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