2017-12-06 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Minutes12/6/2017
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, DECEMBER 6, 2017
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chairman Frank Cesario
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)
Mr. Matthew Levin, 1118 Alden Lane, was present and sworn in.
Mr. Levin advised that as requested, he provided general plans and elevation details on
the requested second story addition. He has reduced the width from 11.75 feet to 11.5
feet. He explained that the extra four (4) feet at the rear of the proposed addition only
adds three (3) inches into the side yard. He is requesting to add a second car garage to
the side of the house. The additional four (4) feet at the rear of the proposed addition
would also allow him to add a master suite at the back of the house on the second floor.
Com. Weinstein asked Mr. Levin to describe the variation request. He asked how far the
neighboring home is from the side lot line. Mr. Levin did not have the distance of the
neighboring home to the side lot line. Com. Weinstein asked Mr. Levin if he considered
just extending the addition to the required setback. Mr. Levin advised that he did consider
it. However that would not allow for a second car garage. The proposed garage door is
only eight (8) feet wide. Com. Weinstein asked if Mr. Levin can condense the garage
doors. Mr. Levin responded no, the existing garage door is twelve (12) foot wide. He is
squeezing in the second car garage by reducing the total width to 11.5 feet.
Com. Moodhe asked about the additional four (4) feet at the back of the addition. If the
additional four (4) feet was not added to the back of the garage addition, a variation
would not be required. Mr. Levin advised that a variation would still be required but he
would not be able to stack two (2) cars in the garage addition and he would not be able to
add the master suite on the second floor. The required length for two (2) cars stacked
tandem is thirty three (33) feet. That is what he is requesting. Com. Moodhe asked staff if
that measurement is correct. Mr. Sheehan advised that he has not done the calculation
but that a distance of thirty three (33) feet sounds correct for two (2) cars stacked
tandem.
Ch. Cesario asked if Mr. Levin has spoken to the neig hbor. Mr. Levin advised that he has
spoken to the neighbor. The neighboring house is a rental and he has not shown the plan
to the owner, but he did speak with them and they were okay with it.
Mr. Levin advised that staff made him aware of the tapering requirement for the driveway
addition and that he will work with staff to meet the requirement.
Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated December 1, 2017 as Exhibit 1.
12/6/2017
There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were
no questions or comments from the audience.
The public hearing was closed at 7:43 PM.
Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Moodhe, to approve the request for a
variation for a side yard setback reduction for 1118 Alden Lane, subject to the following:
1. The proposed addition is constructed pursuant to the plans and specifications submitted
to and approved by the Village; and
2. The driveway is tapered to meet Village Code.
Com. Goldspiel stated that most homes built in this subdivision had two car gara ges. He
believes that room was left to add a second car garage at this home. The reduction is
only a matter of inches. He understands the desire for additional car storage space. He
believes that this request is acceptable and he supports the request.
Ch. Cesario appreciates the changes made and the submittal of more detailed plans.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner
SECONDER: Adam Moodhe, Commissioner
AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Weinstein, Au
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)
Mr. James Truesdell, K Hovanian Homes; Mr. Lawrence Freedman, Attorney; Mr. Jon
Isherwood, K Hovanian Homes; Javier Millan, KLOA; Steven Kaminski, Mackie
Consultants; Zoran Milutinovic, Kane, McKenna and Associates; and Mark Kurensky,
HKM Architects & Planners; were present and sworn in.
Mr. Truesdell explained that K Hovanian 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. This is a 13.5%
reduction. The plan includes 59 clustered SF detached homes and 133 2-story
townhomes with an overall gross density of 3.84 units/acre. The streets will be public
streets, except for the alleys that serve the proposed townhomes. They have now
provided the sidewalks in the cul de sacs to complement the rest of the sidewalks in the
development. They added additional quest parking and have maintained open green
space. They have eliminated the proposed three-story townhomes all together. They
have agreed to take ownership of and maintain the detention pond and will maintain it in
its current condition. They have agreed to pay almost double the financial impacts to
School District 102. He also reviewed the proposed landscape plan. The proposed plan
provides connectivity to future site development. He reviewed the correspondence from
the Lake County Department of Transportation, which does not want to allow direct
12/6/2017
access to Buffalo Grove Road. However, Lake County DOT will consider a future access
point at Churchill Park dependent upon the development of the property to the south. He
discussed access points along Brandywyn Lane and Meridian Way and again discussed
possible future access points along Aptakisic Road and Buffalo Grove Road. He
reviewed the differences in the traffic impact from the previously proposed plans to this
current proposed plan. He reviewed the street and sidewalk plans. He explained that the
proposed architectural elevations have stayed the same. He quickly reviewed the
proposed elevations for the single family detached models and the two-story townhomes.
The end units of the townhomes would have first floor masters while the interior units
would have second floor masters. He explained that this proposed development does
meet many of the goals and objectives of the 2009 Comprehensive Plan. The
development would continue to be 100% maintenance-free. He explained that they did
look at other alternative plans and that they had various plans developed, including 100
single family homes and 50 townhomes. They analyzed each plan and decided to move
forward with the proposed plan. Based on the calculations, the alternative plan of more
single family homes would have added more school children to the school districts and
generate less property tax revenue. Also more maintenance would have been required
by the Village for the public right-of-ways. The alternative plan would be more detrimental
to both the school districts and the Village financially. The annual impact of the proposed
192 SFD unit development would be positive by approximately $150,000. Over ten years,
that would be an additional $1.5 million dollars to the School District 102. Based on the
formulas, School District 125 would have a similar positive impact. The Estimated
Development-Generated Traffic Volumes Tables were reviewed.
Mr. Truesdell concluded that K Hovanian has worked hard to develop a plan that works
and addresses the concerns of the school impacts, traffic and density. They believe this
is the best plan for the community and asked for a favorable vote.
Com. Goldspiel asked Mr. Truesdell to address the proposed variations. Mr. Truesdell
explained that the single family detached homes best meet the R6A zoning requirements.
However, they need to request setback and right-of-way variations. The cul de sacs meet
the turning radius requirements. They are asking for a 20 foot front yard setback. The
covered front porches would extend out six (6) feet from the house for both the single
family attached and detached units. They would also need side yard setback variations
for the single family detached homes. Com. Goldspiel asked how many lots would be
less than the required 6,600 square foot lot size. Mr. Truesdell did not have the number
available but will get it. He added that they are proposing the single family clusters to
keep the development maintenance-free. Com. Goldspiel asked about the 5 foot setback
reduction on the ranch models. Mr. Truesdell explained that the ranches are deeper and
include the first floor master. They will be marketing the project to people that are not
looking for large yards and want maintenance-free living. He advised that the number of
lots that would be less than the required minimum lot size is 17. They had provided
additional ranch style homes based on previous Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC)
feedback. Com. Goldspiel advised that the R6A Zoning Districts were not intended for
new developments, they were created to allow existing properties to conform to current
zoning district designations. He is concerned about the proposed required yard
reductions. A 14 foot setback is desirable for safety reasons. Mr. Truesdell responded
that the proposed setbacks are safe and will not create building code or life safety issues.
The proposed development would be a Planned Unit Development (PUD). They chose
R6A zoning because it was the closest fit. The development would be maintenance -free
and there will be Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR’s). This is different than
the old R6A zoning districts . Com. Goldspiel asked if there are any other areas in Buffalo
Grove that are zoned R6A. Mr. Stilling advised that page 18 of the Packet describes the
surrounding developments and their density. He added that there would be a buffer of 20
to 25 feet of open area around the lots. Mr. Truesdell advised that they could remove the
12/6/2017
buffer and increase the lot sizes. However, they wanted to make more open, public space
for the community. A PUD is a Special Use and they chose the closest zoning. Com.
Goldspiel believes that the proposed plan is greatly improved.
Com. Au asked staff about the economic impact reports and if they have been verified to
be correct. Mr. Stilling responded yes, K Hovanian had worked with the school districts to
ensure accuracy. Mr. Truesdell confirmed that they worked very closely with the school
districts to verify accuracy.
Com. Lesser understands that they are promoting the development to be age-targeted.
However, K Hovanian had stuck to the original thesis. Some changes were made and
some were not. He asked if, by design, they are suggested to be age-restricted. Mr.
Truesdell responded that theywill market to appeal to empty nesters but will not be age -
restricted. Com. Lesser asked if Mr. Truesdell believes that this development will appeal
to empty nesters. Mr. Truesdell responded yes. He added that there will be some families
that prefer this type of housing. Com. Lesser asked if the fiscal and traffic impact studies
were calculated based on empty nesters. Mr. Truesdell responded no, the fiscal impact
numbers were based on State/Village standards. Com. Lesser asked for an explanation
of Tables 2 & 3 and the Daily Two-Way Traffic calculations regarding the traffic impacts.
Mr. Javier Millan from KLOA, Inc., explained that the calculati ons for the tables were
based on hundreds of surveys of many different developments and based on the number
of occupants. Com. Lesser said that the numbers indicated that there would be fewer
occupants in the townhomes compared to the single family homes. He is troubled by the
development. Direction was given to where the project should go. To date, the PZC has
not seen that. Mr. Truesdell explained that they put together many different plans. They
developed a plan that best addresses the major concerns. They feel very strongly that
this is the right product for this location. The market has changed since the
Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2008/2009. They chose what they feel is the best
plan. Com. Lesser advised that he would have liked to have seen a mix of 1/3 single
family attached and 2/3 single family detached. Mr. Truesdell advised that they did take a
look at that and did not feel that it was the right fit.
Com. Moodhe asked if the rear yard setback reduction would be applied to all the
ranches. Mr. Truesdell responded yes, but the reduction may not be necessary for all of
them. Many lots will back up to a common, open area. Com. Moodhe asked if the ranch
homes would be restricted to specific lots. Mr. Truesdell advised that the L -shaped
ranches would be restricted to specific lots. Com. Moodhe asked if they are asking for a
blanket variance. Mr. Truesdell responded yes, but that not all lots will be ranches. Com.
Moodhe talked about the 20 foot buffer along Meridian Way. If the buffer was removed, a
variation would not be needed. Mr. Stilling advised that to add to the cul de sacs they had
to push the other lots back. Mr. Truesdell stated that they can work with Village staff to
limit models to certain lots. Com. Moodhe asked if the CCR’s have been developed yet.
Mr. Truesdell explained that the CCR’s have not yet been developed. Com. Moodhe
asked if fences would be allowed. Mr. Truesdell stated that perimeter fencing will not be
allowed. However, they will allow for privacy fencing around the patios. Com. Moodhe
asked if the fence restriction would preclude people with pets. Mr. Stilling advised that the
CCR’s will be developed to allow the fencing around the patios to include owners that
have pets. Com. Moodhe asked about the streets on the south end of the development.
Mr. Stilling explained that the two out lots on the south end would be owned and
maintained by the HOA and be conveyed to the Village at a later date when there is
future development on the land to the south. A deed restriction would be imposed to
require the homeowners along the south end of the property to acknowledge that they
are aware of the out lots. Even though the Village is not sure what could happen with the
property to the south, the Village wants the ability to have future access through to that
12/6/2017
property. Com. Moodhe noted that the townhomes in the southwest corner of the
property have no guest parking available. Mr. Truesdell advised that the townhomes in
the southwest corner could have potential street parking for guests. He also advised that
they could add guest parking to the out lots. Mr. Stilling explained that there was a
method on how the plan was laid out. There could be potential guest parking on the out
lots knowing that there could be on-street parking in the future.
Ch. Cesario confirmed with Mr. Stilling that page 24, item O of the Packet reads correctly
that on-street parking in the cul de sacs and streets shall be prohibited.
Com. Khan stated that Tables 1, 2 and 3 in the Estimated Traffic Volumes is pretty
accurate most of the time. There is not much difference between Tables 2 and 3. Mr.
Millan stated that is correct. The difference is minimal. Com. Khan stated that the
difference in Table 3 could be less if the development is targeted to people 55 years of
age and older. Mr. Millan agrees. Com. Khan asked Mr. Truesdell what the annual
budget for School District 102 is. Mr. Stilling responded that it is about $38 million. Com.
Khan stated that $121,000 less would be a drop in the bucket. Mr. Stilling advised that
staff has spoken with District 102 and they are concerned about approving a project that
would have a negative financial impact on the District. $121,000 a year is a major impact.
School District 102 was very concerned about having a negative impact. Com. Khan
asked about the street and public versus private streets. Some of the service drives will
continue to be private. He thought the private streets were eliminated. Mr. Truesdell
explained that the service alleys for the townhomes would remain priva te. All other
streets, including the cul de sacs, would be public streets. Com. Khan asked about the
Comprehensive Plan and where the proposed single family attached dwellings meet the
intent of the Plan. Mr. Truesdell advised that the number of total housing units has been
brought down to fewer than 4 units per acre and the development meets the
Comprehensive Plan’s housing goals He also advised that the developed plan meets the
2016 Economic Strategic Plan by providng the community with a diverse housing mix and
this development in particular provides density and pedestrian orientation, which is
unquie to the Village. Based upon the Economic Strategic Plan and current market
trends, the proposed development plan meets the needs of the community.
Com. Lesser asked about the fiscal impact to the school district. Mr. Truesdell explained
that the proposed 192 unit plan would provide a surplus to the school district of $182,000.
The 150 unit, mostly single family detached, plan would be an annual deficit to the school
district. Com. Lesser confirmed that based on the Estimated Development-Generated
Traffic Volumes the original plan would generate an increase of 1,640 daily two way
traffic and the 150 unit plan, which consists of 100 single family detached homes, would
reduce the daily two way traffic from the original plan by 248. Mr. Truesdell stated that is
correct.
Com. Goldspiel asked about the open space and for the character of the open space to
be described. Mr. Kurensky advised that the proposed open space and proposed
landscaping has not changed. There would be detention with a combination of wet and
dry land. The dry land and grassy areas would be located closer to the bike paths and
homes. It would look like mowed lawns. The wet areas would be a more naturalized look.
Com. Goldspiel asked if the open space could be used for recreation. Mr. Kurensky
responded yes. It would be a public access bike path system. They would be dedicating
land to the Park District and installing the path and bridge with cut outs in numerous
areas. The cut out areas could be used for art display by the Park District or for leisure.
12/6/2017
There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners at this time.
Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated December 6, 2017 as Exhibit 1, the Lake
County correspondence dated December 1, 2017 as Exhibit 2, and the Traffic Volume
study as Exhibit 3.
Ch. Cesario entertained questions and comments from the audience. Multiple people in
the audience stood to speak. Ch. Cesario swore them in.
Mike Garfield, 2118 Jordan Terrace, believes that something does not smell right. The
developer is age-targeting. There would be no children and no playsets. How can you
have a development that is targeted to empty nesters have an impact on the s chools.
Buffalo Grove should not be intimidated by the school districts. You can make data say
whatever you want it to say. They have not made any significant changes to the plan.
The current plan is not 2/3 single family detached and 1/3 single family att ached. It
essentially is the same plan.
Samara Squire, 327 Satinwood Court S, disagrees with the 6 unit townhomes. They do
not fit with the other developments in the area. She agrees with Mr. Garfield. The
proposed housing units are 3 and 4 bedrooms. Empty nesters will not go for 3 bedroom
units. Empty nesters will not pay the housing cost and taxes if they are looking to
downsize. She would like to see the 100 single family detached unit plan. She asked if
the number of 3 and 4 bedroom units will be limited in number. She wants to see
landscaping along the south line of the property. Currently there are no trees proposed
along the south property line. She wants to see trees. She still believes that traffic on
Brandywyn Lane will be excessive. Traffic will be blocked. Overnight parking is a big
concern. In her CCR’s, owners are not allowed to use the guest parking spaces. There is
not enough guest parking to accommodate 3 and 4 bedroom units.
Adam Kann, 1906 Jordan Terrace, explained that his mother is an empty nester and she
has more people over to her house than he does. Most empty nesters are 2 people. No
on-street parking will be an issue. He feels like every time the proposed plan is too
dense.
Jeff Braiman, 26 Canterbury Lane, advised that all of his previous comments still apply.
He agrees there is a lack of street parking, which could be very dangerous. He is not sure
if there are sufficient sidewalks. The cul de sacs do not integrate into the community. He
also agrees with Mr. Garfield. A senior-only development would have no negative impact
on the schools. He has an issue with the proposed R6A zoning. The developments to the
south and east are zoned R3, which are much larger lots. R6A are the smallest lots. He
would insist on the property being developed similar to the surrounding area. The 1989
Comprehensive Plan originally had the proposed zoning of RE, which are the largest lots
allowed. Then the Plan changed the proposed zoning to R3 with single family detached
homes on large lots. It is important to do this project right. The property to the south will
be impacted by this project. The Comprehensive Plan called for 70% single family
detached and 30% single family attached. Look at the surrounding area. He asked for the
PZC to vote to not recommend this proposal to the Village Board.
Jennifer Murillo, 197 Hoffman Drive, asked the PZC to look at the Comprehensive Plan.
She is concerned with the proposed density. The numbers are based on the total
12/6/2017
acreage, not the buildable acreage. She is concerned about the traffic. She is concerned
about who the potential buyers would be. Marketed buyers and actual buyers may differ.
The attractiveness of the Blue Ribbon schools will also impact the area. She believes a
lot of children will come in. Two neighbors have moved out of the area because their
children have finished school. She is concerned about the street parking, the layout and
the lack of consistency with the surrounding area. She is concerned about the home
values in the area. She would like to see the 100/50 plan or a similar plan.
Julie Lefar, 2038 Jordan Terrace, believes that market research shows that these types
of units are not attractive to a move-down buyer. She is concerned about the traffic that
would be generated. With the proposed federal tax overhaul, property tax deductions
would be limited to $10,000.00. She is concerned with the townhomes. Some of the
buildings are 7 units. She asked what the length of a 7 unit building is. Mr. Truesdell
responded that the 7 unit buildings would be approximately 170 feet in length. Ms. Lefar
asked where there are 7 unit townhome buildings in Buffalo Grove.
Kris Donaldson, 89 Chestnut Terrace, lives at the corner of Brandywyn Lane and
Chestnut Terrace. The land is currently elevated. Will the land remain elevated? What will
be located behind these homes? She does not want to look at windows. She is also
concerned with the safety of children crossing Brandywyn Lane. She asked if the
sidewalk would end at the property on Buffalo Grove Road. She is disappointed that
nothing in the proposed plan has really changed.
Lawrence Gluskin, 623 Raintree Road, is an empty nester and is in the process of
looking for a move down unit. A large amount of people are looking for 3 and 4 bedroom
ranches. Many people are fleeing to Vernon Hills, Glenview, Waukegan and Northbrook
looking for this type of housing product. He asked the PZC to try an accommodate people
looking for this type of housing. Com. Cohn asked Mr. Gluskin if this project was 2/3
single family detached would it still serve his needs. Mr. Gluskin said it could. He likes the
open space. It is attractive and in an ideal location. Maintenance-free ranch homes are
important to him.
Kyle Olson, 738 Aspen Drive, agrees with most of the public comments. Nothing has
really changed except a very small reduction. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, there
should be a 62% reduction in density. This plan would not have that much of a positive
fiscal impact for the schools. He asked why the only formulas being looked at to
determine the school impacts are from 1996. It has been mentioned that some fiscal
accommodation has been made with District 102 for the number of students but he has
never seen the actual numbers. You can manipulate the numbers to make it look worse
for the 100/50 unit plan. If you reduce the number of single family detached units to 70,
they will save $378K with $142K of that going to District 102. He does not believe the
calculations. The surrounding developments are zoned R3, this is proposed to be R6A.
He likes the cluster look but still thinks it is too dense. He likes the proposed setbacks
because he likes open space. He was impressed with the process of the Lake Cook
Corridor project and believes that the Village should allow for more public input of the
future development of this site.
Roberta Young, 50 Carlyle Lane, stated that this is not Waukegan and not the Glen. She
agrees with the other public comments. With the current tax situation most owners are
looking at a $3,000 increase in their property taxes. People will not give money away to
downsize. Taxes are a problem in Buffalo Grove. She does not see this project being
marketed for empty nesters.
12/6/2017
Janet Preston, 403 English Oak Terrace, said that the townhomes have never been
addressed. She has not seen any big changes in the single family attached, only
changes in the single family detached. The townhomes will bring more children. She
thought the Didier property would be developed with 80 to 90 single family detached
homes. The view from Buffalo Grove Road will be massive townhomes. She does not
feel this project fits with the surrounding area. This is a residential area. She believes that
developer is trying to make more money because they paid too much for the property.
Kathy Arvanitakis, 401 English Oak Terrace, agrees with the public comments. She is
surprised that no changes have been made to the proposed development. She believes
that the Developer is trying to wear down the residents to get what they want. She wants
to see a single family detached plan. She believes the proposed homes are ridiculous,
over-sized buildings.
Eric Brehm, 191 Hoffman Drive, advised that most of his son’s friends live in single family
attached homes and that the townhomes will generate more density and traffic.
Com. Au asked Mr. Truesdell if they had modeled any less dense plans for the property.
Mr. Truesdell stated that they did prepare a 50/50 plan but they ruled that out because it
did not create a very good layout. They feel the proposed plan fits the area and the
property.
Mr. Truesdell added that they submitted full fiscal impact reports. They used accepted
formulas to generate the reports. They verified that the reports were accurate. They
worked with District 102. The projections could vary over time. However, they used the
best numbers they could. The proposed townhome buildings would be 4 to 7 units, which
is not unusual. The garages would be located at the back of the buildings, which is
different from what people are used to seeing. They worked on the elevations to make
the buildings more attractive. They are marketing the homes to empty nesters but will not
include an age restriction. They have a full landscape plan for both the single family
attached and detached homes. They believe they have sufficient guest parking. They
have added guest parking in the cul de sacs. He is not sure about the concern for lack of
sidewalks. They tied the streets, sidewalks and bike paths together. He is comfortable
with the proposed lot sizes and does not want this development to be like everything
around it. There are a lot of existing homes on the market that fall under the R3 zoning.
They are investing a great deal in this property. The traffic studies did not come from the
1970’s and 1980’s. They are from the 1970’s to current. The development will not be for
every move down buyer. Their business is to build and sell homes that are marketable.
They have no control over the property taxes.
Mr. Stilling added that the fiscal analysis was developed with District 102. A 100/50 plan
actually creates higher counts.
Mr. Isherwood advised that K Hovanian worked with District 102 and the fiscal analysis
was confirmed to be accurate, if not overstated, by District 102. Demand for ranch-style,
maintenance-free homes is desired. If they were to develop a plan of non-maintenance
free, the number of 4 bedroom units would increase. Those numbers are based on
current market data and trends.
12/6/2017
Mr. Millan added that the traffic projections are compared to the average daily traffic
counts, including evening peak hours. He reviewed the average number of trips per day
for both the single family attached and detached homes and the morning and evening
peak hours.
There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were
no additional questions or comments from the audience.
The public hearing was closed at 10:09 PM.
Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Khan, to recommend to the Village Board
to approve 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 p er 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 for a residential unit/building, the developer s hall 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
12/6/2017
Street I shall be identified as out lots. At the request of the Village, these out lots shall be
conveyed to the Village for future ROW. All future and subsequent homeowners shall
sign a disclosure acknowledging that these out lots 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 out lots 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.
Ch. Cesario stated that he has heard the development should comply with the 2009
Comprehensive Plan. He has heard about the taxes. If large, single family homes are
constructed, they will have large taxes. What is being presented addresses the issues
based on the market trends. If large homes, with large tax bills, are constructed on this
site, will the homes sell? He has to consider the need to diversify the housing stock. He
believes this development will help the Village.
Com. Goldspiel stated that he is disappointed in the plan presented. The PZC gave
feedback which was ignored. The proposed plan is too dense and should be R3 or R4
zoning. It should also be 2/3 single family detached housing with more townhomes
eliminated. The public does not support the project as proposed. He wanted K Hovanian
to listen to what the PZC and public have said. He believes that K Hovanian should
demonstrate their anticipation of the project appealing to empty nesters by making the
development age-restrictive. He cannot support the project as proposed.
Com. Au agrees with most of what Ch. Cesario had stated. She disagrees with Com.
Lesser. The people who do support the project are probably not in attendance. The only
changes made to this plan were some added sidewalks and open space. She would like
to have seen a 50/50 plan, or at least a compromise. She supports the project but would
have liked to have seen more concessions made based upon the public comments.
Com. Cohn believes that the project is a major departure from the Comprehensive Plan.
It is incompatible with the surrounding area. Homes that meet the R3 and R4 zoning do
sell. He does not agree that the project will appeal only to empty nesters. He believes
that if the developer believes the product can sell to the 55 and older market then they
should put their money where their mouth is and to sell it as an age-restricted community.
This type of development does not allow people to put down their roots in a community.
The proposed development plan has not changed in the 2 years since it first came before
the PZC. There was only one witness in support of the proposed development. He cannot
support the project as proposed.
12/6/2017
Com. Goldspiel supports the comments of Com. Cohn and Com. Lesser. This is mostly a
plan with single family attached homes. The plan should be developed with R6 zoning,
not R6A. He has concerns about the parking. The proposed homes need not be 3,500
square feet or larger. 1,800 square foot homes would be a better fit. The single family
attached townhomes are too dense. He cannot see this project being successful. He
opposes the plan as proposed.
Com. Moodhe sees the need for maintenance-free housing. However the HOA fees and
property taxes will preclude empty nesters from the development. Marketing to empty
nesters is a weak point to hold onto. The plan has not really changed since the last plan
presented, only the three-story townhomes were eliminated. He is disappointed.
Com. Au stated that the housing market is changing. Something on the proposed plan
would need to change to fit the Comprehensive Plan. Or maybe the Comprehensive Plan
needs to change to accommodate the current market. The density of the single family
attached needs to be lowered. She sees the need for the project on this property, but the
plan still needs some changes.
Com. Khan is torn between the development and the residents. He wants to see this
project more forward but the existing residents could not foresee what the future
development would be. The developer had reduced the number singe family detached
homes to reduce the overall density. Progress toward an acceptable project has been
slow. The plan still needs tweaking. He cannot support the plan as proposed.
RESULT: RECOMMENDATION TO NOT APPROVE [2 TO 6]
Next: 1/22/2018 7:30 PM
MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner
SECONDER: Zill Khan, Commissioner
AYES: Frank Cesario, Mitchell Weinstein
NAYS: Moodhe, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Au
Regular Meeting
Other Matters for Discussion
None.
Approval of Minutes
1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Nov 15, 2017 7:30 PM
Moved by Com. Goldspiel, seconded by Com. Lesser, to approve the minutes of
the November 15, 2017 regular Planning & Zoning Commission meeting as
submitted.
RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Stephen Goldspiel, Commissioner
SECONDER: Scott Lesser, Commissioner
AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Weinstein, Au
Chairman's Report
12/6/2017
None.
Committee and Liaison Reports
Mr. Stilling advised that the Village Board approved both Sky Fitness and Meridian Middle
School.
Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule
Mr. Stilling advised that the December 20, 2017 regular meeting will be cancelled.
Ms. Woods provided an update on the Lake Cook Corridor project. Com. Au asked if there are
alternate plans in place based on economic conditions. Mr. Stilling answered Com. Au's question.
Public Comments and Questions
None.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 PM
Chris Stilling Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY ME THIS 6th DAY OF December , 2017