2016-06-15 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Minutes06/15/2016
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD,
BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2016
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:33 PM by Commissioner Eric Smith
Public Hearings/Items For Consideration
Regular Meeting
Other Matters for Discussion
1. Workshop #2- Proposed Residential Development at 16802 W Aptakisic
Road/Link Farm (Trustee Berman) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
Present were Lawrence Freedman, Attorney; James Truesdell, KHovnanian
Homes; Jon Isherwood, KHovnanian Homes; and Mark Kurensky, HKM
Architects.
Mr. Truesdell provided a brief overview of the modifications made to the
proposed plan based on the comments from the previous workshop before the
Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC). They believe they have addressed the
concerns with the bulk density, sidewalks, guest parking and bike paths. They
have, along with staff, met with the Park District and both School Districts to
address concerns regarding the financial impacts. After meeting with the Park
District, they believe they are in substantial conformance with the requirements.
They reviewed the proposed park structure. They removed the park expansion
and introduced park improvements, which includes bike path improvements and
improvements to Prairie Grove Park. They also met with the School Districts.
They have brought on a consultant to conduct a financial impact study. The
results will be provided when the study is complete. They will continue to work
with the School Districts to resolve any issues.
Mr. Kurensky reviewed the plan changes in detail. He advised that the
north/south road previously only had a sidewalk on one side of the road. They
have added sidewalks to both sides. They have expanded the sidewalks into the
single family clusters. They have reduced the total number and reconfigured
units to provide for an additional 30 guest parking spaces in five d ifferent
locations in area C, the Villages. They reduced the single family cluster homes by
one in Court G. With this new configuration, only two homes will back to Meridian
in Court G. When designing the plan, they started with the bulk standard of a 25
foot setback. They wanted to have that 25 foot driveway. However, they will be
asking for a 20 foot setback in lieu of 25 feet. The rear-loading garages will be
setback 20 feet from the sidewalk. They have reduced the overall plan by three
units; two 2-story townhomes and 1 single family cluster home. The reduction of
the three units has made a big impact on the project.
Com. Goldspiel asked about the payment widths of the proposed streets. Mr.
Kurensky stated that the streets will be the same size as existing streets in
06/15/2016
Buffalo Grove. Com. Goldspiel stated he believes this is a much improved plan.
He asked what the naturalized detention areas would be comprised of. Mr.
Kurensky responded that the current site is flat and a challenge. The detention
will have to be along the existing creek. The detention areas would consist of
natural grasses and mud flats. They would mimic a forest preserve type space.
The creek will stay in the same location. There may be some blue water
elements but not much. Non-mow grasses would be planted along the perimeter
of the development.
Com. Goldspiel asked how much of a change in elevation there would be. Mr.
Kurensky stated that the site would still be pretty flat, just enough to provide the
drainage. Com. Goldspiel asked if the detention areas would be mow able. Mr.
Kurensky responded no. You could but they are not designed to be. Com.
Goldspiel asked if it would look natural. Mr. Kurensky stated that these types of
landscape elements are different than they were 25 years ago. It would be similar
to a bike path in a forest preserve. Com. Goldspiel asked Mr. Kurensky to look at
the path and detention area at Lexington in the Park. If it will be similar to that, he
has no issues.
Com. Goldspiel asked about the roads widths at the roundabout. Mr. Kurensky
stated that the roads would be 27 feet back to back.
Com. Cesario wanted to address area A, the 3-story units. He believes the
proposed design is a little tight and a little high for a suburban area. It has a more
of an urban look to it. Mr. Kurensky responded that the architect tried to make the
building look more like one singular building. They feel comfortable with the
street setback. They have a pitched roof on the buildings. The only units that
would only be facing each other are at the divided median and across the court.
They are comfortable with this proposed plan. Com. Cesario asked what type of
owner the product would attract. Mr. Isherwood responded that this type of
product would be marketed to recently married, young couples with small
children. This is considered a stepping stone type home. The market reacts
positively to this type of product; usually people in their mid-20’s to mid-30’s.
Com. Cesario stated that 70 units is a lot of this product. There are less of these
units in similar developments. He added that he is comfortable with areas B & C.
He likes area A; he just feels that area A is out of place for this development. He
added that there is not a lot of designated parking on the north end of area A. Mr.
Kurensky stated that there are 4 stalls of guest parking on the north end. There
are only about 8 units where guests may have to park and walk around the
building or corner. Com. Cesario added that he is still concerned with the
southwest corner of area A. He believes that the building will be too close to the
roadway. Mr. Kurensky advised that they did not change that on the plan. It could
still potential shift. They are still working on that, but they feel comfortable with
the proposal.
Com. Lesser asked if there was ever consideration to design the development
like a traditional subdivision, more like what exists in the community. Mr.
Kurensky responded that they looked at a lot of things and wanted to provide
something a little better. Com. Lesser asked Mr. Kurensky to compare the
proposed development to the development located across the street on
Satinwood Terrace. Mr. Kurensky responded that they were not comfortable with
traditional. They wanted to do something more creative. Com. Lesser stated that
he agrees with Com. Cesario’ s concerns with area A. It looks out of place there.
