Loading...
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