The URL can be used to link to this page

2017-12-06 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda Packet Meeting of the Village of Buffalo Grove Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 6, 2017 at 7:30 PM Fifty Raupp Blvd Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-2100 Phone: 847-459-2500 I. Call to Order II. Public Hearings/Items For Consideration 1. Consider a Variation for a Side Yard Setback Reduction for 1118 Alden Lane (Trustee Stein) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) 2. Petition to the Village of Buffalo Grove for Consideration of an Annexation, Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of an Annexation Agreement, with a Zoning to the R6A One- Family Residential District and R9 Multiple-Family District Along with a Special Use for a Residential Planned Unit Development and Approval of a Plat of Subdivision and Preliminary Plan with Variations for the Property at 16802 W Aptakisic Road (Link Farm) (Trustee Ottenheimer) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) III. Regular Meeting A. Other Matters for Discussion B. Approval of Minutes 1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Nov 15, 2017 7:30 PM C. Chairman's Report D. Committee and Liaison Reports E. Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule F. Public Comments and Questions IV. Adjournment The Planning and Zoning Commission will make every effort to accommodate all items on the agenda by 10:30 p.m. The Board, does, however, reserve the right to defer consideration of matters to another meeting should the discussion run past 10:30 p.m. The Village of Buffalo Grove, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities, contact the ADA Coordinator at 459-2525 to allow the Village to make reasonable accommodations for those persons. Updated: 12/1/2017 3:05 PM Page 1 Action Item : Consider a Variation for a Side Yard Setback Reduction for 1118 Alden Lane Recommendation of Action Staff recommends approval The petitioner, Matthew Levin, owner of the property located at 1118 Alden Lane, is seeking approval for an addition to his home. Currently his house is a two-story, single-family detached home with a one-story, one-stall garage along the eastern side of the home. On November 1, 2017 the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) opened the public hearing and heard from the petitioner regarding this proposal. The item was subsequently continued to the December 6th PZC meeting for additional information. ATTACHMENTS:  Staff Memo 1118 Alden 11-30-2017 (DOCX)  Plan Set (PDF)  Petitioners Response to Standards (PDF) Trustee Liaison Staff Contact Stein Chris Stilling, Community Development Wednesday, December 6, 2017 2.1 Packet Pg. 2 Page 1 of 2 VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE MEMORANDUM DATE: December 1, 2017 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Nicole Woods, Village Planner SUBJECT: 1118 Alden Lane – Variation for a side yard setback reduction for a home addition. BACKGROUND The petitioner, Matthew Levin, owner of the property located at 1118 Alden Lane, is seeking approval for an addition to his home. Currently his house is a two-story, single-family detached home with a one-story, one-stall garage along the eastern side of the home. On November 1, 2017 the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) opened the public hearing and heard from the petitioner regarding this proposal. At that time, the petitioner was looking to expand the garage into a two-car garage and sought a second-story attic space above the proposed garage stall. The proposed attic addition was a “pop-up” over the garage, with no architectural details or windows. To create a usable garage stall, the petitioner was seeking a variation to the side yard setback which would be applied to both the added garage stall and the attic space. The Planning and Zoning Commission had some specific concerns including: 1. The lack of detail in the plans/elevation provided. 2. The extent of the encroachment into the side yard setback. Based upon the commissioners’ comments, the petitioner requested a continuance to December 6, 2017 to give him an opportunity to revise his plans that would address the PZC’s concerns and have ensure the plans have sufficient detail. REVISED PLANS Mr. Levin’s revised plans feature a two-story addition with a total of 756 square feet. The addition’s first floor would extend 33 feet long and 12 feet wide (396 square feet) and expand the garage into a three-car garage. It would feature a separate, second garage door on the north elevation and siding on the remaining elevations. The second-story addition would be above the existing one-stall garage as well as the garage addition. Consequently, the second floor would be approximately 20 feet wide and 18 feet long (360 square feet). The second story would expand the master bedroom into a master suite with a walk-in closets and master bathroom. The north elevations show a continuation of the angled roof, the east elevation feature siding, and the south elevation continue the siding and include windows that match to the existing building. Overall, the addition would be in-line with the height of the existing building and continue the home’s materials and design. It also echoes the design of other second-story homes in the area. PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS Dimensional Requirements The subject property has an existing east side yard setback of 17.74 feet and Code requires 8.67 feet. The petitioner is proposing a setback to 6.2 feet. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 3 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f M e m o 1 1 1 8 A l d e n 1 1 - 3 0 - 2 0 1 7 ( 2 1 6 5 : C o n s i d e r a V a r i a t i o n f o r a S i d e Y a r d S e t b a c k R e d u c t i o n f o r 1 1 1 8 A l d e n L a n e ) Page 2 of 2 The proposed driveway appears to meet code. However, Village Staff does recommend that the approval is conditioned upon the conformance of the driveway width tapering at the rate stated in Village Code. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS Village Department Comments Engineering The Village Engineer has no objections with the proposed addition, as long as the drainage is maintained and they do change the grades within five feet of the property line. This would be addressed as part of the building permit process. ACTION REQUESTED Re-open the Public Hearing and take testimony and hear any new evidence as well as introduce any new materials. The P&ZC shall then vote to approve or deny the variance request. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pursuant to Village Code, the contiguous property owners were notified and a public hearing sign was posted on the subject property. The posting of the public hearing sign and the mailed notifications were completed within the prescribed timeframe as required. As of the date of this staff report, staff has received only one call regarding this project, which was inquiry in nature and the caller did not indicate any concerns. This call came in prior to the initial hearing on November 1, 2017. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Village staff recommends approval of the amended petition conditioned upon the conformance of the driveway width tapering at the rate stated in Village Code. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 4 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f M e m o 1 1 1 8 A l d e n 1 1 - 3 0 - 2 0 1 7 ( 2 1 6 5 : C o n s i d e r a V a r i a t i o n f o r a S i d e Y a r d S e t b a c k R e d u c t i o n f o r 1 1 1 8 A l d e n L a n e ) GENERAL FLOOR PLAN PROJECT: PROJECT REVIEWS REV DATE 0 --- B --- A INITIAL VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED LOCATION: OWNER: PROJECT CODE: FILE: REV DATE REV DATE VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED TITLE: DRAFTSMAN: DATE: SHEET:CODE: SCALE VERSION VERSION LOCATION PLAN INDICATED A1 1 OF 9 NOVEMBER, 2017 ARCH. DAVID CAMACHO EXISTING GENERAL FLOOR PLAN P.PLANS-2017.11.11-FR-2D.mattlevin.dwg 2017-11-11-FR-2D.mattlevin MATTHEW A. LEVIN 1118 ALDEN LN, BUFFALO GROVE 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 1118 ALDEN LN - EXTENSION REV. "A"SET "A" 2.1.b Packet Pg. 5 At t a c h m e n t : P l a n S e t ( 2 1 6 5 : C o n s i d e r a V a r i a t i o n f o r a S i d e Y a r d S e t b a c k R e d u c t i o n f o r 1 1 1 8 A l d e n L a n e ) MAIN LEVEL PROJECT: PROJECT REVIEWS REV DATE 0 --- B --- A INITIAL VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED LOCATION: OWNER: PROJECT CODE: FILE: REV DATE REV DATE VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED TITLE: DRAFTSMAN: DATE: SHEET:CODE: SCALE VERSION VERSION LOCATION PLAN INDICATED A2 2 OF 9 NOVEMBER, 2017 ARCH. DAVID CAMACHO EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN P.PLANS-2017.11.11-FR-2D.mattlevin.dwg 2017-11-11-FR-2D.mattlevin MATTHEW A. LEVIN 1118 ALDEN LN, BUFFALO GROVE 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 1118 ALDEN LN - EXTENSION REV. "A"SET "A" 2.1.b Packet Pg. 6 At t a c h m e n t : P l a n S e t ( 2 1 6 5 : C o n s i d e r a V a r i a t i o n f o r a S i d e Y a r d S e t b a c k R e d u c t i o n f o r 1 1 1 8 A l d e n L a n e ) UPPER LEVEL PROJECT: PROJECT REVIEWS REV DATE 0 --- B --- A INITIAL VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED LOCATION: OWNER: PROJECT CODE: FILE: REV DATE REV DATE VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED TITLE: DRAFTSMAN: DATE: SHEET:CODE: SCALE VERSION VERSION LOCATION PLAN INDICATED A3 3 OF 9 NOVEMBER, 2017 ARCH. DAVID CAMACHO EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN P.PLANS-2017.11.11-FR-2D.mattlevin.dwg 2017-11-11-FR-2D.mattlevin MATTHEW A. LEVIN 1118 ALDEN LN, BUFFALO GROVE 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 1118 ALDEN LN - EXTENSION REV. "A"SET "A" 2.1.b Packet Pg. 7 At t a c h m e n t : P l a n S e t ( 2 1 6 5 : C o n s i d e r a V a r i a t i o n f o r a S i d e Y a r d S e t b a c k R e d u c t i o n f o r 1 1 1 8 A l d e n L a n e ) GENERAL FLOOR PLAN PROJECT: PROJECT REVIEWS REV DATE 0 --- B --- A INITIAL VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED LOCATION: OWNER: PROJECT CODE: FILE: REV DATE REV DATE VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED TITLE: DRAFTSMAN: DATE: SHEET:CODE: SCALE VERSION VERSION LOCATION PLAN INDICATED A4 4 OF 9 NOVEMBER, 2017 ARCH. DAVID CAMACHO NEW GENERAL FLOOR PLAN P.PLANS-2017.11.11-FR-2D.mattlevin.dwg 2017-11-11-FR-2D.mattlevin MATTHEW A. LEVIN 1118 ALDEN LN, BUFFALO GROVE 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 1118 ALDEN LN - EXTENSION REV. "A"SET "A" 2.1.b Packet Pg. 8 At t a c h m e n t : P l a n S e t ( 2 1 6 5 : C o n s i d e r a V a r i a t i o n f o r a S i d e Y a r d S e t b a c k R e d u c t i o n f o r 1 1 1 8 A l d e n L a n e ) MAIN LEVEL PROJECT: PROJECT REVIEWS REV DATE 0 --- B --- A INITIAL VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED LOCATION: OWNER: PROJECT CODE: FILE: REV DATE REV DATE VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED TITLE: DRAFTSMAN: DATE: SHEET:CODE: SCALE VERSION VERSION LOCATION PLAN INDICATED A5 5 OF 9 NOVEMBER, 2017 ARCH. DAVID CAMACHO NEW MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN P.PLANS-2017.11.11-FR-2D.mattlevin.dwg 2017-11-11-FR-2D.mattlevin MATTHEW A. LEVIN 1118 ALDEN LN, BUFFALO GROVE 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 1118 ALDEN LN - EXTENSION REV. "A"SET "A" 2.1.b Packet Pg. 9 At t a c h m e n t : P l a n S e t ( 2 1 6 5 : C o n s i d e r a V a r i a t i o n f o r a S i d e Y a r d S e t b a c k R e d u c t i o n f o r 1 1 1 8 A l d e n L a n e ) UPPER LEVEL PROJECT: PROJECT REVIEWS REV DATE 0 --- B --- A INITIAL VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED LOCATION: OWNER: PROJECT CODE: FILE: REV DATE REV DATE VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED TITLE: DRAFTSMAN: DATE: SHEET:CODE: SCALE VERSION VERSION LOCATION PLAN INDICATED A6 6 OF 9 NOVEMBER, 2017 ARCH. DAVID CAMACHO NEW UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN P.PLANS-2017.11.11-FR-2D.mattlevin.dwg 2017-11-11-FR-2D.mattlevin MATTHEW A. LEVIN 1118 ALDEN LN, BUFFALO GROVE 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 1118 ALDEN LN - EXTENSION REV. "A"SET "A" 2.1.b Packet Pg. 10 At t a c h m e n t : P l a n S e t ( 2 1 6 5 : C o n s i d e r a V a r i a t i o n f o r a S i d e Y a r d S e t b a c k R e d u c t i o n f o r 1 1 1 8 A l d e n L a n e ) ROOF LEVEL PROJECT: PROJECT REVIEWS REV DATE 0 --- B --- A INITIAL VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED LOCATION: OWNER: PROJECT CODE: FILE: REV DATE REV DATE VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED TITLE: DRAFTSMAN: DATE: SHEET:CODE: SCALE VERSION VERSION LOCATION PLAN INDICATED A7 7 OF 9 NOVEMBER, 2017 ARCH. DAVID CAMACHO NEW ROOF FLOOR PLAN P.PLANS-2017.11.11-FR-2D.mattlevin.dwg 2017-11-11-FR-2D.mattlevin MATTHEW A. LEVIN 1118 ALDEN LN, BUFFALO GROVE 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 1118 ALDEN LN - EXTENSION REV. "A"SET "A" 2.1.b Packet Pg. 11 At t a c h m e n t : P l a n S e t ( 2 1 6 5 : C o n s i d e r a V a r i a t i o n f o r a S i d e Y a r d S e t b a c k R e d u c t i o n f o r 1 1 1 8 A l d e n L a n e ) NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION PROJECT: PROJECT REVIEWS REV DATE 0 --- B --- A INITIAL VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED LOCATION: OWNER: PROJECT CODE: FILE: REV DATE REV DATE VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED TITLE: DRAFTSMAN: DATE: SHEET:CODE: SCALE VERSION VERSION LOCATION PLAN INDICATED A8 8 OF 9 NOVEMBER, 2017 ARCH. DAVID CAMACHO NEW NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATION P.PLANS-2017.11.11-FR-2D.mattlevin.dwg 2017-11-11-FR-2D.mattlevin MATTHEW A. LEVIN 1118 ALDEN LN, BUFFALO GROVE 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 1118 ALDEN LN - EXTENSION REV. "A"SET "A" 2.1.b Packet Pg. 12 At t a c h m e n t : P l a n S e t ( 2 1 6 5 : C o n s i d e r a V a r i a t i o n f o r a S i d e Y a r d S e t b a c k R e d u c t i o n f o r 1 1 1 8 A l d e n L a n e ) WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION PROJECT: PROJECT REVIEWS REV DATE 0 --- B --- A INITIAL VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED LOCATION: OWNER: PROJECT CODE: FILE: REV DATE REV DATE VERSION DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED DESIGNED CHECKED APPROVED TITLE: DRAFTSMAN: DATE: SHEET:CODE: SCALE VERSION VERSION LOCATION PLAN INDICATED A9 9 OF 9 NOVEMBER, 2017 ARCH. DAVID CAMACHO NEW WEST AND EAST ELEVATION P.PLANS-2017.11.11-FR-2D.mattlevin.dwg 2017-11-11-FR-2D.mattlevin MATTHEW A. LEVIN 1118 ALDEN LN, BUFFALO GROVE 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 00/00/0000 1118 ALDEN LN - EXTENSION REV. "A"SET "A" 2.1.b Packet Pg. 13 At t a c h m e n t : P l a n S e t ( 2 1 6 5 : C o n s i d e r a V a r i a t i o n f o r a S i d e Y a r d S e t b a c k R e d u c t i o n f o r 1 1 1 8 A l d e n L a n e ) 2.1.c Packet Pg. 14 At t a c h m e n t : P e t i t i o n e r s R e s p o n s e t o S t a n d a r d s ( 2 1 6 5 : C o n s i d e r a V a r i a t i o n f o r a S i d e Y a r d S e t b a c k R e d u c t i o n f o r 1 1 1 8 A l d e n L a n e ) Updated: 12/1/2017 3:10 PM Page 1 Action Item : Petition to the Village of Buffalo Grove for Consideration of an Annexation, Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of an Annexation Agreement, with a Zoning to the R6A One-Family Residential District and R9 Multiple-Family District Along with a Special Use for a Residential Planned Unit Development and Approval of a Plat of Subdivision and Preliminary Plan with Variations for the Property at 16802 W Aptakisic Road (Link Farm) Recommendation of Action Staff recommends approval subject to conditions in the attached staff report. K. Hovnanian Homes (KHov) is the contract purchaser and developer of the unincorporated 50 acres located at 16802 W Aptakisic Road, which is the former Link Farm. They are requesting to annex the property into Buffalo Grove and proposing a residential development on the property. Additional information can be found in the attached staff report. ATTACHMENTS:  Staff Report 12.6.17 (DOCX)  12.06.2017 Public Hearing Plans (PDF)  4-5-17 PZC Minutes (DOC)  4-19-17 PZC Minutes (DOC)  7-19-17 PZC Minutes (DOC)  Proposed KHov Agreement with D102 (PDF)  Dist 102 Letter (PDF) Trustee Liaison Staff Contact Ottenheimer Chris Stilling, Community Development Wednesday, December 6, 2017 2.2 Packet Pg. 15 VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: December 6, 2017 SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 16802 W Aptakisic Road (Link Farm) PETITIONER: K. Hovnanian T&C Homes at Illinois, LLC. PREPARED BY: Christopher Stilling, Director of Community Development REQUEST: Petition to the Village of Buffalo Grove for consideration of an annexation, pursuant to the terms and conditions of an annexation agreement, with a zoning to the R6A One-Family Residential District and R9 Multiple-Family District along with a special use for a Residential Planned Unit Development and approval of a Plat of Subdivision and Preliminary Plan with variations. EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is zoned AG, Agricultural District in unincorporated Lake County and is currently vacant. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2009 Village Comprehensive Plan calls for the property to be single family detached. Background K. Hovnanian Homes (KHov) is the contract purchaser and developer of the unincorporated 50 acres located at 16802 W Aptakisic Road, which is the former Link Farm . They are requesting to annex the property into Buffalo Grove and proposing a residential development on the property. Meetings to Date/Plan Progression Village Board Referral As the PZC is aware, KHov presented its concept plan the Village Board (April, 2016) for a 222 unit development. The Village Board provided comments and subsequently referred the project to the PZC to begin the entitlement process. PZC Workshops Prior to scheduling for a public hearing, the PZC facilitated several workshops (May 2016, June 2016, August 2016, and March 2017) to review the plan. During these presentations and workshops, the PZC provided feedback on the plan particularly on topics such as sidewalks, densities, building setbacks, building orientation, integration with adjacent buildings, traffic flow, open space and trail system. PZC Public Hearings/Discussion The following is a summary of the various public hearings/discussion related to the project. Minutes of each meeting are attached. 2.2.a Packet Pg. 16 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t 1 2 . 6 . 1 7 ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) April 5, 2017 At the April 5, 2017 PZC meeting, KHov presented their final version of the Link Crossing plan for public hearing. The development consisted of 214 units in three neighborhoods: 70 clustered single- family detached (SFD) homes, 73 two-story single-family attached (SFA) townhomes, and 71 three- story single-family attached (SFA) townhomes. Approximately 40 members of the public attended the public hearing to learn more about the project and provide feedback. Around 15 members of the public spoke and their concerns revolved around the following themes:  Impact of development on schools  Prairie Grove Park improvements and the need for an expansion  Overall development density and character with surrounding developments  Three-story townhomes  Need for sidewalks along the cul-de-sacs in single family development  Increased traffic and its impact to the surrounding developments  Market feasibility Ultimately, the PZC continued the item to allow time for additional testimony. April 19, 2017 At the April 19, 2017 PZC meeting, KHov asked for additional comments from the public and the PZC. KHov was then directed to respond to the cumulative comments raised during the PZC meeting and the direction received by the Park District to increase the park’s size. At this time, KHov requested the project be continued to the July 19, 2017 PZC meeting. This allowed them more time to develop plan alternatives and also host a neighborhood meeting (May 16, 2017). July 19 , 2017 At the July 19, 2017 PZC meeting, KHov presented alternative plans for consideration. Two of the three plans were very similar and only differed in regards to public or private cul-de-sacs. The third plan provided a more traditional roadway configuration. Each plan ranged from 192-196 units and all alternatives included the following revisions:  Replacement of the three-story townhomes with two-story townhomes  Expansion of the Prairie Grove Park  Approximately a 10% reduction in total unit count Summary of the Latest Plan KHov has requested to proceed with the project with the clustered plan. The latest plan maintains the original intent of the project while reducing the overall unit count from a total of 214 units to 192 units. The plan includes 59 clustered SF detached homes and 133 2-story townhomes with an overall gross density of 3.84 units/acre. The plan also doubles the size of the existing park. According to the Developer, the proposed development will still target the active 55+ demographic by featuring many units with a first floor master bedroom suite and by offering a maintenance-free environment. The development will continue to have architectural designs that incorporate a “Craftsman” theme. 2.2.a Packet Pg. 17 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t 1 2 . 6 . 1 7 ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map calls for the subject property to be developed into single-family detached. The Plan also identifies this area to feature a compact clustering of residential units adjacent to common open areas and recreation facilities as well as include some senior housing. The Future Land Use Map shows a section of the former Didier Farm property just north of Aptaksic Road (not included in the subject property) to be commercial/greenhouse. In terms of the Prairie Grove Park to the east, the developer will be donating the additional land to double the park’s size which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the developer will continue to make public improvements to the bicycle trail network for better use and connectivity. Staff believes the proposed plan also achieves other goals, objectives and policies discussed in the Comprehensive Plan including: enhancing natural and open space resources, improving the Village’s bicycle network, incorporating recreational facilities and amenities in housing developments, encouraging attractive and durable landscape plans, encouraging interconnectedness of adjoining residential developments, and supporting new developments which add and enhance to the community’s character. Surrounding Development The Woodlands at Fiore northwest of the property includes two single-family attached (SFA) developments which have a gross density of 5.77 units per acre as well as single-family-detached (SFD) development that has a gross density of 3 units per acre. The Prairie Grove and the Easthaven development are SFD developments east of the subject property and have gross densities of 2.4 and 2.1 units per acre, respectively. While not directly adjacent to the proposed Link Crossing Development, Waterbury Place is a SFA and SFD development northwest of the subject property which is similar to the proposed development. Waterbury Place has a gross density of approximately 5.5 units/acre, whereas, the proposed Link Crossing development would have a gross density of 3.84 units/acre. Proposed Zoning The proposed plan incorporates neo-traditional, pedestrian-oriented, and natural environment design elements. Such elements create an environment that provides maintenance-free living for all residents, encourages social interaction, enhances and varies streetscapes and architectural views, promotes walkability, enables more common open space, and meets the needs and desires of the age-targeted market. In creating such an environment, the proposed plan breaks away from the traditional suburban development generally constructed in the Village as well as s tandardized in Buffalo Grove’s municipal code. Such a plan is suitable for a Planned Unit of Development (PUD) and is advantageous in achieving general goals and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and the Economic Development Plan. The Cottages (Single-Family Detached): R6A The Cottages (SFD homes) will be rezoned R-6A from the Village’s default R-E zoning classification (All properties retain the R-E zoning upon annexation in the Village unless otherwise specified.) The R-6A is the Village’s most dense single-family dwelling district and is appropriate for the subject 2.2.a Packet Pg. 18 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t 1 2 . 6 . 1 7 ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) property given its use, size, building height, setbacks and other bulk standards. Other SFD residential developments with the R-6A zoning classification include the Highlands Development and Strathmore Grove. The Villas (Single-Family Attached): R9 The Villas (SFA two-story townhomes) will be rezoned R-9 from the Village’s default R-E zoning classification The R-9 zoning classification is appropriate for the subject property given its use, size, building height, setbacks and other bulk standards. Other SFA residential development with the R -9 zoning classification include but are not limited to Waterbury, Tenerife, Crossings, Concord Place Hidden Lake and Old Farm Village. The Village has a total of 19 developments with the R-9 classification. Planned Unit Development (PUD) The petitioner is also requesting a special use for the planned unit development (PUD) given the size and nature of the proposed development. The primary purpose of a planned unit development is to provide flexibility to the development so it can achieve a balanced development site with physical, economic and social assets which would be otherwise difficult to achieve through the traditional zoning classifications. Examining the plan’s deviations from zoning requirements provides a context for the projects general scale, design, and size. The SFD homes most closely aligns to the R-6A zoning district. As shown below, the proposed SFD homes are on smaller lots, with allowable encroachments for porches. The SFA townhomes most closely align with the R-9 zoning district. As shown below, these attached dwelling units tend to have smaller setbacks than the regulatory standard as well. SFD Homes: The Cottages R-6A District Requirements Proposed Development Min Lot Size 6,600 sf Width: 60’ at bldg. line Average Lot Size: 7,387 sf Width: 55’ Mi n S e t b a c k s Front 25’ 25’ and allowance for a porch to encroach up to 6’ into the 25’setback Corner Side Interior Side 25’ 6’ but not less than a combined 12’ 25’ 6’ but not less than a combined 12’ Rear 30’ 30’, however ranch units may be allowed to be setback 25’. SFA Homes: The Villas R-9 District Requirements Proposed Development Mi n S e t b a c k s Front 25’ 20’ and allowance for a porch to encroach up to 6 feet into the 20’ setback Side (Interior) 6’ 7.5’ Side (Corner) 25’ 20’ Side (Separation) 24’ (with windows) and 15’ (without) 24’ with windows Rear (Separation) 40’ 40’ 2.2.a Packet Pg. 19 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t 1 2 . 6 . 1 7 ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) Transportation The main access into the development would be from Brandywyn Lane to the north and Meridian Way to the east. Access to Buffalo Grove Road is restricted for emergency vehicles through the private access drive serving the 6-unit building at the southwest corner of the site. The developer has provided a future roadway connection map showing how future access to Buffalo Grove Road and Aptakisic could be achieved if/when the property to the south redevelops. The developer has also provided the necessary land to accommodate the future connections. As a condition of approval, staff is requesting another additional emergency access to Buffalo Grove Road from Street J which serves the SFA area at the northwest corner of the development. A key change to the plan is that KHov is proposing to have the cul-de-sacs designed to be publically dedicated, while still maintaining the integrating of the original plan. Staff is still concerned about accepting these cul-de-sacs due to the long term maintenance responsibility by the Village. While these could be dedicated, there would be a variation to allow for reduced ROW. Parking Overall, the development will meet all the parking requirements established by Village Code. The Cottages will include two-car garages as well as parking for an additional two vehicles in the driveway. Furthermore, each cul-de-sac will have 4-6 guest parking spaces. It should be noted that on-street parking in the cul-de-sacs will be prohibited. The two-story townhomes will include a two-car garage as well one parallel parking space in front of the garage. This is similar to the Waterbury development. An additional 49 guest spaces will be provided throughout the neighborhood. Lastly, since the project is providing fully dedicated ROWs, on-street parking will also be provided. Landscaping The petitioners designed Link Crossing to compliment the area’s natural features and preserve open space. Consequently, landscaping is a critical component of the development. Trees, shrubs, and perennials line the streets, bike paths, and open spaces and parks throughout the development. Landscaping is particularly concentrated along the development’s perimeter to provide a landscaped buffer between major roads and the subject property. Additionally, landscaping is concentrated around the SFA developments to enhance this area’s neo-traditional and pedestrian orientation and design. Furthermore, the landscaping in these denser areas adds dimension, character, and color. Benches, tables and other pedestrian and landscaping amenities are provided at critical open space areas such as parks, interior courts, and road junctures. As Links Crossing is a maintenance-free development, all landscaping will be maintained by the future HOA. The Village Forester has reviewed the Link Crossing Development landscaping plan and was pleased with both the proposed plant materials and locations. He had no major comments and the final plan will be approved conditional to his comments per the Village Code. School District & Fiscal Impacts The developer has provided a comprehensive fiscal impact analysis which was previously provided and shared with the school districts. As part of the analysis, the Developer evaluated the proposed 2.2.a Packet Pg. 20 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t 1 2 . 6 . 1 7 ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) project against a more traditional single family development. The results found that the proposed development would have less of an impact on the taxing districts, while generating more revenue for them. The development would be fiscally positive to the taxing bodies. School District 102 (Elementary) Furthermore, throughout the planning process, the developer and staff have met with the School District 102. Based on discussions with both the developer and School District 102, a tentative agreement was reached with District 102 staff. This agreement has not been approved by the School Board as they were awaiting the final outcome of the project. As part of the agreement, the developer is providing additional impact fees to District 102. It should be noted that the additional stormwater is no longer being requested by District 102. School District 125 (Stevenson) According to the fiscal impact study, a total of 23 high school aged children would be generated by the development. Based on the analysis, the proposed project would be fiscally positive to the District 125 and therefore the developer is proposing to pay impact fees in accordance to Title 19 of Village Code. Architecture The development will have architectural designs that incorporate a “Craftsman” theme throughout both neighborhoods. Cottages As shown, the developer is proposing five different model types for the single family homes. This includes two types of ranch models, a 1½ story “Cape Cod” model and two types of traditional “two-story” models. Each model will have 3 different elevations to choose from along with many other color options for a total of 15 elevation options. Villas The proposed two-story townhomes will continue to use the same “Craftsman” theme. Units will be 31’ in height and include 3 types of color packages. Overall, staff supports the architecture of the Villas, however we recommend that LP Siding (Fiber Cement Board) or if 6-inch wide vinyl be used. Utilities/Site Engineering The proposed development would meet all the Village’s utility requirements. The development would connect to existing utilities located within the area and the Village has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed density. As for stormwater, the development would meet both the Village and Lake County’s stormwater requirements. Detention will be provided throughout the site in four naturalized basins. Furthermore, the existing drainage ditch will remain and the necessary buffers are being provided. Lastly, the Village owns the detention pond at the southeast corner of Brandywyn and Buffalo Grove Road. As part of the project, the Village would deed the detention pond to the future HOA for ownership and maintenance responsibility. Overall, the Village Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and does not have any objections. The proposed plans, if approved, will be subject to final engineering review and approval. 2.2.a Packet Pg. 21 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t 1 2 . 6 . 1 7 ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) Zoning & Development Ordinance Variations As a result of the new plan, several variations are no longer needed. The following is a summary of the variations that are still required. Zoning Ordinance 1. Variation to Section 17.28.050 reducing the required perimeter setback as depicted on the plans submitted as part of the petition. The Village’s PUD standards require a minimum perimeter setback of 35’ or height of the building (whichever is greater). In applying this standard, the proposed plan would meet the setbacks, however the single family homes around the Prairie Grove Park would be setback less (front yard of 30’) to be consistent with the adjacent Easthaven Development to the east. Furthermore, the townhomes around the park would be approximately 20’ from the new park property. 2. Variation to Section 17.40.020 decreasing the minimum front yard, interior side yard, corner side yard and rear yard setbacks as depicted on the plans submitted as part of the petition. The proposed plan would require a variation for the front yard only to accommodate a front porch of up to 6’. Furthermore, a variation is required to allow a 5’ rear setback for their ranch models. 3. Variation to Section 17.40.050 decreasing the minimum front yard, interior side yard, corner side yard and rear yard setbacks as depicted on the plans submitted as part of the petition. The Village code requires the following minimum setbacks for the R9 District. The proposed plan would require variations for the front setbacks only for the SFA homes (the Villas). Code requires 25’ and they are requesting 20’. 4. Variation to Section 17.40.020 decreasing the minimum lot width for the R6A Zoning District as depicted on the plans submitted as part of the petition. The Village code requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet (at building line) for the R6A zoning district. The proposed plan would require variation from this requirement as the minimum lot width is 55’ for the SFD homes (the Cottages). 5. Variation to Section 17.40.020 decreasing the minimum lot size for the R6A Zoning District as depicted on the plans submitted as part of the petition. The Village code requires a minimum lot size of 6,600 square feet for the R6A zoning district. The proposed plan would require variation from this requirement as the smallest lot is 5,547 square feet. The average lot size is 7,387 square feet in the SFD homes (the Cottages). It should be noted that the developer is providing large amounts of common area 2.2.a Packet Pg. 22 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t 1 2 . 6 . 1 7 ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) open space around the lots as a buffer. Therefore, the actual gross area would be increased for each lot if this were to be included. Development Ordinance 1. A Variation to Section 16.50.070 reducing the minimum right -of-way and parkway requirements. Overall, the ROW of the main road off of Brandywyn Lane meets the intent of the Village Code. This variation is necessary so that the landscaped island at the entry point can remain under HOA ownership and maintenance. Furthermore, the reduction is to allow for less ROW in the cul-de-sacs. The pavement and turning radii would meet Village Code. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS Village Department Comments Engineering The Village Engineer’s has reviewed the proposed plans and does not have any objections. The proposed plans, if approved, will be subject to final engineering review and approval. Fire Department The Fire Department has reviewed the proposed plans and does not have any objections. The Fire Department notes that turning radii throughout the development shall be revised to accommodate fire vehicles. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the zoning to the R6A One-Family Residential District and R9 Multiple-Family District along with a special use for a Residential Planned Unit Development and approval of a Plat of Subdivision and Preliminary Plan with variations, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Developer shall enter into an annexation agreement in a form and manner acceptable to the Village. Said agreement shall incorporate the following additional conditions: a. The proposed development shall substantially conform to the plans submitted as part of this petition. b. The Developer shall make the necessary land donation and improvements to the surrounding development in accordance to the draft plans attached and as approved by the Buffalo Grove Park District. Any remaining land donation contributions as required by Title 19 of Village Code shall be paid at time for building permits. c. The Developer shall pay a cash contribution to School District 102 in accordance to their letter/proposal to District 102 dated April 3, 2017. d. The Developer shall pay an annexation fee of $1500 per residential unit. e. The Village shall convey and the Developer shall accept the existing Village owned detention pond located at the southeast corner of Brandywyn and Buffalo Grove Road. All future maintenance responsibilities of this pond shall be borne by the future HOA. f. Final architectural plans and elevations (including colors and materials) shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Village. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit 2.2.a Packet Pg. 23 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t 1 2 . 6 . 1 7 ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) for a residential unit/building, the developer shall prepare and submit a final architectural package that shall be reviewed and approved by the Village. Said approval may require a meeting by the PZC. g. All building elevations (detached and attached) that abut existing/future ROWS and private streets shall include foundation landscaping and additional architectural treatments in a manner acceptable to the Village. h. Draft CCR’s shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to Village. All landscaping embellishments (arbors, trellises, fences, etc) shall be standardized with 1 option and incorporated into the CCR’s. i. The Declarations shall indicate that certain private streets and/or cul-de-sacs will remain private with the maintenance responsibility of the association in a manner acceptable to the Village. j. The final plat of subdivision shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Village. The future right-of-way (ROW) at the southernmost terminus of Street G and Street I shall be identified as outlots. At the request of the Village, these outlots shall be conveyed to the Village for future ROW. All future and subsequent homeowners shall sign a disclosure acknowledging that these outlots will become a future public road. A sign shall also be posted on the property, in a form and manner acceptable to the Village, indicating that this area will be future ROW. k. Turning radii throughout the development shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Village. This may require the need to limit on-street parking in a manner acceptable to the Village. l. Final engineering shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Village. m. The final landscape plan shall be revised in a manner acceptable to the Village. n. All medians and islands located in public ROW shall be identified as outlots and shall be the ownership and maintenance responsibility of the HOA. o. On-street parking in the cul-de-sacs and streets shall be prohibited. p. Setbacks for all units shall be in accordance to the approved site plan. q. An emergency access to Buffalo Grove Road shall be provided in a manner acceptable to the Village. This shall include an additional emergency access to Buffalo Grove Road from Street J and from Street I. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall reopen the public hearing and take public testimony and the PZC shall then make a recommendation to the Village Board. 2.2.a Packet Pg. 24 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t 1 2 . 6 . 1 7 ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 1804 Naper Blvd., Suite 200, Naperville, IL 60563 Tel: (630) 210-8888 Fax: (630) 946-6629 Khov.com Chris Stilling November 27, 2017 Director of Community Development Village of Buffalo Grove 50 Raupp Blvd. Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089 RE: Link Crossing Continued Plan Commission Public Hearing Dear Mr. Stilling and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Over the past 24 months we have diligently worked through the planning process with the Village of Buffalo Grove, including a concept review at the Village Board (April 2016), 3 concept reviews at Plan Commission (May 2016 – October 2016), an architectural review at Plan Commission (March 2017), 2 public hearings (April – May 2017) and most recently presented 3 revised concept plans to the Plan Commission (August 2017). The three concept plans presented in August 2017 addressed the two major and consistent objections to the original 214-unit plan presented at the Public Hearing on 4/5/17. All plans eliminated 3 story townhomes and doubled the size of Prairie Grove Park. Many other changes were made to address comments and concerns and those changes were highlighted in a letter provided to the neighbors and the Plan Commission, attached as Exhibit A. In reviewing all three of these concepts we felt strongly that each of them stuck to the original thesis developed for Link Crossing and more specifically addressed the goals for housing diversity as outlined in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan as well as the 2016 Village of Buffalo Grove Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP). We have evaluated many options on how to move forward and feel the revised Cluster Option featuring 192 units generally as presented in August is the best choice for Buffalo Grove. This plan addresses the major addressable objections raised at the Public Hearing, while staying true to the goals and objectives for the property as outlined by the Village of Buffalo Grove and detailed in the Buffalo Grove 2009 Comprehensive Plan and the Village of Buffalo Grove Economic Development Strategic Plan adopted in February 2016. Goals & Objectives Link Crossing Addresses from 2009 Comprehensive Plan 1. It is evident that housing is needed for the expanding population of mature adults, for younger residents in the initial stage of formin g households and for residents who need housing proximate to job opportunities and basic shopping and services. 2. Guide the planning and development of housing to incorporate appropriate setbacks, screening, buffering, recreational facilities, amenities, and interconnectedness of adjoining residential developments. 2.2.b Packet Pg. 25 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 1804 Naper Blvd., Suite 200, Naperville, IL 60563 Tel: (630) 210-8888 Fax: (630) 946-6629 Khov.com 3. New developments and redevelopments must be able to demonstrate that the specific project: a. Has a positive economic and financial impact, and is efficient to service 4. Bike path and pedestrian system Bicycle use should be fostered and enhanced as a viable form of transportation in the Village. 5. Continue to regulate the use of property with land use management strategies that focus on preserving green space, encouraging attractive and durable landscape plans, avoiding flood and drainage hazards, and maintaining high quality water supplies and sewer services 6. Aptakisic Road “… single-family development for the main portion of the Didier farm north of the commercial area along Aptakisic Road;…” 7. Didier and Hoffman properties Site planning to achieve compact clustering of residential units adjacent to common open areas and recreation facilities should be a component of development plans for this area. Pedestrian linkages from residential neighborhoods should be provided to the central park area designated on the Plan. References 1. Comp Plan – Current Conditions pg. 3 2. Comp plan – Goals and Objectives pg. 4 3. Comp Plan – Goals and Objectives pg. 5 4. Comp Plan – Transportation Pg. 3 5. Comp Plan – Goals and Objectives pg. 3 6. Comp Plan – Future Land Use Recommendations Pg. 1 7. Comp Plan – Future Land Use Recommendations Pg. 7 The Village adopted an Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) in 2016. This report outlined many goals and objectives, while recognizing areas of weakness that needed to be addressed. It should be noted that this report recognized that the 2009 comprehensive plan “… is nearing the end of its shelf life. “ (Pg. 30 of the EDSP) and further calls for the comprehensive plan to be updated prior to 2020, reflecting current and long-term trends. Goals & Objectives Link Crossing Addresses from 2016 EDSP 1. Diversify Housing Stock (pg. 40 – Goals, Recommendations and Action Steps) The Village’s housing stock is in great condition, it is limited in options and generally appeals to families. Consequently, the Village should look to diversify its housing stock 2.2.b Packet Pg. 26 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 1804 Naper Blvd., Suite 200, Naperville, IL 60563 Tel: (630) 210-8888 Fax: (630) 946-6629 Khov.com so that it includes floorplans, bedrooms, square footages, densities, amenities and tenure that are suitable for a wider population. This wider population includes millennials, empty-nesters, and young families. Moving forward the Village staff, Planning and Zoning commission, and Village Board should examine residential development and redevelopment plans within this housing framework. 2. Improve accessibility to, from and around the Village (pg. 41 – Goals, Recommendations and Action Steps) Ensuring new developments provide adequate pedestrian, bicycle, and road connections to current networks. Weaknesses 2016 EDSP Outlines that Link Crossing Addresses 1. Jobs/Housing Mismatch. Industries and companies in and around Buffalo Grove are in need of young, highly-skilled professionals. However, a large portion of this demographic lives in, or closer to Chicago. (pg. 4) a. Research indicates that millennials highly value walkability; bicycle and public transportation accessibility; mixed-use; denser areas; and smaller housing units – both in square footage and in the number of bedrooms. (pg. 11) 2. Lack of housing stock diversity – The Village lacks housing options for young professionals, young families and empty nesters looking to downsize. (pg. 4) In addition to meeting many of Buffalo Grove’s goals and objectives for new housing developments, Link Crossing was carefully planned to meet some very specific goals that were identified by K. Hovnanian based on feedback from key community members. These goals are as follows:  Provide a variety of housing types reflective of market demands and trends that appeal to a diverse set of home owners  Create a maintenance free community that will appeal to move down buyers and young professionals alike  Create positive economic impact for all taxing authorities  Minimize impacts or number of students generated for local schools  Integrate into the existing neighborhood  Provide Pedestrian connectivity  Improve/Expand Prairie Grove Park  Provide Themed architecture and landscaping creating a unique experience The revised cluster option adheres to all the goals and objectives explored above, including creating a positive economic impact for all taxing authorities. Link Crossing purposefully targets young professionals and move down buyers by offering a unique set of home types, floor plans featuring master bedrooms on the main level, smaller homes desired by the 2.2.b Packet Pg. 27 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 1804 Naper Blvd., Suite 200, Naperville, IL 60563 Tel: (630) 210-8888 Fax: (630) 946-6629 Khov.com millennial generation, integrating pedestrian walks and trails with easy bike or pedestrian access to the Prairie View Metra Station (just 1.25 miles away), all while keeping the entire community maintenance free. At our August meeting, we were encouraged to explore a plan that would feature detached single-family homes east of the drainage way and attached single family homes west of t he drainage way. We did explore this path and a development that adhered to that direction would likely include approximately 100 detached single-family homes (east of the drainage way) and 50 attached single-family homes (west of the drainage way). The mix of units, 67% single family detached and 33% single family attached is materially different than what has been presented and explored. In considering this direction we identified the following. 1. This plan would have a larger percentage of traditional 4-bedroom homes than the 192-unit plan. 2. More school children would be anticipated despite the lower unit count 3. There would be less property taxes generated for all taxing authorities 4. A larger percent of site improvements would be proposed public as many of the private alleyways servicing the Villas neighborhood would be eliminated to make way for more single family detached homes located on a traditional Village Right-of- Way. 5. The community would no longer be planned as 100% maintenance free as some of the single family detached homes would be appeal to a more traditional family buyer. We have completed a few projections on anticipated school children as well as anticipated property tax revenue for each taxing authority outlined in the tables below. Please reference the attached School Population table for projection per unit type. For the purposes of review, we’ve analyzed 3 different plans:  The original 214-unit plan presented during the Public Hearing in April/May  The revised cluster 192-unit plan presented in August 2017  A plan consisting of 100 detached and 50 attached single-family homes 214 Plan 192 Plan 150 Plan District 125 26 23 34 District 102 85 78 89 Total Students 111 101 123 Total School Students 2.2.b Packet Pg. 28 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 1804 Naper Blvd., Suite 200, Naperville, IL 60563 Tel: (630) 210-8888 Fax: (630) 946-6629 Khov.com Based on the above analysis a 150-unit plan generates more school children than the 192- unit plan, while generating less property tax revenue. We wanted to have a thorough understanding on the exact economic impacts each plan would have on districts 102 an d 125 after taking anticipated costs into consideration. Those impacts are detailed below. Home Type 214 Plan 192 Plan 150 Plan 214 Plan 192 Plan 150 Plan Cluster Homes w/3 Bedrooms 42 35 30 $607,500 $25,515,000 $21,262,500 $18,225,000 Cluster Homes w/4 Bedrooms 28 24 70 $640,000 $17,920,000 $15,360,000 $44,800,000 Villas (2-story) w/3 Bedrooms 73 133 50 $480,000 $35,040,000 $63,840,000 $24,000,000 Towns (3-story) w/2 Bedrooms 25 0 0 $390,000 $9,750,000 $0 $0 Towns (3-story) w/3 Bedrooms 46 0 0 $412,500 $18,975,000 $0 $0 Total 214 192 150 $107,200,000 $100,462,500 $87,025,000 Assessement Rate 33.33%33.33%33.33% Total Equalized Assessed Value (EAV)$35,733,298 $33,487,467 $29,008,304 Less: Homestead Exemption ($6,000 Per Unit)$1,284,000 $1,152,000 $900,000 Less: Senior Exemption ($5,000 Per Unit) - 10% of units $107,000 $96,000 $75,000 Less: Current Property EAV $18,459 $18,459 $18,459 Incremental EAV $34,323,839 $32,221,008 $28,014,845 Taxing Authority Tax Rate 214 Plan 192 Plan 150 Plan District 125 3.004332%$1,031,202 $968,026 $841,659 District 102 3.729750%$1,280,193 $1,201,763 $1,044,884 Park District 0.516858%$177,406 $166,537 $144,797 Village 0.955324%$327,904 $307,815 $267,633 Total Incremental Property Tax $2,816,705 $2,644,141 $2,298,972 New Property Taxes Upon Stabilization Number of Units Total Market Value Weighted Average Market Value 214 unit plan 192 unit plan 150 unit plan Stabilized Demographic Impact No of Additional Elementary School Age Children 85 78 89 Annual Stabilized Property Tax Revenues $1,280,193 $1,201,763 $1,044,884 Stabilized Annual Revenues (Property Tax & Other Income)$1,315,252.00 $1,234,070.00 $1,080,114.00 Stabilized Operating Expenses ($1,147,925.00)($1,053,390.00)($1,201,945.00) Stabilized Annual Fiscal Impact $167,327.00 $180,680.00 ($121,831.00) 1. District 102 Op Expenses based on 13,505 per pupil District 102 2.2.b Packet Pg. 29 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 2.2.b Packet Pg. 30 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) green creek to remain creekside path detention naturalized area detention naturalized area detention naturalized area proposed park addition space hoa green space hoa green space hoa green space hoa green space hoa green space hoa bu f f a l o g r o v e r o a d ironwood courtsatinwood terrace chestnut terrace hoffmann drive meridian middle jordan terrace row dedication brandywyn lane existing park existing ROW olive hill drive 10 9 28 3 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 4 3 5 5 4 3 5 5 9 5 school ±247 '±250 '60 ' 4 green space hoa 9 11 park churchill R-6A Lottrail bridge R-9 Lot 'link crossing' 60 ' 1st floor bedroom option 50 ' 55 ' 25 ' 12' 12' 6' covered porch zone 6' lot line internal lot line internal privacy area 15 ' 15 ' 5 ' -typical 20' shared drive 40 ' 20 ' 40' 10' 20 ' 20' side to side (not shown) 6 Site Layout Scale: 1"= 80'-0" North site ± 48.8internal rownet site area calcs Site Data gross density 3.9 residential unitssingle family / cluster hometownhome - 2 storyrowhome-3story 192 0 59133 parking single familytownhome - 2 storyrowhome - 3 story 118266 118-2146 -82 total - 257394 ratio - 4.362.96 gross site ± 50.0 acperimeter row ± 1.2 acsite ± 48.8 ac site data open space ± 14.3 ac ±2.1ac ±22.7 2.6 ±26.1 5.1 R-6a R-9total site single family multi-family net density 4.8 3.2 6.0 ga r a g e ap r o n of f - s t r e e t on - s t r e e t building coverage 16.6 assuming 100% largest footprint 59 @ 2780 sf ac ac ac ac ac %22.3 133 @ 1910 sf %19.7 % lot area 2,400 sfna--requiredmin.- provided ± 8,500 sf Single Family Detail Scale: 1"= 40'-0" Townhome Detail Scale: 1"= 40'-0" ---- ±4,600sfgrossnetnot incl ROW nor detn ±8.4 ±4.3 ±4.1ac ac ac±40.4 ±18.4 ±22.0ac -openspace/detention ± 11.5ac-percentage 29 % (bldg cover / gross site) -parkdedication ±0.7ac-parkexpansion-bikepath ±2.8ac (14.3/48.8) 2.2.b Packet Pg. 31 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) green creek to remain creekside path detention naturalized area detention naturalized area detention naturalized area proposed park addition space hoa green space hoa green space hoa green space hoa green space hoa green space hoa bu f f a l o g r o v e r o a d hoffmann drive meridian middle jordan terrace row dedication brandywyn lane existing park existing ROW olive hill drive 10 9 28 3 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 4 3 5 5 4 3 5 5 9 5 school 40 ' ±247 '±250 '60 ' 4 green space hoa 9 11 20 'park churchill R-6A Lottrail bridge R-9 Lot 'link crossing' E-1 Landscape Layout Scale: 1"= 80'-0" North Detail C-1 Detail E-3 Detail D-1 Detail C-3 Detail A-3 Detail D-3 Detail E-2 Detail D-2 Detail B-5 2.2.b Packet Pg. 32 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 9 3 Landscape Berm Ornamental Tree Tables + Arbor Grass Matrix A Evergreen Tree Poplar Grove Oaks Flowering Hedge Shade Tree Perennials Lawn Grass Matrix A Flowering Shub Poplar Mass Perennials Perennials Tables+ Arbor Ornamental Tree Grass Matrix A Benches Perennials Street TreeLawn Park Expansion Lawn Benches Perennials Grass Matrix A Poplar Grove 1 2 Accent Pier BenchesPerennials Flowering Shrub Columnar Tree Lawn Evergreen Shrub Lawn Perennials Flowering Shrub Ornamental Tree Ornamental Tree Accent Pier Flowering Shrub Perennials Grass Matrix A Grass Matrix B Poplar Mass Poplar Mass Evergreen Tree Grass Matrix A Lawn Grass Matrix A Flowering Shub Poplar Mass Perennials Perennials Perennials Accent Pier Flowering Shrub Street Tree Evergreen Tree Grass Matrix A Ornamental Tree Existing ParkPark Expansion Benches Perennials Entry Sign Lawn Street Tree Flowering Shrub Poplar Mass Evergreen Tree Ornamental Tree Grass Matrix A Matrix B Grass Matrix A Grass Stone to Match BldgsMetalSignMetalCap 0'-0" 4'-6" 8'-0" Internal Light Entry Sign Accent Pier5'-6" Metal CapInternalLigh WindyCityHackberryCeltis occidentalis 'Windy City' Common NameBotanic Name Autumn Gold GinkgoGinkgo biloba 'Autumn Gold'GA 8' Ht. BB Morton ElmUlmus x 'Morton' Common NameBotanic Name UM Norway SprucePicea abiesPA sym sym CO Thornless HawthornCrataegus crus-galli 'Inermis'CI Quaking AspenPopulus tremuloidesPT Swamp White OakQuercus bicolorQB 3" BB 2.5" BB 2.5" BB 2" BB 8-12' BB 8' Ht. BB - - NotesSize multi-ste uniform multi-ste 8' Ht. BBAmerican HornbeamCarpinus carolinianaCC multi-ste - David CrabappleMalus 'David'MD 8' Ht. BB multi-ste - K2 Chewings Fescue Reliant IV Hard Fescue J5 Chewings Fescue .15 .10 Audubon Creeping Red Fescue .20 Rescue 911 Hard Fescue .10 Aruba Slender Red Fescue .20 MarcoPoloSheepFescue .15 .10 Tall Fescue - 10lbs per 1000 sf %Matrix A Marmo MapleAcer x fremanii 'Marmo' London PlanetreePlatanus x acerifolia 'Morton Circle' SweetgumLiquidambar styraciflua CO 3" BB LS 2.5" BB PA 3" BB Tilia americana American Linden 3" BBTA Iroquois Beauty ChokeberryAronia melanocarpa 'Morton'AI Gold Flame SpireaSpiraea japonica 'Gold Flame'SG 24" BB 30" BB Tardiva HydrangeaHydrangea paniculata 'Tardiva'HT 24" BBMorton SweetspireItea virginica 'Morton'IV 24" BB Gro Low SumacRhus aromatica 'Gro Low'RA 3' BB Viburnum x 'Juddii'VJ Judd Viburnum 4' BB Annabelle HydrangeaHydrangea arborescens 'Annabelle'HA 3' BB Morton Shining SumacRhus copallina latifolia 'Morton'RC 18" BB Viburnum dentatum 'Ralph Senior'VD Autumn Jazz Arrowwood 3' BB Compact JuniperJuniperus x media "Kallay's Compact'JC 18" BB Glencoe BoxwoodBuxus x 'Glencoe'BG 18" BB Southerrn Bush HoneysuckleDiervilla sessilifolia 'Butterfly'DS 24" BB Black ChokeberryAronia melanocarpaAR 3' BB Vernal WithchazelHamamelis vernalisHV 24" BB Dwarf Korean LilacSyringa meyeri 'Palibin'SM Mt Airy Dwarf FothergillaFothergilla x intermedia 'Mt Airy'FG 24" BB 3' BB Gold Flame SpireaSpiraea japonica 'Gold Flame'SG 18" BB Summer Beauty OnionAllium 'Summer Beauty'asb mst Ostrich FernMatteuccia struthiopteris Hummelo BetonyStachys officinalis 'Hummelo'soh #1Cont. Seslaria autumnalis #1Cont. #2Cont. Green Carpet PachysandraPachysandra terminalis 'Green Carpet' ssc #1Cont. Carousel Little BluestemSchizachyrium scoparium 'Carousel' #1 Cont. Black-Eyed Susanrus Rudbeckia fulgida 'Goldsturm Elegans HostaHosta sieboldiana 'Elegans'hse #1Cont. Narcissus 'Tahiti' + 'Jack Snipe Fireworks GoldenrodSolidago rugosa 'Fireworks'srf #1Cont. Neon Sedum sea bsp Zagreb TickseedCoreopsis verticillata 'Zagreb'cvz #1Cont. Chicago Apache DaylillyHemerocallis 'Chicago Apache'hca BulbDaffodil mix #1Cont. ssn Sedum spectable 'Neon' nam ptg Yellow False IndigoBaptisia sphaerocarpa White CranesbillGeranium sanguineum 'Album'gsa #1Cont. White Purple ConeflowerEchinacea purpurea 'Virgin'epv pac Pennisetum alopecuroides "Cassian' Cassian Fountain Grass #2Cont.blr Lavender Rose False IndigoBaptisia 'Lavender Rose' #2Cont.Rocket LigulariaLigularia stenocephala 'Rocket'lsr Blue Ice BluestarAmsonia 'Blue Ice'abi #1Cont. nep Nepeta subsessilis 'Cool Cat' # 1 Cont.Cool Cat Catmint #1Cont. Repeating Yellow DaylillyHemerocallis 'Happy Returns'hhr Red AstilbeAstilbe 'Red Sentinel'ars #1Cont. Guacamole HostaHosta 'Guacamole'hgu #1Cont. 10" oc - 4" pots #1Cont. Sweet WoodruffGalium oderatumgao #1Cont. #1Cont. #1Cont. Autumn Moor Grass # 1 Cont. #1Cont. Phlox paniculata ' Blue Paradise'pbp #1Cont. Size Common NameBotanic Namesym Size Pink TurtleheadChelone lyonii 'Hot Lips'clh #1Cont. Little Spire Russian Sage Blue Paradise Phlox #1Cont. Black Hills SprucePicea glauca 'Black Hills'PG 8' Ht. BB uniform See Civil Drawings Naturalized DetentionMatrix B Grass Grass Perovskia atriplicifolia 'Little Spire'pls Flowering HedgeOrnamentalTree Evergreen ShrubPerennials Flowering Shrub Access Drive Lawn Parkway Evergreen Hedge Perennials Flowering Shrub PerennialsEvergreen Shrub Shade Tree Lawn Lawn Evergreen TreeShrub MassGrass Matrix AShade TreeOrnamental Tree Cu r b 8' B i k e P a t h privacy area Letter cut-out -Internally lit Metal Sign Accent gloss panel 14" 10'-6" 18" 12'-0" E-1 Entry Detail Scale: 1"= 10'-0" D-1 Lawn Detail Scale: 1"= 40'-0" North C-1 Interior Detail Scale: 1"= 40'-0" North C-3 Buffalo Grove Sign Scale: 1"= 40'-0" North A-3 Satinwood Entry Scale: 1"= 40'-0" North D-3 Ironwood Entry Scale: 1"= 40'-0" North E-3 Olive Hill Entry Scale: 1"= 40'-0" North E-6 Plant ListE-2 Townhome Layout Scale: 1"= 30'-0" D-2 Rowhome Layout Scale: 1"= 30'-0" B-5 Single Family Scale: 1"= 30'-0" North Foundation Layout Foundation Layout Foundation Layout C-2 Sign Detail Scale: 1"= 5'-0" (Void - No Longer Applicable) 2.2.b Packet Pg. 33 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 2.2.b Packet Pg. 34 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) Buffalo Grove, Illinois Link Crossing 400'200'0 100' Job No. 15036 November 22, 2017 2017 Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005 © 43 South Vail Avenue Street Layo ut North p ub lic street p rivate street p rivate service d rive 2.2.b Packet Pg. 35 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) Buffalo Grove, Illinois Link Crossing 400'200'0 100' Job No. 15036 November 22, 2017 2017 Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005 © 43 South Vail Avenue Walk Layout North p rivate walk p ub lic b ike path p ark d istric t p ath p ub lic walk 2.2.b Packet Pg. 36 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) RANCH #1 1,923 SQ. FT. A SIDE REAR B C 2.2.b Packet Pg. 37 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) RANCH #2 2,177 SQ. FT. A SIDE REAR B C 2.2.b Packet Pg. 38 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) CAPE COD 2,466 SQ. FT. A SIDE REAR B C 2.2.b Packet Pg. 39 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) TRADITIONAL 2-STORY #1 2,933 SQ. FT. A SIDE REAR B C 2.2.b Packet Pg. 40 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) TRADITIONAL 2-STORY #2 3,214 SQ. FT. A SIDE REAR B C 2.2.b Packet Pg. 41 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) RANCH #2 ALT. 2,177 SQ. FT. A SIDE REAR B C 2.2.b Packet Pg. 42 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) TWO STORY TOWNHOMES REAR SIDE 2.2.b Packet Pg. 43 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 2.2.b Packet Pg. 44 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 2.2.b Packet Pg. 45 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 2.2.b Packet Pg. 46 At t a c h m e n t : 1 2 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 P u b l i c H e a r i n g P l a n s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 04/5/2017 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, APRIL 5, 2017 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Commissioner Eric Smith Public Hearings/Items For Consideration 1. Consider Approval of a Rezoning to R6A and R9 Planned Development with Variations for the Link Crossing Subdivision Located on the Vacant 50 Acres South of Brandywine Lane, West of Meridian Way and East of Buffalo Grove Road (16802 W Aptakisic Road) (Trustee Berman) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Lawrence Freedman, James Truesdale, John Isherwood, Randall Wilt, Zorn Melatinavic, Javier Milan, Mark Korinski, Steve Kaminski were sworn in. The petitioner introduced the case. Mr. Truesdale gave introductory remarks and an overview of the plan. Mr. Korinski reviewed the site plan and details. Mr. Isherwood detailed the marketing needs for the development. The architecture was also reviewed. Mr. Stilling said that School District 102 has tentetively accepted the terms of the impact fee agreement. A lot of the plans for the Prairie Grove Park were done at the recommendation of the Park District. Commissioner Goldspiel asked what a pickleball court was. The petitioner said that it was a small court that uses a small wiffleball-type ball. Mr. Stilling said that bike paths and pickleball courts were requests by the Park District. Commissioner Goldspiel asked what the maintenance fee for the units would be. The petitioner said that the two and three story homes would be a few hundred dollars per month as they would take care of roofs, siding, etc. The single-family home fees would be lower to go toward landscaping and related maintenance. Commissioner Goldspiel did not note any place for maintenance equipment. The petitioner is partnered with a management company that would manage this with the Association once formed. Most of the equipment will be held offsite. Commissioner Cesario asked about the 18 conditions listed in the Staff Report. The petitioner said that this had been discussed with Staff; he hoped to still discuss vinyl siding with Staff. Beyond that, conditions were acceptable. He also hoped the architecture would be included as part of the annexation agreement to speed the process. Mr. Stilling responded that he did not believe vinyl siding had been approved for other residential projects in recent history. He also had some concerns about elevations. He wanted to get Commission feedback on these matters. Mr. Stilling and the petitioner agreed to continue working together on this. Commissioner Cesario said that the off-driveway parking options had improved. Condition L addressed this, and he asked if this was a broad or narrow issue. Mr. Stilling 2.2.c Packet Pg. 47 At t a c h m e n t : 4 - 5 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 04/5/2017 said that there was some potential conflict with the largest fire truck; however, these templates would be revised so proper signage could be posted. This would be consistent with Village Code. Commissioner Lesser asked the petitioner to walk him through the ingress and egress points. The petitioner reviewed the access on Buffalo Grove Road by Churchill Park. The southern access points would be developed as needed with the development of the future commercial parcel. Commissioner Lesser asked about the pedestrian walkways and bike paths. The petitioner reviewed both, which were incorporated with throughout the site and under the guidance of the Park District. Commissioner Lesser said that all of the townhomes and row homes had direct access to sidewalks; however, not all of the cluster homes had direct access to sidewalks. There was some discussion regarding this issue. Commissioner Moodhe asked if the private walks would be concrete. The petitioner said that the 8-foot bike paths would be asphalt; everything else would be concrete. Commissioner Moodhe said that the price point was getting closer to higher-end homes. The petitioner said that these types of products were successful in neighboring properties. There was some discussion regarding the architecture and elevations as well. Commissioner Moodhe asked if the impact fee would fluctuate. The petitioner said yes that this was based on the number of bedrooms in the unit. The School District and Park District received an explanation of how these impact fees vary by bedroom size. Commissioner Moodhe asked Mr. Monaco asked if any of the homes would end up in a floodplain. Mr. Monaco said that no, the homes would be elevated out of the fl oodplain. Commissioner Khan discussed the exhibit showcasing the bike paths and walkways, which indicated which bike paths were public vs private. He said that the average homeowner would not know the difference of which sidewalks belong to whom. He felt that this would create confusion particularly for landscaping and snow plow. The petitioner said that there would be covenants that spell out ownership. Mr. Stilling added that a similar situation had happened with the Easton Townhomes, and there would be agreements as part of the closing on a home. There was discussion of including the map as part of the covenants to help clarify this issue. Commissioner Khan asked if there were any wetlands on the site. The petitioner showed where wetlands were located and confirmed that the Army Corps of Engineers had jurisdiction over this. It was determined that there was no impact on the wetlands though. There was some discussion regarding instructions for maintenance to the Homeowners Association. The petitioner said that this was a requirement for the permit process. Commissioner Khan asked about the traffic report as he thought this was a part of a bigger report. Mr. Milan agreed and said he just gave the commission what was needed. Commissioner Khan asked for clarification on what table was for existing conditions and 2.2.c Packet Pg. 48 At t a c h m e n t : 4 - 5 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 04/5/2017 which one was for once the development was complete. There was some discussion regarding the plans for Buffalo Grove Road. Commissioner Weinstein said that the overall conclusion was that with 200 u nits, there would be minimal impact on Brandywye and Olive Hill. Prairie Road intersection with Olive Hill had a typographical error on the increase in delay. There was some discussion on impacts on Buffalo Grove Road. Commissioner Weinstein asked about the standards of variations. The petitioner said that there was a supplement for the standards not addressed. The supplement was reviewed for the commission. Commissioner Goldspiel asked about clustering to provide more open space. He said that the open space was naturalized detention area and asked how clustering helps since detention could not be used. The petitioner said that this was used as passive space and that they worked on this open space with the Park District. Chairman Smith entered the staff report as Exhibit One. (Meeting break for five minutes.) Mike Weisner (156 Ironside Court) thanked the Board and Village for their work. He asked about what the impact would be on existing neighbors. He was also concerned that this was being marketed to the over 55 demographic; he did not think three-story townhomes would be good for this market. He also asked about the main entrance along Brandywyn and how this would have a minimal impact. The Buffalo Grove Road improvement was not scheduled until 2020 or 2021 as of now. He did not feel that there was safe and moveable traffic there now. Currently, activity at Meridian School creates back ups (especially for parking) to Ironwood Court. The environment study did not seem take into consideration the mature trees and the animal habitats by the creek that would be disrupted. He liked the paths but felt that they were not connected to other paths. Mr. Weisner asked where the snow went when it was plowed. He was also concerned about park accessibility. He said that the market value of the homes start at $390,000, and this would put it at a different market than what is being proposed. He did not understand how the numbers worked out for students within the School District. Keith Donaldson (89 Chestnut Terrace) said that he did not feel that there was enough notice about the public hearing. He also said that notices were only sent out to the area immediate surrounding the development, but he felt it would affect the entire Stevenson School District. He said that the selling price was for Buffalo Grove in totality, and he noted that there was a stark difference between those north and south of Lake-Cook Road. He said that the three-story units were on the marketing near Park City, Utah for up to 16 months because he was told “stairs don’t sell”. He said that this elevation and high density did not fit in the area. He liked the green area, but he felt that a lot of it was floodplain that could not be built on anyway. He noted that his calculations show this development to be four homes per acre, but his numbers show six homes per acre if you take unusable space into account. He asked that this be looked at more closely. He said when older retirees leave, generally they do not stay in this high-tax area. He felt that this development would be more attractive to those looking to get into the schools. Regarding the maintenance fees, he did not feel that a fee of “a few hundred dollars” was incorrect 2.2.c Packet Pg. 49 At t a c h m e n t : 4 - 5 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 04/5/2017 and asked if this would be examined. He briefly also addressed the speed of vehicles in the area. Albert Modahue (197 Hoffman) said that he did not disagree with developing this property, but it had to be done responsibly. He did not feel that this should be zoned with the proposed zoning district as this was too much with too l ittle input from the public. He also had not seen any information from the school. He had concerns about credit being sought for handling water runoff. He believed that these homes would be more attractive to parents with school-aged kids than those of retirement age. He thought that either an age restriction be added or flexibility be given if the market assumptions were wrong. He noted that Pulte gave a sizeable donation was given to the Park District. Now he did not understand how that parcel could be given away for land improvements. This was the first opportunity that the Easthaven group had had to review the documents and comment. Kyle Olson (738 Aspen) said that he did not live in the area but was a potential buyer. He said that these surrounding areas have begun to look less attractive because of this plan. This was such a different property than those around it. He said that this plan had been in development for a while without public input. He also briefly discussed the markets being targeted. Regarding the Homeowners Association, he agreed that this would likely get expensive. He liked the idea of maintenance-free living, but he did not think this was going to be available for a reasonable price. He said that the walkability score was low and would not attract millennials. He spoke about the student impact and noted that a previous meeting had requested that the numbers for the School District be reviewed again. He also did not believe that the exterior elements justified the projected house price. Mr. Weisner asked why the main entrance was aligned with Ironwood Court as it did not seem to match. He asked if the cul-de-sacs were big enough for fire engines or garbage trucks. Mr. Stilling said that the firetrucks were larger and these sizes did mee t the specifications needed. There was brief discussion regarding sidewalks. Mr. Weisner said that the median home price in Buffalo Grove was $313,000, and these homes were slated to start above that. He did not know how this was going to be monitored or restricted. He was concerned about the density and school impact numbers being accurate. Chris Donaldson (89 Chestnut Terrace) asked about the three-story townhomes and asked about what safety concerns without fences on these properties. Julie Lavar (2038 Jordan Terrace) said that in a previous property, she had had problems with investor ownership in a multi-family home unit. She wanted to also ask about not only road traffic but construction traffic. To the Park District, she said she thought Didier Farms was going to grow. To the School District, she said she agreed that the school numbers needed to be examined more closely. Robbie Young (50 Carlyle) said that traffic had been mentioned Prairie and Buffalo Grove Road and asked if there was going to be a light. She said that to get down Brandywyn at school time is backed up already. She also said that three-story townhomes in the neighborhood would affect the value of neighboring homes. As a realtor, she gave her opinions. 2.2.c Packet Pg. 50 At t a c h m e n t : 4 - 5 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 04/5/2017 Erik Brennan (191 Hoffman Drive) said that these new homes with families would come in but there was less park space to play. He was concerned about the neighborhood park being used for a destination park. Kathy Arvanitakis (401 English Oak Terrace) said that people walk along the retention area with their dogs. She could see this area from her kitchen window and enjoyed the view. Looking at this area with taller grass and backed by three-story townhomes was disappointing. She said that this did not fit with the character of the neighborhood and wanted to know why the plan with 120 homes was not looked at more closely. Ronnie Sharma (2013 Olive Hill Drive) said that they had been used to low traffic flow and was concerned about a lot more traffic on Olive Hill and around the park. When she had brought up concerns with the Park District several years ago, she was told that when the Links Farms area this developed, resident input would be obtained. Regarding the kids in parks, she was okay with one pickleball court and the rest of the space be dedicated towards tennis courts or basketball courts. Regarding parking, this was becoming a destination park. The toddler park would have to be expanded if more kids were added to the area. She was also upset about a sidewalk planned to be going through the current soccer field. She reiterated concerns about additional children and additional traffic. Keith Donaldson (89 Chestnut Terrace) said that most millennials do not want to live in this type of area until they have children. As an avid biker, he said that small bike paths that do not go anywhere do not do anything for the bikers. Albert Modahue (197 Hoffman) said that it was 11pm, and he felt that this matter be tabled for the evening to get answers to the substantive questions. Kyle Olson (738 Aspen) said that he preferred not having private roads as this becomes a bigger problem for the residents. Jeff Braiman (26 Canterbury) said that this did not affect his home, and over the period of planning for this parcel, he knew this was an important property about how it would be developed. This had been planned as single family detached homes with larger lots. He said that private streets were rarely allowed because it was a maintenance problem, and it did cause confusion. There was some discussion regarding parking being allowed in the cul-de-sacs, and he also wanted to include sidewalks. He said his main point was that the proposal was too dense and was requesting too many variations on the smallest lots the Village grants. He reviewed the Comprehensive Plan for this area in the past, and he knew that there were slight changes. However, this was too dense. He also said that he had heard that there was a lack of senior housing options in Buffalo Grove, so he thought that there was a benefit to the Village residents and school districts. He also briefly mentioned open space. He reiterated to the audience to come to the Village Board as well. He liked this builder and knew this plan worked well for them, but it was important to be beneficial to the Village as well. Katie Mark (1920 Prairie Road) asked about how many accidents had occurred around Brandywyn and Buffalo Grove Road. She did not believe that 214 more households in 2.2.c Packet Pg. 51 At t a c h m e n t : 4 - 5 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 04/5/2017 this area would help with that situation. Easthaven was supposed to be developed for multi-generational homes, and she asked if more students were added to the school districts from the Easthaven development than expected. She said that her family sold property to create Easthaven, and at that time there were a lot of conversations about the park space. There were talks about the Comprehensive Plan and land was given for park space. She feels the park is not big enough given this new development, and she wants more park land. Bill Paradise (417 English Oak Terrace) said that he lived across from Buffalo Grove Road, and he did not want to look out at three-story townhomes. He said that this would alter the character of the neighborhood which was one of the conditions listed in the packet. He was concerned about the amount of kids and traffic because on his small cul- de-sac, he felt it averaged two cars per house, and at least one child per house when it was built. Chairman Smith said that there was a list of questions to be answered and recommended continuing this to the next meeting. Moved by Com. Goldspiel, seconded by Com. Khan, to continue the public hearing to April 19, 2017. RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 4/19/2017 12:00 AM MOVER: Stephen Goldspiel, Commissioner SECONDER: Zill Khan, Commissioner AYES: Smith, Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Weinstein ABSENT: Amy Au 2.2.c Packet Pg. 52 At t a c h m e n t : 4 - 5 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 04/19/2017 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, APRIL 19, 2017 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Commissioner Eric Smith Public Hearings/Items For Consideration 1. Consider Approval of a Rezoning to R6A and R9 Planned Development for the Link Crossing Subdivision (Continued from the April 5, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting) (Trustee Berman) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Lawrence Freedman, James Truesdell, Jon Isherwood, Eric Russell, Steven Kaminski, Mark Kurensky, Randall Wilt and Zoran Milutinovic, were present and sworn in. Mr. Freedman advising that they have not made any modifications to the proposed development. They are looking to get feedback from both the Commission and the public prior to making any modifications. He addressed a major concern that was discussed at the last meeting concerning the Park District. Originally, the Park District had asked for a land donation for bike trails and a cash donation to improve Prairie Grove Park. Since the last meeting, the Park District has changed their position and have requested land donation for bike trails and an expansion of Prairie Grove Park. Based upon the feedback received, the plans will be modified to address comments. Mr. Truesdell clarified a few issues that were raised at the previous meeting. He compared the three story townhomes to the Easton Station Townhomes since height was an issue. They are not asking for any variations for the height of the three story townhomes. They are within the allowable code. He addressed the comments concerning the lack of similar developments in the area. He advised that Easton Station is very similar as well as many other developments located in adjacent communities. He reiterated Mr. Freedman’s comments concerning the park and finally he addressed the concerns about the schools. They have negotiated with the School Districts and will be providing an additional acre of detention in addition to the cash donations. Mr. Stilling advised that the proposed plan will likely change. Once the Village has received a revised plan, it will be made available to the public the Friday prior to the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Com. Goldspiel referenced the traffic study and stated that he did not see a proposed traffic light at either end of the development and asked how traffic man agement will be addressed. Mr. Russell explained that the traffic volumes today do not warrant a traffic signal. The widening of Buffalo Grove Road will make a difference. He acknowledged that there will be delays during the rush hour on Brandywyn Lane. However, the lights on Buffalo Grove Road will create gaps that will allow traffic to exit onto Buffalo Grove Road. He does not believe that the back ups will be significant. Com. Goldspiel asked how many cars represent 75 feet. Mr. Russell responded three t o four cars. Com. Goldspiel asked if the lights could be timed to create better gaps. Mr. Russell responded that he will have to look at them. The lights may be on different systems. He advised that residents could always take Brandywyn Lane to Prairie Roa d. 2.2.d Packet Pg. 53 At t a c h m e n t : 4 - 1 9 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 04/19/2017 Com. Cesario commented on some of the highlighted issues. The aging population is typically looking for a smaller home with a master bedroom on the first floor. He understands that the proposed development will not be age-restricted. A master on the first floor is appealing to this demographic and rare in Buffalo Grove. The proposed R9 zoning is common in Buffalo Grove. R6 zoning allows for the smallest single family lot size. Under this proposed development, owners will have minimal maintenance as it w ill be a maintenance-free community. The R6A zoning does not detract him from this proposal. The green space views make sense. There is ample dedicated parking throughout the proposed development. Sidewalks and bike paths are also throughout, except in the cul-de-sacs. He recommends adding some sort of sidewalks around the cul- de-sacs. Regarding the school districts, there is always worry when adding a large number of homes within the districts. The school districts acknowledged that this project will have a positive financial impact. The developer is currently working with the Park District on proposed changes. The three story townhomes look like an urban product in a suburban setting. The developers point on the proposed building height is a good one. He compared this proposed project to other developments along Buffalo Grove Road. Overall he believes the developer did a good job. He still struggles to see how this project will work with the existing neighborhoods. He suggested scaling the proposal down to more closely match what is in the area surrounding it. Or he would prefer to see samples of what the development will look like to the surrounding neighborhoods. Regarding traffic, he suspects that during peak times it will be more impactful. Regarding pricing, retirees downsize and the pricing is high for this type of product. Com. Lesser does not buy into the traffic study’s conclusions. He drops off and picks up his children and has seen cars stacked with small gaps in traffic. His experiences are not consistent with what is being represented. He advised that the traffic impact must be looked at very careful and believes that this proposed development will have a significant impact on both the traffic and schools. He recommended incorporating traffic sig nals into the plan. Com. Khan advised Mr. Russell that he was at the site around 7:15 p.m. to see the traffic conditions. There were three cars stacked behind him while he was attempting to turn left onto the Buffalo Grove Road from Brandywyn Lane. He waited between 30 and 45 seconds to turn. He stated that the traffic study is based on current traffic and does not account for the increased traffic of the proposed development or any future development of the vacant land to the south. He agrees with the comments made by the other Commissioners. He believes a future traffic signal will be required. He asked Mr. Russell if he had any knowledge of future road projects to be done by the County. Mr. Russell responded that he is only aware of the future widenings of that section of Buffalo Grove Road. The County will not install a traffic signal until it is required. Even projecting out to 2020, the traffic counts would not warrant the installation of a traffic signal. The Village can re-visit the traffic counts in the future. Com. Khan asked if Mr. Russell had contact the local Police Department to obtain the accident information used in the study. Mr. Russell advised that he gets the information from the State. Com. Khan suggested that the developer contribute toward a future traffic signal or for future road improvements and not to place the responsibility upon the Village. Com. Khan advised Mr. Truesdell that he is not a fan of private roads or private sidewalks. After many years when the roads and sidewalks start to need maintenance, the Homeowners Association will end up at the Village asking for the Village to take over responsibility. That puts the Village between a rock and a hard place. He does not support the private roads and sidewalks. Regarding the anticipated HOA dues, an average two bedroom condominium costs approximately $275.00 to $325.00/month. He does not see the HOA fees to be less than $400.00/month. Mr. Isherwood stated that the cul de sacs will not be as wide as Village 2.2.d Packet Pg. 54 At t a c h m e n t : 4 - 1 9 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 04/19/2017 streets. He asked Com. Khan to clarify what he is asking. Com. Khan would like the streets to meet Village code. Com. Khan advised Mr. Milutinovic that people want their children to go to Buffalo Grove schools. He has a hard believing the estimated number of school children that this development would generate. He compared the current proposal to the alternative in the Comprehensive Plan which consists of single family home subdivision. Mr. Isherwood responded that a subdivision with 120 single family homes would be a different kind of development. The demand will be for 3,000 to 4,000 square foot homes with four bedrooms. Com. Khan advised that the report also indicates that the Village would lose approximately $6 million dollars over 20 years if the 120 homes development was pursued. Com. Cohn understands the need to build for an aging population, but you also get what you build for. The Comprehensive Plan called for single family home development. This project does not meet the Comprehensive Plan. The project needs to harmonize with the surrounding neighborhoods, which this project does not do. A single family home development would provide for the sense of a community. Purchasers of single family homes will put their roots down and take pride in their community. He doesn’t feel the proposed development would attract a people that would take pride in the community. He believes this property should reflect what is called for in the Comprehensive Plan. He also agrees with the other Commissioners concerning the traffic impacts. He stated that there has been no testimony in support of the proposed development. Com. Moodhe addressed Mr. Russell with regards to the traffic study. He was in the area at 7:30 a.m. and the cars trying to cross Buffalo Grove Road looked like a game of Frogger. The traffic study did not take into account the future development of the remaining vacant land either. From 6:00 p.m. to 6:40 p.m. there is a dramatic increase in traffic in this area. Most people that leave work at 5:00 p.m. are just arriving home. Mr. Russell stated that the study reviewed traffic from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. He also advised that the traffic on Brandywyn Lane is what will warrant whether a traffic light can be installed at that location. Com. Moodhe noted that if traffic backs up on Aptakisic Road and Buffalo Grove Road, traffic will cut through on Brandywyn Lane. The projections and the facts differ. He also still has issues with the density and the architecture. He is trying to visualize what it will look like. When traveling south on Buffalo Grove Road, the three story townhomes will be right in your face. He suggested possibly breaking the project down into two communities. Based on the acreage, there may be a possible loss of units. However, he is fine with that. Com. Weinstein noted that even with a 120 single-family homes development, there will still be an impact on the traffic. Mr. Monico stated that the requirements to install a traffic signal are based on Federal requirements. Mr. Stilling stated that the Village could ask the developer for a donation to recoup costs for a future traffic signal. Com. Weinstein understands that the requirements to install a traffic signal are not under the Village’s control. However, it’s all about the density. He has not had an issue with the th ree story townhomes. He believes the east side of the proposed development is too dense. He addressed Com. Cohn’s comment regarding no testimony in support of the project by indicating that people only come out when they object to something and typically n ot when they support it. He also believes that traffic will be a problem. Com. Au agrees with Com. Weinstein. The property should be developed according to the Comprehensive Plan. She would like for the developer to provide studies of longevity of residents in townhomes. 2.2.d Packet Pg. 55 At t a c h m e n t : 4 - 1 9 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 04/19/2017 Com. Goldspiel also agrees with Commissioners Khan, Cohn and Weinstein. The project has constraints around traffic control and water management. The proposed development does not adhere to the Comprehensive Plan. This is a very high density development. Regarding zoning, it is not the Village’s intent to build under the “A” classifications. He likes the architecture but is troubled by the three story townhomes. Stairs are a problem for seniors. Private roads are not a good idea. This does not meet the intent of clustering. The two story townhomes could use more space. Com. Lesser stated that the developer has been provided comments and feedback. The current proposed plan is very similar to what the Commission had first seen during the workshops. There are concerns with density and this development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning & Zoning Commission’s role is to do what’s best for the community. The Village envisioned a traditional residential development for this land. He agrees with many of the other Commissioners’ comments. He also does not like the private roads. The data presented in the traffic study does not seem accurate. He would like to see a more traditional residential subdivision with a small mix of townhomes. Ch. Smith asked about the type of customers they anticipate to attract. Mr. Isherwood responded the 19 to 34 year of age range. They are open to limiting the number of investor purchases and the number of units any one purchaser buys, in addition to limiting the number units to be used as rentals. They looked at the ownership history in the Mirielle and Tenerife Subdivisions. People today have different demands then before. Ch. Smith asked staff to generate a limit on the number of rentals. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. Ch. Smith entertained questions and comments from the audience. Multiple people in the audience stood to speak. Ch. Smith sworn them in. Mr. Elliott Hartstein, 908 Providence Lane, advised that this is the last big piece of land to infill. He believes that the proposed development is a beautiful development, but is it a good development as presented. It does not follow the Comprehensive Plan. His biggest concern is the density. He is concerned about the make up of the development. This location is not suitable for three story townhomes. He is concerned about the private roads. They need to create more open space. Mike Garfield, 2118 Jordan Terrace, believes that 214 units will have an impact of traffic. 214 units does not make sense. There are narrow roads and no sidewalks. The occupants of the three story townhomes will not be able to get out except for on Brandywyn Lane. The 120 single family home development makes more sense for both traffic impacts and the schools. Marc Benjoya, 2071 Wright Boulevard, believes that Buffalo Grove is a community that likes open space and the developer should not create density for economic gain. The proposed development impacts safety from Buffalo Grove Roa d to Brandywyn Lane to Meridian. Where is all the traffic going to go? The Comprehensive Plan calls for contiguousity. Less density will benefit all. He asked if the developer has the First Right of Refusal for the remaining Didier property. The development will create safety concerns and traffic concerns. Michael Lessner, 156 Ironwood Court, lives across from the proposed main entrance. He is concerned with the traffic flow. He asked for Stevenson High School to not allow front 2.2.d Packet Pg. 56 At t a c h m e n t : 4 - 1 9 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 04/19/2017 door drop off. He asked about splitting the traffic access to two or three different spots. He asked about the connection of the bike paths. He is concerned with the environmental impact the proposed development would have on wildlife on the proposed site. He advised that he talked to the Didier family and they want to continue to operate in Buffalo Grove. He believes that the Comprehensive Plan should be followed. Anthony Kruschel, 2322 Magnolia Court East, does not like the look of the proposed townhomes. He believes they look like apartment buildings. He suggested putting a ten foot high berm and landscaping along Meridian. Ellen Ross, School District 102 Board President, stated that the school board does not express support for or against any development, including this one. She clarified information to Com. Lesser concerning the changes that will be made to the schools. She advised that the school is expanding as a result of several development and current expansions efforts would occur with or without the project. Steven Lefar, 2038 Jordan Terrace, moved in to his home in 2001. There were many investors and rentals at that time. People were constantly moving in and out. He does not believe the student calculations are correct. He does not believe that people will pay $400,000 for a home with $10,000 in taxes to downsize. He met with the original developer of this property and students were projected to be 125, not 85. He is concerned with the construction traffic that will be generated. He did not see construction traffic addressed in the plan or any of the other planned road projects. Jeffrey Braiman, 26 W. Canterbury Lane, stated that the 120 unit single family development has been mentioned a lot. The Comprehensive Plan addresses zoning and lot size. He asked about the vacant property to the south and believes that the subject development will dictate what getting developed to the south. Most developers will match existing development and consequently, they will end up with even more townhomes. Keith Donaldson, 89 Chestnut Terrace, has concerns about safety. He suggested that a pedestrian crossing light be installed. Kids cut across Prairie Road all the time. It is a dangerous situation. He asked if there were plans to widen Brandywyn Lane to accommodate the traffic. Mr. Stilling explained that Brandywyn Lane is already a collector street and will not be widened. Mr. Donaldson stated that he has lived there 22 years, but he is considering moving out. Kyle Olson, 738 Aspen Drive, agrees with the Commissioners comments. He does not believe that concerns have been addressed. Townhomes have a place, but not in this location. The proposed development will match the existing home is the area. He stated that the requested zoning of R9 instead of R8 is to allow the extra height on th e townhomes. The plan does not make sense. He does not believe that there will be adequate parking available in the cul-de-sacs. He wants to know who asked for this type of housing. Mr. Stilling advised that the Village Board approved an Economic Development Plan last year, which recommended the Village look to diversify their housing stock. Mr. Olson does not believe targeting Millennials with $400,000.00 homes. He also suggested putting two story townhomes in area A. Laura Neiberg, 362 Satinwood Court N, lives right at Satinwood and has only one way to get the Brandywyn Lane. She is concerned about the traffic. She cannot believe the 214 2.2.d Packet Pg. 57 At t a c h m e n t : 4 - 1 9 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 04/19/2017 homes proposed for this development will not have an impact on the traffic. Any other way she travels adds 20 minutes to her commute. She is concerned about construction traffic. She is concerned with the density. She is concerned about water runoff on the surrounding properties. Ilya Tseitlin, 154 Ironwood Court, believes that traffic is awful today. There should be another road built from Brandywyn to Aptakisic. Albert Murillo, 197 Hoffman Drive, asked KHov if they overpaid for the property. The proposed project’s density would impact the parks, traffic and schools. He believes a lot of children will come out of this development - more than 85. He suggested they consider making it a retirement community. He asked if KHov owns the property or not. He asked if they can back out if this development if it does not get approved. He asked the developer to justify putting so many homes in this development. He would like to see the Planning & Zoning Commission make the right decision. Roberta Young, 50 Carlyle Lane, lives four homes away from Brandywyn. Traffic is an issue now and will only get worse. Kids run across the street and there are no crossing guards. The three story townhomes do not fit in here. The two story townhomes fits since they are the same height. She explained that people spend under $500,000.00 for homes in Buffalo Grove right now. She heard people are talkin g about moving out because of this proposed development. She is concerned because people move here only for the schools. She believes the association fees will be more than $200.00 a month. Keith Donaldson, added that the three story townhomes are shorter because the roof pitch has been reduced, which makes the buildings look like apartments. He is concerned with the traffic on Buffalo Grove Road. The traffic flow on Brandywyn Lane will be greatly affected. Cars are parked past Chestnut Terrace many times after 6:30 p.m. Neil Worlikar, 1927 Jordan Terrace, does not agree with the traffic study. Private roads are issues with snow removal. He would like to see more playground equipment. He referred to the Lake County website regarding traffic accident data. He stated that there is a lot of pass through traffic as well as resident traffic. The School Board plans a $25 million dollar expansion project. He would like to see the where the data on Millennials is coming from. Ilene Shapiro, 63 Chestnut Terrace, is concerned about the density impact on public safety and crime. She asked if there is a plan to add more police officers. A resident on Jordan Terrace is concerned about the density. People come to Buffalo Grove for the schools. He would like to see more reliable data presented. The townhomes are not fit for this community. He suggested to build a church instead. Eli Sasson, 24 Chestnut Court W, has lived here for 12 years. He moved here, just like many, for the schools. He believes the information provided is wrong with regards to the forecasts for the schools, traffic and associates dues. He believes that students generated will be more like 400, not 85. This can be a very profitable project if the homes were 2,500 to 2,700 square feet. This project will kill the community. Traffic is already an issue. 120 single family homes is a reasonable number of units. 2.2.d Packet Pg. 58 At t a c h m e n t : 4 - 1 9 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 04/19/2017 John Dahlen, 160 Ironwood Court, has lived here 19 years. He backs up to the Arboretum. He has the same concerns as everyone else. He is concerned about his property values. He just inherited a unit at the corner of Brandywyn Lane and Buffalo Grove Road. He suggested adding more chairs for the next public hearing. An audience member is also concerned with traffic. People drive very fast. He was involved in an accident on Prairie Road. Keith Donaldson is bothered by the study indicating 7 years as the average time people have owned their townhomes. He would like to see how many residents have lived in their homes 12 to 15 years. There is nothing to walk to in the area. People are leaving Buffalo Grove because of the property taxes. The taxes will keep people from retiring in Buffalo Grove. Kathy Arvanitakis, 401 English Oak Terrace, is concerned that the retention area at the corner will be lost. Trees will be cut down. Several areas have added tall grass like what is being proposed for the retention area and she does not like it. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. Moved by Com. Lesser, seconded by Com. Moodhe, to Table the public hearing to the May 17, 2017 Planning & Zoning Commission regular meeting. RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 5/17/2017 12:00 AM AYES: Smith, Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Weinstein, Au 2.2.d Packet Pg. 59 At t a c h m e n t : 4 - 1 9 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 07/19/2017 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, JULY 19, 2017 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:31 PM by Commissioner Eric Smith Regular Meeting Other Matters for Discussion 1. Workshop to Review Various Plan Alternatives for the Proposed Link Crossing Subdivision (Trustee Ottenheimer) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Jim Truesdell, K Hovnanian Homes, explained that based on feedback after several workshops, two public hearings and a neighborhood meeting, they are presenting three concept plans to the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) with the anticipation of being provided guidance on which plan to move forward with. He reviewed the history of the project and highlighted the items that seemed to be concerns across the board, including the three-story townhomes and the desire for more park space. They also heard a lot of conflicting opinions. Based on the cumulative feedback, they have created three concept plans. KHov still prefers to the Original Cluster plan and would like to keep with that concept. After they receive feedback on the concepts presented, they will refine the project development plan and return for another public hearing. Mr. Kurensky reviewed the details of each of the three concept plans; the Original Cluster Design, the Revised Cluster Design; and the Traditional Design. He confirmed that the three-story townhomes have been removed for the project completely and replaced with two-story, rear-loading townhomes. In all three concepts, they kept the open space and bike path and added two acres to the park. He reviewed the differences between the three concept plans and highlighted that the Revised Cluster Design is Code compliant concerning street widths and right-of-way and would be public streets. In this design, there is less green space and less guest parking. The Original Cluster Plan maintians the original concept with private steets and more guest parking and green space. KHov has added sidealks to the Original Cluster design. The Traditional Plan removes the cul-de-sacs and additional guest parking, would feature publics steets, adds more single family homes, would not be maintenance-free for the single-family homes. Mr. Truesdell reviewed the breakdown of units for each concept plan. He also advised that the basin at the northwest corner would be maintained as open space. Com. Goldspiel believes that the lots are smaller than standard on the Traditional Plan. Mr. Truesdell explained that the homes would meet the setback requirements. Com. Goldspiel feels the Traditional Plan would work best for this property. His second choice would be the Revised Cluster Design. He asked that developer consider adding an option to allow for stair climbers in the homes that are not ranch to accommodate people that can no longer climber the stairs. 2.2.e Packet Pg. 60 At t a c h m e n t : 7 - 1 9 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 07/19/2017 Ch. Smith requested that it be explained the difference between public and private roads. Mr. Stilling advised that staff prefers the Original Cluster option with the cul de sacs being private roads and all other roads being public. Com. Lesser feels that the developer is headed in the right direction but the plans still contain too many townhomes compared to single family homes. He recommended that the lots be ¼ acre lots and to add cluster homes in the southwest corner of the property. He does not like the concept of private roads. He would prefer to see the number of townhomes go down; the number of single family homes go up; and the roads be all public roads. Com. Cesario appreciates the changes to Section A (northwest corner). He personally prefers the cul de sacs, but professionally would prefe r the Traditional. If the developer moves forward with the Cluster design, he would prefer the Original Cluster design. However, the Traditional design eliminates most of the concerns held by the PZC. He would like to see more ranch-style models offered. Also the Traditional Design would be easier to maintain. Com. Au also appreciates the cul de sacs and having private roads. SHe feels that private compnaies do often times a better job of of snow removel and open space maitnence (within the cul-de-sac) than the Village .She would prefer the Original Cluster design. Com. Moodhe asked about design restrictions on the cul de sac lots on the Original Cluster design. Mr. Truesdell advised that some of the lots would but most of the lots would comply. Com. Moodhe asked if the homes would be larger on the Revised Cluster plan. Mr. Truesdell replied that the lots with side-loading garages would be larger. Com. Moodhe asked about the differences in the two Cluster designs. Mr. Isherwood responded that they would prefer to move forward with the Original Cluster design. Com. Moodhe confirmed that the Association would maintain the green space in the cul de sacs in additional to maintaining the entire site. Com. Moodhe believes that the single family homes in the southeast corner of the property seem orphanrf. He asked if there would be separate associations for the single family homes and the townhomes. Mr. Isherwood confirmed the separate associations and added that there would be a master association for the entire property. He also responded that the single family homes in the southeast corner abut single family residential and they placed those single family homes there to match what exists to the east. Com. Moodhe asked if there would still be an access point off Buffalo Grove Road. Mr. Isherwood advised there would be a future access point. Com. Moodhe recommended a second access point for the townhomes off Brandywyn Lane. Mr. Stilling advised that the Village still needs to vet any future access point to Buffalo Grove Road with the County and will also need to re-confirm emergency vehicle access under the new proposed designs. Com. Moodhe would prefer the Original Cluster design. 2.2.e Packet Pg. 61 At t a c h m e n t : 7 - 1 9 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 07/19/2017 Com. Khan also appreciates cul de sacs. Snow removal is not much of an issue in a cul de sac. He asked if there will be a grass island in the cul de sacs. Mr. Truesdell confirmed there would be a grass island. Com. Khan asked how big the grass island would be. Mr. Stilling responded that it would be about the same size Com. Khan has in his cul de sac. Com. Khan asked if the revised Cluster plan meets Village requirements. Mr. Kurensky advised that the Revised Cluster plan does meet Village standards.Mr. Stilling added that the Village would prefer the cul de sacs to be private and maintained by the Association. Com. Khan confirmed with Mr. Truesdell that the Revised Cluster plan also meets Village standards. Com. Weinstein would like to see more single family homes and less townhomes. He is leaning towards the original Cluster design. There were no additional questions from the Commissioners at this time. Kathy Arvanitakis, 401 English Oak Terrace, thanked the developer for eliminating the three-story townhomes and maintaining the detention at the northwest corner of the property. She is still concerned with the number of townhomes and proposed density of the project. She would like to see what the proposed townhomes will look like since they still seem large. Mr. Isherwood displayed the slide that shows the appearance of the townhomes. Ms. Arvanitakis still thinks they will be large buildings. Eli Sasson, 24 Chestnut Court West, believes that the issue of access to Buffalo Grove Road has not been addressed. He recommended reducing the number of units without access. He continues to have traffic concerns and wants the size of the roads increased. He also wants any construction traffic to use Aptakisic Road. Jeff Braiman, 26 Canterbury Lane, confirmed that the three plans are just concept plans. However, his concerns remain the same. The Comprehensive Plan calls for larger lots. The development should be all single family detached. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that any development should be 1/3 attached and 2/3 detached. This plan is the opposite. Each of the proposed plans has over 100 townhome units compared to approximately 60 single family units, which is too much. He requested a list be provided detailing the variation requests. Ms. Arvanitakis added that the revised proposals are still too dense. The townhomes look the same and it will look like a block of the same unit. She recommended mixing the single family cluster homes with the townhomes more and to reduce the total number of townhomes. Michael Lessner, 156 Ironwood Court, agrees with Mr. Braiman in that the proposals do not fit within the Comprehensive Plan. He asked to look at other access points along Brandywyn Lane. He is concerned about the impact on the development to the east. He continues to have traffic concerns. He believes the park should be developed and not just the land dedicated. He does not believe that the townhomes would create a sense of community. 2.2.e Packet Pg. 62 At t a c h m e n t : 7 - 1 9 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 07/19/2017 Al Murillo, 197 Hoffmann Drive, believes that the revised plans are an improvement but would prefer for the Park District to develop the additional park space and not the developer. The density still needs to be improved. He does not believe that the project is limited to the three options. There were no changes to the townhomes, except eliminating the three-story townhomes. There should be more single family homes. Currently the plan only has access to the development from the north and the east. He recommended reconfiguring the ballpark to the west and having an access point line up with the ballpark entrance. Kyle Olson, 738 Aspen Drive, believes that the three new options do not address the density concern. Most people want between 80-120 single family homes on this site. There was not much done with access to the development. He would like to see the property developed according to the Comprehensive Plan with 120 single family homes. He also prefers the Traditional design. A resident of Arlington Heights explained that he has experience in homeowner associations. Villages love private roads that are maintained by associations. But those roads may not be constructed to Village standards. The proposed homeowner association structure does not always work. There could be a lot conflicts between the different associations. The Traditional Design could still have an association for basic maintenance. Mike Garfield, 2118 Jordan Terrace, doesn’t know anyone is his age group looking to downsize that would move to Lake County Buffalo Grove due to the property taxes. This development would attract families. Sammy Squire, 327 Satinwood Court South, noted that there is no guest parking for the townhomes and not enough resident parking. She suggested limited the number of townhome buildings along Brandywyn Lane. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Freeman asked the PZC for direction on which revised plan they should focus on to move forward with. Com. Moodhe would like to hear from the developer on addressing the concerns. Mr. Isherwood explained that it was not feasible to change the site access along Brandywyn Lane. They have followed the direction of the published traffic study reports. The financial impact of the project would benefit the Village and schools. They are not willing to move forward with a 120 single family home plan and found that plan would have a net negative impact on both the Village and the schools. Any plan they move forward with will be similar to the three options presented. They prefer the Original Cluster design. 2.2.e Packet Pg. 63 At t a c h m e n t : 7 - 1 9 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 07/19/2017 Com. Cohn does not agree on the financial impact and believes that the project as proposed would generate more children. Mr. Isherwood responded that the formula’s used to calculate the number of children that would be generated are accurate. Com. Cohn would like representatives from the schools and the park district to participate in the next public hearing. He also believes that 120 single family homes, or at least a reduction in the number of townhomes to 1/3, would be appropriate. He hasn’t seen a plan for that yet. Com. Cesario summarized what he believes is the direction based on the comments; the Original Cluster plan with larger lots, less townhomes and more single family homes. Com. Au agrees with Com. Cesario’s summary. Com. Moodhe also agrees with Com. Cesario’s summary. He likes the Original Cluster plan for the aesthetics. He is happy with the open space. He noted that the Park District controls how the park property will be developed. Com. Lesser wants to see the roads as public roads. He would prefer the 120 single family homes but a small number of townhomes would be acceptable. Increase the size of the single family lots. Mix the Clusters with the Traditional. Com. Cohn agrees with Com. Lesser and cannot accept 2/3 townhomes to 1/3 single family homes. His preference is 0 townhomes to 120 single-family homes. Com. Goldspiel feels the single family homes are very attractive. They are smaller lots but not too small. He would prefer R4 or R5 zoning for the lot sizes as they are more popular. He believes that associations are expensive. He likes the townhome design. The number could be reduced but does not have to be. He would like the development to be more affordable and to reduce the association costs. The revised plans are an improvement. He likes the Clusters and townhomes but some Traditional could be mixed in as well. It is very important to make this development affordable. Com. Khan stated that the number of single family homes has gone down significantly but the number of townhomes remained the same. He would like the development to be 2/3 single family homes and 1/3 townhomes. He is in favor of public streets versus private streets. Associations are not able to manage the maintenance of streets whereas the Village has the knowledge and the manpower. Mr. Stilling advised that even private roads are built to Village standards. Ch. Smith likes the Original Cluster design but would like to see the density reduced. 2.2.e Packet Pg. 64 At t a c h m e n t : 7 - 1 9 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 07/19/2017 Mr. Isherwood would like to explore an alternate cul de sac that would be acceptable to the Village. Mr. Kurensky added that they could possibly decrease the public right-of-way and increase the pavement to maintain the radius. As private streets, the association would plow the driveways and streets at the same time. Mr. Truesdell briefly discussed some additional alternative plans. 2.2.e Packet Pg. 65 At t a c h m e n t : 7 - 1 9 - 1 7 P Z C M i n u t e s ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 2.2.f Packet Pg. 66 At t a c h m e n t : P r o p o s e d K H o v A g r e e m e n t w i t h D 1 0 2 ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 2.2.f Packet Pg. 67 At t a c h m e n t : P r o p o s e d K H o v A g r e e m e n t w i t h D 1 0 2 ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 2.2.f Packet Pg. 68 At t a c h m e n t : P r o p o s e d K H o v A g r e e m e n t w i t h D 1 0 2 ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 2.2.f Packet Pg. 69 At t a c h m e n t : P r o p o s e d K H o v A g r e e m e n t w i t h D 1 0 2 ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 2.2.f Packet Pg. 70 At t a c h m e n t : P r o p o s e d K H o v A g r e e m e n t w i t h D 1 0 2 ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 2.2.f Packet Pg. 71 At t a c h m e n t : P r o p o s e d K H o v A g r e e m e n t w i t h D 1 0 2 ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) Dr. Lori Wilcox, Superintendent Ms. Stacey Bachar, Asst. Supt. Business Services/CSBO Dr. Julie Brua, Asst. Supt. Curriculum, Instruction & Multilingual Education Dr. Robert Hudson, Asst. Supt. Educational Innovation District Office • 1231 Weiland Road • Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 Phone: (847) 353-5650 • Fax: (847) 634-5334 • D102.org Every Day – Every Student April 3, 2017 Jon Isherwood K. Hovnanian Homes 1804 Naper Blvd, Suite 200 Naperville, IL 60563 Re: Impact Fee Agreement – Aptakisic Tripp CCSD 102 Dear Jon, Thank you for working with Aptakisic Tripp CCSD 102 on an impact fee agreement as it relates to the proposed development at Link Crossing in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. District 102 appreciates all of your time and effort in working with the District to understand the impact to the school district and come to a fair agreement. Please accept this letter as the Board of Education’s intent to accept the agreement dated April 3rd. The Board of Education intends to formally approve the agreement at the next Board Meeting on April 24th. Sincerely, Stacey Bachar Assistant Superintendent for Business 2.2.g Packet Pg. 72 At t a c h m e n t : D i s t 1 0 2 L e t t e r ( 2 1 6 4 : P r o p o s e d L i n k C r o s s i n g S u b d i v i s i o n ) 11/15/2017 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, NOVEMBER 15, 2017 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chairman Frank Cesario Public Hearings/Items For Consideration 1.Proposed Link Crossing Subdivision (Request to Continue to December 6, 2017) (Trustee Ottenheimer) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Mr. Stilling advised that staff fully expects K. Hovnanian Homes to be ready to present a revised plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 6, 2017. K. Hovnanian Homes has notified the surrounding residents as well. Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Khan, to continue the public hearing to the December 6, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to be held at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers at Village Hall. RESULT:TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 12/6/2017 12:00 AM MOVER:Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner SECONDER:Zill Khan, Commissioner AYES:Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Weinstein, Au 2.Approve an Amendment to Special Use Ordinance 97-4 as Amended by Ordinances 2015-56 and 2016-048 and Preliminary Plan Approval for 1501 Busch Parkway (Trustee Stein) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Mr. Larry Heller, Executive Director, Sky Fitness, 1501 Busch Parkway, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089; Mr. Brian Paul, Premier Design & Build, 1000 W. Irving Park Road, Suite 200, Itasca, IL 60143; and Douglas White, Greengard, Inc., 111 Barclay Boulevard, Suite 310, Lincolnshire, IL 60069 were present and sworn in. Mr. Heller reviewed the proposal. This project is designed to provide additional square footage within a minimal footprint and to aesthetically coordinate with the existing facility. The additional 25,000-26,000 square feet of space planned to allow Sky Fitness to continue its growth and business plan in developing an upscale fitness facility with luxurious amenities, bringing differentiating fitness concepts to Buffalo Grove. Most of the neighboring communities such as Vernon Hills (LifeTime Fitness), Bannockburn (Midtown Athletic), Arlington Heights (Midtown Athletic) have upscale country-club style fitness facilities. These competitors have hundreds, if not thousands, of Buffalo Grove residents within their membership populations. Mr. Heller stated that the Sky Fitness team is very confident that once Sky Fitness can provide similar services, they will be able to bring those memberships back to Buffalo Grove. Those services will include an outdoor swimming pool, outdoor sun deck, a small kitchen to provide simple and healthy food & beverage concepts, a clubhouse and private lounge area to accommodate the food and beverage as well as to host events like parties & social gatherings. These types of services will also be offered in the proposed lower level. The lower level will have upscale spa services, which will go hand-in-hand with the business plan and is a natural fit with our overall health & wellness concepts. All three of the neighboring competitors provide 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 73 Mi n u t e s A c c e p t a n c e : M i n u t e s o f N o v 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 7 : 3 0 P M ( A p p r o v a l o f M i n u t e s ) 11/15/2017 spa services. The other space of the lower level will continue to differentiate Sky Fitness as a cutting edge all-inclusive fitness club. This will allow Sky Fitness to re-introduce the spin cycling program. They will also bring the addition of the first cross-fit fitness concept to Buffalo Grove as well as space for youth fitness concepts like martial arts, wrestling and more. Once this addition is accomplished, Mr. Heller and his team strongly believe Sky Fitness will be the destination for health and wellness for both Buffalo Grove and the surrounding communities. Mr. Paul provided an overview of the project. He reviewed the existing and proposed elevations. He explained that the previously approved projects were found to be cost prohibitive and both had engineering issues. The proposed elevation elements tie the addition into the existing building. The materials will be contiguous with the existing building and the materials will match. This is a single-story addition with a basement. The outdoor pool and HVAC equipment will be screened. They have reviewed the engineering and parking with Village staff and both are achievable. Additional detention will be added to the existing detention pond to accommodate the proposed addition. The Village Engineer has reviewed and approved the additional detention. Mr. Paul reviewed the proposed landscaping, which will be consistent with the existing landscaping. Mr. Paul also reviewed the proposed addition floor plans and parking layout. He noted that even the proposed addition will replace part of the eastern parking lot, the number of parking spaces still exceeds the required amount of parking. The outdoor pool area will provide additional space to be used as a gathering area. The basement addition would contain new elements that currently are not offered, such as a cross fit area and wrestling. These new elements will allow Sky Fitness to compete with other health clubs in the area. The proposed exterior brick and EIFS will match the existing building. Com. Au is concerned that the proposed addition elevations do not more closely match the front elevation of the existing building. Mr. Paul explained that it would be difficult to incorporate window elements to match the existing building. They could possibly raise the windows but would need to take heed not to intrude upon the structural elements of the addition. Com. Au is concerned that even though the pool would be located in the front of the addition, the screening looks like a massive wall. Mr. Paul explained the six (6) foot high screening wall around the pool would provide privacy. Com. Au would like to see more architectural elements added to the addition elevations to more closely match the existing building. Mr. Paul advised that they could look into that but any changes need to be cost effective. They could break up the EFIS or break up the windows. The nature of the shape and use of the addition does limit them. Mr. Heller added that the original concept was to locate the pool at the back of the addition. However, they conducted a sun exposure study and found that they would lose the most sun exposure if the pool was located behind the addition as opposed to in front of the addition. Com. Goldspiel advised that he had concerns with the previously approved plans regarding water management and asked how this plan differs. Mr. White explained that the previously approved plans needed more water detention. After discussions with the Village Engineer they agreed to enlarge the existing detention pond to accommodate. The site will drain the same as it does now. They will adjust the stormsewers on site as well to defer the water to the enlarged detention pond. Com. Goldspiel asked if there will still be additional waterproofing to the addition. Mr. Paul advised that the previously approved addition was to be located next to the detention pond. This proposed addition will be located on the opposite side of the existing building. Sump pumps will be installed in the basement. Com. Goldspiel is concerned about the water situation in the entire area and does not want to see any water seepage into the basement of the addition. Mr. Paul explained that they are replacing impervious surface with impervious surface. The previously approved additions would have taken green space. The basement addition will 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 74 Mi n u t e s A c c e p t a n c e : M i n u t e s o f N o v 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 7 : 3 0 P M ( A p p r o v a l o f M i n u t e s ) 11/15/2017 have the proper drain tile installed and waterproofing. All measures will be taken to ensure proper drainage. Mr. Stilling also advised that the addition will not be located in the floodplain area like the previously approved additions. Com. Goldspiel asked if there have been any issues with water seepage in the past. Mr. Heller responded no, only a few roof leaks. Com. Moodhe asked about the proposed parking lot; if the new lot will be closer to the hotel property; and if so, how far are they expanding. Mr. Paul advised that the parking lot is existing and within Code. They are only adding a couple of feet to the lot. Com. Moodhe is concerned about the small strip of grass being removed and the drainage impact. He asked if there will be enough compensation with the revised detention pond design. Mr. Paul responded yes. Com. Moodhe asked why they are proposing an outdoor pool. Mr. Heller explained that the outdoor pool will allow them to grow and compete with other fitness centers in the area that have outdoor pools. During the summer months they lose approximately 200 customers to competitor facilities that have outdoor pools. Com. Moodhe asked if they have considered a retractable roof. Mr. Heller advised that they have considered a retractable roof but those are very expensive. They may consider a retractable roof in the future. Com. Moodhe asked about the size of the proposed kitchen and what type of food they plan to be served. Mr. Heller explained they plan to have simple food service, like healthy snack items and sandwiches. Com. Lesser asked staff if any variances are being sought or if this matter is only coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission due to the Special Use. Mr. Stilling advised that the proposed plan meets Code and no variances are being requested. The only reason for the public hearing is to amend the Special Use. Com. Lesser advised that he does not have any questions for the Petitioner. Com. Weinstein asked about the height of the screen wall by the pool. Mr. Paul explained it will be six (6) to six and a half (6-1/2) feet high. Mr. Stilling added that the barrier more than meets the Code requirement. Com. Weinstein asked about the size capacity of the proposed pool. Mr. Heller responded that the facility has a 3,500 member capacity. The proposed addition will also create a gathering space. Approximately 10% to 15% of their customers will migrate to outdoor pools when the weather gets warm. They just want to remain competitive. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report as Exhibit 1. The public hearing was closed at 8:05 PM. Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Lesser, to recommend to the Village Board to approve an amendment to Special Use Ordinance 97-4 as amended by Ordinances 2015-56 and 2016-048 and Preliminary Plan Approval subject to two conditions: 1.The project shall conform to the plans attached as part of the Petition. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 75 Mi n u t e s A c c e p t a n c e : M i n u t e s o f N o v 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 7 : 3 0 P M ( A p p r o v a l o f M i n u t e s ) 11/15/2017 2.Additional detailing of the proposed screen wall shall be considered as approved by Village staff. Com. Weinstein advised that he is in favor of the proposed addition. RESULT:RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] Next: 12/4/2017 7:30 PM MOVER:Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner SECONDER:Scott Lesser, Commissioner AYES:Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Weinstein, Au Regular Meeting Other Matters for Discussion 1.Recreational Vehicle (RV) Parking in Residential Districts (Workshop) (Trustee Stein) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Mr. Stilling reviewed the changes made to the proposed regulations based upon the previous comments from the Commissioners. The definition was revised to include commercial and non-commercial classifications. The term “race car” was removed from the definition. The revised definition ensures that commercial trailers and vehicles are addressed. There was consensus among the Commissioners with regards to limiting storage to ten (10) calendar days per year. Long term storage was addressed to ensure that setback requirements are met, or a variation will need to be applied for. Com. Goldspiel is concerned with the use of the word “utilitarian” in the definition. He does not want to see a commercial use in a residential area. Mr. Stilling will look at the definition for that word and define it more clearly. Com. Moodhe stated that the term “or other purposes” listed under General Regulations is too broad. Mr. Stilling will take a look at that as well. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Stilling will prepare the proposed text amendment for public hearing for the second meeting in December most likely. Approval of Minutes 1.Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Nov 1, 2017 7:30 PM Moved by Com. Moodhe, seconded by Com. Khan, to approve the minutes of the November 1, 2017 Planning & Zoning Commission regular meeting as submitted. 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 76 Mi n u t e s A c c e p t a n c e : M i n u t e s o f N o v 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 7 : 3 0 P M ( A p p r o v a l o f M i n u t e s ) 11/15/2017 RESULT:ACCEPTED [7 TO 0] MOVER:Adam Moodhe, Commissioner SECONDER:Zill Khan, Commissioner AYES:Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Au ABSTAIN:Mitchell Weinstein Chairman's Report None. Committee and Liaison Reports None. Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule Mr. Stilling advised that the third public meeting for the Lake Cook Corridor project is scheduled for Thursday, November 16, 2017 from 6:00 PM to 8:00 Pm at the Village Hall. It will again be an Open House style meeting. The December 6, 2017 agenda will include the two (2) continued public hearings; the addition for 1118 Alden Lane and Link Crossing. Mr. Stilling advised that the Village Board approved the Plaza Verde West Re-Subdivision and K. Karaoke. The Village Board also approved an Economic Incentive Agreement with BITS, which will be moving into the 850 Asbury Drive building. Public Comments and Questions None. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 PM Chris Stilling Director of Community Development APPROVED BY ME THIS 15th DAY OF November , 2017 3.B.1 Packet Pg. 77 Mi n u t e s A c c e p t a n c e : M i n u t e s o f N o v 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 7 : 3 0 P M ( A p p r o v a l o f M i n u t e s )