06/15/2016
He added that this is an important piece of property within the Village and he
wants to explore all options available.
Com. Moodhe arrived at 8:11 PM.
Com. Lesser also has issues with area B, the single family clusters. There is not
a lot of parking available. The clusters create a pod, not a neighborhood. He still
does not like the lack of sidewalks in the cul de sacs. He would not have these
concerns if the property was developed in a more traditional fashion. He asked
about open space behind the units. Mr. Kurensky replied that area B would be a
maintenance free community. It is designed to be tighter in nature due to the
maintenance free aspect. Com. Lesser asked if the dev elopment would be age-
restrictive. Mr. Kurensky responded no. Com. Lesser asked if anyone could buy
a home in this development. Mr. Kurensky stated that the development does not
restrict age by the legal definition, but it would by design. Com. Lesser said that
people with children would still buy these homes. They would live there to allow
their children to attend Stevenson High School and then move. The cul de sacs
are a safety issue without the traditional sidewalks. The PZC needs to ensure
safety for the children. Mr. Kurensky responded that the cul de sacs are designed
for safety. There will not be any drive thru traffic in the cul de sacs. The residents
would look out for each other and self-police their neighborhoods.
Com. Lesser asked about the financial impact study that is being conducted and
who ordered it. Mr. Stilling responded that McKenna has been hired to conduct
the study on behalf of the developer. The School District has brought in its own
expert. They are working on finalizing the results. The schools are comfortable
with McKenna. Com. Lesser asked if there are other studies to compare to. Mr.
Stilling stated that Waterbury was looked at. He clarified that it would be School
District 103, not 102. There was an increase and both parties ack nowledge that
this development may be above and beyond the requirements set forth in the
Code. Com. Lesser would like to know how much Waterbury deviated from the
Code. Mr. Stilling advised that the Code was established back in the 1980’s and
there has been no change to it since.
Com. Cohn stated that his comments are similar to Jeffrey Braiman’s comments
at the last workshop. This proposal is a dramatic deviation from the
Comprehensive Plan. It is not being developed for the type of people that will
invest in the community. He would have to hear from the community residents
that this is what they want. This plan isolates itself by turning into itself. Mr.
Isherwood explained that this is the product type that is desired with the aging
population. Larger homes have a tendency to sit on the market for a long time.
They are trying to give the market what it wants. This project is unique from the
Waterbury project by having master downs, which is the master bedroom on the
first floor. Com. Cohn asked about the success of the Easthaven project and how
single family homes at 2,100 square feet compare. Mr. Isherwood responded that
there is a lack of homes 2,500 to 3,000 square feet in the community. They are
trying to introduce smaller, maintenance free homes. Com. Cohn still needs to
hear from the community that this is what they want.
Mr. Truesdell addressed the comments about the 2009 Comprehensive Plan. He
believes their plan has addressed what the Comprehensive Plan calls for, except
for the central park. This has been designed for smaller lots. People with children
06/15/2016
will not want to buy here. Com. Cohn responded that he does not see this
development as primarily single family and what is single family, area B, is not
traditional. Areas A & C are not single family. Mr. Truesdell explained that they
designed this development in a way to best address the market trends. They
tried to take the current 2009 Comprehensive Plan and apply it to today’s market.
The development will have property restrictions that will tar get a specific age
group. Mr. Stilling added that studies have found that more traditional
subdivisions have a greater financial impact on schools, generates less revenue
for schools and has a higher impact on road conditions. Planning trends show
that millennials are looking for a housing product that our community currently
does not have.
Com. Weinstein likes the 3-story townhome product. He was hoping to see more
single family clusters. He would also like to see some traditional single family
homes added. He is concerned about the private roads and how they would be
maintained. Mr. Stilling advised that after development a separate escrow
account would be established by the Homeowners Association and controlled by
the Village for future road improvements. Notification of the road improvement
escrow to both initial and subsequent homebuyers would be required. Com.
Weinstein asked about the sidewalks and bike paths. He asked about adding a
path that would lead to the bridge between Courts B & D. Mr. Kurensky explained
that the detention area would not allow access due to the natural landscape.
They also wanted to maintain privacy for those residents in those Courts.
Com. Moodhe asked Mr. Stilling a question on housing diversity in the economic
plan and if this plan meets those housing diversity issues. Mr. Stilling replied yes.
Millennials will be interested in this newer product. Area A would address that.
Empty nesters want something new but scaled down. He has heard from the
community at large and the community has expressed interest in area C. Com.
Moodhe stated that this type of development would typically be found around a
transportation hub. Mr. Stilling advised that the train station in Prairie View is
about a mile down the road. Com. Moodhe asked if this development would
impact infrastructure greater or less in the long run. Mr. Stilling replied he is
confident this development would have a less financial impact in the future. Com.
Moodhe added that by not including a ranch model they may lose their target
audience. Mr. Isherwood responded that they have designed and marketed the
clusters with master downs to have all of the amenities on the first floor. The
second floors would have a couple bedrooms for grandchildren or guests. They
are designed to have open space on the first floor with guest rooms on the
second floor. Com. Moodhe would like to see aesthetic modifications on the
single family clusters so they do not look so stark from the east.
Com. Lesser commented that the detention areas are non-useable, open space.
Like a prairie with over-grown grasses. He agrees with Com. Cohn regarding the
design of the plan.
Com. Cesario appreciates the maintenance free housing and finds compelling
features in area B. A small change in density could have a big impact on
usability.
Com. Goldspiel agrees with the comments of the other Commissioners. He is
also concerned with the detention area. The community has matured. People are
06/15/2016
staying longer. Their kids are staying. People like traditional housing. This p lan is
not the right balance. The single family homes are similar to base housing in the
military. He retracts his earlier support of the plan and would like to see the
developer work toward a more traditional plan.
Ms. Woods described the trend of people that have raised their family and now
want to downsize. This leaves the traditional housing available for young couples
with children to raise theirs. This is what is called redistribution.
Ch. Smith stated that he does not agree with that analysis.
Mr. Jeffrey Braiman, 26 W Canterbury Drive, Buffalo Grove, IL, was present. He
also does not agree with the analysis of redistribution. As a senior, he does not
want to buy a multi-story home. It does not make sense. This plan is missing
single story ranch homes; homes that are between 2,500 and 3,000 square feet.
Millennials live in the downtown area. That is where the action is. When they are
ready to have children, they want a traditional house, with a yard and a fence.
This is an important piece of property and it needs to be developed right. Maybe
a mixture would be more appropriate. The proposed R6A zoning district has the
smallest lots. In addition to the small lots, they will be asking for setback
variations as well. He also has an issue with the privat e streets. These residents
would be paying for their streets, plus the Village’s streets. He advised that
Trustee Trilling had asked for a list of variations when at the Village Board for
referral to the PZC. No one has seen that list yet. Buffalo Grove is one of the top
50 family-friendly communities. We strive to be family friendly.
Mr. Stilling responded that the variations have not yet been provided because the
plan is still very fluid. Once the developer and the Village are comfortable in
moving forward, that list will be generated and provided.
Mr. Isherwood stated that they have heard a lot of feedback from the PZC and
they are trying to take it all in. Some of the feedback has been confusing. They
are looking for more definitive feedback on what the PZC would like to see.
Com. Cohn said that he does not want age-restrictive housing. He would like to
see more traditional housing.
Com. Lesser agrees with Com. Cohn.
Com. Goldspiel does not believe the question is the proposed square footage of
the homes. He would like to see different sizes for different families in different
stages. Instead of having isolated areas, provide more traditional, mixed size
houses in the area. This plan does not integrate within itself.
Com. Moodhe believes they need to look at marketplace changes in addition to
traditional housing. He is not sure that current trends have deviated that greatly
from traditional housing now. He also believes that area C should have more
06/15/2016
single family homes integrated. He likes area A and sees the need for that type
of housing.
Mr. Stilling stated that the PZC input will have a tremendous impact on the plan.
They have compared this project to Waterbury, which is a more dense area. He
asked the PZC to provide insight on what drove the Waterbury project that is
different from this proposed development.
Com. Cesario stated that even though there is greenspace, the livable area is
much denser.
Com. Cohn responded that Waterbury was completely different in regards to
location and the surrounding area. It was appropriate for that area nearby the
train station. Geographically, this location is different.
Mr. Braiman stated that he was on the Village Board at the time Waterbury was
approved. That project was supported because of the train station and
surrounding area.
Mr. Freedman advised that they will look and see what they can and can’t do and
then re-approach the PZC.
Com. Lesser suggested they start from scratch.
Ch. Smith advised them to go about it how they see fit and then come back to the
PZC.
There were no further questions or comments from the Commissioners. There
were no further questions or comments from the audience.
Approval of Minutes
1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Jun 1, 2016 7:30 PM
Moved by Com. Moodhe, seconded by Com. Cesario, to approve the minutes of
the June 1, 2016 Planning & Zoning Commission regular meeting.
RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Adam Moodhe, Commissioner
SECONDER: Frank Cesario, Commissioner
AYES: Smith, Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Lesser, Weinstein
ABSENT: Zill Khan
Chairman's Report
None.
Committee and Liaison Reports
06/15/2016
None.
Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule
Mr. Stilling advised that the July 6, 2016 regular meeting has been canceled.
A Special Meeting will be held on July 13, 2016 at 7:30 PM in the Jeffrey S. Braiman Council
Chambers of Village Hall.
Staff will wait to cancel the July 20, 2016 regular meeting.
Mr. Stilling also advised that it was announced that Woodman's is coming to Buffalo Grove. He
thanked the PZC for their hard work and dedication on finding the right fit for that property. This
project will have an aggressive schedule.
Public Comments and Questions
None.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 PM
Chris Stilling Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY ME THIS 15th DAY OF June , 2016