Loading...
2001-10-03 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: Plan Commission Document Type: Minutes Meeting ate: 10/03/2001 Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION October 3, 2001 Jacobs Homes, proposed Noah's Landing townhome development, North side of IL Route 22 and east side of Prairie Road, Rezoning to the R-8 District and approval of a Preliminary Plan—Workshop #3 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. Trilling Ms. Dunn Mr. Feldgreber Mr. Panitch Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Richard Vane, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Keith Jacobs, Jacobs Homes Mr. Jeff Braiman, Village Trustee Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Dunn to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 5, 2001. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Samuels stated he attended the Village Board meeting on September 24, 2001, during which there was a lengthy presentation and discussion concerning a proposed referral regarding Avis Investment's condominium development on Buffalo Grove Road across from Church Road. This also involves a land swap with St. Mary's church regarding the rectory. Commissioner Samuels noted he would hope to get extensive minutes from the board meeting as there were many issues and concerns expressed by the trustees. Ultimately the project was referred to the Plan Commission. Commissioner Trilling stated he attended the Village Board meeting of October 1, 2001 and there was nothing of applicable to the Plan Commission. JACOBS HOMES, PROPOSED NOAH'S LANDING TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, NORTH SIDE OF IL ROUTE 22 AND EAST SIDE OF PRAIRIE ROAD, REZONING TO THE R-8 DISTRICT AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN—WORKSHOP 93 Mr. John Green stated many of the changes to the plan have occurred due to a further look into the traffic plan. There is no change in offsite traffic; only a two- percent change increase in the morning and a two and one-half percent decrease in the evening. The traffic consultant, however, did come back with some changes for internal traffic. The street is now a public street and is a 52-foot right-of-way for the entire road length with sidewalks on both sides, parkways on both sides and it has the tolerance in it for the setbacks from the buildings and the driveways for the car overhangs. It made the street configuration different. The traffic consultant noted it would be better to move the entrance as far north as possible. This solves the dead end issue, it gets rid of stacking issues coming in and out on Prairie Road, gets rid of entrance issues into the development. It also allows for the creation of the necessary right-of-way in order to get in. It also straightens out the road so now the access to those properties, which may be developed in the future, will develop over a public access instead of a private access. It also makes the internal circulation work much better. They have created a north/south road, which now has a T intersection, which now controls the flow inside. It also took units off the road that previously had dead ends. There are no more dead ends units. Mr. Green noted the right-in, right-out remains on the plan as a right out only because the staff has noted its concern with cut through traffic. The traffic consultant stated that would invite cut through traffic. Therefore, there are now 55 units. They discussed the possibility of 48 units,but that was impossible. Changing the unit mix meant changing some of the unit sizes. They also looked at the driveway length and they have now added another foot. It is 21 feet to the closest garage door to the right-of-way line and a foot for the sidewalk and it is now 52 feet. In order to get to 52 feet they adjusted the units. Some of the units are 49 feet deep, another is 48 feet deep, and some are 47 feet deep. They vary 2 '/z feet in overall depth. This means the fronts are going to stagger and this helps in staggering the garage doors on the front. Mr. Green stated the back would not be linear. They have designed breaks in the units. They will also be augmenting that when they get into the fireplace options and chimneys. These are 4 and 5 feet deep. They have also designed them so that the same depth in the A and C units. As they are paired together you begin to create dormer elements on the back. They redesigned the 34-foot wide unit so that it has volume space along most of the side. That means you will not be looking at a 2- story element at that point. Mr. Green noted they were asked to get rid of all the parking on the cul-de-sac and they have done so. However, they have left 2 parking spaces because it is a regular street now and there are street parking opportunities on both sides of the street. They do not have to be there and the Commission can do as they please. Mr. Green stated they realize that the 15 foot units can have windows on the side so they have hinged as many of the A units, which are the wider units, to where they have more than 24 feet open on each side. Those are the ones that are coming down. On some of them, which are 15 feet apart, they have redesigned the unit so that it does not have to have windows, but it can. That way, if they do do an end unit, they will not just add another unit that would be another end, but it can now be wrapped around. The windows can be put in as part of the basic design so that wraps around the ends of the building. Mr. Green further noted they were asked to consider some kind of walkway through and they have now done so. There are now two gazebos and the pathway extends through with seating opportunities and a walkway opportunity along the detention. He noted the Village of Buffalo Grove has the most safety-oriented requirements for detention construction and design. He stated they would meet all of the requirements for a safe detention area. Mr. Green stated they have made changes to the units. They have eliminated the 4-bedroom, 26-foot wide unit. They did, however, leave that opportunity on the 30-foot wide unit. This unit is back next to the master bedroom,furthest away from the bathroom. They also still maintain that there are those people who want to have an extra room for an office, exercise room, TV room, etc. They also did not leave the opportunity for this unit to go to 4 bedrooms. He stated they believe this is a townhome development, which in Buffalo Grove draws empty nesters and those without families. This does not mean that no families will come. They know there were 4 in Manchester Villas and there will probably be some here. He noted calls have already been coming in on this development and these people were asked what their family makeup was. 87 percent of those calls are asking for master bedrooms down. Commissioner Feldgreber asked about the selling prices. Mr. Green stated they are now looking at the mid $300,000 level as their starting point. Commissioner Trilling asked if there were any comments from the School Districts. Mr. Joseph Jaeger of District 103 stated they have concerns with any kind of large influx of new kids to the school system through this development and the several others, which are being planned. He noted their junior high is at capacity and some of the lower grades are close to capacity. He stated they base their estimates on 6/10ths of one child per unit. In a 55-unit development, that would bring 33 new kids just from this one development. He stated the new proposed plans still have larger units that seem child friendly. He asked that the Plan Commission consider their position and what the future might bring from this development and several others. Commissioner Samuels asked what the school district had in its long range planning as to use for this property and how many school age children this would generate. Mr. Jaeger stated he does not know if the school board had specific plans for each parcel that could be developed which is now vacant. Commissioner Samuels stated that officials from other school districts have stated they consult with experts who look at the comprehensive plans of the various villages and areas within the village to help estimate what that area would generate as a single family development. They then include those in the planning they do for their facilities. Mr. Jaeger stated they did receive from the Village some of the subdivisions that are either in the works now or planned and have estimated how many kids are possible. Commissioner Samuels stated they need to have a yardstick with which to measure the impact on the schools. Commissioner Trilling stated that in order to appreciate the school's concerns,they need to know what the school district's thought process was overall for the future Ms. Terry Moons of District 125 stated they try to educate children in a way that is not an undue burden to either the school district or the Villages they serve. Looking at the proposed plans, with an optional 4-bedroom unit, she is led to believe that this plan also encourages families. In the past 15 years they have used a report by John Kasarda. He updates his projections for the school districts every 2 years. He sends questionnaires out and uses phone calls as well as staff who comes out to the area. He then uses a model that projects the ins and outs of school districts over time. For Stevenson, he has been correct to within 2-5 students each year. Ms. Moons stated another projection would be done this year for Stevenson as well as District 103, 102 and 96. This kind of development will add about 4-5 students only. However, 4-5 from several developments all adds up to more students that they were not planning for when they were doing their long range planning as a school district. Ms. Moons stated she would not be interested in 3 or 4 bedrooms upstairs which attracts children. If they were lofts,which is unattractive to small children,it might be more conducive to empty nester families. Mr. Pfeil noted that District 125 and other districts within the Lake County portion of Buffalo Grove have recently asked the Village to update its projections for potential residential units in their respective districts. This particular site was not on the Village's 1998 Comprehensive Plan since it appeared that Lincolnshire would extend utilities to this area. Commissioner Trilling asked how this site would be serviced for the schools with this particular traffic configuration. Mr. Jaeger stated they would come down Route 22 to the property and then Prairie. It would take about 50-60 minutes. Mr. Pfeil noted the Krisview Acres subdivision directly to the north of the Jacobs site is already being served by District 103 as well as the Roslyn Woods, River Oaks and Indian Creek subdivisions to the north along Prairie Road. He noted that the developer's traffic report indicates that a traffic signal is planned at Prairie Lane on Route 22 as part of IDOT's improvements to Route 22. This may be a useful access to Route 22 for buses if the intersection is signalized. Commissioner Trilling noted that on the west side of the activity area the parking area consists of 4 spaces with handicapped parking and just west of that roadway is a property that is not part of the Jacobs development site. He noted no green space at that area. He asked what is located presently on that particular property. Commissioner Trilling asked if a wall is proposed on the west side of the detention area. He asked what the surface would be like surrounding the detention area on all sides. Also, he asked how much space there is between Unit A on Half Day Road and the detention area. Commissioner Trilling noted the plan looks much better now and larger spaces are now provided between sidewalks and buildings, etc. However, he is still not in favor of the proposed 4-bedroom units. Commissioner Samuels noted that in the northeast corner of the site if cars are parked in the two extra spaces adjacent to the B units and if a car is parked in the south B unit's driveway, the vehicle backing out of the corner unit may not be able to traverse the pavement there. He also asked if all the windows be eliminated in wall locations where dwelling units are side by side with a separation of 15 feet. Mr. Green stated yes. Commissioner Samuels stated he believes that if this is an empty-nester development, he does not see the value or need for 4 bedroom units. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he agrees with Commissioners Samuels and Trilling. He stated he appreciates the effort to reduce the units from 58 to 55. However, he is still not convinced that it cannot be reduced further. He is concerned about the impact on the school districts and he is also concerned because there are still 55 units which a little higher than the Village standard of 6 units per acre. He stated he feels that 55 units are too dense and he still has issues with traffic getting in and out on Route 22. Mr. Green stated density is just a number. It is more important if the plan works, comes together, and provides amenities and the units work. He stated they would not be able to do 48 units. The Village P.U.D. base standard is six, but it also says a maximum of seven. That is because it wants to encourage the inclusion of quality enhancements to make that happen. Sometimes it is putting the energy and effort into the buildings. They want to do this development as a quality development and it needs to be at 55 for that reason. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he understands but he still wonders why it would not work at 50. Mr. Green stated that is because they would have to take things out. One of the big things they would have to take out is land cost. There was an annexation agreement, which was developed between the Village and the seller. The annexation agreement says this parcel will be looked at as PD-6. The sellers have expectations based on the terms of their annexation agreements. Mr. Pfeil stated PD-6 means six units per acre, and he does not understand why the property owners would have based the valuation of their respective parcels assuming that a density of more than six units would be approved by Buffalo Grove. Mr. Green stated it establishes a thought process. Mr. Pfeil stated that if the PD-6 standard is applied literally, 48 units would be the correct number for the combined area of the two properties added together, so there should not have been expectations by the two owners of a higher number of units. Mr. Green noted that the P.U.D. standards allow up to seven units per acre for a PD-6 development if various density bonuses are allowed for site plan enhancements. Mr. Pfeil stated that in fairness neither of the owners were really that concerned about the conceptual density language in their annexation agreements. They were concerned with being able to operate their non-conforming businesses for a set period of time with the prospect of selling their respective parcels and relocating their businesses. The Village was concerned about making sure that the properties were developed in a unified way, and the conceptual language concerning density was intended to be an inducement to developers to look at townhome units on a combined development parcel. Mr. Green stated the agreement still set expectations for the property owners. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked what kind of safety measures would be employed for the pond, which now has two gazebos. She stated she is uneasy and concerned with this issue. Mr. Green stated they would address this issue at a future meeting. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated she is still not convinced that this is an empty nester development. Mr. Green stated he has asked Mr. Jacobs to get the information on other developments like this. This will show what has happened in the developments that they have done. Commissioner Bocek noted that from an elevation aspect, it would appear as if there would be a sea of garages. Having a less dense site would give the opportunity to have more of an architectural feel to the facade. Mr. Green stated he would have to show the Commission the elevations because that is one of the reasons they have gone from all 26-foot wide units to 30 and 34- foot wide units. They have been able to eliminate the amounts of percentage of the garages that will be there. Commissioner Panitch stated he does like the fact that the access point on Prairie Road is further north as this opens up the area. He noted concern with unit C,which may not have sufficient visibility if landscaping is added. The landscaping between units B and C should be low enough to ensure that cars can get out when there are cars parked further north. He further noted he does not even know if it is necessary to have the parking in the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Panitch asked if the ordinance says anything about the percentage of green space versus the number of units. Has the developer done a better job of making more units in more green space because of the width of the units? Then, perhaps, more accommodation could be made for the number of units. Mr. Pfeil stated the PUD incentive standards are somewhat confusing. Various incentives can be used to achieve up to 7 units per acre,for a"PD-6." The developer is representing that the proposed plan provides all the applicable design enhancements to warrant 7 units per acre. The density, per se, is not the issue here. We need to look at the quality of the site plan and the impact on the school districts. The goal is to achieve a plan that balances these elements while providing a financially viable project for the developer. Commissioner Panitch stated that in his opinion the impact between 48 units and 55 units to the school districts would probably be minimal. He noted his continued concern with access on Route 22 for school buses. Mr. Green stated IDOT does not oppose a right-in, right-out on Route 22. The staff does not want to invite cut through traffic and has asked them not to do a right- in, right out. They understand police and fire want an emergency access, which is why they have a right out only. The annexation agreement also says that access to Route 22 is not anticipated as part of this development. Trustee Braiman noted that both Roslyn Woods and Woodlands of Fiore are served by School District 103 buses, and these subdivisions are in the same general area as the proposed Jacobs development. He said that he would like to see a lot more units with master bedrooms on the first floor. He favors an increase in the number of units and mandatory first floor master bedrooms. He asked if the school districts had any comments concerning the new development in Lincolnshire on Route 22 at Old Half Day Road. He indicated that he does not recall the school districts objecting to the development in Lincolnshire. Commissioner Samuels asked if a PUD has a designated front yard, side yard, rear yard. Mr. Pfeil stated yes. He noted that a 35-foot yard is the standard setback around the perimeter of a PUD, which is basically a 35-foot rear and front yard. Then the development is to meet the underlying zoning district standards unless other standards are specifically allowed for the particular development. Commissioner Smith asked what potential homebuyers are saying when they contact Jacobs Homes concerning the proposed townhomes. Mr. Green said that interested buyers would like a home office and they want space for their grown children or grandkids to visit and stay overnight. Some buyers want an exercise room. They want to move out of their large single-family homes, but they do not want to lose a lot of living and storage space because they still have all of their things. Commissioner Smith stated he tends to agree with Mr. Green's statement. He tends to agree that a townhome situation in general attracts empty-nesters. Commissioner Feldgreber suggested when looking at the units, that space be increased between the buildings if possible. Mr. Green stated that on these plans he has just indicated they will meet the minimum, but when the actual units are put together there is usually more space than that. Commissioner Samuels stated he agrees that the current empty-nester market does not want a much smaller unit than their single-family home. They still want large rooms, but fewer bedrooms. He noted that the footprint of this plan is limited as to what size living space can be had on the first floor. It is the second floor that does not need to be very large. Commissioner Smith stated he finds the fourth bedroom issue irrelevant. The density issue is the important item here. Commissioner Trilling stated he does not feel density is important at all. He feels that if the plan works, then that is what the density turns out to be. He asked if all units have basements. Mr. Green stated they have partial basements. He noted they need to balance the site and he cannot make full basements because he would have too much dirt. Commissioner Trilling stated that if the fourth bedroom is eliminated it will be a more workable plan. Mr. Mark Candotti, from Krisview Acres, noted the owner of the property has been cited for bringing materials onto the property making his property higher than the property just to the north of him in Krisview Acres. This means that Krisview Acres already floods and asks if the proposed plan will have sufficient detention to prevent further flooding. Mr. Richard Vane of Groundwork, Ltd. stated they could make sure that the whole site is properly graded and directed to the proposed detention pond. It will then be piped to a stormsewer system so that it will be held on the site until it can be discharged through a pipe and not onto the neighbor's properties. Any areas on the proposed site have to be diverted to the detention pond and go through a small outlet pipe. He feels Mr. Candotti will see a significant improvement. Chairman Ottenheimer stated the following items needed addressing at the next meeting: 1. What can be done to increase space between the units 2. School District 103 will bring specifics as requested by the Plan Commission 3. Safety issues relating to the gazebos 4. Elevations and materials 5. Photometrics 6. Current statistics on the mix of families from townhome sales 7. Specifics on activity area 8. Engineering issues Mr. Green stated Mr. Jacobs would like to know if reducing the number of bedrooms would be an element that helps bring the Commission closer together. Chairman Ottenheimer paraphrased the question by saying that, if the developer does not necessarily reduce the number of units, but reduces the number of bedrooms, would it have a positive impact. Trustee Braiman suggested it might be a good idea to note that if the master bedroom is on the first floor it might also have an effect. Mr. Green stated they acknowledge that. Mr. Jacobs stated his question is if he reduces the number of bedrooms, eliminates the fourth bedroom, keeping the master bedrooms on the first floor, is the density issue all right at 55 units. If it is, he would be back and if not, he will not be back. Commissioner Trilling stated that brings to mind what the definition of a bedroom is. He stated he feels the definition is a room that has a door and/or a closet. Commissioner Samuels asked if the developer was talking about eliminating four bedroom units or limiting four bedroom units. Mr. Jacobs noted that Unit A which shows a fourth bedroom, would only have a loft area. He will not, however, market same as a four bedroom unit. Therefore, he is saying there will be no four-bedroom units. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the question for polling is,if there is no four-bedroom unit, is the density then acceptable at 55 units. The polling was as follows: YES: Panitch, Samuels, Trilling, Kenski-Sroka NO: Feldgreber, Ottenheimer, Dunn, Bocek, Smith The polling was 5 to 4 against. Commissioner Samuels stated he still wants to reserve the right to look at the physical units. With regard to the density issue, he wants to be satisfied that this development looks good. Commissioner Dunn stated she believes density is the big issue in this matter and the flow of the development and the feel of the development is what is really driving this plan. She stated she does not believe that the Plan Commission should dictate how many bedrooms should be built, rather let the market decide how many bedrooms are required. Commissioner Smith stated he totally agrees with Commissioner Dunn. Chairman Panitch asked if the no votes were the result of not wanting to tell the developer how to market their units. He asked if the Commissioners were, however, OK with the 55 units. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he voted no because he would like to see the plan with three units and see how they look and fit. He further stated he hopes the developer comes back as he believes this is a workable development. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil noted the next meeting would be held on October 17. 2001. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS —None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS —None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Trilling 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