2001-01-10 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission
Document Type: ❑A e
g nda 0 Minutes
Meeting ate: 01/10/2001
Type of Meeting: ❑ Special Meeting
SPECIAL MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
January 10, 2001
Forum Properties, Proposed single-family development, northwest
Corner of Park Avenue/Main Street,Annexation with R-5 zoning
And approval of a Preliminary Plan for a ten-lot subdivision—
Workshop #4
Millbrook Business Center— Second Resubdivision of Unit One
Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 87:30 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
Mr. Feldgreber
Mr. Panitch
Mr. Smith
Ms. Bocek
Ms. Kenski-Sroka
Commissioners absent: Ms. Dunn
Also present: Mr. Lawrence Freedman, Ash, Anos, Freedman& Logan
Mr. Richard Vane, Groundwork, Ltd.
Mr. Sam Grill, Forum Properties
Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd.
Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Panitch to approve the minutes
of the minutes of the public hearing of December 6,2000. All commissioners were in favor of
the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Bocek abstaining.
COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS
Commissioner Panitch attended the Village Board meeting on January 8, 2001 and stated the
Board approved the Arboretum golf course development. There was also discussion about a
minor change in the site plan for Plaza Verde. The developer is hoping to bring in a new tenant,
International Jewelry Mall, and they discussed the flag arrangement with ten different flagpoles.
This item was tabled for further information and discussion.
FORUM PROPERTIES, PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, NORTHWEST
CORNER OF PARK AVENUE/MAIN STREET, ANNEXATION WITH R-5 ZONING AND
APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR A TEN-LOT SUBDIVISION — WORKSHOP
#4
Mr. Freedman stated they are here to work out any outstanding concerns before going to public
hearing. The issue needing discussion is how some of the home styles could be developed on all
sides. The elevations of two of these styles have now been expanded upon.
Mr. Freedman stated they keep calling the plans styles because they see these as a style of
elevation that would have to be followed in general terms. Ultimately, this will be worked out in
an annexation agreement with appropriate language. They do not see these as specific elevations
and they are not being presented as proposed elevations. These are styles that are commensurate
with the Prairie View look and anyone that would build on these lots would have to conform to
these styles in general. However, there would still be a great deal of latitude in developing them.
Mr. Green stated there are about seven styles of the original twenty styles presented that had
merit and consideration in the Midwest area. He noted the styles receiving the least interest at
the last workshop meeting were the Colonial and Revival styles. This left five styles they are
suggesting be included in the annexation agreement, which would be appropriate for design on
the ten lots. These styles are the Victorian, Queen Anne, Craftsman, American Vernacular and
the Prairie style.
Mr. Green noted they could include in the agreement that only these five styles would be
appropriate for the development and those styles would have to be consistent on all exterior
sides.
Mr. Green stated the internal lots have the opportunity to have a recessed element in the building
and he has developed a concept for the Victorian and Craftsman styles, which apparently were
the two styles favored. On the Victorian, a building has been developed within the 40x50-f0ot
pad. They have shown how it can meet the other elements of design which has been discussed,
namely a two-car garage, either recessed or side loaded, that the garage be integrated into the
building design, and that the facade would have the movement and consistency all the way
around. He stated they did the same thing with the Craftsman style. They developed the
Craftsman style with the garage set back a minimum of 20 feet, the continuous porch,
wraparound elements, and one story sheds. It can easily be seen that this style can also be
carried all the way around and they can fit these into the footprints easily. While doing all of
this, they have tried not to eliminate all of the elements they were trying to put into the design
such as, driveway being either side loaded or setback with the garages, the styles being limited
and the pads being limited. They have also set it up so that they are going with 7-foot minimum
sideyards, which makes it more consistent with R-4 zoning. They have also established a
program where they are 26 feet away from the side line wherever the garage is to be side loaded
so they have the opportunity to have backup turnarounds so people will be driving straight out.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked why the driveways were not put together, spreading the houses
out on Lots 3 and 4 and 5 and 6.
Mr. Green stated he always tries to put driveways as far apart as possible. He always tries to put
as much space in front of the house that is not driveway when there are houses paired.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked if any consideration has been given to eight houses on this
parcel.
Mr. Green stated they have done so, but several months ago at the beginning of the process with
the trustees, two plans were presented. A 13-unit plan and an 8-unit plan were presented. One
plan is a traditional zoning plan and the other is a prairie view concept plan. There were two
elements within the Comprehensive Plan. One of them said Prairie View should be developed
with special consideration for historical context, etc. The board universally suggested they move
forward with the present plan.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked if 8 units are acceptable to the developer.
Mr. Green stated no at this point. He stated when they originally put the choice forward to the
Board they had arrangements to make and programs to work with. The Board stated the Prairie
View concept is what the Comprehensive Plan suggests and therefore moves forward
accordingly.
Commissioner Samuels asked if there would not be elevations for approval and if this will be a
custom development where each house will be designed individually. It would appear the
request now is for a small lot custom development where technically the builder could build
anything he wanted because he has a buyer.
Mr. Freedman stated he feels they are saying there will be certain restrictions, a landscape
package that would be mandated and would be part of the annexation agreement and they are
also saying there have to be particular styles of housing. However, they are not coming at this
point with a specific set of elevations. They would like some latitude within those confines.
However, they do not mind putting in restrictions.
Commissioner Samuels asked how the developer proposes that is monitored.
Mr. Green stated the Buffalo Grove ordinance states that any time there is a custom home, it is
not subject to appearance restrictions. In this particular program, they are saying they are
making it part of the annexation agreement that only these styles can be applied. Therefore,
even if it is a custom home it must comply with these styles. This can be accomplished by
incorporating not just the sample of styles but the description of styles into the annexation
agreement. There is also the provision that says if models are developed; they must go through
appearance review. If the developer chooses to develop two models, he has to put them together
and go through appearance review, as would any other developer. He noted they are not asking
for any additional concessions. In fact, they are adding a concession that no matter what
somebody does, it would have to conform to these styles.
Mr. Freedman stated that if any staff member so delegated or responsible felt that the developer
was within the parameters set forth in the annexation agreement, the permit would issue. If there
were any question, the developer would not have a problem with the matter being referred to the
Plan Commission to make that determination.
Commissioner Samuels asked if some kind of proposed ordinance language would be available
to look at prior to or at the public hearing.
Chairman Ottenheimer asked if that would be within the purview or function of the Plan
Commission. He stated he feels that is something to be worked out between the petitioner and
the Village Attorney subject to what the Plan Commission has or has not approved.
Mr. Freedman stated he was going to list all the various restrictions that Mr. Green has been
referring to that would be part of the recommendation of the Plan Commission.
Chairman Ottenheimer stated that would be fine.
Commissioner Samuels stated he is looking for the type of restrictions or the factors that will be
included to make some sort of measurable standard against which someone can then decide if a
future proposed home meets the elements required.
Mr. Freedman stated he has no difficulty in doing that. He further stressed that would be
mutually beneficial as they do not want a debate at a later date as to whether something was or
was not contemplated.
Commissioner Samuels stated he would like to see how the product has turned out from one that
was previously done.
Mr. Green stated he could do that as he has several they have done in Ft. Sheridan.
Commissioner Samuels asked about the minimum side lot sizes noted in Mr. Pfeil's memo.
Mr. Green stated they have already agreed that they will be willing to go with the 7-foot side lot
size.
Commissioner Trilling stated he is concerned with clearly identifying the mechanism of moving
forward with the development. In order for him to support this project, he would have to have a
clearer understanding of the procedures that will be followed in making sure that styles and
designs follow through with the intent that is to be achieved.
Mr. Green stated that since it is their intention to carry through the intent they have no problem
with putting in the language that would demonstrate that.
Mr. Freedman suggested they could perhaps go through some administrative procedure and let
staff decide if there is a need to send it to the Plan Commission. He noted they have no problem
with whatever procedure the Plan Commission thinks will work.
Commissioner Trilling stated at some point models will be developed and he asks that before
they go out in print, they be brought to the Plan Commission first.
Mr. Green stated they have done that before in the past where concepts have been submitted to
staff and staff has brought it before the Appearance Commission and if that is what is desired,
they would be more than happy to do so.
Commissioner Samuels stated he understood the original referral from the Trustees was that it
was to create an enclave. To that end, he would prefer to see an entire streetscape. He would
prefer to see an entire plan that gives cohesiveness to this development.
Commissioner Samuels asked if the developer is committing to no 3-car garages.
Mr. Freedman stated they are committing to that and they can certainly make that one of the
restrictions.
Commissioner Trilling asked if there would be any problems with the developer coming back
once they formulated plans. The Plan Commission could still give approval and then the models
could be brought back for a final review.
Mr. Pfeil stated that would be workable without being too onerous relative to the time element
for the development. In addition, the annexation agreement will have to include these concepts.
The annexation agreement is basically a contract between a developer and the Village and both
sides would have to work to honor that contract if all the terms can be defined.
Mr. Freedman stated they always intended to attach the designs to the annexation agreement,
however, they did not want them misconstrued to be more than what they were.
Chairman Ottenheimer asked why the prospective models couldn't be before the Plan
Commission now or at the public hearing.
Mr. Green stated it would have been virtually impossible to develop respective models since
much of what has been discussed so far are the restrictions that would be applied. Until these
restrictions were nailed down, they could not develop the models.
Commissioner Bocek asked if there has been any consideration to minimum quality standards of
these particular exterior materials.
Mr. Green stated they are dealing with styles and the plan up to now. They have not as yet
gotten into the materials because they have just been developing the process.
Commissioner Bocek asked if that could be developed as part of the package that is being
discussed.
Mr. Green stated they will be creating color packages and materials and they will be putting that
into the annexation agreement.
Commissioner Panitch stated he is less concerned with styles and architectural theme of the lots
than whether or not these lots and lot configurations is the right plan for this area.
Mr. Freedman noted this is the plan that has evolved through the board discussions and
workshop meetings.
Mr. Green stated they are not changing anything they have previously reviewed. They have
agreed to develop a landscape package that will part of and included in each of the parcels. This
includes for specific materials to be provided. Earlier in the process they had agreed that there
would be landscaping included in the front yards, etc.
Commissioner Panitch stated matters might be clarified if they could see an overall streetscape.
Commissioner Smith asked if the driveways could be moved on lots 6 and 7 and is there a reason
for them to be moved.
Mr. Green stated no because of the way they have narrowed the throat at 13 feet in width. This
makes them already 10-12 feet away from the corner. The only other option is that those
driveways could also go out to the side to Main Street. Main Street is considered a minor street
and the opportunity is there, but they felt it is more consistent by having the 13-foot throat and
the turnaround opportunity. The cars also have the opportunity to pull out instead of backing
out.
Chairman Ottenheimer asked how big the houses would be.
Mr. Green stated they will be between 2,500 to 3,200 square feet and the price range is from
$325,000 and up.
Chairman Ottenheimer asked how the size and price of these houses compare with the
surrounding subdivision.
Mr. Green stated they have had a market study done and they will bring it to the next meeting.
The Commission agreed that the plan go forward to public hearing.
Mr. Daniel, 75 Park Avenue, stated that no other homes in the area look like what is being
proposed here. He stated the developer's plan is not consistent with the area. He stated that
eight houses are probably the right number of homes for this site. Ten houses and the proposed
styles and sizes will not match the area.
Mr. Chris Walsh, 55 Park Avenue, noted the Village Board liked the "Prairie View" concept
although they preferred the larger lots. He further noted he had been before the Plan
Commission asking for R-3 or R-4 with variances and had been told that was too dense.
Therefore, it seems odd to be considering R-5 zoning for the proposed development.
MILLBROOK BUSINESS CENTER— SECOND RESUBDIVISION OF UNIT ONE
Moved by Commissioner Trilling, seconded by Commissioner Bocek to approve the Second
Resubdivision of Unit One of the Millbrook Business Center.
Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows:
AYES: Trilling, Feldgreber, Panitch, Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Ottenheimer
NAPES: None
ABSENT: Dunn
ABSTAIN: Samuels
The motion passed 7 to 0.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None
FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE
Mr. Pfeil stated the next meeting would be held on February 7, 2001.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Pfeil stated he will be monitoring the countywide framework plan and participating in some
of the meetings. He will also be working on the annual report for review by the Plan
Commission.
NEW BUSINESS -None
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Trilling, seconded by Commissioner Bocek and carried unanimously
to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair