capacity of the detention basin to provide for the adjacent land so that when it comes in the detention is there and they can connect to same. Mr. Vane stated currently most of the site drains to the northeast. Portions of the site drain down to the Route 22 right-of-way. He noted they have been working with IDOT for a direct connection to the IDOT stormsewer so that they do not create any runoff for any of the neighbors. He stressed they will end up containing all of the drainage on this site, bringing it in to the detention pond and then piping it out to the IDOT stormsewer that will completely bypass all the neighbors. He noted that around the perimeter of the site, wherever the site is roughly the same elevation of the existing ground, they would pitch the ground back toward their site and create a swale to get the water into the stormsewer system. Wherever the grades adjacent to the site are a little bit lower than the site, they will use a grade transition to make sure the water from their site does not drain unto anyone else's property. They will make sure it comes back and is connected to the stormsewer system and into the detention basin. He noted his detention basis has a series of steps in it, which creates three safety ledges. In any case there is no element than anyone could ever get into more than a foot or two of water no matter where they were at anytime. Mr. Green stated they have now selected a fence that has both a top element to it and an intermediate and bottom band. They wanted something much more architectural than your typical stockade or board on board fence. In conjunction with that they are on occasion creating recesses in the fence, which are about 8 or 9 feet deep and about 20 feet wide. That allows them to bring the landscaping outside of the fence and inside the fence at it moves along the site. Mr. Green reviewed the materials to be used. All of the large units are end units and all of the smallest units are center units. They have also designed the site so where there is no 24 foot separation between buildings, they have always put a B unit next to an A unit so that they are not putting matching units together on those sides. That is important because the finish wraps around the side because the entrance is on the side on the A unit. This means you will also have less overlap and more staggering. Mr. Green noted there have been some changes in the elevations from the previous plan, including: 1. Stone features on all four sides 2. Roofing has been upgraded from the standard 240 lb shingle to the 25 year shadow line shingle 3. Windows have been added on the side of the A unit 4. Siding is now cedar Mr. Green reviewed the landscape plan, noting they will be providing one style decks as they want the same consistency and quality. Mr. Green stated they had also been requested to show the largest possible vehicle in the driveways. With a large size vehicle in the driveway, there is still about 3-4 feet behind it on the driveway. Mr. Green stated they have turned the detention facility into an amenity. As part of that there is an activity area that has become more defined as they have gone through the process. They continue to present this development as an empty nester development. Despite that, there is a small playground area. Grandchildren come to visit and it is a nice amenity. The same area also contains horseshoe pits, benches and seats for card playing and chess. This meanders through and over to one of the gazebos which is set overlooking the detention area. Then the walk meanders around to the north of the detention area. The detention area is terraced. He noted they have taken advantage of the terracing of the detention area and have planted with different colored flowers as the terraces move down to the detention facility. Mr. Green noted the following items, which have been achieved after requests by the Village Board: 1. Buildings have been oriented to the formal detention pond so that the driveway is on the outside of the buildings rather than on the inside of the buildings. 2. Reduced density on site and property located playground. 3. Now have publicly dedicated right-of-ways, including parkway trees. 4. Provided first floor master plans. 5. Have properly planned for development on the southwest corner of the site. Have provided for access to the north should that be necessary. 6. Have now met the 6-7 unit density suggestion but have now shifted Building II to be 24 feet from the lot line, which is the only non 35 foot setback. 7. Buffering has been provided on the perimeter of Buffalo Grove Road and Half Day Road. They are also suggesting keeping the current existing hedge on Prairie Road. 8. The detention has been sized to include the southwest corner within the overall site plan. 9. There is a program for a bike path on the south side of Route 22. They have also created an internal pedestrian route on their site Mr. Shadle noted that while they requested a reduction to 52 feet for the right-of-way width, it would still be 27 feet back to back, which is the Village standard. He further noted the planned development provisions of the zoning ordinance lists a series of enhancements that the Village desires in planned developments and there are 13 items in that section (17.28.050.E.)that should be included in the record as follows: 1. The detention design is a significant water feature 2. The use of landscape as a design element 3. Additional pedestrian routes through the site 4. Upgraded building materials 5. First floor master suite opportunities 6. Detention design and sized to accommodate offsite needs of tributary areas to the southwest of the site 7. Two-car enclosed parking, all parking for the development is provided in an enclosed space 8. Side to side building separations well in excess of the minimums required in all but a single case 9. Dual site exiting with a right out only on Half Day Road 10. Recreational features and equipment, including play equipment, gazebos, adult activity space 11. Limitation of unit bedroom count to three bedrooms 12. Unit designs incorporating all the varieties described by Mr. Green 13. Providing for later public access to the north and south in the event those areas are developed Mr. Shadle further noted they meet the general objectives and standards for planned developments that are set forth in the ordinance. The proposed development conforms to the purpose and intent for planned unit developments as set forth in the zoning ordinance. The ordinance states that the primary purpose of the planned development mechanism is to "provide for development of balanced neighborhoods containing physical, economic and social assets difficult to achieve through the traditional separation of use and density zones." Those goals are the basis for the authority granted in the ordinance to the Village authorities to vary the standards of the zoning and development ordinances. That is why they are asking the commission to recommend to the Board that they exercise their discretion to grant those variations. The ordinance does set forth general objectives and standards that are to be met by a development to justify this flexibility. The general objectives which are in 17.28.050.A are as follows: 1. The project is designed to project the aesthetic functions of the natural environment by providing substantial open space, a large water area and extensive landscaping, 2. The buildings are arranged and clustered to provided a pleasing interaction between the natural and man made environments 3. The roadways and sidewalks are designed to minimize the impact of vehicles 4. There are no public activities that are contemplated in the neighborhood 5. The buildings are arranged to function in an orderly fashion while providing creative and high quality architecture and materials and easy access for all residents in the development to the amenities that are provided around the water feature 6. The project provides for recreational activity areas 7. The project provides an enhanced pedestrian environment The general standards are set forth in Section 17.28.050.D and are as follows: 1. The project has the minimum required area of 2 acres in the R-8 District 2. The proposed project will have no detrimental influence or effect on the surrounding neighborhood. It will improve the neighborhood which is largely industrial 3. The proposed project will incorporate the architecture that has been discussed which will be an amenity 4. The proposed project preserves and enhances physical amenities through the use of all the physical components that have been discussed 5. The project conforms with all requires of the R-8 district, except as modified by the requested variations 6. The proposed area and width of the lot is sufficient to accommodate the proposed use and the project includes no outlots Mr. Shadle noted Jacobs Homes is a developer with a very strong track record. The proposed project will be built to their high standards. This project is fully consistent with the two annexation agreements by which these two parcels were annexed to the Village. Ms. Terry Moons of School District 125 stated the traffic report, which was done in June, July and September, did not include hours in which the schools are transporting and transferring over 5,000 people to Stevenson High School. School starts at 8:05 a.m. and there are early bird classes at 7:00 a.m. Traffic at these times is awful and her concern is that the study was done at 7:45 a.m. at which time most people are already in school. Commissioner Samuels asked for comments on a memo from Greg Summers, the Associate Village Planner, relative to the aesthetic elements of Unit B elevations. He asked if any necessary adjustments would be brought back to the commission. Mr. Green stated they have been working on the changes since they received the memo. The changes to the sides since the last meeting show windows having been added. The B unit, which did not have a side elevation, shows the windows on the sides. The windows can only occur when the buildings are 24 feet apart which is in all but three cases. Commissioner Samuels noted he has no problem with the front elevations of the units. However, the rear is what will be presented to the people in the Village. He asked if it would be possible to lose the band that separates the first and second floor now that they have gone to cedar siding. Mr. Green stated no because it is a design element. He noted their experience has been that you get shrinkage in the wood and when you get that you get some compression there. It is a feature, therefore, that they put into all of their designs. Commissioner Samuels stated it is his feeling that with the use of the cedar siding, getting rid of the band will give the units an even richer look. He noted the bands speak of tract look and the solid look speaks of a higher element. Mr. Green stated it is an important design element for them, not just aesthetically. Commissioner Samuels stated that if the horizontal banding must be kept and if attention must be drawn to the fact that there are two different stories, then he would prefer to have masonry or stone on the entire first floor. The main reason is that it is the back of the unit, which presents itself to the public. Commissioner Bocek noted she would like to see the stone continued on the vertical chimneys, but that goes away if the chimneys are non-existent. She further noted that if the chimneys are not there, the back elevation becomes incredibly flat. Mr. Green noted that Mr. Jacobs' records indicate that between 70-75 percent of people opt for the fireplace option. Commissioner Bocek noted she would like to have the stone continued on the vertical portions of the elevations where you have the dormers. Mr. Green stated they would have liked to do that area as a boxed bay. That would add a nice shadow line. However, that would have required another variation because the Village of Buffalo Grove ordinance permits bays, but only as one-story bays without a variation. They would be willing to do that if permitted by the Commission. He further noted that Mr. Jacobs is willing to put the stone on the chimneys. Commissioner Bocek stated she feels the color schemes are very nice and are very similar so the developer may want to make a little more of a contrast in the paint colors, etc. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated it will look unbalanced if you have a chimney on one of the end units and not on the other end unit. Mr. Green stated there is no balanced unit in any one cluster. They are all different sizes and different mixes. He noted they purposely tried to design them so there were no repetitive buildings. They wanted to have as much going on as possible. Commissioner Samuels asked if there would be normal street lighting. Mr. Green stated it would meet all Village standards. Commissioner Samuels asked if the sprinkling system was a dead issue. Mr. Green stated they had received information on response times and checked how it compares with the Village's averages and standards and the report states the times are at the high end but is within the response time. Therefore they will not be sprinkling the buildings. Commissioner Samuels asked if there would be a fence around the entire property. Mr. Green stated they are planning to continue the same fence all the way around the property. Commissioner Samuels asked what style of fence it will be. Mr. Green passed out copies of the fence style. Commissioner Trilling asked how these units with fireplaces are constructed. Mr. Jacobs stated they are prefabricated fireplaces. They are 42-inch fireplaces, which is vented and boxed out of the unit and carries itself. Commissioner Trilling asked if the developer would commit to a percentage of the townhomes being built with fireplaces, noting this could have a material effect on approval of the project. Mr. Jacobs noted he could not commit to this, as fireplaces are always optional. He further noted he would not know which ones to place fireplaces on and which ones not to. Mr. Green stated one of the things they have tried to do by mixing a variety of materials and shapes and by stepping the building in and out is to give it interest even if does not happen. It is his opinion the sides have been significantly enriched and are very nice. In his opinion the weakness is that the back could use the two-story bay. They have stepped in on the back and have created one story bays on the back, some roofs have been created on the back and some upper peaks. He noted he would have put in the two story bay on the back which would occur 44 percent of the time since the A units comprise 44 percent. Commissioner Samuels noted he would not object to the variance for a two-story bay. Mr. Green stated it is the Commission's authority. He stated they were nervous about listing the variation. They feel very comfortable with it as they have 35-foot perimeter setbacks. Mr. Shadle stated he believes this could be done as a condition to a planned development approval. In other words, it does not need to be a variation, but could be a condition to an approval. Chairman Ottenheimer noted it would necessarily be a variation, but they would approve the variation with the condition that they are in stone. Mr. Green stated that as the architect, he would not want to get into stone there. He would prefer to lift it up without making it heavy and pull it out. He noted he wants to have the ornate trim there. He wants the box to read as if it does not go into the earth. He wants to really sculpt the box to have a shadow line under the bottom. Commissioner Trilling asked what could be done with the B and C units in the center of the buildings. Mr. Green stated he already has box bays in the B and C units. Since they are only one story, he already has designed them in. It is the A unit that is missing the box and the A extends all the way to the end and is always on the end. Commissioner Trilling noted his concern is that if the two fireplaces are taken away from the B and C units, all you have are two punch-outs for the bays on the first floor only. Mr. Green stated with the box for the A units, every unit will have a box bay on the back. He noted he has done that on the B and C units because those are only one story. He has also stepped in portions of the second floor on the C units. The only unit that does not have the dimensional element on the rear is the A unit. By putting it on the A unit, he now has the box element and the shadow effect on every unit. Commissioner Trilling asked what would be done on the B units on the side. Mr. Green stated that is a simple adjustment for him and is definitely something he would like to do. Commissioner Trilling asked about the units that have no windows. Mr. Green noted that where they have no windows, they are less than 24 feet and that only happens on three of the buildings. That is where he has always put an A next to a B unit. The reason for this is because the entry for the A wraps around the side and there are things going on on the side. Also, the A unit is only a story and a half on either the front half or two thirds of the building so that you don't have a lot of flatness. He noted that if he does the box bay on B units on the side with windows, he could mimic that on the side with no windows. Chairman Ottenheimer noted it seems apparent more time is needed for aesthetics. He noted he would like to table the aesthetic issues for now. Commissioner Panitch asked how a car could get out at the furthest northeast unit number VIII. Mr. Green stated they have sized the driveway and pavement width to be 38 feet so it has enough length for 20 feet in front and an 18-foot driveway. When they originally began, there were some parking spaces further to the north. That inhibited anyone's ability to turn around and get out. However, by eliminating those parking spaces, they now have the opportunity for anyone to pull up additional vehicles in front of their units and still be able to back up and get out. Commissioner Panitch asked what the base price of the units are at now. Mr. Green stated they are hoping for a starting price of$325,000 up to about $400,000. Commissioner Panitch noted he feels that it is important at a $400,000 level where the appearance needs richness and more value and more aesthetics. Commissioner Feldgreber asked if the stoned box bays and fireplaces would be cantilevered. Mr. Green stated that was correct. He noted he wants to set the box bays a little higher. Commissioner Feldgreber asked what is acceptable in the setback. Mr. Pfeil noted bay windows are allowed at one story, three feet out from the wall of the building into a required yard. It is the two-story bay windows that raise the issue of a zoning variation. The chimneys may project 30 inches into required yard without needing a zoning variation. Commissioner Feldgreber noted the building that is setback only 15 feet seems very tight. The front door is staring right into the side of building 7. Mr. Green stated that is why he did not do an A to an A on those units so they are only dealing with the one A unit on the end. Commissioner Feldgreber noted on building two, unit 4, the sidewalks dead end onto someone else's property. He noted it would be nice if those two sidewalks connected to each other so if someone was coming up Prairie Road they could actually get into the subdivision without walking through people's backyard. Commissioner Samuels noted there is a perimeter fence all the way around so no one could get in. Commissioner Trilling asked about the grade transition for the pond. Mr. Vane stated the materials would be interlocking block, which is the same as that used in the detention area. The greatest height will be almost 4 feet. Commissioner Trilling asked what the length of the grade transition would be. Mr. Vane noted it would be along the east edge and a portion of the north. Commissioner Trilling asked why the grade could not be kept down. Mr. Vane stated that is because they need to put the detention on their site and keep their water from spilling over onto the adjacent property. Commissioner Trilling asked if there are any fences of adjacent property owners that abut this stone. Mr. Vane stated yes. Commissioner Trilling asked how the stone will be maintained if it is between two fences. Mr. Vane stated they would have to take the fence down if there was a maintenance issue. The stone is a lot more reliable than the wood retaining wall that used to be used. The association will be maintaining this type of element, whether they are on the rear yards or not. Commissioner Trilling asked when Route 22 improvements would be done. Mr. Kuenkler stated he hears 2003 for the start of construction. Commissioner Bocek asked about fire department response times. She asked if there has been any feedback from IDOT on the barrier that will be created on Route 22. Mr. Green stated one of the elements contained in that report indicated that the Village has recently Civil Tech Engineering to work on other solutions. He stated the site would be there no matter what happens at that intersection. The Fire Department also indicated that the response times are within the Village average. Commissioner Bocek asked what effect the improvements to Route 22 will have on the ingress and egress. Mr. Green stating on how Route 22 is constructed it can have no effect or some effect. It would have no effect if the Village were successful in keeping that intersection open for left turns as you move east on Route 22 onto Prairie Road. If will have some effect if that intersection is closed. That is one of the advantages accomplished with the right out onto Route 22. Originally the program under the annexation agreement called for no access at all onto Route 22, but they were able to get the right out so they have created the second egress opportunity. One of the advantages to the site developing at this time is that people will be aware that these opportunities or blocks will be there. Commissioner Samuels stated he has confidence between the developer and the team. They have shown a great degree of flexibility up to this point and he does not see any reason to believe that a delay in the further discussion of aesthetics will have a deleterious effect on the development itself. He feels that there should be a vote on the proposal that would then be subject to further aesthetic review. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a polling on that recommendation. Yes means you are in support of voting tonight subject to further review on the aesthetic issue. No means you do not want any more aesthetic reviews. Commissioner Trilling stated he would like to hold off on the polling so that comments and questions from other people can be heard. Then he may not want to bring this up to a vote this evening and we would be committed to vote on the project by doing the polling. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a polling as was originally suggested. The polling was as follows: YES: Samuels, Trilling, Feldgreber, Panitch, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Ottenheimer NO: Smith Commissioner Samuels asked how the fence appears to the homes on the east and if that could appear as a 9-foot fence. Mr. Vane stated there are three houses to the east and the fence could be 9 feet high at the corner, which is the lowest part. Mr. Joseph Arns, 23077 Prairie Road, stated he had been told that it would be necessary to have an engineering model showing the hydraulics of the wetlands so that they will not be changed. He stated he would like the water issue addressed carefully. He further noted that this school district is excellent and marketing to empty nesters only will not work. Families will want to live here due to the high school district. He also stated that Wilson Enterprises tends to have trucks out on the road which are a hazard now let alone once a new development comes in. Mr. Mark Candotti, 16373 Meadow Lane, asked how the property to the northeast would be taken care of if the perimeter were raised up. Raising the perimeter higher than it is now will make the buildings look like they are 3-3 '/2 stories tall to the homes to the east and some to the north. He noted there is already a ground water problem due to all of the new homes built in Buffalo Grove. Also, since they put the train station up, there is additional ground water problems. He asked if the existing trees would be saved. He further noted that from his back yard, the raised fence will look funny and wants to see some drawings of what it will look like. He noted additional traffic coming through his subdivision would make it even more difficult than it already is. He does not want a right turn into his subdivision during the morning or evening. Ms. Lynette Rice, 23043 N. Prairie Road, noted her continued concern for the need for the stormwater detention to be sufficient. She noted they already have a significant problem in her area because of grading or something Buffalo Grove did when they put the water line in. The Township did come to try to make some adjustments to try to help the water drain down to the stormsewer, but the problem has not been solved. Secondly, she is concerned about traffic. Bus traffic must be very careful of Wilson Enterprises and their trucks. Additional traffic coming out of the subdivision will exacerbate the problem. She further noted the proposed development is really not in the same character as the rest of the neighborhood. This is a very old neighborhood and there are large lots with old trees. The proposed development will be very tight and it seems that all the trees on the property will have to be removed. In order to build the new homes. She asked who would be responsible for relocating all the animals they now have in their back yards and in the nursery space. Mr. Darryl Ullberg, 22991 Prairie Lane, asked if the future owners of the proposed townhomes would be notified of all the freight trains that pass through here. He stated his children wait for the bus in his subdivision and he is concerned with their safety with the increased traffic. He asked that an IDOT member be present to address concerns of the neighborhood. Mr. Ullberg asked if the detention pond would still be oversized once the corner lot is developed. He noted the band separating the first and second floors is really used more because it is easier to build that way. He would also prefer the backs of the townhomes to use stone. Mr. Ullberg noted there are members of the neighborhood who would like to be present but was not able to be here tonight. Mr. Ullberg asked how many students are coming from this area, as this has not as yet been addressed. He also noted the traffic study should be conducted at different times to better reflect the traffic situation. He noted his subdivision would receive cut through traffic from Mundelein and other areas, while this proposed subdivision would not receive any. He asked for more time to prepare and noted his homeowner's association has not had the time to get together to discuss things further. Ms. Colleen Arns, 23077 Prairie Road, stated the aesthetics are very nice. She asked if a sign stating local traffic only could be put up. Otherwise people will turn down Prairie Lane. She stated she leaves for work at 9:00 a.m. and even then it is difficult to make that left turn from Prairie Road onto Route 22. Adding 100 more cars to that area will be a major problem. She reiterated that empty nesters will not be buying here, rather families with children will buy here due to the excellent school district. Mr. Shadle stated the proposed detention improves the condition on this site and will meet all of the engineering requirements of the Village. Further, he noted that KLOA is a well-respected traffic engineering company and they did conclude there would be no adverse impact from the proposed development and that the existing system could well absorb the proposed development. He then noted the school districts reviewed the annexation agreements pursuant to which this property was annexed to the Village and it was contemplated in those agreements that it would be annexed under the PD6 standard. The school districts did not object to that. The alternative likely development at this site would be 20 plus single family homes, which would certainly generate students. Mr. Green stated the school districts have been involved in all of the workshops and have been a very proactive portion of the development. It is due to their involvement that they have eliminated all of the four bedrooms but are guaranteeing that they will not build nor provide for the opportunity to do anything more than three bedrooms. Mr. Green stated they have a report from the Village Forester that recommends the perimeter trees be removed and, in fact, recommends most of the trees on the site be removed. It did indicate there are several pine trees that should be relocated and they will be doing that. There are some existing pine trees along the east side that are shown on the landscape plan. Mr. Green noted once again that the detention will be oversized and will pick up the tributary land of the parcel to the southwest. When the parcel of the southwest develops, the detention will no longer be oversized, but will be working, as it should. By creating the detention where they have located it, the opportunity to expand this detention area already exists and is provided for. Mr. Green stated they original had a right in onto the site. During discussions in the workshops they were asked to eliminate it for cut through traffic concerns. The traffic study was done during peak times in relation to the proposal. That does not only conform to the peak times of the schools. What they need to look at is where and when this development will be adding the greatest amount of traffic onto the road system. This happens to be about '/2 hour off of the school peak times because it is an empty nester facility. This does not mean there won't be some traffic going in at the time of the school. Ms. Robin Stiebel, 23065 Prairie Road, asked why the proposed development has to cut through. She stated if there was a large enough cul-de-sac at one end that would allow the fire vehicles and other emergency vehicles to properly enter and exist with only one entrance. Mr. Green noted the Village has an ordinance that states a cul-de-sac may not be more than 500 feet long. This is because once you get over 500 feet you are dealing with so much capacity on that, that you are creating an unsafe condition and if there is a blockage on that road, there is no other opportunity for emergency access. Mr. Candotti asked what the detention will do to the surrounding neighborhood and the stormwater. He is very unhappy with a five-foot fence on top of a high-grade transition. Mr. Green stated currently the site is uncontrolled with the low side being toward the single family residential to the north and east. As a result the water that comes onto the site during heavy storms saturated the ground. While eliminating that will not eliminate the problem, what it does is eliminates the contribution of this site to the problem. What they are required to do is to not have water flow off the site and the way to do that is to take the low corner and bend it up. The result of bending it up is the transition that will be two feet and four feet at the corner because they must be able to bend the corner back in order to get the entire site water to stay on the site. This will have the visual effect of a wall with a fence at nine feet at that corner. Often people come in asking for higher fences just because they want to have that additional visual protection. However, they are doing it so that they can control all of the stormwater management on the site. Mr. Ullberg stated he would still like to request additional time to prepare for more issues. He further noted the proposed retaining wall would be sure to flood the neighbor's yard. Mr. Vane stated there is a swale between the proposed site and the neighbor's property. When the water comes from the north it goes into the swale and heads east. He noted he would not be touching the water coming from the north. However, whatever water contributed from this site to the situation will be intercepted and taken back to the proposed detention basin where it will then be piped into a storm sewer that is completely downstream from the proposed development. He further noted they have a high water elevation that has an additional 1 '/2 to 2 feet of free board. Not only will this stage up to the 100 year level, but after that there will be 1 '/2 feet of storage that will be across the whole site that will contain the water even if there is worse than a 100 year storm and will not allow the water onto adjoining land. Ms. Arns asked if the wetland that is right next to the road would be built up. Mr. Vane stated they are matching the existing grade at that portion of the site. In fact, they will be a little lower at the entrance where they will have some stormsewers to pick up drainage. Mr. Raysa noted that one of the things that the minutes of a meeting do not pick up is people pointing on a map. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the last series of questions concerning drainage have been referenced to Exhibit 5. Mr. Ullberg stated once the water hits Route 22, it hits the water coming from the surrounding neighborhood and the neighbors flood because Route 22 floods out. Adding more water from this subdivision will eventually back up to the existing homes. Mr. Ed Walters, 23171 Prairie Lane, asked why the swale of the land could not be changed to match the property around it instead of leaving a 2-foot berm on one side and 4 feet on another. Mr. Green stated that is because they need to meet the invert levels of the sewer going out so you have to match to what the sewers are. Mr. Kuenkler asked what kind of ground cover is proposed at the normal water level. Mr. Vane stated they have a wetland plant mix which will be the bushier things around the edges so it holds up with the water tolerant species. Mr. Raysa noted one of the variations is on the southwest corner adjacent to Building 11 of a 24-foot setback, however, the plan dated December 19, 2001 shows 25 feet. Mr. Green stated they always try to build some tolerance in so they have the 24 feet which was the suggestion, but they actually showed it as 25 feet when the dimensions worked out. They ask for the 24 feet because they have never yet had a foundation go in exactly correctly so they want to have the tolerance built in. Mr. Raysa stated at the same time there is a 12-inch give and take pursuant to the codes. The plan shows a minimum of 25 feet and 24 is requested. This covers the possibility of 24-foot setback. Mr. Green stated that was correct. Mr. Raysa stated he normally does not give opinions. His vague knowledge of drainage law states that anyone who develops or touches a piece of property cannot cause damage either upstream or downstream to adjoining property. By development of a parcel of land that owner/developer of that parcel of land cannot damage upstream or downstream property because of that development. Commissioner Trilling asked if the water does not get picked up by the swale from the properties further to the north, it would now in theory get stopped in some fashion by the proposed retaining wall. He asked if there is water that drains from the north to the south along the north property line presently. Mr. Vane the water drains from the Jacobs/Noah's Landing site northerly and from their site southerly and collects and goes easterly. Commissioner Samuels noted that right now there is a swale, which allows water from this property to join the water coming from the north and then leaves the property. If the water coming from our property is stopped, does that volume of water compensate for the fact that now water from the north will accumulate against the wall but will be a smaller volume there because of the water that no longer comes from our property. Mr. Vane stated that is correct. Commissioner Samuels asked if those two factors counteract each other such that the net effect will make the water back up further to the north than it does now. Mr. Vane stated no. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if the commission is prepared to deal with the aesthetic issues tonight. Commissioner Samuels stated he would move to continue the public hearing solely for the purpose of discussing aesthetics. He noted the commission has been in a position before where they have been in a time constraint and it has not worked out well and he would prefer the discussion regarding aesthetics take whatever time is necessary. Mr. Shadle requested the commission to approve the preliminary plan with the variations, subject to the developer returning to the commission for aesthetic review. Chairman Ottenheimer asked what happens if it is a negative recommendation. Commissioner Samuels stated he believes the aesthetics then becomes a moot point. Mr. Green, however, stated they would still move forward on the aesthetics. He noted that when there was an appearance commission and a plan commission, they dealt with them separately. They might get different recommendations from each body, but they would move forward accordingly. Mr. Shadle noted the commission could condition the approval on their return to the commission for aesthetic review. He stated it is their belief that the public hearing is the public hearing on the zoning. You would have a meeting to have the aesthetic review and approval that would be a public meeting but not a"public hearing" as public hearing is defined in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Raysa stated the purpose of a public hearing regarding Illinois statutes is to give the public an opportunity to be heard. The reason for the public hearing and the topic for the public hearing that is required by statute regards zoning, traffic, density and basically zoning issues, not necessarily aesthetic issues. In the past when there was an appearance commission, they heard the aesthetics after the plan was approved by the Village Board. In more recent history, we have been trying to do the developer for appearance at the same time that the plan commission was looking into the plan before the public hearing. Now without the appearance commission, we are doing the plan commission on a PUD, also doing the aesthetic review. He further noted he does not know if a public hearing can be restricted to only one issue, i.e. aesthetics. He also does not know if a public hearing is necessary on aesthetic issues. He suggested the plan commission could close the public hearing now, vote on the public hearing issues such as zoning and variations, make either a positive or negative recommendation to the Village Board. If it is a positive recommendation it could have the developer come back to the plan commission before it goes to the Village Board or it can be conditioned on coming back to the plan commission after it goes to the Board. Mr. Shadle stated they thought they had discussed all of the zoning issues and would like to know if there are some issues that have not been resolved. Mr. Jacobs stated that if there are other issues, they are prepared to address them tonight. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if there are any other comments, concerns or questions that the plan commissioners have that they would like to bring up at this time other than aesthetics. Commissioner Bocek stated both she and Commissioner Feldgreber are still concerned about the Fire Department response times. Mr. Shadle stated the response times do fall within the ranges that are acceptable and are standard within the Village. This project as designed meets all of the Village's fire protection requirements. They are not requesting any variations from those requirements. They agree it would be wise to secure something from IDOT to allow emergency vehicle access off of Route 22. The right out only can certain accommodate emergency vehicles going in there and we would want them to have the option to do a left turn off of Route 22 if they are going east. They believe further that the Village has additional protection on this issue through its reciprocal agreement with Lincolnshire to provide another means of providing fire protection to the site. Commissioner Bocek asked if the developer had requested that the barrier not be constructed thereby allowing full access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Green stated they did not request that it not be constructed. The Village requested that it not be constructed and the developer supports that request. Whether it will or will not be constructed is an issue that will be resolved between the Village and IDOT. However it is resolved, there will be a site here. They wanted to assure that this site go within the Village's parameters for service regardless. Mr. Shadle noted additionally that the report from the Fire Department shows the first three scenarios which relate to Station 27, which is the most likely response, meet the standard response times. Commissioner Samuels noted the Fire Department study shows averages and are not maximum times. The chart does not say these are the worst response times, merely the average times. Commissioner Bocek asked why the Fire Chief is then saying the time frames are unacceptable due to the fact that the people living in the area can see the fire station and believe the response times are going to be less. Mr. Shadle stated he believes that what the Fire Chief is saying that some of the response times would be unacceptable, but he does not feel he is attributing it to this development. He is attributing to the possibility that there would not be access from Half Day Road onto Prairie Lane. This is a separate issue that is not only related to this development. Mr. Mark Candotti, 16373 Meadow Lane, asked if there is any other way to something with the property as far as elevations or grading instead of a five-foot fence on top of a 3 or 4 foot grade. He said it would look pretty bad from his backyard looking at a four-foot wall with a five-foot fence on top. Mr. Green stated they are not seeking to create a perceived barrier. They are seeking to be consistent in the design around because they believe that was the intent. If the Plan Commission's desire is that there be no fence where there is a 3-foot wall, then there need not be a fence or there could be a lower fence. Mr. Ullberg, 22991 Prairie Lane, Prairie View, stated he is requesting an additional public hearing so that more voices from Crestview Acres could be heard. They have only had two weeks to prepare for this public hearing and there are dozens of people in the area that probably do not even know about the proposed development who would like to be heard at a future date. Mr. Shadle noted there were two separate annexation agreements pursuant to which this parcel as a whole was annexed to the Village. Both of those annexation agreements between the owners and the Village included specific special conditions which stated that it is understood and agreed that the Village's planning for the property and adjacent properties to the south and southeast contemplates assembly of the respective parcels for the purpose of implementing a planned development consistent with the planned development 6 residential planned unit development standards as set forth in the zoning ordinance. It is important to understand that it was contemplated and intended when this property was annexed to accommodate a residential development of this sort. Commissioner Feldgreber stated he likes the proposed subdivision. However, he does not want to be tied down tonight to agree to something that would restrict future questions regarding issues other than aesthetics. He is concerned about the look from the neighbors' side and what the neighbors have to say. He is still concerned about the density and about the spacing between the buildings. There have been efforts to make that better, but he still does not feel it is adequate. Commissioner Panitch stated it was the Village that made a decision and annexed the properties. If the Village had all of the information that has been received today about the Fire Department response time and if they knew about all of the safety issues and they still made that decision to annex as a PD6, then that is fine. As a Plan Commissioner, however, he feels that he might not have agreed to that and rather would have agreed to a lower density situation. Therefore, just because there is an annexation agreement out there that does not mean he necessarily must agree to this whole thing. He stated he is still uncertain as to how to go with this development. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair