2004-08-18 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission
Document Type: 0 A e
g nda 0 Minutes
Meeting ate: 08/18/2004
Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
August 18, 2004
Edward R James Homes, proposed residential development of the
Powernail property, 301 Half Day Road—Approval of a
Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plan—workshop #1
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
Mr. Smith
Ms. Kenski-Sroka
Mr. Khan
Mr. Teplinsky
Mr. Stark
Mr. Cohn
Commissioners absent: Ms. Bocek
Also present: Mr. Bernard Citron, Schain, Burney, Ross & Citron, Ltd.
Mr. Jerry James, Edward R. James Partners, LLC
Mr. Daniel Grove, Lakota Group, Inc.
Mr. Steven Spinell, Edward R. James Homes
Mr. Randall Drueck, Cowhey Gudmundson Leder, Ltd.
Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner
Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the minutes
of the public hearing of July 21, 2004 for St. Mary's Parish parking lot expansion. All
Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with
Commissioner Smith abstaining.
Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the
minutes of the public hearing of July 21, 2004 for Insignia Homes. All Commissioners were in
favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Khan abstaining.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to approve the minutes of the
regular meeting of July 21, 2004. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the
motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Khan abstaining.
COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS
Commissioner Khan attended the Village Board meeting on August 16, 2004 and stated there
was no specific item pertaining to the Plan Commission.
EDWARD R. JAMES HOMES, PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE
POWERNAIL PROPERTY, 301 HALF DAY ROAD—ANNEXATION AND APPROVAL OF
A PRELIMINARY PLAN—WORKSHOP #1
Mr. Bernard Citron noted this is the first workshop session regarding the Powernail property
located on the south side of Route 22 just east of Prairie Road and the railroad tracks. Powernail
has basically been a manufacturing use for many years and they are now moving to another
location.
Mr. Citron stated that when they initially looked at the property they looked at some combination
of uses of commercial and residential and ultimately came to the conclusion that it would not
work at this property. Therefore, they are trying to create a residential community that integrates
well with a very difficult site while taking advantage of some of the positive attributes of this site
which includes the location within Buffalo Grove and its closeness to the train station.
Mr. Citron noted that they have had experience with sites such as this and they have had
experience with train tracks, heavy traffic and they have built this product previously.
Mr. Jeffery James stated they are a third generation business with about 55 people. He stated an
integrated developer builder which means they actually the developer of the land and also the
builder of the homes themselves. The company looks for unique situations where they can go in
with a customized approach. He noted that landscaping is one of the cornerstones of their
development approach. They view it as the things that tie the architecture into the planning. He
noted that transit oriented development looks dense but it is only accomplished if the
landscaping and the design of the architecture work.
Mr. Steve Spinell noted that to the east of the Powernail property is R-4 single family lots that
are minimum 10,000 square foot lots and to the east of that are the R-9 PUD multi-family. To
the north is the R-8 PUD multi-family and the RE single family. To the west is the Metra train
tracks, unincorporated property, R-5 PUD residential and R-4 single family. To the south is the
Lincolnshire office and industrial zoning. He noted they are faced with many challenges on this
piece of property. You have the influences of Route 22 and Half Day road to the north, the
influences of the Soo line to the west and you have the positive attribute of the Metra station
which is within walking distance for the community. Based on the surrounding zoning they feel
that this proposed development is appropriate for this site.
Mr. Spinell stated they wanted to introduce a few different housing type options for Buffalo
Grove residents and they have proposed four. The target market will include empty nesters,
commuting professionals and young couples. This will not be a community with a lot of families
and a lot of children associated with it. The pedestrian friendly streetscape and the rear loading
product to buffer the adjacent railroad is very important to their planning process. This will all
be a maintenance free community.
Mr. Spinell discussed the original proposal noting the original development was a planned unit
development including 94 attached single family units. There were four product types that were
proposed including 62 row homes, which are clustered in the central area of the site, 34
traditional townhomes along the east property line, 62 tuck under townhomes along the west
property line and 36 villas along the west property as well. All the detention was up along the
east property line. They received a lot of input from the trustees and have incorporated changes
in response to their comments in the new proposal.
Mr. Spinell noted they have had a reduction in unit count to 176 units for a gross density of 5.8
units per acre. The trustees were concerned with all the water being up against the east property
line so they took the water to the east and made it a central feature into the community. By
doing so it would free up the concern about all the water being up around the neighbors to the
east. The trustees were also concerned about the scale of the buildings along the east property
line and the density. Therefore, instead of having 4 and 6 unit buildings they went ahead with
duplex attached single family housing along the east property line. The minimum lot sizes to the
properties to the east are 10,000 square feet which are 70 feet wide which allows for a 54 foot
structure. The attached housing here is proposed as a 70 foot wide structure. They have also
added a pedestrian linkage to the northwest for easy access to the Metra station. They have
loosened up the site within the center of the row homes and they have a pedestrian linkage which
will tie the property from east to west. They have added a pocket park near the row homes. The
total impervious are is 60 percent of the site.
Mr. Spinell noted that because of the demographics and the type of people that they will be
marketing to and the history they have had with similar types of properties, there will be a lot of
little passive recreational areas on the site by design. There have been some comments by staff
and by some of the trustees as to having one big central area for recreation. However, their
experience has told them that people like to have choices to use small little passive recreational
spaces in and throughout the community.
Mr. Daniel Grove stated they have a cohesive neighborhood that they have put together through
four different product types. Along the west edge butting up against the railroad tracks they
have the tuck under product type and they oriented it that way because these are rear loaded units
and they have been oriented and spaced to be a buffer against from the railroad tracks and to
buffer the rest of the community. They have found this successful in other developments they
have done. To the south of that they have done the same thing with the villas. Those are again
rear loaded product types with the garage and service in the back on a service corridor and they
work well to screen and create a better environment for the rest of the community. All of these
now face inward onto a street system. The advantage is that since these are rear loaded you do
not have garages loading out onto your street system. This creates a very nice pedestrian
friendly green street corridor. Across from the tuck unders are the row home product which back
up to each other on another service corridor. These service corridors are used only for service
and by the residents. Your actual road network is very green and pedestrian friendly. The
second row of row homes faces east to the large central detention pond. This is a great amenity
and a nice unifying central feature for the development. Across from the row homes is the
duplex single family attached product which back up to the detention pond so their back patio
areas look out over the detention pond. Their front yards face to the east where they have a
private drive. These duplex units have only one set of garages facing out onto the private road
and the other one faces sideways and shares a drive with the unit across the way. The effect you
have is of not a lot of garages facing out onto that road which has a more private single family
streetscape feel. He noted they did this intentionally here as a transition to the residential to the
east. In the PUD there is a 35 foot setback that would be applicable on the east property line.
They have set the duplexes back over 60 feet in the tightest condition so at the property line you
have an existing 6 foot fence. Next to that there is a 10 foot landscape area, a 26 foot road and
then a 25 foot front yard to the duplexes.
Mr. Grove stated down to the south there are duplexes again but they are facing west onto
another pedestrian friendly road and they back up to the southern detention pond. He noted they
have scaled back and created a lesser density here than their other plans because they thought
that was more appropriate. Knitting this whole plan together is a street system that is
interconnected. The way into this development is off of Route 22 and you come into a divided
boulevard landscaped and treated nicely. The main spine is then the road that goes between the
row homes and the detention. Then it comes south between the villa product and the duplexes
and connects with Apple Hill Lane to the subdivision to the east. Secondary to that main spine is
the west loop streetscape that goes between the tuck under product and the row home product.
This is a very walkable pedestrian friendly environment. There are very little curb cuts and very
little conflicts with vehicular traffic so it is a very walkable community. There is another
secondary access to the private drive which accesses the duplexes. Finally there is a system of
service corridors.
Mr. Grove stated another thing that knits this whole community together is a series of passive
open spaces that interconnect and tie in with this pedestrian walking environment. As you go
along you link from smaller open spaces, views and vistas of detention ponds which link all the
way through the community.
Mr. Grove noted there is a landscape buffer along Route 22. They intend on landscaping with
berming, evergreen, deciduous and ornamental trees as well as wildflower grasses. As you come
into the development they envision some masonry monuments and then two detention ponds
which would be treated with wild flower grasses, outcropping stones, small shrubs and a few
ornamental and deciduous trees. He continued to review the landscape and pedestrian features in
all directions of this development.
Mr. Drueck reviewed the engineering plans noting the basic engineering facilities such as sewer,
sanitary and water mains would all be public and connected to the Village's systems which are
adjacent at the property line. They have confirmed with the Village Engineer that they do have
the capacity for the development as proposed. The roads would have a cross section that would
meet minimum or better standards of the Village and all the amenities such as street lighting
would all be in accordance with the Village code as well.
Mr. Drueck noted there are two fixed points for access. The one at the south which connects to
the existing subdivision and at the north their discussions with IDOT noted that this was a fixed
location and IDOT wants it to line up with the street to the north. They do not at this point
anticipate that this is a signalized intersection as it does not have the warrants that would create
that at this time. There would be improvements to provide a right turn lane in and proper
deceleration lane in off of Route 22.
Mr. Drueck noted there is a ridge line that runs approximately across the center of the site which
divides the water flow into two directions. Good engineering practice dictates that they provide
their detention within each watershed and at the ideal location where the stormwater can be
collected and released into the adjacent downstream areas safely without causing any flooding.
He stated they have engineered the basins with sizes shown on the plans that will work. They
anticipate the water elements will have approxdimately 3-4 feet of bounce which is a very
manageable height and allows for planting of native vegetation in the shore lines. He noted they
have done the wetland delineations on the site. The central area that represented quality
characteristics was down in the southern portion of the site. They have had the Army Corps of
Engineers out to look at the delineation and they have confirmed the correctness of it and they
have also said they classify these wetlands as isolated which means they are not under the
jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers and will not require any permits from them. The findings
are that it is a low quality area that has been disturbed over the years. They are proposing to
incorporate it into the stormwater management system to restore some of the hydrology that has
been lost over the years and to do some selective re-establishment of vegetation to enhance that
area and made it an amenity to the plan.
Mr. Drueck stated they have a done a tree survey and they feel they will be able to retain some of
the existing trees along the east and west property lines. There are some that will be transplanted
to another area.
Mr. Spinell stated they are proposing 176 units comprised of 62 tuck under townhomes, 56 row
homes, 30 villas and 28 duplex units. The tuck under homes are ones where there is a small
service drive in the back with access to the garages. The garage itself is actually tucked under
into the body of the structure. The back half of the building would be garage. The front portion
of the lower level would be a great room, family room or office. You would then go up a full
flight of stairs to bedrooms and all living spaces. There would be a 6 foot high fence with
landscape buffer and the service drive between these and the Metra lines. The row homes are a
two story structure. Access again is off the main street directly into the units. In the back you
come in through the service drive to the two car garage and each individual unit has a patio space
for their own outdoor space. The average size of the units will be a little over 1,700 square feet
with a base sales price of$405,000.
Mr. Spinell stated the villa product has end units with two stacked ranch units. The interior units
are two story townhomes. The average size of these units will be 1,810 square feet and the
average sale price will be$389,000. The attached single family homes have water views on both
west or east orientations and the average size of these homes are 2,300 square feet and the
average price will be $500,000.
Mr. Spinell stated they plan on having fee simple ownership for all of the town homes except for
the villas which will be condominiums. They will have recorded declarations and covenants,
conditions, easements and restrictions and a homeowner's association will be responsible for
maintaining the landscaping, entry monuments, fences, detention ponds and access drives.
Commissioner Stark asked if there are any proposals for low level lighting for the pedestrian
connection to the train station.
Mr. Spinell stated they do have internal street lighting proposed and they do always put some
lighting in the service drives.
Commissioner Stark asked if there would be any playground amenities here or benches and
things like that.
Mr. Spinell noted there are gazebos planned in some spaces and benches will be built there.
Commissioner Stark asked if any problems are foreseen turning left onto Route 22.
Mr. Spinell stated they have taken the site plan to IDOT and they are waiting for a response. He
noted that during peak hours there will be some issues with a left turn out of this community.
Commissioner Stark asked if snow removal will be up to the Village or the association.
Mr. Spinell noted the public streets will obviously be a Village chore and all the private service
streets will be the responsibility of the association.
Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked if there would be sufficient parking for guests with the rear
loading streetscape.
Mr. Spinell there is parking on the apron of every driveway for the duplex units. The row homes
have no parking in the back but there is parking along the street on one side of the street. On the
tuck under product the interior units have a bit shallower depth than the end units and that
provides for parking along the back service drive. The villas do not allow any parking in the
back of the units.
Mr. Grove stated they have taken opportunities where they felt it was appropriate for parking.
They have created intentional cut-ins for parallel parking in a couple of key locations throughout
the development. In addition to on street parking there is about 18 dedicated visitor parking
spaces scattered throughout. He noted they exceed the ordinance for both regular parking and
visitor parking.
Commissioner Teplinsky noted his prime concern at this point is density in an area that is
becoming the most gridlocked area in the Village. He stated he would like to see some more
information and study on the density in the area and traffic counts. He stated his concern is that
this might be too ambitious of a project for this location. He asked if there had been any
contemplation of single family detached homes along the east edge of the property where the
duplexes are abutting.
Mr. Spinell noted the Village trustees had posed the same question. He stated that they feel that
because of the size of the buildings, the width of the buildings in relation to what is on the east,
and the scale of 1 '/2 stories to 2 stories buildings, they have not yet made a decision about single
family residences along the east property line.
Commissioner Samuels asked how trash collection is handled.
Mr. Spinell stated trash will go outside of garage doors for the service drives and garbage trucks
will come back around and pick up the garbage.
Commissioner Samuels asked if fire hydrants are located on public streets.
Mr. Spinell stated yes.
Commissioner Samuels stated his difficulty with this development is that it really feeds only in
and out onto Route 22 which is a jammed corridor. He stated he feels that basically all the traffic
will be handled through the Apple Hill light.
Commissioner Cohn asked if there are any environmental issues on the site due to the fact that
this has been an industrial district for so long and is now proposed as a residential site.
Mr. Spinell stated they have done extensive research on this issue and there are some minor
things within the building but there are no environmental issues on the site that would cause any
time of alarm or harm to the community.
Commissioner Cohn asked about the wetland in the southern portion of the site and asked if it
will be filled in.
Mr. Spinell stated it is open space now and they plan on leaving it as open space and will be
enhancing it to make it an amenity within the community.
Commissioner Cohn commented that although the new homes would be near a train station, he
does not view this as transit oriented development. He noted that a transit oriented development
is characterized by unified transportation services serving an area with a mixed of land uses.
The proposed development is really just people walking to the train. He suggested that empty
nesters will not be commuting to downtown Chicago, so the proximity of the Prairie View train
station may be of limited use to them. Young couples and commuting professionals may not
want to live in a development that lacks urban amenities and has no pedestrian linkages to basic
commercial and service establishments. He asked what is planned for the other properties around
the Prairie View train station. He commented that new residential development with moderate to
high density should provide convenient pedestrian access to shops and services.
Mr. Pfeil said the Village has not programmed any specific improvements in and around the
Prairie View train station. The area west of Main Street is unincorporated from Route 22 to just
south of Park Avenue. Village's planning anticipates redevelopment for commercial uses occur
along Main Street across from the train station continuing to the intersection at Route 22. The
specific type of development is undefined, and it may be quite a while before commercial
redevelopment is initiated.
Commissioner Cohn noted that concurrently with the proposed plan for new residential use on
the Powernail property, the Village should be thinking of what will be done in the adjacent area.
This residential plan should be coordinated with planning for other types of development in the
immediate area. He asked if there had been any consideration for mixed use development on the
Powernail site.
Mr. Spinell said they discussed the feasibility of having a mixed use development with the
Village Board, but the site isn't suited for commercial use. He noted that the Woodland
Commons shopping center to the west on Route 22 has numerous tenant vacancies, which
indicates that the area may not be able to support additional commercial use.
Commissioner Khan asked what kind of variations would be necessary for this proposed
development.
Mr. Citron stated they do not have any as yet because they have heard concerns among the
trustees even in referring the plan to the Plan Commission and so they want to get the Plan
Commission's comments first.
Commissioner Khan stated he would like to see a traffic study to show if there are warrants that
can be met for a traffic signal at Prairie and Route 22. Quite often IDOT puts the burden on the
developer to provide either some contribution toward a traffic signal or pay for the entire cost.
Mr. Spinell stated KLOA is their traffic consultant. He stated that have taken this concept plan
to IDOT and are hoping to get some input before the next Plan Commission meeting. He further
noted that proximity to the railroad tracks limits the location of traffic signals. Initial comment
from IDOT indicates that northbound traffic to Prairie Road on the east side of the tracks will be
restricted to right-in turns. Traffic would also be allowed to turn right from Prairie Road to
westbound Route 22.
Commissioner Khan asked if the county has jurisdiction over the isolated wetlands.
Mr. Drueck stated yes. But once they get the official letter from the Army Corps the next step is
to meet with the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission.
Commissioner Khan noted there is a requirement that there must be so many feet of buffer
between the building and the wetlands. Would this change the plan if a larger buffer is required?
Mr. Drueck stated no major change would be required. He stated it is their experience that based
on the condition of the wetlands they will be able to do buffer averaging which allows that area
to meet that requirement without major changes to the plan itself.
Commissioner Khan asked if the detentions would be dry bottom ponds or wet bottom.
Mr. Spinell noted they are presently proposed as wet bottom ponds.
Commissioner Khan stated he does not favor the mixing of private roads and public roads His
recommendation would be to have all the roads be private. He further noted concern with the
density issue.
Commissioner Smith asked if the multi-use concept was rejected because of the shopping center
down the street which is not doing well or is there a problem inherent with this property that
would not allow successful commercial endeavors.
Mr. James stated they have done retail and are familiar with that. The simple matter here is that
not only is it a problematic situation by virtue of access but secondly there is no demand out
there for this location for retail. There is enough retail in the immediate area and when coupled
with the logistics of getting people in and out, it is a virtual non-starter.
Commissioner Smith asked if discussions have been held with the school districts.
Mr. Spinell stated no, not as yet.
Mr. James stated that school impact is one of the reasons that this plan has a lot of merit. The
proposed development would not have a large number of school-aged children, and it would
create property tax revenue for the Village and other taxing bodies such as schools. The other
aspect is that single family homes are not appropriate for this site. The proposed plan provides a
transition between the railroad tracks and the developments to the east. The site is odd shaped,
and multi-family development provides the opportunity to configure a land plan that fits within
the constraints of the site.
Ms. Terry Moons presented enrollment numbers concerning children attending Stevenson High
School from the new developments within the immediate area of the school:
Tenerife and Mirielle 68
Westgate 3
Beaconsfield 3
Noah's Landing 8
Sarah's Glen 6
Willow Parkway 17
She noted that based on the students from Noah's Landing, this proposed plan could produce
approximately new 32 students. She noted their concern at the high school is not so much
density but that the price point for these units and that the 2 to 3 bedroom plans will encourage
families to purchase units for access to the Stevenson School District.
Ms. Moons suggested the traffic study be done from 7:00 a.m. until 8:15 a.m. The study should
include the 60 school buses coming to Stevenson alone along Route 22. She noted that
substantial traffic accesses the Stevenson campus from Port Clinton Road. She pointed out that
in addition to buses serving the high school, Route 22 is used in both directions by buses from
school District 103. The traffic study should use an afternoon time period of 2:15 p.m. to 4:00 to
assess school-related traffic, and extend to 6:00 p.m. to cover overall traffic in the area. Counts
should be made of traffic coming in and out of Stevenson. She noted Stevenson is now entering
its projected peak enrollments. The school is now at approximately 4,500 students, 500 staff and
300 support staff, it the enrollment will probably top out at 4,600 students in 2006.
Ms. Moons further noted that in her work for State Representative Sidney Mathias who is very
active in the transportation sub-committee, it has been brought to her attention that while the
expansion of Route 22 has been approved, all of the funding for that expansion has not been
approved. It may or may not start in the spring of 2005.
Ms. Moons further noted that the proposed streets and service roads would need to be large
enough for a bus to get in and out which would be a concern for the elementary district.
Mr. Steve Schencker, 2441 Chambourd, stated he would not like Apple Hill Lane to be opened
up to the proposed development. He said that when Route 22 backs up with two lanes or four
lanes, motorists would cut-through the Mirielle and Tenerife subdivisions to access the traffic
signal at Palazzo Drive/Stevenson Drive. He stated that 200 cars could use this route, and it
would not be safe for kids in the area. .
Chairman Ottenheimer summarized the major issues for the next workshop:
1. Bikepath system integration into the development
2. Traffic study
3. Further information demonstrating that the proposed density is appropriate
4. Impact on school districts
CHAIRMAN'S REPORTCHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None
FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE
Mr. Pfeil stated the next special meeting will be held on September 8, 2004.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Pfeil stated the Village Board amended the Zoning Ordinance to require a Special Use for a
drive-through in commercial districts. This amendment was heavily influenced by the Board's
concern with the number of banks in the Village, but the special use requirement will also
pertain to other types of commercial uses. Restaurants and other uses which have not been
special uses would now be required to come before the Plan Commission for a public hearing.
NEW BUSINESS—None
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Smith and carried
unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair