Loading...
2004-07-21 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 07/21/2004 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION July 21, 2004 Insignia Homes,Annexation with zoning in the R-7 District with a Residential Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and approval of a Preliminary Plan for 21 single-family detached villa units, east side of Prairie Road across from Chestnut Terrace Chairman Ottenheimer called the hearing to order at 8:53 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Chairman Ottenheimer read the Notice of Public Hearing as published in the Buffalo Grove Daily Herald, explained the procedure to be followed for the public hearing, and swore in all persons who wished to give testimony. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Commissioners absent: Mr. Khan Also present: Mr. Lawrence Freedman, Ash, Anos, Freedman& Logan Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Karl Krogstad, Pugsley & LaHaie Mr. Jeff Braiman, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit 1: Preliminary Site Plan dated March 29, 2004 Exhibit 2: Preliminary Site Plan dated July 9, 2004 Exhibit 3, 4: Unit Plans dated July 6, 2004 Exhibit 5, 6: Exterior elevations J& K dated July 6, 2004 Exhibit 7, 8: Exterior elevations J& L dated July 6, 2004 Exhibit 9: Preliminary Landscape Plan dated July 7, 2004 Exhibit 10: Minutes and notes of ART meeting Exhibit 11: Memo to Plan Commission from Mr. Pfeil dated July 15, 2004 Mr. Freedman stated they were originally before the Commission in May with a townhouse plan consisting of 41 units which the majority of this Commission recommended to the Village Board be approved. Although there were some favorable comments at the Board meeting, the Trustees were not happy with the proposed use as townhomes. He stated they came back to the Board with a concept plan that changed the product to single family villas and to cut density in half. Mr. John Green noted the original plan was a plan of 11 townhome buildings. The new plan is individual condominium units. The building unit is owned by the individual while the entire rest of the site is common ground. It is common maintenance and ownership so there is a consistency through the development which is required by the PUD ordinance. He stated this new plan consists of 21 units at 2.95 units per acre. The plan now presented has a minimum of 15 feet between all individual units with windows on all sides of all units. This plan has three units only which back up to Prairie Road and one unit with its side to Prairie Road. There are also now only four units backing up toward the railroad right of way. Further, the new plan has reduced outside corner yards with a ten foot minimum at bays and twelve foot minimum at the main building. He also noted that the new plan has no supplemental parking spaces needed because there is ample on street parking opportunity with only 21 curb cuts throughout the same site area of development. This plan now has two streets which are continuations of existing streets and no cul-de-sacs. This plan also has two units types and four different elevations for each of the buildings. Mr. Green discussed the preliminary landscape plan noting the plan has all of the same landscaping features as the first plan contained and it is still a PUD. That means they have still worked with all of the Village standards and programs to provide for the enhancement and best possible plan. Toward that end they are still requesting some variations such as: 1. To allow a minimum 24 foot setback at the corner of unit#8 so that the unit can move with the flow of the rest of the streetscape 2. To allow 10 foot side yard setbacks to the bays on units #4, #12, and #17. All site lines continue to be maintained and have been improved because they did this where they have maintained a straight street and a perpendicular T intersection. This also allows them to make the street more curvilinear which helps control the speed on the streets. 3. To permit a front yard of 21 feet in lieu of 25 feet. The garages are all set back from the closest facade of the building which helps reduce the impact of those garages on the streetscape. They are therefore only asking for variations at covered porches and bays where every garage will now be a minimum of 25 feet back from the right-of-way line. Because of this variation they are also now able to pull the fencing line back off of Prairie Road several feet and they therefore now have the opportunity to let the landscaping reach around in front of the fencing along Prairie Road. Commissioner Teplinsky asked what it is about this plan that makes the R-7 designation the most appropriate. Mr. Green stated the main differential is that while it has gone to a single family type development, all of the single family zonings in Buffalo Grove are based on lots. In this program you do not have lots and they do not meet all the standards of single family residences but they do meet all the standards of the R-7 with a PUD. He noted they would be here with a long list of variations under another zoning district. Commissioner Teplinsky noted buildings #13 and #14 look as though the distance between the rear decks and that those buildings are very close to one another. He asked if it would be possible to mirror image the elevation of one of those buildings. Mr. Green stated he does not see that as a problem because they have already increased the separation between them and a lot of it can be handled with landscaping. He noted it is 15 feet at the minimum point so one of the things they have endeavored to do is pair up the driveways. They have done that in order to maximize the parking on the street. There is ample opportunity to create the separation that is not only desired but is necessary from a sales perspective. Commissioner Teplinsky noted there is no fence proposed between this plan and the Mirielle subdivision. Mr. Green stated that was correct. Commissioner Bocek noted she agrees with Commission Teplinsky that the two balconies on Buildings #13 and #14 are close together. She asked if they can be flipped so that balcony on #13 is on the other side. Mr. Green stated the easiest thing to do is slide the location of the patio. He stated a separation can be created. Commissioner Bocek asked if they had agreed to have more stone vertically. Mr. Green stated that was correct. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked what the expected market was for these homes. Mr. Green stated it is primarily empty nester. While there are larger units than the townhouse units than the townhouse units, the market is the same age group but probably a different performa from a financial standpoint because they are expected to be significantly more in cost a townhouse was going to be. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked if the effect on the school district would be roughly the same as it was in the previously plan. Mr. Green stated yes. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked if the traffic would be less due to the smaller number of units. Mr. Green stated they had the traffic engineer look at the plan and there is some reduction but it is not statistically significant. This is because when you change the product type you have more projected cars because you can go to 2 '/2 to 3 cars per unit on some of them. It does reduce the number of trips per day which they believe is a more significant number. Commissioner Stark asked if the playground equipment location is located where the cell tower is. Mr. Green stated it is to the west of the cell tower. Commissioner Stark asked if there would be any issues with the cell tower coming down in 2009. Mr. Green stated no. He stated this plan is probably easier now because the access is directly in now. Commissioner Stark asked if there will be a yield sign at Avalon and Chestnut. Mr. Green stated the traffic report recommends a stop sign at that intersection. Commissioner Stark asked for more detail on the retention pond. Mr. Green stated the retention pond will be a feature and will be a wet pond. They are actually creating dual terracing at some points. The landscaping at the lowest level will be able to be inundated with water for a period of time and survive. The second terrace up is day lilies and plants of that kind which can take water for a short period of time and the upper level goes to a more formal planting. They have had the opportunity with this plan to eliminate the peninsula around the cell tower and to make the retention pond more rectangular which brings better volume and efficiency. Commissioner Samuels asked about unit sizes and prices. Mr. Green stated there are two floor plans of 2,550 to 2,800 square feet and 3,400 to 3,430 feet costing around $700,OOO.but there are a number of things that may still affect that price range. Mr. Steve Lefar, 2038 Jordan Terrace, stated this plan is a huge improvement over the last plan and he hoped the proposed prices were maintained. He further asked the Plan Commission consider this becoming a District 102 school with the idea of trying to keep this a connected neighborhood so that the kids can play with each other. Mr. David Sternberg, 2170 Avalon Ct. N., stated the configuration of Avalon in this new plan works to try to reduce the likelihood of people cutting through. He asked for a stop sign also at the intersection of Avalon Court North and Avalon Drive which is a four way intersection directly south of the new development. He noted that will discourage the racing of people through Mirielle to bypass the bottleneck on Prairie Road and Route 22. Joe Hautzinger, 22723 Prairie Road, stated this is a vastly superior plan to the last one. He noted his only concern is with the T intersection at the end of Chestnut in that it appears to come to about five feet from his property line which is pretty much his backyard. He noted he would like to see a guardrail or something there to prevent a car from coming through. He stated his other concern is with snow removal which appears that it will be pushed right next to his yard. He stated they have never had water up to now in that side yard and he is concerned that with a four foot down slope he will be significantly wetter than he is now. He also pointed out that the proposed decks still stick out into the 35 foot setback on units #4 through 8. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 07/21/2004 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION July 21, 2004 St. Mary Parish parking lot expansion, southwest area 10 Buffalo Grove Road Chairman Ottenheimer called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Chairman Ottenheimer read the Notice of Public Hearing as published in the Buffalo Grove Daily Herald, explained the procedure to be followed for the public hearing, and swore in all persons who wished to give testimony. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Commissioners absent: Mr. Khan Also present: Rev. Marc Reszel, St. Mary Parish Mr. Jason Doland, W.C. Doland Engineering Inc. Mr. Tom Healy, Facilities Manager, St. Mary Parish Mr. Jeff Braiman, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, VillageAttorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit A: Topographic and geometric map of current parking lot layout and proposed conditions, dated June 30, 2004 Exhibit B: Memo to Plan Commission from Robert Pfeil, dated July 15, 2004 Exhibit C: Landscape Plan, two plans dated June 21, 2004 Reverend Reszel stated they are asking for consideration of the parking lot expansion westerly from the existing parking lot that is currently considered the football field area. He noted they are asking for approximately a 75 foot expansion to the west which comprises almost 13,000 square feet of new pavement. It is stand alone from the standpoint of stormwater detention and it provides for a net sum gain of 23 parking spots which is a much needed commodity. Commissioner Samuels asked for a description and reason for a variance request regarding the stormwater detention in the parking lot. Mr. Doland stated currently the condition is showing an existing stormwater detention area on the pavement. When the pavement is expanded further to the west they inherently open that area to the same water level at about one foot deep of water. That is a lot to store on that pavement during high storm times. When it is opened up west for this new parking area inherently that water will grow to the west. He stated they are able to utilize that new spread out of the water to the west for their detention calculation. It is not that they are creating a new detention basin which previously did not exist; rather it is an existing inherited on parking detention situation which will now be expanded. There will be no different depth in the water during storm times and it will simply be allowed to grow to the west. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked for a review of the landscaping plans. Mr. Tom Healy stated they will be removing three trees along the edge of the parking area where the concession stand current lies. They will be providing about 15-16 new trees in that area. He stated he walked through the area with the Village Forester who made some recommendations and have been included in the plans that have been submitted. He noted they are basically putting trees in between the ball field and the parking lot and some trees in the island areas. Commissioner Teplinsky asked where the overflow parking is now and why is there a need for these increased spaces. Mr. Healy stated currently they are putting some people up on the ball field. Commissioner Teplinsky asked if the addition of these new spaces will ease or eliminate this condition. Mr. Healy stated it will certainly help. Mr. Raysa noted he has two landscaping plans and he is trying to determine which one is which. Mr. Pfeil noted that two landscape plans are provided. One is pertains to the area just west of the new rectory and it is intended to provide background information to the Commission concerning some of the landscaping enhancements that are being done on the site as a whole. The other landscaping plan focuses on the subject area under review and it shows the trees along the new ball field border and in the islands in the parking lot. Both plans are dated June 21, 2004. Commissioner Cohn asked if Buffalo Grove has ever approved stormwater detention using the parking lot as stormwater detention. Mr. Kuenkler stated there are a number of properties that do have storage on the parking lot but it was removed as an option from the ordinance in about 1983. Commissioner Cohn asked if the proposal will therefore be a problem for storm drainage. Mr. Kuenkler stated the existing parking area does store water on the parking lot and he is not aware of it being a problem so it will be pretty much the same. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 07/21/2004 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION July 21, 2004 St. Mary Parish, 10 Buffalo Grove Road,Approval of a Preliminary Plan for a parking lot expansion (southwest area along Lake Cook Road) In the R-1 District Insignia Homes,Annexation with zoning in the R-7 District with a Residential Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and approval of a Preliminary Plan for 21 single-family detached villa units, east side Of Prairie Road across from Chestnut Terrace Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 8:45 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. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Commissioners absent: Mr. Khan Also present: Rev. Marc Reszel, St. Mary Church Mr. Jason Doland, W. C. Doland Engineering Inc. Mr. Tom Healy, Facilities Manager, St. Mary Parish Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Lawrence Freedman, Ash, Anos, Freedman& Logan Mr. Karl Krogstad, Pugsley & LaHaie Mr. Jeff Braiman, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES—None COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Teplinsky stated he attended the July 12, 2004 Village Board meeting and the following items were discussed: 1. Approval of the down zoning of the property where the JCC is located from R-7 to R-5. 2. Referral of the Edward R. James project to the Plan Commission concerning the redevelopment of the Powernail property. ST. MARY PARISH, 10 BUFFALO GROVE ROAD, APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR A PARKING LOT EXPANSION (SOUTHWEST AREA ALONG LAKE COOK ROAD) IN THE R-1 DISTRICT Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval to the Village Board of the petition of a Preliminary Plan pursuant to Title 16 — Village Development Ordinance, with the following variation: Section 16.50.040.D. (to allow storm water detention on the parking lot surface to allow expansion of the parking area in the southwest portion of the property adjacent to the football field pursuant to the testimony and exhibits in support thereof in the public hearing. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Ottenheimer, Samuels, Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Teplinsky, Stark, Cohn NAPES: None ABSENT: Khan ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 8 to 0. Chairman Ottenheimer suspended the meeting at 7:52 p.m. Chairman Ottenheimer reconvened the meeting at 8:36 p.m. INSIGNIA HOMES, ANNEXATION WITH ZONING IN THE R-7 DISTRICT WITH A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR 21 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED VILLA UNITS, EAST SIDE OF PRAIRIE ROAD ACROSS FROM CHESTNUT TERRACE Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to recommend approval to the Village Board of the petition for annexation with zoning in the R-7 Dwelling District with a Residential Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and approval of a Preliminary Plan with the following variations pursuant to the proposed Preliminary Plans: ZONING ORDINANCE — Section 17.28.050.E.4.b. (to allow a north perimeter boundary setback of 24 feet instead of 35 feet at the northeast corner of Unit#8); Section 17.40.030.C. (to allow a corner side yard of 10 feet instead of 25 feet for Units #4, #12 and #17); Section 17.20.030.H. (to allow a front yard of 21 feet instead of 25 feet for covered porches); DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE — Section 16.50.040.C.4. (concerning the design of the stormwater retention facility (pond): to allow a side slope of greater than 5:1 to create terracing, and to waive the requirement for a 12-foot wide flat area at the high water line around the perimeter of the pond), pursuant to the exhibits and testimony produced at the public hearing. Commissioner Samuels stated this plan has no significant difference in traffic or the amount of new students created. There are still a great many variances requested to accomplish this development and unit sizes have been increased which indicates they are more family oriented than empty nester. There has also been a huge in price in this new plan. He stated he does not know what has been accomplished under this new plan. The traffic will be the same; the impact on the school district will be the same, or more. They will be harder to sell and market and less affordable to people in the Village. The Village is an aging in place Village that really needs an additional stock of smaller more affordable units for people who are downsizing. He noted it was an appropriate development previously but if the developer wishes to change to this new plan he will vote for it but he does not see what has been accomplished. Commissioner Cohn stated since there is now an opinion in the traffic report regarding cut through traffic and it is responsive to the comments of the members of the community he will vote for this plan. Also, the comments from the community tonight were very helpful and should be taken into account and include them in the recommendation. He further stated he agrees there should be a stop sign at Chestnut Terrace and he also agrees there should be a stop sign further south. He also recommended that a guardrail or some type of structure be added to protect the property in unincorporated Lake County. He also noted the concerns regarding snow removal are valid and should be addressed in some way. Commissioner Stark stated the biggest change is the density in the new development. From an aesthetic standpoint going from 41 units to half the units makes a big difference visually. He noted he likes the idea of a stop sign at Chestnut and Avalon and hopes another stop sign can be placed at Avalon Court and Avalon Drive. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES Ottenheimer, Samuels, Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Teplinsky, Stark Cohn NAPES: None ABSENT: Khan ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 8 to 0. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil said the next meeting is scheduled for August 4, 2004. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Smith and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair