Loading...
2004-09-22 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 09/22/2004 Type of Meeting: ❑ Special Meeting SPECIAL MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION September 22, 2004 Edward R James Homes, proposed residential development of the Powernail property, 301 Half Day Road—Approval of a Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plan—Workshop #2 Buffalo Grove Bank &Trust, 200 Buffalo Grove Road— Final plat for Checker Road Resubdivision Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Commissioner absent: Mr. Smith Also present: Mr. Bernard Citron, Schain, Burney, Ross & Citron Ltd. Mr. Steven Spinell, Edward R. James Homes Mr. Scott Freres, Lakota Group Inc. Mr. Mike Balas Edward R. James Homes Mr. Randall Drueck, Cowhey Gudmundson Leder, Ltd. Mr. Phil McKenna, Kane & McKenna Associates Mr. Tim Doron, KLOA Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 18, 2004. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Bocek abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Stark attended the Village Board meeting on September 13, 2004 and stated the following items were referred to the Plan Commission: 1. Joy of the Game baseball and softball academy on Busch Parkway who would like zoning for banquet facilities for birthday parties and corporate events. 2. Jacobs Homes development for 19 homes on Deerfield Parkway west of Hidden Lake Drive and east of Buffalo Grove Road. 3. Fairview Estates by Glenbrook Properties at Weiland and Pauline annexation and 26 single family detached units. EDWARD R. JAMES HOMES, PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE POWERNAIL PROPERTY, 301 HALF DAY ROAD — ANNEXXATION AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN—WORKSHOP 92 Mr. Citron stated they hope to address some changes to the plan per comments that were raised as well as review a traffic study that has been done. Also a fiscal analysis of the property has been done of the property. Mr. Spinell stated the current proposal indicates and shows that they have reduced the unit count to 172. The gross density is at 5.54 units per acre. The major change is on the east side of the property where they have replaced the duplex townhomes with the cluster single family homes. They have replaced and put in ten cluster single family homes in, removing the 14 cluster single family homes to the north. Mr. Spinell noted the cluster single family product will be in the mid $600,000 price range. Mr. Freres stated there were a number of questions that came up with respect to site access and the street system. One of the issues is the 26 foot roadway system shown on the plan. They believe this is adequate enough to provide on street parking on one side and two lanes to get by on all the street systems. Again they are showing an 18 foot alley width which is predicated on the use of same at the Glenview and Deerfield projects where the exact same dimensions, turning movements and conditions were addressed and were spoken for both through the Fire Department and municipal services for access, maintenance and garbage collection. They believe that this does work for the type of products that are on this plan. Mr. Freres noted the Fire Department brought up the concern of being able to access the front doors of the rowhomes on the northwest corner. He stated they believe there is plenty of space to get to the front doors and the fire hydrants on the street will be readily accessible. Mr. Freres stated the entrance median will have some beautiful entrance features along with the walls and ponds. There are also two landscaped islands as you come in. They will do whatever is necessary in terms of turning movements to provide safe access to the private drive on the single family cluster homes on the east as well as allowing people to make a turnaround and get back out in the northeast corner. Mr. Freres stated the service drive turnaround has been provided with an access for a three point turn so that you can back out of that space. One of the issues they are still unclear with is the right of way requirement along Route 22 and why they need a continuum of right of way. Mr. Freres stated the parking requirement is two per unit. With the plan as shown they are at 3.5. He noted that they have two garage spaces for every unit and there are aprons behind the driveway which is about 6-7 feet where you can park an additional car. There are off street parking stalls that are clearly defined as well as street parking on one side of the street. All of this can be used for visitor parking. With all of this they believe there is an additional 130 street parking stalls on the plan which makes the parking count about 4.25 cars per unit which is well in excess of the requirement. Mr. Drueck stated there are basically five issues to work out as follows: 1. The north drainage swale retaining wall —Along the most northerly end of the property next to Route 22 there is an issue with the storm water that comes from west of the tracks that goes east. There initial idea was to put a large open swale there with some retaining walls but after further discussion it evolved into a better solution of a mixture of piping and swale which helps to create a 3-5 foot high berm. This berm would be a nice buffer from the roadway and they would still have a drainage system that would convey the water from west to east. 2. The detention basin cross section was a simple change and will be made to conform to the Village ordinance 3. The watermain will also be relocated along a route on the west side of the property and out. 4. The south area is not a jurisdictional wetland and they now have written confirmation of that from the Army Corps of Engineers which then puts it under Lake County's jurisdiction. They will have ongoing meetings with them on this area. It is an area they hope to work in as an amenity for the development as this progresses. 5. The intent on tree preservation is to preserve as many of the high quality trees that now exist along the perimeter as possible and transplant them. A tree preservation plan will be worked up as this plan evolves. Mr. McKenna stated they are financial advisors and 60-70 percent of their clients are municipalities or other taxing bodies. They focus in particular on development related issues. He stated that any development that comes in is likely to produce some additional tax revenue. But against that tax revenue must be measured the services that are necessary in order to provide for the development. What they look at is a fiscal impact study in as neutral a fashion as they can. Mr. McKenna stated what they sought to do was to evaluate fiscal impacts, in particular to the elementary school district 103 and the high school district 125. First they take a look at the projected assessed valuation. They look at the stabilized property market value as it should be computed by Lake County. Stabilized in this situation means once all of the units are built and on the tax rolls. They found in this case they are slightly over $71,000,000. Then they look at the equalized assessed valuation which in this case is 33 1/3 percent. They assumed the homestead exemption for all of the units and a senior exemption for approximately 25 percent of the units. They did not assume any appreciation in value as captured by the county. The current equalized assessed valuation of this property is $890,169. They then look at a determination of population. The total population would be about 372 residents as done by a study. From that there are multipliers which indicate on an average basis throughout the region about how many school children you will get per type of unit. When they apply the ISCS multiplier they find it is likely that high school children would be 8 and elementary school children would be 35. The school district comparables are 15 and 39 and with the developer study it is 5 and 7. They look at the property tax collections for each of the three taxing districts and study here. In this current tax year District 103 received about $16,500, District 125 about $17,000 and the Village itself about $5,400. The result of all this was to give some measurement of whether or not this was a development as constituted which would provide a net benefit fiscal impact and, if it would, approximately how much it would be. Mr. Doron stated this type of development is well-suited for the site. The property is currently zoned industrial. The zoning allows office use, and assuming a reasonable scale of development within the permissible zoning standards, the site traffic would be far in excess of what is projected for the proposed residential development. Mr. Doron stated they counted the site drives and there are three there now which in accordance with an agreement with IDOT will be joined at Prairie Lane to one drive which is what is proposed on the site plan. Mr. Doron noted that residents will experience delays getting out of the proposed site in the morning. They did a gap study and although gaps are not plentiful they are there. People at the very southern end of the site will use the roadway to the east. He noted the capacity analysis is decent on all movements except the outbound. When Illinois 22 is improved the two lanes will allow for more gaps in traffic. Multi-family land uses are very low in trip generation. Mr. Doron noted when they met with IDOT they submitted plans for a left turn lane. IDOT will construct a continuous five lane cross section all the way from Milwaukee Avenue to the west. There will be two through lanes in each direct with three lanes at major intersections. Where there are not major intersections you will see an 18 foot wide mountable or barrier medians. When improvements are made the intersection of Prairie Road and Route 22 the signal will be removed and the access will become a right in, right out access for Prairie Road to the north. On Prairie Lane IDOT has already worked out with Powernail previously a site access drive and since they are leaving and this development will be there, they will continue to locate the site access drive there. They will construct a left turn lane. The deal with IDOT is that at the time the developer is interested in grading, excavating and moving dirt, they will contact IDOT. If at that point in time it has not been funded they will go ahead and construct the left turn lanes. IDOT has given preliminary permission for this. The improvements will include a left turn lane into the site for westbound traffic on Route 22 and a left turn lane for eastbound traffic on Route 22 turning north onto Prairie Lane. Mr. Doron stated they are looking at outbound trip generation in the morning of about 55-60 trips and about the same number in at night. This is certainly additional traffic but it is much less than office development would be. Mr. Doron stated this land use is the reverse traffic flow and the predominant movement will be inbound at night. If it was office it would be the reverse flow. Office goes out at night right during the rush hour. So from a land use perspective in traffic it makes it a lot more desirable to have residential. Mr. Doron stated they are offering to construct a turn lane at Prairie Lane and Route 22 at their expense. This will be constructed according to IDOT standards and the Village. He further noted there will e more traffic but the land use is appropriate for a busy intersection. People exiting this development are going to sit and wait awhile if they are going to the west. Going east there is no problem. Commissioner Teplinsky asked for details on the single family cluster homes. Mr. Spinell stated they should have a package prepared in about two weeks for that product. Commissioner Teplinsky asked what was meant by the assumption of a 25 percent senior exemption on the fiscal impact study. Mr. McKenna stated there is a special state law that senior citizens can take an additional exemption that effectively takes the tax down up to $3,000. It is an exemption that is applied to their assessed valuation. With respect to this development they assume that 25 percent of those who live there were seniors who qualified and took advantage of this. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if it fair to assume that only 8 high school students will be from this development if 75 percent of the residents will be under 65 years of age. Mr. McKenna stated yes. Generally speaking those who will move into empty nester attached homes are not heavy generators of school age children. Children tend to come from larger homes and homes that in a neighborhood that is conducive to raising children. Commissioner Teplinsky noted the one variable in this study is the number of students that are going to be living in the area and serviced by the school districts. This variable can vary immensely. Mr. McKenna stated that if you go to the school district's own comparables which was 15 high school students and 39 elementary school students we are still positive net fiscal impact of about $140,000 per year in District 103 and about $175,000 per year in District 125. He stressed you would have to go somewhere close to 30 high school students and close tom 60 or more elementary students to see a situation in which there was not a net positive fiscal impact. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked about the Fire Marshal's points in his memo and particularly the street width going from 28 feet to 26 feet including on street parking. She stated she is concerned about getting traffic through and emergency vehicles. She also noted the Fire Marshall is very clear that need a consistent street width. Mr. Citron stated they are not saying those are invalid points. They are suggesting that when they reach a point where they are ready to move forward and make an official application and prior to public hearing, they fully intend to speak to the Fire Marshall on these issues and resolve them. Mr. Citron stated the standard pavement width per Buffalo Grove code is 27 feet back to back and we allow parking generally on both sides of the street. They are saying they can go to 27 feet but feel 26 feet is more appropriate and they are counting on parking on only one side of the street. Mr. Citron stated in terms of the comments about the 18 foot private drives in back of units it must be noted that single family homes have no access whatsoever. All fire fighting is done from the front. Most family attached products only have access from the front. They are providing sufficient access from the front and they are actually providing something in addition that you do not generally see. He stated they intend to walk through these comments and make the changes that would make the Fire Marshall happy. Commissioner Cohn noted that Ms. Moons suggested at the last meeting that you could have up to 32 students in District 125 based on what she has seen at the Noah's Landing development. If that is true, then the annual operating expenses would increase to $211,000 and you would still have a surplus of $240,000. It would require about 70 students in the high school before you start seeing a deficit. Mr. McKenna stated he believes that is correct. Commissioner Cohn stated that while it is true that people with children tend to come from single family homes that does not equate for Stevenson High School. Clearly many people in this community will forgo the single family home lifestyle and make the sacrifice just to go to Stevenson High School. Commissioner Khan noted it seems the site plan would work better with the elimination of the road that runs north and south along the east property line and move the single family homes to face the middle roadway and move the detention along the east property line. He noted that most homeowners would rather see a retention pond behind their home than the roadway in the front and in the back. In addition, if you can free up one of the roadways then you have a 50 foot wide strip of land running about 1,500 feet that can be used for something else. Mr. Spinell stated their original proposal showed exactly what Commissioner Khan suggested. They had their detention up against the east property line sharing the common road from the rowhomes to the duplexes. However, the Board was concerned about too much water being so close to the neighbors to the east and suggested that plan be modified to shift the stormwater areas away from the east boundary. Mr. Pfeil commented that Trustee Kahn was particularly concerned about this issue. Mr. Spinell stated they got some direction on central open space. By putting a water feature in the central portion of the site that brought a feature for the entire community to enjoy as you drove into the community. Commissioner Khan asked if they had decided that all the roadways within the subdivision would be private now. Mr. Freres stated that is what Commissioner Khan had heard but that was an incorrect statement. The only private roadways would be the service to the cluster single family to the east and all the service drives around the perimeter and through the rowhomes. The main drives will be a public improvement. Commissioner Khan asked if the timing of this project does not match the timing of the IDOT reconstruction of Route 22, would the left turn lanes be put in anyway. Therefore, does that mean that when IDOT is ready to reconstruct Route 22, those left turn lanes will not be removed and redone again? Mr. Doron stated they have studied the IDOT plans and overlaid their improvements. Coordination of scheduling the left turn improvements to be done by Edward R. James will be worked out with IDOT. Commissioner Samuels asked why the Commission is being presented with an impact study and if it was strictly to deal with the school issue. Mr. Spinell stated that is part of the reason. Also, typically as part of doing their due diligence for the developments they provide they provide fiscal impact studies. Commissioner Samuels asked if the impact study assessed the financial impact of an office development here. Mr. Spinell stated it did not. Commissioner Samuels asked if there would be any correlation between the funds that would be generated by the alternative use. Mr. McKenna stated there could be but it would have to be based upon a plan that laid out what the amount of office was and what the absorption schedule was for the office. Commissioner Samuels noted the problem with having a mix of public and private streets is that these private streets are going to get regular residential use and traffic. Therefore they will need maintenance on a par with public streets. It is a fact that often the residents come to the Village requesting dedication of the streets to the Village once such maintenance is necessary. He asked how that can be prevented. Mr. Spinell stated they have the homeowners association with covenants and restrictions and they are clearly responsible for the maintenance of all of the service drives on the property. Mr. Citron stated it is not 10 years before you need to take a street completely down to bedrock and put in new curbs, etc. It is a much more aggressive schedule than the municipality. He noted that this has happened in some smaller developments in the past but anything that has come forward in the last 12 years has not had this happen nor will it happen. The price points here make it very unlikely that the association would not collect enough association funds. Mr. James stated he has the experience of many developments just like this and he cannot think of a single instance where they have had a circumstance where the association which sets up a budget and a reserve which reserve is set aside for resurfacing purposes, has had a problem of being short of money. Mr. James stated the school impact on their development in Northfield which is the New Trier school district netted only one child out of 53 single family cluster homes. In addition they do not anticipate that the price points here will be attractive to an investor. They have done a multitude of these types of units and their data indicates their student population generation is really low. Commissioner Samuels asked if the 20 foot setback is from the sidewalk or from the right of way. Mr. Freres stated it is 21 feet from the sidewalk. Mr. James stated they are proposing certain variances to the normal code. They have done that elsewhere and they have been able to do it successfully. The trend and good planning is to move away from impervious surface for all of the environmental benefits it creates. Commissioner Samuels stated Mr. Pfeil's memo discusses the 35 foot setback from the adjacent property and the fact that the access drive private street is running along there. He asked for more details on this issue. Mr. Freres stated the single family setback as alluded to by Commissioner Khan is 61 feet. The issue was they have a 35 foot allowable rearyard setback. They looked at it as a premise for the physical building separation from the property line and from the adjacent neighbors. They have shown on the exhibit a typical configuration at its closest point in terms of their nearest building from their property line to the nearest single family home to the east. At the minimal distance it is 110 feet building to building. When they were looking at setbacks they were looking at keeping the building out of that setback and actually creating a little larger space. Commissioner Samuels asked if the setback is referred to from the right of way or from the street or is it from the property line to what. Mr. Pfeil noted that the zoning ordinance states, "the distance at the closest point between the building and the boundary of the planned unit development shall not be less than 35 feet..." He said the intent of this language is to provide a buffer yard. The requirement does not contemplate a road within the 35-foot buffer, although this intent is not explicitly stated. He noted that the intent of a PUD standard for a buffer yard is to provide a spatial separation between properties to minimize impacts. Commissioner Samuels stated that Commissioner Khan's suggestion might well be taken to go back to the original plan concerning the location of the roadways. Commissioner Stark asked what was meant by multi-family traffic being benign and would that mean that single family would be even more benign. Mr. Doron stated in the world of land uses multi-family is down at the bottom of the list in terms of trip generation. Commissioner Stark asked if it makes sense to wait until Route 22 has been expanded before building. Mr. Spinell said that Edward R. James has represented to IDOT they are committed to constructing the necessary left turn lanes on Route 22. The reality is that people will not be living in the proposed Edward R. James community until the spring of 2006. They have told IDOT that they will wait as long as possible before making the improvements within Route 22 because if IDOT does get the funding to complete the entire improvement, it would be more efficient to construct the left lanes for the Powernail property at the same time. If the overall IDOT improvements to Route 22 are delayed, Edward R. James will construct the left lanes to serve the residents that may be living in the community in 2006. Commissioner Stark asked if the developer feels that once Route 22 is expanded and reconstructed it will lessen the impact of people cutting through on Apple Hill. Mr. Doron stated it is a matter of time and convenience. They estimated the directional distribution of people in and out of the driveway and it comes out as a 50/50 split. It is still a convoluted way for them to travel back up to Route 22 but they may want to do it. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he likes the addition of the cluster homes; however, it is his personal opinion that the proposal is still too dense. However, he will reserve judgment because the site plan as presented does not have the necessary dimensions to do a complete zoning analysis and he homes the next plans will have dimensions that will show distances between buildings and setbacks, etc. He commented that a list of requested variations the reasons that they are considered to be necessary should be provided. He noted an updated traffic study should be provided for the next meeting. He also noted that details concerning the single family cluster homes should be provided. Opportunities to link bikepaths should be evaluated. Ms. Terry Moons from District 125 stated she feels the majority of people who bought in Noah's Landing did not do so for investment purposes and using the figures provided and those from the Noah's Landing development she came out with approximately 19 children for District 125. Noah's Landing has 53 units and she is using 126 units here. If you factor back in the single family homes the number goes up to 20.4 students. So while this development would have a very nice financial impact, it does not represent the true reality of living across the street from Stevenson High School. She stated they have seen that people in smaller homes who want to stay in the Village and will buy a similar size townhome which is upgraded just to stay in this district Ms. Moons noted that the Tenerife and Mirielle developments generate 68 students for Stevenson. She stated that perhaps revised figures are probably necessary as well as a revised fiscal impact study. Mr. Renouard, 2213 Apple Hill Lane, stated they had been told that the west side of Prairie will have parking for the train station once the double tracking is completed. He asked how the removal of the stoplight and the addition of a right turn in and out only will work as it will make the parking lot useless. He asked if there will be any sidewalks along Route 22. Mr. Freres stated yes, there will be sidewalks. Mr. Gary Malkin, 2431 Chambourd, stated he represents the Board of Directors for Mirielle. He noted he was impressed that every point was covered and suggested only that Apple Hill Lane not be opened. He noted that Mr. Doron's traffic studies were based on national averages which do not take into account the atypical traffic patterns going to Stevenson. He stated people take the route back through Tenerife now to go across Route 22 at the light as opposed to fighting the traffic on Route 22. Mr. Alan Press, 2220 Apple Hill Court South noted there are many children crossing Apple Hill Lane during the course of the day to access the park and he is concerned for their safety. Ms. Robin Walovitch, 2180 Apple Hill Lane, stated the people living in this complex will have children and will be traveling back and forth by cars to various activities for children and errands. She stated making a left turn out of Mirielle is already impossible and putting another development in the area will make traffic problems even worse. Without a stoplight at Prairie when the widening occurs, no one will be able to make a left turn onto Route 22 so they will cut around Apple Hill and go to Stevenson Drive to make that left turn. These things should be considered in planning. She further noted that the proposed figures of how many children will come from this proposed development is incorrect and everyone knows it. Mr. Shah, 2440 Chambourd Drive, suggested that the road on the east side of the retention pond along Mirielle should be shifted west of the proposed single family homes so that the backyards of the new homes and the existing Mirielle homes would abut. Mr. Lee, 2411 Apple Hill Ln., stated he wants to echo all the other requests not to open Apple Hill Lane because of traffic. He noted that widening Route 22 may make it more difficult for left turns out of Mirielle because there will be four lanes of traffic to deal with when trying to find a safe gap. Additional development will worsen the existing problems on Route 22. Mr. Sam Feldman, 2320 Chambourd Dr., stated he would like to move the retention pond away from the property lines because they do get standing water when there during heavy rains. He asked the commission what they consider would be the ideal density for this property. Chairman Ottenheimer stated every property is unique and has its own character. Before he could answer the question regarding this property he has noted that he needs some more updated site plans that have more dimensions on them. Mr. Nelson Lopez, 2340 Chambourd Dr., stated his concern is whether or not there will be parks in the proposed subdivision because otherwise everyone will be coming through his subdivision to use Apple Hill Park. He further noted that when he bought his house he was told his property line is actually 5 feet beyond the current location of the fence adjoining the Powernail property. He does not know if all the other Mirielle homeowners' property lines also extend farther west than the fence. The proposed pond to be built behind his house may actually extend onto his property. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that is something they will not know until they get the final plan and then they can comment on that. Mr. Citron noted that many figures have been thrown out tonight. Ms. Moons has indicated there would be 20 children from this development and even at that they would still be positive and if it was 30 children they would still be positive. This is not the only reason to vote for or against this project. However, it does show that this development more than pays for itself. Other types of development on this property which for other reasons people may think would be better, would actually negative for other people. A fully single family detached development here would be negative for the school districts because they would certainly generate more children. They will come back and try to address these concerns as well as some of the traffic concerns. BUFFALO GROVE BANK & TRUST, 200 BUFFALO GROVE ROAD — FINAL PLAT FOR CHECKER ROAD RESUBDIVISION Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Khan to recommend approval of the final plat for the Checker Road resubdivision of the Buffalo Grove Bank& Trust. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Cohn, Ottenheimer NAPES: None ABSENT: Smith ABSTAIN: Samuels The motion passed 7 to 0. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman Ottenheimer commented that it is important that the Plan Commission stay focused on the primary issues concerning development projects. The demographic and school impact report for the proposed residential development on the Powernail property is interesting information, but it should not become a main issue in the Plan Commission's review of the site plan and related issues. He noted that the school districts have the responsibility for commenting concerning the possible impacts of a development, and the Village will always consider these comments in the planning review. He said that it is important that the Plan Commission approach development projects on a general or "global" basis and then refine the issues as the review proceeds. FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil noted the next meeting will be a special meeting on September 29th concerning the Village Comprehensive Plan. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Bocek, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair