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