Planning & Zoning Committee

PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE NORTHBROOK VILLAGE HALL, 1225 CEDAR LANE October 20, 2015 - 6:00 P.M. BOARD ROOM The Planning & Zoning Committee of the Village of Northbrook Board of Trustees will hold a meeting on Tuesday, October 20, 2015, at 6:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Village Hall, 1225 Cedar Lane, Northbrook, Illinois. The following will be discussed. MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. HEAR FROM THE AUDIENCE 3. DISCUSSION: 1230 Voltz Road – Anets Woods Planned Development (PCD-15-04) 4. ADJOURN Jim Karagianis, Chair Planning/Zoning Committee Members: Trustee Buehler Please Note a “Light” Dinner will be served for Trustee Heller Board Members and staff attending Village of Northbrook Cook County, Illinois October 20, 2015 The Village of Northbrook is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who require certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting, or who have questions regarding the accessibility of this meeting or the facilities, are requested to contact Greg Van Dahm (847/664-4014) or Debbie Ford (847/664-4013) promptly to allow the Village of Northbrook to make reasonable accommodations for those persons. Hearing impaired individuals may call the TDD number, 564-8645, for more information.  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO: RICHARD A. NAHRSTADT, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: MICHAELA KOHLSTEDT, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2015 SUBJECT: PCD-15-04 –1230 VOLTZ ROAD – PLANNED DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION On October 20, 2015, the Planning & Zoning Committee will review the revised plans for the Anets Woods planned development, a 34-unit detached single family residential development. This is an application submitted by Edward R. James Partners, LLC, (the “Applicant”) as contract purchaser of the property at 1220 and 1230 Voltz Road (the “Subject Property”) which is owned in trust by Anets Family, LLC (the “Owner”). On August 11, 2015 the Plan Commission recommendation was presented to the Board of Trustees during which time the Board identified some reservations with the plan and directed the item to the Planning & Zoning Committee for further discussion. Since then the Applicant has been revising the proposed plan to address the comments they heard from the Board of Trustees and the Plan Commission. BACKGROUND The application had undergone the public hearing process with the Plan Commission, prior to appearing before the Board of Trustees on August 11. Over the course of the five public hearings, the Applicant made several modifications to the plan. Ultimately, on August 4 (a copy of the minutes are attached for review), the Plan Commission closed the public hearing and, considered a draft resolution recommending approval of the application as presented. Prior to considering the resolution, the Plan Commission, by straw poll votes, agreed to add the following conditions to the resolution: 1. The proposed internal street should connect to Lee Road as a full access public street, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A westbound right turn lane on Voltz Road at its intersection with Waukegan Road should be installed by the developer. 3. Signs stating “No Parking Between Signs” shall be installed generally south of the driveway for Lot 33 and north of the driveway for Lot 34 to prevent on-street parking along the bend in the proposed loop road in the general vicinity of the proposed perpendicular parking spaces. 4. Prior to final plan approval, the Applicant should work with the Village on developing a thorough maintenance plan for the Conservation Area which would allow for Village oversight to ensure compliance with the plan. With these changes to the resolution made, the Plan Commission then voted. By a vote of four (4) in favor and five (5) opposed, Resolution No. 15-PC-13 failed to pass (a copy of this resolution with its conditions is attached for reference). Those voting against the resolution noted several concerns, most notably: Page 1  1. The development was still too dense and one or more additional units should be removed from the development. 2. Additional usable community open space or at least additional amenities (trails, benches, etc.) in the proposed open space, including the conservation areas, should be added. The plan, was then presented to the Board of Trustees on August 11 (a copy of the minutes from this meeting are attached for review). During the Board’s review of the Plan Commission recommendation, a majority of the Board believed the proposed plan required additional discussion and modifications. Some of the concerns raised during the Board discussion included:  traffic and the need for immediate installation of a right turn lane on westbound Voltz Road at Waukegan Road,  the proposed plan was too dense,  the Lee Road access needed further review,  possibly move the entrance to the development on Voltz Road, and  there should be no modifications to how the impact fees are calculated. Based upon the comments heard from the Trustees, the Applicant has submitted the attached revised plan for review. It should be noted that the Architectural Control Commission has yet to review the design of the planned development as required by Code. The ACC had been scheduled to review the project on August 13, 2015, but given the Board’s response to the project at the August 11, 2015, Board meeting, the Applicant withdrew its application for the ACC in order to provide the Applicant time to respond to Board members concerns. Should the Board find the proposed plan to be appropriate, the Applicant will need to present the plan to the ACC. The Applicant has stated that the overall design of the homes, shown below, will remain the same as what has been presented consistently with the original application. Page 2 REVISED PLAN The Applicant has submitted the attached information including a revised schematic site plan and written narrative detailing the ways in which the plan has changed. The most significant changes are 1. a reduction in the number of units from 36 to 34; 2. a reconfiguration of the interior road system in the planned development, and 3. the inclusion of additional park space in the development. Reduction of Units. The proposed plan presented to the Board on August 11, shown below, included 36 units and a looped interior public road system with emergency gated access to Lee Road to the north. Figure 1: Plan Presented to Board on August 11 (36 Units) The revised plan, shown below, now includes 34 units and a modified road system that includes a cul- de-sac. Figure 2: New Plan (34 Units & Modified Road System) Page 2 The reconfiguration of the roadway system within the development allowed the Applicant to reduce the number of units immediately fronting along Voltz Road from five to three, two of which are side elevations and only one a rear elevation. This reduction in units fronting along Voltz Road has allowed for the increase in the proposed berm and screening being provided along the Voltz Road frontage. The reduction in overall number of units has also resulted in the proposed plan providing an increase in the seperation between homes. The Applicant is now proposing a minimum seperation of 18 feet between all of the homes (excluding homes along the north properyt line) in the development, an increase from the previously proposed 12-foot seperation. The Applicant is also continuing to maintian a minimum seperation of 25 feet between homes along the north side of the development. Lastly, the Applicant has increased the setback of the homes along Voltz Road from 30 feet to 40 feet. The revised plan does require approval of an interior side building setback variation to reduce the required east setback for the proposed home on Lot 10 adjacent to the Village-owned parcel from 9 feet to 3.69 feet. Reconfiguration of Street System. The other significant change that the reconfiguration of the road has created is the extension of the internal road system north to Lee Road where the Applicant is proposing a restricted electronic access point for residents of the development and emergency personel. The Applicant has stated in their narrative that this gated entry will reduce the number of cars utilizing Voltz Road and the Voltz and Waukegan roads intersection, while minimizing the impact of traffic north on to Lee Road. The Applicant has also stated in the attached narrative that if the Board finds the restricted gate access more appropriate for a private road versus a public road, they would be willing to make a portion or all of the internal road system private. The revised internal roadway system no longer provides a turn-around area for motorist at the Lee Road connection like the previous plan did. The Board will want to determine if this should be incorporated back into the design. It should be noted that the Comprehensive Plan identifies a “potential” future road connection from the current terminous of Lee Road to Voltz Road. The Plan is not specific regarding what type of road connection that should be. The proposed cul-de-sac (the roadway from Voltz Road to the cul-de-sac ) is approximately 1,490 feet long and exceeds the maximum permitted length of 1,200 feet, thus a variation of this Subdivision Code requirement is necessary. Given the emergency access being provided north to Lee Road, such a variation would seem appropriate. Increased Community Space & Continued Preservation of Trees. The last noteworthy change to the proposed plan on the Subject Property was the addition of two more passive pocket parks which are now interconnected within the site by means of a walkway. The Applicant has added two pocket parks in the center of the development which align through a walkway to the previously proposed park space adjacent to the tree conservation area. The Applicant states that it continues to propose to preserve 67% of the landmark and heritage trees on the Subject Property. While the attached narrative submitted by the Applicant does not discuss the tree removal impact fees, the Applicant has emailed staff stating that they continue to request a waiver of the heritage and landmark tree removal fees. The fees associated with the removal of trees on the Subject Property consists of the following items identified by the Village Forester on the original plans which underwent review by the Plan Commission and will require updating should the Applicant proceed with the current proposed plan:  Replacement Fee for removing heritage trees in good condition = approx. $56,000  Removal Fees for heritage and landmark trees in poor condition = approx. $73,500 [Given the poor condition of these trees, the Village Forester has already waived these fees as a reasonable effort to assist the developer with the tree preservation portion of this plan.] Page 3   Escrow account for tree replacement guarantee of landmark trees in good condition being removed = $133,650 o This pertains to the replanting of the required 891 caliper inches of new trees. Any inch unplanted, the Village will retain $150.00 per inch of the escrow account.  Five-year cash construction bond is required so that in the event any of the heritage and landmark trees being preserved are damaged during construction = $87,000 The Board will need to decide it if is appropriate to waive any or all of these fees. Off-Site Modifications. In addition to the modifications on the Subject Property, the Applicant is also proposing a couple of off-site modifications.  The first modification the Applicant is proposing is dedication of right-of-way at the Voltz and Waukegan roads intersection to allow the Village to install a designated right turn lane on east bound Voltz Road onto northbound Waukegan Road. It should be noted that the Applicant and the Village have completed traffic counts on Voltz Road since the reopening of Willow Road. Based upon the Village’s traffic counts, traffic on Voltz Road has decreased 25% since 2013 when the Willow Road construction project began. In 2013 the average daily trips Monday thru Friday were 4,350 vehicles compared to the current count of 3,228 vehicles.  The other off-site modification being proposed by the Applicant, in order to accommodate its new site layout, is the extension of the proposed east side detention pond onto Village-owned property. The Applicant is requesting a permanent easement on the Village property to allow for the installation and maintenance of the detention pond. The Village-owned parcel is approximately 9,500 square feet in area consisting of trees and dense vegetation. This parcel was acquired in the 1950s from North Western Railroad for the potential installation of a water tower. The Village has not had any recent discussions regarding the future use of this parcel. The installation of the proposed detention by the Applicant will utilize approximately half of the parcel and result in the loss of trees and vegetation located on the Village owned parcel. The Applicant has stated in their attached narrative that they would like this easement dedicated for their use in exchange for dedicating the right-of-way at the Voltz and Waukegan roads intersection for the right-turn lane. In addition to the above noted modifications, the plan now includes a public sidewalk along the entire frontage of the Subject Property on Voltz Road where previously the Applicant had proposed a sidewalk only from the entrance of the development to Waukegan Road. The Applicant continues to request a variation to not be required to install a sidewalk along Waukegan Road. Lastly, the Applicant has mentioned to staff several times that when they have met with residents of Voltz Road, the residents expressed their concerns with the traffic on Voltz Road and the need for some sort of traffic calming devices. The Applicant has stated in an email to Village staff that they would be open to funding a portion of the work for traffic calming improvements. Some of the improvements mentioned by the Applicant include (a) reduced speed on Voltz Road, (b) installation of one or more stop signs, and (c) consideration of the installation of speed bumps. Another traffic calming device, which the Village has considered researching, is the installation of a traffic circle on Voltz Road at the Grant Road and Bridlewood intersection. The convergence of these three streets is an area where the right-of-way may accommodate a traffic circle which would act as traffic calming device. Village staff has reached out to the Village Traffic Consultant to review this idea, but while the Board is discussing the Anets Woods project it would be an appropriate time to also consider whether or not any traffic calming devices are necessary along Voltz Road. Page 4 Impact Fees. The final modification made to the planned development is not something reflected in the site plan; however, it should be noted that the Applicant is no longer requesting a reduction in the school, park, or library impact fees. The narrative provided by the Applicant with this report states that they are willing to calculate impact fees using the standard methods established by the Village. NECESSARY ZONING & SUBDIVISION RELIEF Based upon the concept drawing submitted, staff has identified the following zoning and subdivision relief that may be necessary to approve the revised planned development as currently presented to the Village Board. The changes noted since the Plan Commissions consideration are noted as follows (bold and double underline are additions; bold and strike-through are deletions). A. Special Permit approval of a concept plan for a 36-unit 34-unit single family detached home planned development in the R-4 zoning district; B. Tentative Plat approval of a 36-lot 34-lot subdivision with outlots and conservation areas; C. Zoning Code Text Amendment, and any additional associated zoning relief, to allow for an increase in permitted building height in a Planned Development; D. Variation to reduce the required interior side setback along the east property from 9 feet to 3.69 feet. E. Variation of the Subdivision Code to reduce the required right-of-way width from 60 feet to 50 feet for the street and to reduce the cul-de-sac bulb right-of-way from 140’ diameter to 120’ diameter and to reduce the required cul-de-sac pavement bulb from 107’ diameter to 96’ diameter; F. Variation of the Subdivision Code to allow all or a portion of the internal roadways to be private streets; G. Variation of the Subdivision Code to permit the cul-de-sac street within the proposed subdivision to exceed 1,200 feet in length; H. Variation of the Subdivision Code to allow for no tangent between reverse curves; I. Variation of the Subdivision Code to reduce the minimum centerline radius of curves to allow a minimum centerline radii of 38.5 feet for the Lee Road emergency access road and a minimum centerline radius of 103 102 feet elsewhere; J. Variation of the Subdivision Code to not construct sidewalk along: (1) the east side of the Subject Property’s Waukegan Road frontage, and (2) along a portion of the north side of Voltz Road, from the entrance of the development to the east property line of the Subject Property; K. Variation of the Subdivision Code to not bury existing overhead utility lines along Waukegan Road, a portion of the east side of the Subject Property, and a portion along Voltz Road and to waive the payment of a fee in lieu of burial of said overhead utility lines; L. Authorization to remove certain heritage trees and landmark trees and requesting relief from the standard tree removal requirements and fees; M. Site Plan Approval; and N. Approval of such other zoning and subdivision relief as may be necessary to accommodate the development of the Subject Property as proposed by the Applicant; including a request of a Variation of the Zoning Code to allow a fence in the required front yard to exceed 3’ in height. SUMMARY As the Board considers the revised planned development, staff suggests that the Board focus on the following policy questions: 1. Is the proposed 34-unit single-family detached home planned development on the Subject Property consistent with the property’s R-4 Single Family Residential District zoning, which zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s future land use designation, and the standards for Planned Developments (see Attachment A)? Page 5  2. Is the revised development site layout appropriate? a. Are the placement of homes along the north and south property lines appropriate? b. Is the proposed internal roadway configuration appropriate? i. Should the vehicular connection to Lee Road be only for emergency services? For emergency services and Anets Woods residents only? Or for emergency services and the public? ii. Should the internal roadways be public streets? Private streets? Or a combination (e.g. public except the Lee Road stub being private)? iii. Given the provision of the emergency/limited access point to the north to Lee Road, is it appropriate to grant a variation to allow the cul-de-sac length to exceed 1200 feet? c. Does the proposed planned development site layout provide a significant public benefit through the preservation of landmark and heritage trees and the provision of community open space and amenities? 3. Are the following off-site improvements appropriate? a. Is the Village Board willing to allow the expansion of the eastern detention basin on the Subject Property into the adjacent Village-owned parcel by means of a permanent easement? b. Is it appropriate to accept from the Applicant the dedication of land to accommodate a right-turn lane on east bound Voltz Road (to be installed at Village expense) in exchange for the Village granting an easement on the adjacent Village-owned parcel? c. Is the proposed sidewalk along the Voltz Road frontage of the Subject Property sufficient for the perimeter of the site? d. Is it appropriate to consider traffic calming methods along Voltz Road? 4. Is it appropriate to grant a waiver of heritage and landmark tree fees? 5. Is the requested zoning and subdivision relief, including the additional relief necessary due to the revised plan, appropriate? There has been a large public turnout during the Plan Commission public hearings, as well as at the August 11 Board of Trustees meeting, and we expect members of the public to ask to continue to make statements during the Planning & Zoning Committee’s review of this request. Included with this material is the public correspondence which the Village has received following the August 11 meeting. Page 6  ATTACHMENT A NORTHBROOK ZONING CODE STANDARDS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 11-603 A. Standards for Planned Developments. 1. Special Permit Standards. No special permit for a planned development shall be recommended or granted pursuant to this Section unless the applicant shall establish that the proposed development will meet each of the standards made applicable to special permit uses pursuant to Subsection 11-602 of this Article. 2. Additional Standards for All Planned Developments. No special permit for a planned development shall be recommended or granted unless the applicant shall establish that the proposed development will meet each of the following additional standards: a) Unified Ownership Required. The entire property proposed for planned development treatment shall be in single ownership or under such unified control as to ensure that the entire property will be developed as a unified whole. All owners of the property shall be included as joint applicants on all applications and all approvals shall bind all owners. The violation of any owner as to any tract shall be deemed a violation as to all owners and all tracts. b) Minimum Area. The district regulations of this Code establishing standards for particular types of planned development specify the minimum area required for same planned development. In addition to meeting that specific standard, or where no specific standard is set, the applicant shall have the burden of establishing that the subject property is of sufficient size and shape to be planned and developed as a unified whole capable of meeting the objectives for which planned developments may be established pursuant to this Section. c) Covenants and Restrictions to be Enforceable by Village. All covenants, deed restrictions, easements and similar restrictions to be recorded in connection with the planned development shall provide that they may not be modified, removed or released without the express consent of the Board of Trustees and that they may be enforced by the Village as well as by future landowners within the proposed development. d) Public Open Space and Contributions. Whenever the Official Comprehensive Plan or Official Map indicates that development of a planned development will create a need for land for public purposes of the Village within the proposed planned development, the Board of Trustees may require that such area be designated and to the extent such need is specifically and uniquely attributable to the proposed development, dedicated to the Village for such use. In addition, the Board of Trustees may require evidence that all requirements of Village ordinances pertaining to the dedication of land or the contribution of cash in connection with subdivisions or developments of land have been met as respects the proposed planned development. e) Common Open Space. (1) Amount, Location and Use. The failure of a planned development to provide common open space shall be considered to be an indication that it has not satisfied the objectives for which such developments may be approved pursuant to this Code. When common open space is provided in a planned development, the amount and location of such open space shall be consistent with its intended function as set forth in the application and planned development plans. No such open space shall be used for the construction of any structure or improvement Page 7  except such structures and improvements as may be approved in the Final Plan as appropriate to the intended leisure and recreational uses for which such open space is intended. (2) Preservation. Adequate safeguards, including recorded covenants or dedication of development rights, shall be provided to prevent the subsequent use of common open space for any use, structure, improvement or development other than that shown on the approved Final Plan. The restrictions must be permanent and not for a given period of years and must run with the land. (3) Ownership and Maintenance. The Final Plan shall include such provisions for the ownership and maintenance of such open space and improvements as are reasonably necessary to ensure their continuity, care, conservation, maintenance and operation in accordance with predetermined standards and to ensure that remedial measures will be available to the Village if such open space or improvements are permitted to deteriorate or are not maintained in a condition consistent with the best interests of the planned development or the Village. (4) Property Owners' Association. When the requirements of the preceding Subparagraph are to be satisfied by the ownership or maintenance of such open space or improvements by a property owners' association, such association shall meet each of the following standards: (i) The by-laws and rules of the association and all declarations, covenants and restrictions to be recorded must be approved as part of the Detailed Plan prior to becoming effective. Each such document shall provide that it shall not be amended in any manner that would result in it being in violation of the requirements of this Subparagraph. (ii) The association must be established and all covenants and restrictions recorded prior to the sale of any property within the area of the planned development designated to have the exclusive use of the proposed open space or improvements. (iii) The association must be responsible for casualty and liability insurance, taxes, and the maintenance of the open space and improvements to be deeded to it. (iv) Membership in the association must be mandatory for each property owner, and any successive owner, having a right to the use or enjoyment of such open space or improvements. (v) Every property having a right to the use or enjoyment of such open space or improvements must pay its pro rata share of the cost of the association by means of an assessment to be levied by the association that meets the requirements for becoming a lien on the property in accordance with statutes of the State of Illinois. (vi) The association must have the right to adjust the assessment to meet changed needs. The membership vote required to authorize such adjustment shall not be fixed at more than 51 percent of the members voting on the issue. (vii) The Village must be given the right to enforce the covenants. (viii)The Village must be given the right, after ten days' written notice to the association, to perform any maintenance or repair work that the association has neglected to perform, to assess the membership for such work and to have a lien against the property of any member failing to pay such assessment. For this purpose alone, the Village shall have all the rights and Page 8  powers of the association and its governing body under the agreements and declarations creating the association. f) Landscaping and Perimeter Treatment. Any area of a planned development not used for structures or circulation elements shall be landscaped or otherwise improved. The perimeter of the planned development shall be treated so as to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses by means such as provision of compatible uses and structures; setbacks; screening; or natural or manmade buffers. Every planned development shall provide a perimeter landscaped open space along each of its boundaries; each such open space shall have a minimum depth equal to the minimum applicable yard required in the district in which it is located. g) Private Streets. Private streets shall be permitted in a planned development provided that: (1) Said streets shall be treated as public streets and rights of way for purposes of all setbacks, yards and calculations under this Code. (2) Said streets shall be owned and maintained by a property owners' association meeting the requirements set forth in Subparagraph E2(e)(4) above; and (3) A covenant shall be recorded against the subject property acknowledging that the Village shall at no time be under any obligation to provide maintenance for or accept dedication of said streets. h) Utilities. All utility lines shall be installed underground. 3. Additional Standards for Specific Planned Developments. Where the district regulations authorizing any planned development use in a particular district impose standards to be met by such planned development in such district, a special permit for such development shall not be recommended or granted unless the applicant shall establish compliance with such special standards. Page 9  Board of Trustees 1225 Cedar Lane Northbrook, IL 60062 Regular Meeting www.northbrook.il.us ~ Minutes ~ Debbie Ford (847) 664-4013 Tuesday, August 11, 2015 7:30 PM Board Room 1. ROLL CALL Attendee Name Title Status Arrived James Karagianis Trustee Absent A.C. Buehler Trustee Present Michael Scolaro Trustee Present Todd Heller Trustee Present Kathryn Ciesla Trustee Present Bob Israel Trustee Present Sandra Frum Village President Present COMMITTEE REPORTS 9. PLANNING/ZONING A. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLAN COMMISSION 1. Consider the Recommendations of the Plan Commission and Architectural Control Commission Regarding Docket PCD-15-04: The Anets Woods Single Family Detached Residential Planned Development Located at 1230 Voltz Road. Senior Planner Kohlstedt stated what is being presented this evening is the recommendation from the Plan Commission and noted the matter is scheduled to go before the Architectural Control Commission on Thursday, August 13th. She said the Applicant requested this item be added to the Board agenda for tonight and as part of the material the Applicant submitted, they have requested a Planning and Zoning Meeting be scheduled to discuss the Plan Commission’s recommendation and additional items in more detail. She described the subject property and zoning on the property and the surrounding area. She stated the Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as appropriate for single family residential which is consistent with the property’s R-4 zoning. She said the Comprehensive Plan also noted this property is a candidate for future development given its size and that it is primarily vacant. The Comprehensive Plan also noted a potential road connection from Lee Road to Voltz Road. Senior Planner Kohlstedt reviewed the history of the proposal and Commission comments. She said given the topography of the site as well as the trees that could be preserved, it is a good candidate for a planned development. She reviewed the objectives for planned development. She explained that in a planned development the bulk standards such as setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area are applied Board of Trustees Page 1 Printed 8/21/2015 Regular Meeting Minutes August 11, 2015 to the property as a whole rather than to individual lots. She continued to review the history of the Application and described the proposal. She stated the Plan Commission comments included the development is too dense, it needs more guest parking, there should be more open public space, and a right turn lane on westbound Voltz at Waukegan should be installed. Senior Planner Kohlstedt stated the Applicant submitted a revised plan with 36 units, increased spacing between homes, provided additional off-street guest parking, increased driveway depth, and added a pocket park. This plan results in approximately 2.64 dwelling units per acre and it was proposed to limit Lee Road access for emergency vehicles and residents. Senior Planner Kohlstedt stated the plan presented this evening is the same plan the Plan Commission reviewed. She noted the revisions in this plan were the driveway depth was increased to 21 feet, the spacing of the homes in the center of the development was increased to the minimum required in an R-4 district, the addition of a sidewalk to the guest parking on the northeast corner of the site, and the removal of the on-street parking on the west side of the development. She reported the Plan Commission amended the Resolution to: 1) prohibit parking across from the pocket park with the inclusion of signage, 2) to include more stringent language in regard to the maintenance and care of the conservation area, 3) for the installation of a right turn lane on Voltz Road provided by the developer, and 4) the access to Lee Road is to be a full access public road. Even with these amendments the Resolution failed by one vote. She said some Commissioners voted no because they still felt it is too dense and some because they felt there was a need for more public space. Senior Planner Kohlstedt stated the Applicant requested the Board schedule a Planning and Zoning meeting to discuss the Plan Commission’s recommendation as well as the relief they are seeking in regard to a modification of how impact fees are calculated, waiver of tree removal fees, and a waiver of fee in lieu of burying utility lines. Trustee Buehler reiterated the Applicant requested the petition to go to the Planning and Zoning Committee rather than go to a vote tonight and said he concurred with that. He stated when it goes to the Committee, he would like to review the Plan Commission’s recommendations, the traffic flow questions and get a better understanding of how the layout works with the existing number of units. He said he would like input from the Board and guidance in regard to what staff should be working on prior to the meeting. He noted this is not part of the public hearing but there will be notice prior to the Planning and Zoning Committee public meeting. Trustee Scolaro agreed with the Planning Commission regarding the need for a right turn lane off Voltz onto Waukegan, the Lee Road access, and the overall density but is otherwise generally on board with the plan. Trustee Heller stated he has no problem with it going to the Planning and Zoning Committee and echoed Trustee Scolaro’s concerns. He expressed his objection to the request the Developer has Board of Trustees Page 2 Printed 8/21/2015 Regular Meeting Minutes August 11, 2015 made regarding a reduction in impact fees to the school districts, park district and library and he stated he will vote against the planned development if the impact fees are reduced. He said the Village does not reduce or increase taxes and fees based on whether residents might use certain services more or less than other residents. Trustee Ciesla stated she lives very near the subject property and drives on Voltz Road. She said she sees several signs discouraging the approval of this development. She urged the Board to drive on Voltz Road on a Saturday morning or 4:00 or 5:00 in the afternoon and note how the traffic backs up on Voltz and how the location of the proposed access point of the development is impractical. She suggested the access point be moved further east. She stated left turn traffic on Voltz may have to wait 2 to 3 traffic signal cycles because the traffic is so heavy. She suggested staff and fellow Trustees take photographs of the intersections of Lee Road and Country Lane and Walters and she stated it is confusing for people who are not familiar with it. She said it is not a true t-intersection and it is awkward as it stands. She stated sidewalks are a must on Waukegan because of vehicle speed. Trustee Ciesla echoed Trustee Heller’s statement regarding the waiving of fees and added she is not interested in waiving any fees for the trees. She stated she reviewed the initial comments regarding the proposal from her fellow Board Members and read their comments regarding density. She does not feel the Developer addressed density properly at the Plan Commission and urged the Planning and Zoning Committee to consider the Board’s first impression and whether the Developer went far enough with 36 units. Trustee Israel stated his agreement with his fellow Trustees’ comments. He said he visited the site initially and viewed the trees and log cabin. He stated the proposal started out dense and there has been little improvement. President Frum read written comments from Trustee Karagianis. He stated his position is in support of the Plan Commission. He is in agreement with the referral of the petition to the Planning and Zoning Committee but he will not vote in opposition to the Plan Commission. President Frum stated she also echoes what the other Trustees have said and she does not think the plan is ready yet. She said she needs to see the actual comments from the Plan Commission members and is ready to send it to Planning and Zoning to work out the issues. She concurred, density and traffic issues need to be discussed and stated if Voltz Road needs to be widened it should be addressed now. President Frum stated she is not in favor of reducing impact fees or waiving other fees. She added Trustee Ciesla made some very good points about location of the entrance to the development. She reminded meeting attendees that they will have the opportunity to speak at the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting and asked that they keep their comments brief and to not Board of Trustees Page 3 Printed 8/21/2015 Regular Meeting Minutes August 11, 2015 repeat concerns already stated. Trustee Ciesla suggested that residents should sign up for Northbrook Notify on the Village website for meeting notices and other important information. Trustee Buehler requested that Senior Planner Kohlstedt arrange the installation of an actuator on northeast corner of Waukegan and Voltz Road for pedestrian crossing. He stated to the audience that no decisions are going to be made tonight and there will be no debate. David Zadijek, attorney for a group of homeowners on Voltz Road, discussed his experience in zoning and land use. He stated this planned development is not worthy of special treatment because the quid quo pro of public benefit is not there. He stated he walked the site and described the slopes. He said the trees would be there in an R-4 development because the northwest corner is difficult to develop and is full of heritage and landmark trees. He finds it difficult to believe that the Village would allow the trees to be cut down in violation of the tree ordinance. Mr. Zadijek stated emergency access to Lee Road would dump more traffic on Voltz Road which already is a problem. He believes the connection to Lee Road should be a public street and that would help alleviate the problem. He said whether the property goes R-4 or to a different planned development in the future, the Plan Commission voted against it. He stated rather than tweak it or help the Applicant develop it, it should be defeated as proposed. Village Attorney Elrod requested a list of the residents Mr. Zadijek represents and was informed staff has the list. Roger Smith, 38-year resident, stated he delivered a letter to the Board and he will present that information to the Planning and Zoning Committee. He said the materials and information contained in the letter were done on behalf of 51 signatories to the petition who feel strongly about the planned development. He stated they recognize that people have a right to sell and develop their land but it must be done in a way that satisfies the needs of the Village of Northbrook and its residents. Hal Franke, on behalf of Edward R. James Companies from the law firm of Meltzer, Purtill and Stelle, thanked members of the Board and staff for the tremendous amount of time they spent on the project and thanked the residents who expressed their concerns for their courtesies. He stated the Applicant is proposing a unique type of community and noted several residents spoke in favor of the development and the need for this type of housing. He said the property is zoned R-4 and the density that could be developed under the existing zoning would generate the same issues residents are concerned about (i.e., traffic on Voltz Road and the Lee Road connection). He asked the Board to consider why the density is an issue when it was addressed on a spacing standpoint for the neighbors on the north and on the south. He noted the spacing between these homes is greater than required by the underlying zoning ordinance. He noted the Applicant was disappointed by a 5-4 vote against the project by the Plan Commission and noted some of the Commissioners were not voting against it in regard to Board of Trustees Page 4 Printed 8/21/2015 Regular Meeting Minutes August 11, 2015 density. He said the Applicant was encouraged that 4 Members voted in favor of the project. Regarding the Lee Road connection, Mr. Franke stated the Applicant will do what the Village requests. In response to a question from Trustee Ciesla, Mr. James stated the starting pricing will be in the mid $900,000’s and the maximum price is not known. Trustee Ciesla inquired whether the Applicant is willing to build less than 36 units. The Applicant was not able to give a yes or no answer. Trustee Buehler motioned, seconded by Trustee Heller, to refer Plan Commission Docket PCD- 15-04 Anets Woods to the Planning and Zoning Committee of the Board to discuss issues listed and others as they come up at a meeting be scheduled at a later date. On roll call, voting aye were Trustees Buehler, Heller, Israel and President Frum and voting no were Trustees Scolaro and Ciesla. The motion passed 4-2-0. Board of Trustees Page 5 Printed 8/21/2015  APPROVED Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission Northbrook, Illinois Cook County August 4, 2015 1 CALL TO ORDER 2 Chairman Franklin called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. On roll call, present were Members 3 Elfant, Schimel, Melnick, Elisco, Jacobs, Cyphers, Pepoon, Collison, and Chairman Franklin. A quorum 4 was present. Also attending were Director of Development and Planning Services Poupard, Assistant 5 Director of Development and Planning Services Schoon, Senior Planner Kohlstedt, and Village Attorney 6 Ben Schuster. 7 8 CONTINUED REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS 9 DOCKET NO. 15-04: 1220 AND 1230 VOLTZ ROAD - ANETS WOODS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. Fourth 10 Public Hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval of an application filed by 11 Edward R. James Partners, LLC as contractual purchaser of the property commonly known as 1220 and 12 1230 Voltz Road for the purpose of: (A) Special Permit approval of a concept plan for a 36-unit single 13 family detached home planned development in the R-4 zoning district; (B) Tentative Plat approval of a 14 36-lot subdivision with outlots and conservation areas; (C) Zoning Code Text Amendment to allow for an 15 increase in permitted building height in a Planned Development; (D) Variation to reduce the required 16 right-of-way width from 60 feet to 50 feet; (E) Variation to allow for no tangent between reverse curves; 17 (F) Variation to reduce the minimum centerline radius of curves in the proposed streets; (G) Variation to 18 not construct sidewalk along: (1) the east side of the Subject Property’s Waukegan Road frontage, and 19 (2) along a portion of the north side of Voltz Road, from the entrance of the development to the east 20 property line of the Subject Property; (H) Variation to not bury existing overhead utility lines along 21 Waukegan Road, a portion of the east side of the Subject Property, and a portion along Voltz Road and 22 to waive the payment of a fee in lieu of burial of said overhead utility lines; (I) Authorization to remove 23 certain heritage trees and landmark trees and requesting relief from the standard tree removal 24 requirements and fees; (J) Site Plan Approval; and (K) Approval of such other zoning and subdivision 25 relief as may be necessary. 26 27 Chairman Franklin stated additional written public comments were received after the 28 distribution of the meeting packet and these comments will be reviewed, considered, and part of the 29 public record. She reviewed the guidelines for testimony. 30 Senior Planner Kohlstedt noted that included with the staff report was a draft resolution 31 recommending the approval of the plan as presented with 36 units and access to Lee Road restricted to 32 emergency vehicles only. 33 Hal Francke, an attorney with Meltzer, Purtill & Stelle, stated the Applicant submitted a letter 34 which responded to some very specific issues that were raised by the Commission. In the letter is an 35 explanation of why there should be no further changes to the conservation area. He presented a 1  Minutes of a Regular Plan Commission Meeting August 4, 2015 1 revised plan and noted both retention basins were re-engineered to increase the separation between 2 units on Voltz Road and also in the internal area. He brought the Commission’s attention to an artist’s 3 rendering of the pocket park. 4 Chairman Franklin swore in people planning to speak regarding this petition who had not 5 spoken previously. 6 David Zajicek, a land use attorney and partner in the Hinshaw & Culbertson law firm, stated he is 7 representing various Voltz Road home-owner objectors. Chairman Franklin requested that Mr. Zajicek 8 provide a list of the clients he is representing to staff. He discussed his previous experience with various 9 law firms and in Northbrook. He stated he is not here to ask the Applicant to refine their proposal but is 10 here to request the Commission to deny the Application. He stated he reviewed the record and it 11 stands on its own. He stated there is no benefit to the Village and to the homeowners in the area with a 12 relaxation of the R-4 technical standards. He said there is basis for clustering the homes. He stated the 13 northwest area has tremendous engineering issues and the Applicant is proposing to remove 32% of the 14 trees. Mr. Zajicek stated there is no comparison with a standard R-4 in regard to the conservation area 15 and only a mathematical determination of the number of homes that could be built under a standard R- 16 4 zoning has been offered. He said the tree ordinance is subjective and the Village could require 17 conservation under traditional R-4 zoning. 18 Mr. Zajicek presented the Applicant’s site plan overlaid on a topographic map. He stated the 19 slopes drop 20 feet in the southern section and 10 feet on the northern section of the proposed 20 conservation area. He stated the wooded portion of the property is virtually unbuildable but if it were 21 buildable, the cut and fill expenses would be exorbitant. He stated 49 homes could not be built on the 22 subject property under R-4 zoning. He presented another drawing showing where 32% of the trees 23 would be replaced by 4 homes in the Applicant’s proposal and suggested an R-4 development would be 24 no different. He referred to Senior Planner Kohlstedt’s July memo specifically regarding whether the 25 preservation of open space warrants the relaxation of the Village zoning standards. He stated the same 26 preservation would occur without a planned development. 27 Mr. Zajicek referred to Village Code 11-603 – Planned Development and said this development 28 would set a bad precedent for future planned developments. He read from the Planned Development 29 Ordinance and point by point rebutted the Applicant’s justification for the planned development. He 30 said the area is a stable area, there is need for departure, and the development is not creative. He said 31 the Applicant is going to preserve 3 acres but feels the Applicant has not demonstrated 49 homes could Page 2 of 11  Minutes of a Regular Plan Commission Meeting August 4, 2015 1 be built on the subject property. He stated his belief that the Applicant should show R-4 standard and 2 the planned development side by side. He described the density of the proposal as both visual and 3 functional. 4 Mr. Zajicek said he spent the previous Saturday with some of his clients driving the entire area 5 and familiarizing himself with the traffic patterns in the area. He noted it was easily recognizable that 6 the parcel is between 2 main thoroughfares and traffic funnels out on Voltz Road which will take the 7 brunt of additional traffic from the new development. He stated there is a traffic generation study that 8 determined there would be little change. He challenged the use of an adult target market to reduce the 9 number of cars in the study. He felt the Applicant should market the homes under the Illinois Fair 10 Housing Act, Housing for Older Persons if using the adult target market in their study. He suggested the 11 homes will be sold to anyone who is able to buy them, including people with children, therefore the 12 Applicant should not be using the target market in their traffic study. 13 Mr. Zajicek discussed the difficulty turning left from the proposed Voltz Road access point and 14 felt it will be dangerous. He understands it is an existing condition that can be improved by allowing 15 access to Lee Road. He said he does not understand why Lee Road should be emergency access only 16 when it is a natural access point and should be used to distribute the traffic load. He said Lee Road was 17 to be extended to Voltz and noted there is already a cut through at Grant Street. He stated the Lee 18 Road access point should be full access since it is a public road. He added there is a slim chance of Lee 19 Road being used as a cut through. He stated traffic will be an issue of concern whether it is a straight R- 20 4 subdivision or planned development. He continued, a previous submission by the Applicant changed 21 the private road concept to a public road and would save approximately $24,000 per year in 22 homeowner maintenance fees. He believes the Applicant does not want the public road to be available 23 to the public. 24 Mr. Zajicek stated the Developer complained that losing another unit will affect financing. Mr. 25 Zajicek said the Developer is a contract purchaser and the price of the property is subject to the zoning 26 they are requesting. He feels the Village is a catalyst to the negotiations between the Developer and the 27 property owner and the loss of another unit can be worked out in the purchase price of the land. 28 Mr. Zajicek reiterated the reasons he feels the Commission should reject the Applicant’s 29 proposal. He also suggested the right turn lanes should be built before it is too late. He concluded by 30 respectively requesting the Commission to turn down this plan as presented and thanked the 31 Commission. Page 3 of 11  Minutes of a Regular Plan Commission Meeting August 4, 2015 1 Chairman Franklin reviewed the guidelines for public testimony and asked that comments be 2 limited to no more than three minutes and not be repetitive She swore in those who had not been 3 sworn in before. 4 Matt Smith, a 30-year resident of Northbrook residing at 2247 South Bridge Lane, stated the 5 planned development is attractive to him and his wife and he would like to see it approved tonight. He 6 said he drives on Voltz Road and bikes along it and feels the traffic concerns are overstated. He 7 discussed the routes he would take to get to Dundee or I-94. He stated there are 67 homes in 8 Southbridge Commons where there are 2 routes to exit and enter the subdivision. He added, it is rare 9 for him to see another car coming in or out of the subdivision at the same time he is leaving the 10 subdivision. He said he appreciates that people do not want increased traffic. With respect to density, 11 he discussed his own desires and needs in regard to yard size and stated there are several places across 12 Waukegan Road with open areas and therefore, the request for additional parks to minimize density is 13 overstated. Mr. Smith discussed the benefit to Northbrook comparing his estimate of the tax base for 14 the planned development ($30,000,000) with his estimated tax base for homes similar to those across 15 the street ($10,000,000 to $15,000,000). He said the Commission needs to look ahead to the future and 16 type of housing the demographics will require this community to have. He stated that he feels the 17 community needs the type of development the Applicant has proposed and does not need any more 18 $2,000,000 homes. 19 Dean Chalmers of 1116 Voltz Road thanked the Commission for taking on a difficult job. He 20 described Voltz Road as the “pink elephant”, stated everyone knows it’s a problem, and he feels it is not 21 being addressed by the people who can do something about it. He stated a Village employee, when 22 asked if this project is the tipping point for Voltz Road, said he answered no, it has already happened 23 long ago. He feels adding more traffic is akin to pouring water on a sinking ship. He stated Northbrook 24 needs to address the traffic problem on Voltz Road now. He said expert opinions were purchased and 25 the real experts are the residents who live near Voltz Road. He expressed his concerns about what he 26 sees as a dangerous situation and a catastrophe waiting to happen. He said he believes that once 27 Willow Road construction is complete people will still use Voltz Road as a cut-through. 28 Heather Costello of 1015 Voltz Road stated traffic has exploded in the last 4 years. She stated 29 that the dangerous traffic along Voltz Road and the lack of a sidewalk makes it impossible for her 30 daughter to walk to school safely. She stated the project will congest and ruin the neighborhood and Page 4 of 11  Minutes of a Regular Plan Commission Meeting August 4, 2015 1 she will likely move if this project is approved. She said the gentleman who spoke earlier about traffic 2 does not live there should not plead a cause that is not his. 3 Andrew Appel 1215 Voltz Road stated over the past month he has interacted with over 25 4 residents who live in the area around Voltz Road who signed petition against the approval of the 5 development. He said it never made it into the record and he supposed the desires of the immediate 6 neighbors were not being considered. Mr. Apel said adding 36 homes into a neighborhood with 41 7 homes is basically doubling the number of homes and the associated traffic. He suggested the 8 Commission is creating a divide between the Voltz residents and the Lee Road residents since the Lee 9 Road access would be emergency access only and will not affect them. He discussed the tax basis and 10 estimated new houses similar to his own would bring in the same amount of tax revenue to Northbrook 11 as the planned development. 12 Scott Barrett of 46 Bridlewood Lane stated he is the current president of the Bridlewood Club. 13 He stated Mr. Appels petition was passed to 37 residents within Bridlewood and to his knowledge only 3 14 residents signed onto it. He stated he feels the complaint is not about the number of homes and noted 15 the property is zoned for far more than that. He said the problem is traffic and he feels that it would 16 appease many people if the traffic could be diverted. He remarked the Anetsberger family owns the 17 property and has the right to sell it, the property is zoned for homes, and any development will have an 18 impact on traffic. 19 Susan Crawford of 1230 Country Lane stated she agrees with the developer in regard to closing 20 the Lee Road access. She said she asked neighbors which way they would go if they were going to 21 various shopping areas and stated many of them stated they would go to Lee and cut through the 22 proposed development to get to Voltz Road. She stated she feels it will be used as a cut-through 23 constantly and Grant Road is too far north for the immediate neighbors. She asked the Commission to 24 please consider restricting access to Lee Road to emergency vehicles. 25 Dr. Joseph Mitten of 1015 Voltz Road stated the Commission is not there to fix Voltz Road for 26 the developer. He suggested the development should block access to Voltz Road and only have access 27 through Lee Road and increase the length of the light at Walters. He said the problem is there are too 28 many houses in too small of an area and the Applicant has not shown they are doing anything for him or 29 the Village and should not get a deal. He stated he wants an R-4 plan that understands the problems on 30 Voltz Road and asked the Commission to deny the Applicant’s proposal. 31 Page 5 of 11  Minutes of a Regular Plan Commission Meeting August 4, 2015 1 There being no other members of the public wishing to speak, Member Collison moved, 2 seconded by Cyphers, to close the public hearing. Motion passed by voice vote. 3 4 Mr. Francke requested the opportunity to give a brief response to the public comments. 5 6 Member Pepoon moved, seconded by Member Elisco, to reopen the public hearing. Motion passed by 7 voice vote. 8 9 Mr. Francke stated reasonable people can reasonably disagree. He stated one home more or 10 less does make a difference not only to the developer but to future buyers in terms of assessments and 11 to the Village in terms of tax revenue. He agreed the Commission should base their decision on the 12 record. He believes, contrary to Mr. Zajicek, the record supports the project and discussed evidence, 13 preservation, and staff reports. In regard to Lee Road access, he stated the intent is to build a 14 community in the planned unit development (PUD) and with a traditional R-4 build it would be 15 appropriate to have Lee Road access open. He stated the Applicant has given evidence the proposed 16 development is not overly dense and noted it is less dense than the last planned development that the 17 Village approved in the community and is less dense than many of the surrounding neighborhoods. He 18 emphasized that the Applicant has listened to and responded to the Commission’s comments and the 19 concerns of the neighbors. He requested support for the proposal and thanked the Commission for the 20 time they’ve spent in the public hearings. 21 22 Member Collison moved, seconded by Member Jacobs, to close the public hearing. Motion 23 passed by voice vote. 24 25 Mr. Zajicek requested a rebuttal. Chairman Franklin informed the residents and Mr. Zajicek they 26 will have another opportunity to speak when the proposal comes before the Board of Trustees. She 27 added the Commission had heard a lengthy presentation and it was helpful. 28 Chairman Franklin asked the members to state whether they are in favor of the Applicant’s 29 proposal and to provide reasons for their vote. 30 Member Elisco stated he will vote in favor with amendments which will be added later. He 31 discussed his original concern regarding the extra unit in the center in terms of visual relief and after 32 further consideration, he felt removing one house would not make a difference. He stated as a PUD it Page 6 of 11  Minutes of a Regular Plan Commission Meeting August 4, 2015 1 provides a major benefit to community in the saving of the trees on the 3 acres. He acknowledged 2 statements regarding other ways of developing the property that would conserve the trees. He said he 3 stated in his opening comments there are 3 other ways the property could be used: 1) remain open land 4 and kept it preserved along with the log cabin as an information center (the Park District could have 5 purchased it years ago but were not petitioned to do so); 2) a standard R-4 development; 3) a standard 6 R-3 development. He noted an R-4 developer would do the cut and fill necessary, pay the fine for 7 taking down the trees, and build very large homes. He continued, residents are not taking into 8 consideration of what could happen if there is a true R-4 subdivision. The PUD as a whole has a front 9 yard, a rear yard and side yards. In a standard R-4 development the roads could be configured in such a 10 way that the new homes abut the existing homes along a 9-foot side yard resulting in much less space 11 between the houses. He stated whether there are 25 R-4 homes or a 36-unit PUD the traffic situation 12 will be the same and a few less homes will not help the traffic on Voltz Road. He indicated all the 13 commissioners are in favor of adding a right turn lane to alleviate the traffic on Voltz Road. Member 14 Elisco stated no matter what type of development is built there will be more traffic and he is in favor of 15 opening Lee Road to all traffic. He emphasized the Village should not block off one neighborhood from 16 another. He discussed his observations of traffic in his neighborhood and calculated the number of cars 17 per access point. He stated he agrees with the resident from Southridge Commons regarding the affect 18 on traffic. 19 Member Melnick stated he appreciated the resident comments and agrees there is a problem 20 with the traffic on Voltz Road but it will not be solved with a reduction houses. He said he likes the 21 project as presented and believes there should be access to Lee Road. 22 Member Schimel stated he believes it is a quality project and that the Applicant has done a good 23 job in addressing the Commission’s concerns, most importantly the spacing between the homes. He 24 said he supports the project as it stands. 25 Member Elfant stated she does not support the project. She maintains her position that it does 26 not provide the community amenities for these specific homeowners to warrant the smaller lots and 27 density increase. The homeowners will be accountable for preserving a grove that they do not have 28 access to and it does not significantly enhance their enjoyment of their community. Essentially the 29 homeowners, and possibly adjacent neighbors as well, will have to pay to preserve a grove for the 30 Village, therefore it does not pass the test of reasonability for a PUD, in her opinion. She does not feel 31 residents of the development should have to go across Waukegan to go to a playground. She said they Page 7 of 11  Minutes of a Regular Plan Commission Meeting August 4, 2015 1 should have access to open spaces within their community. She thanked the Applicant for providing the 2 renderings and complimented them on their great attention to detail and quality materials. She stated 3 the pergola is too small and 2 benches for the entire community are not enough. She stated she is not 4 in favor of the project but believes the Village should provide access to Lee Road to alleviate the traffic 5 on Voltz Road and to provide 2 entries to the community. 6 Member Collison feels there have not been significant enough changes made to the plan and 7 said she cannot support the project for many of the reasons Member Elfant stated. She stated each 8 property is looked at differently. She said it is too dense and there are not enough amenities, therefore 9 she will vote against the development. 10 Member Pepoon thanked the Petitioner for all the good work they have done and he thanked 11 the residents for their impassioned speeches, but felt the attacks made by some speakers on this group 12 of volunteer Commission members were appalling. He stated the Commission is there to serve the 13 entire Village and asked that no one assume they know what the commissioners are thinking. He said 14 he feels it is time to develop the Anetsberger homestead and noted the Comprehensive Plan and 15 existing zoning call for it to be an R-4 development. He commented it would have been simpler for him 16 if there were presentations continuing Lee Road to another road similar to Country Lane or something 17 close to Woodlawn Drive. Member Pepoon stated he does support a PUD in order to simply keep the 18 trees. He said he strongly concurs with those that stated residents on one side of the project were in 19 favor if traffic was diverted from their neighborhood. He stated he understands that no one wants more 20 traffic in their neighborhood and discussed traffic and neighbor objections. He stated the development 21 ought to be accessible from Lee Road. If the Applicant wants a gated community, they should make the 22 road private. He said he cannot vote in favor of it as proposed. He added, if this development is going 23 to go further, there should be a design that allows for a right turn lane installed on Voltz (to Waukegan.) 24 In addition, the Developer should install a sidewalk across the entire Voltz Road frontage of the 25 development to connect to the sidewalk all the way to the bridge. 26 Member Cyphers stated he lives in the vicinity of the property and has given this a lot of thought 27 and noted he travels Voltz Road every day. He said he has been conflicted as this project has moved 28 forward. He indicated he appreciated testimonies from the Applicant and the community and stated 29 the Commission is listening. He agrees that a PUD is appropriate for this site. He said the amenity and 30 the design is saving the trees. He said he would have liked to have seen a pathway/trail. He stated the 31 Applicant is meeting many, if not all, of the R-4 requirements. He stated he can support project; Page 8 of 11  Minutes of a Regular Plan Commission Meeting August 4, 2015 1 however, he is concerned about traffic. He believes the Commission should not go against the 2 Comprehensive Plan and supports connecting to Lee Road. He agrees with Member Elisco regarding a 3 right turn lane on Voltz Road at Waukegan Road. The traffic issues are serious and they should not 4 make a bad situation worse. He stated overall he can support the plan. 5 Member Jacobs stated he cannot support this petition. He said the Lee Road access is a sticking 6 point – it should be a through street as in the Comprehensive Plan recommendation. He stated he does 7 not feel it will be a cut through for anyone other than the people in the development and those adjacent 8 to it. He indicated the density is also an issue and stated he does not believe 49 units would be possible 9 in an R-4 once right-of-way and stormwater management has been factored in. He believed Mr. Zajicek 10 made a very good case and felt many of his arguments were right on the mark. With the change in front 11 and rear yard setbacks and having smaller than standard lots than are in R-4, Member Jacobs said he is 12 looking for more open park area for residents use. He is not seeing a sufficient area to justify a PUD. 13 He stated he agrees the forested land would be difficult to develop. The pocket park with 2 benches is 14 too small. In regard to the empty-nester target market, he said the Developer may market the homes 15 to empty nesters but 2,600 to 3,200 square foot homes with additional unfinished lookout/garden 16 basement space in some units will result in 3 bedroom homes to going to 4 bedroom homes which will 17 attract families with children. He added, the excellent schools already attract families with children. 18 Chairman Franklin thanked the Applicant who did a very thorough and complete job and 19 thanked the members of the community who came out, and for the most part kept their comments 20 constructive to the Commissions deliberation. She stated the Commissioners do not get paid or get 21 anything back from the applicant and they are here because they live here, love Northbrook and want to 22 do the right thing. She added, the right thing to do may not seem to be the right thing for everyone. 23 She acknowledged it has been a difficult application, a difficult piece of property, and a difficult 24 intersection. Chairman Franklin noted the property will be built on and whatever is built will contribute 25 to traffic. She stated she cannot vote for the application in its current form. She agrees with some of 26 the other Commissioners that in terms of tradeoffs, they are just not there. The Village is not getting 27 the kind of open, community space that is one of the goals in approving a planned unit development. 28 She stated saving the trees is a laudable goal and the more trees that could be saved the better but at a 29 minimum she would look to the Developer to do something that would allow the people of that 30 development to be able to take advantage of the green space. She said the density of these homes is 31 somewhat of a fiction because in the case of a planned unit development, a developer can use the Page 9 of 11  Minutes of a Regular Plan Commission Meeting August 4, 2015 1 entire size of the property averaged over the number of homes to be built. But clearly, in this case, the 2 entire property is not buildable and houses really are relatively closer than they would have been 3 otherwise. She said the pure number of homes wouldn’t be enough for her to vote against it but 4 without access and ingress at Lee Road and given how close to the intersection the Voltz Road access 5 and ingress is there is a potential for creating a more serious problem. She stated it is a beautiful 6 development but is missing things that are very important to her and for those reasons, she cannot 7 support it in its current form. 8 Member Elisco moved, seconded by Member Jacobs to approve amend Resolution 15-PC-13 Docket no. 9 PDC-15-04 Anets Wood Planned Development 1220-1230 Voltz Road as prepared and submitted by 10 staff. Member Elisco then moved, seconded by Member Pepoon, to amend the Resolution in regard to 11 the on-street parking on the west side of the pocket park as follows: install 2 “No Parking Between 12 Signs”, one just south of unit 33’s driveway and the other just north of unit 34’s driveway; therefore, 13 clearing the entire curb of parking. Chairman Franklin polled the members who all voted in favor of the 14 amendment. 15 16 Member Elisco then moved, seconded by Member Elfant, to amend the Resolution to require that the 17 homeowners association declaration include more stringent language regarding conservation as 18 follows: the Developer is to work with the Village of Northbrook forestry staff on a plan of action to 19 work with the future homeowners association to develop a plan in regard to the inspection, service, list 20 of approved maintenance materials, and the removal and replacement of trees. Chairman Franklin 21 polled the members. All members voted in favor of the amendment. 22 23 Member Elisco then moved, seconded by Member Pepoon, to amend the Resolution to change the 24 access to Lee Road from emergency vehicle access only to a full open public street access into the 25 development. Chairman Franklin polled the members. Eight members voted in favor, one opposed. 26 The motion passed . 27 28 Member Cyphers moved, seconded by Member Pepoon, to amend the Resolution to require the 29 developer to add the installation of a right turn on westbound Voltz Road at its intersection with Page 10 of 11  Minutes of a Regular Plan Commission Meeting August 4, 2015 1 Waukegan Road. Chairman Franklin polled the members. Eight members voted in favor, one opposed. 2 The motion passed 3 4 Member Elisco moved, seconded by Member Jacobs, to approve Resolution 15-PC-13 Docket No. PDC- 5 15-04 Anets Wood Planned Development 1220-1230 Voltz Road as prepared and submitted by staff and 6 amended as discussed and summarized as follows: 7 1) No parking between signs to be placed south of the driveway to unit 33 and north of the 8 driveway to unit 34; 9 2) access to Lee Road be a full, open public road; 10 3) right turn lane off of Voltz Road going north onto Waukegan Road to be installed by the 11 developer; 12 4) developer work with the Village to develop a plan of action for maintenance of the 13 conservation area. 14 Upon roll call, voting aye were Members Schimel, Melnick, Elisco, and Cyphers, voting no were Members 15 Elfant, Jacobs, Pepoon, Collison, and Chairman Franklin. The motion failed 4-5-0. 16 17 Chairman Franklin stated that the item will now go before the Village Board for its consideration. She 18 called for a brief recess while the members of the public present for this application cleared the Board 19 Room. The meeting reconvened five minutes later. Page 11 of 11  FAILED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 15-PC-13 VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK PLAN COMMISSION DOCKET NO. PCD-15-04 ANETS WOODS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (1220 & 1230 VOLTZ ROAD) WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Edward R. James Partners, LLC, (the “Applicant”) as contractual purchaser of the property at 1220 and 1230 Voltz Road (the “Subject Property”) which is owned in trust by Anets Family, LLC (the “Owner”), and WHEREAS, the Applicant has filed an application (Docket No. PCD-15-04) with the Village of Northbrook requesting: A. Special Permit approval of a development concept plan for a 37-unit single family detached home planned development in the R-4 zoning district; B. Tentative Plat approval of a 37-lot subdivision with outlots and conservation areas; C. Zoning Code Text Amendment, and any additional associated zoning relief, to allow for an increase in permitted building height in a Planned Development; D. Variation of the Subdivision Code to reduce the required right-of-way width from 60 feet to 50 feet; E. Variation of the Subdivision Code to allow for no tangent between reverse curves; F. Variation of the Subdivision Code to reduce the minimum centerline radius of curves to allow a minimum centerline radii of 38.5 feet for the Lee Road emergency access road and a minimum centerline radius of 103 feet elsewhere; G. Variation of the Subdivision Code to not construct sidewalk along: (1) the east side of the Subject Property’s Waukegan Road frontage, and (2) along a portion of the north side of Voltz Road, from the entrance of the development to the east property line of the Subject Property; H. Variation of the Subdivision Code to not bury existing overhead utility lines along Waukegan Road, a portion of the east side of the Subject Property, and a portion along Voltz Road and to waive the payment of a fee in lieu of burial of said overhead utility lines; I. Authorization to remove certain heritage trees and landmark trees and requesting relief from the standard tree removal requirements and fees; J. Site Plan Approval; and K. Approval of such other zoning and subdivision relief as may be necessary to accommodate the development of the Subject Property as proposed by the Applicant. WHEREAS, it was identified during the review of the proposal that the Applicant requires a variation of the Zoning Code to allow a fence in the required front yard in excess of 3 feet in height; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is zoned R-4 Single Family Residential in the Village of Northbrook; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is designated as appropriate for Single Family Residential land uses in the Village of Northbrook Comprehensive Plan; and Resolution No. 15-PC-13 Docket No. 15-04 – 1220 and 1230 Voltz Road WHEREAS, a public notice for this docket was duly published on April 16, 2015 in the Northbrook Star and a public hearing was held at the Plan Commission’s regular meetings on May 5, June 2, June 16, July 21, and August 4, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted evidence that a sign was properly posted on the Subject Property, indicating the time and date of the Commission hearings, and that all property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property were notified of the Commission hearing by certified mail; WHEREAS, in response to issues raised by the Commission regarding the proposed development during the public hearing process, the Applicant revised its application to reduce the proposed overall number of units from 37 units to a 36-unit single family residential planned development (“Amended Docket No.. PCD-15-04“). WHEREAS, the Plan Commission has considered all the evidence presented to it, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Village of Northbrook Plan Commission Application form & attachments received January 28, 2015, and all subsequent additions and revisions to these application materials and attachments. 2. All staff reports and attachments regarding this application. 3. Board of Trustees preliminary review minutes. 4. All written and oral testimony concerning the application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Plan Commission of the Village of Northbrook, Cook County, Illinois, THAT: 1. Findings: A. Comprehensive Plan Compliance. With respect to Docket No. PCD-15-04, the Plan Commission finds that the planned development as proposed by the Applicant is in general compliance with the goals and strategies of the Northbrook Comprehensive Plan and specifically in compliance with the Future Land Use Map. B. Special Permit. With respect to Amended Docket No. 15-04A, the Plan Commission does hereby find that the special permit standards established in Paragraph 11-602 E1 of the Zoning Code, for the proposed Development Concept Plan on the Subject Property are satisfied as follows: 1) The Development Concept Plan will be in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this Code was enacted and for which the regulations of the R-4 District were adopted, and with the general purpose and intent of the Official Comprehensive Plan. 2) The Development Concept Plan will not have a substantial or undue adverse effect upon adjacent property, the character of the area or the public health, safety and general welfare. 3) The Development Concept Plan will be arranged and operated so as not to dominate the immediate vicinity or to interfere with the use and development of neighboring property. 4) The Development Concept Plan will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services. 2 Resolution No. 15-PC-13 Docket No. 15-04 – 1220 and 1230 Voltz Road 5) The Development Concept Plan will not cause undue traffic congestion nor draw significant amounts of traffic through residential streets. 6) The Development Concept Plan will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural, scenic or historic features of significant importance. 7) The Development Concept Plan complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the particular provisions of the Zoning Code authorizing such use. C. Tentative Plat of Subdivision. With respect to Amended Docket No. 15-04B, the Plan Commission does hereby find that the evidence submitted to the Plan Commission regarding the Applicant’s tentative plat of subdivision satisfies the criteria established in Article II of the Village of Northbrook Subdivision and Development Code for approval of a 36-lot subdivision as part of a Development Concept Plan in the R-4 District. D. Zoning Code Text Amendment. With respect to Amended Docket No. 15-04C, the Plan Commission hereby finds that the Applicant’s request to allow for an increase in permitted building height in a Planned Development meets the standards in Subsection 11-601E of the Zoning Code for amending said Code. E. Subdivision Code Variations. With respect to Amended Docket No. 15-04D/E/F/G/and H, the Plan Commission hereby finds that the evidence presented satisfies the standards of the Northbrook Subdivision Code for authorizing the variation of the following relief: 1) Variation to reduce the required right-of-way width from 60 feet to 50 feet; 2) Variation to allow for no tangent between reverse curves; 3) Variation to reduce the minimum centerline radius of curves to allow a minimum centerline radii of 38.5 feet for the Lee Road emergency access road and a minimum centerline radius of 103 feet elsewhere; 4) Variation to not construct sidewalk along: (1) the east side of the Subject Property’s Waukegan Road frontage, and (2) along a portion of the north side of Voltz Road, from the entrance of the development to the east property line of the Subject Property; and 5) Variation to not bury existing overhead utility lines along Waukegan Road, a portion of the east side of the Subject Property, and a portion along Voltz Road and to waive the payment of a fee in lieu of burial of said overhead utility lines. F. Tree Removal. With respect to Amended Docket No. 15-04I, the Plan Commission acknowledges that the Applicant is requesting relief to allow for the removal of certain heritage and landmark trees, as well as requesting from the Village Board of Trustees relief from the standard tree removal requirements and fees. G. Site Plan Approval. With respect to Amended Docket No. 15-04J, the Plan Commission does hereby find that the proposed improvements on the Subject Property do comply with the standards for such approvals as established in Section 11-604 of the Zoning Code. H. Other Relief Necessary. With respect to Amended Docket No. 15-04K, the Plan Commission hereby finds that the additional zoning for a variation to allow a fence in the required front yard to exceed 3 feet in height, but no greater than 8’-6” in height, is consistent with the standards for variations established in Subsection 11-503F of the Zoning Code. 3 Resolution No. 15-PC-13 Docket No. 15-04 – 1220 and 1230 Voltz Road 2. Recommendations: The Northbrook Plan Commission does hereby recommend to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Northbrook approval of the following items associated with Docket No. 15-04A/B/C/D/E/F/H/I/J/K based on the findings established herein, subject to the following conditions, restrictions, and obligations contained in this Resolution, as follows A. Zoning Code Text Amendment. The Northbrook Zoning Code shall be amended to allow for an increase in permitted building height in a Planned Development. B. Special Permit for Concept Planned Development. A special permit for a Development Concept Plan for a 36-unit single family detached residential on the Subject Property shall be approved. C. Concept Plan Approval. The Development Concept Plan for the Subject Property shall be approved consistent with the attached Site Plan, prepared by BSB Design, consisting of 1 page, dated July 1, 2015, attached as Exhibit A and by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance. D. Tentative Plat Approval. A 36-lot subdivision with outlots and conservation areas consistent with the Exhibit A, and including the following variations of the Subdivision Code, shall be approved: 1. To reduce the required right-of-way width from 60 feet to 50 feet; 2. To eliminate the requirement for a tangent between reverse curves; 3. To reduce the minimum centerline radius of curves to a minimum centerline radii of 38.5 feet for the Lee Road emergency access road and a minimum centerline radius of 103 feet elsewhere within the development; 4. To waive the requirement to construct sidewalk along: (1) the east side of the Subject Property’s Waukegan Road frontage, and (2) along a portion of the north side of Voltz Road, from the entrance of the development to the east property line of the Subject Property; and 5. To waive the requirement to bury the existing overhead utility lines along Waukegan Road, a portion of the east side of the Subject Property, and a portion along Voltz Road. E. Heritage Trees and Landmark Trees. Certain identified heritage trees and landmark trees may be removed in order to accommodate the proposed development concept plan. F. Fence Height. A variation shall be granted with the final plan to allow a fence in the required front yard to exceed 3 feet in height, but no greater than 8’-6” in height. G. Conditions. The relief recommended above shall be conditioned upon the satisfaction of the following recommended conditions: 1. Development Concept Plan. Prior to the Village Board’s adoption of the legal documents approving Docket No. PCD-15-04, the Applicant shall submit for Village staff and Village attorney review and approval the following revised documents consistent with the site plan attached as Exhibit A: a) The revised development concept plan; b) A revised tentative subdivision plat; c) Revised preliminary engineering plans; and d) Revised tree preservation and landscape plans. 4 Resolution No. 15-PC-13 Docket No. 15-04 – 1220 and 1230 Voltz Road 2. Architectural Control Commission. Prior to the Village Board’s adoption of the legal documents approving Docket No. PCD-15-04, the Applicant shall present to the Architectural Control Commission for review and recommendation the concept site plan, landscaping plan, signage plan, and building elevations details. 3. Vehicular Access. Vehicular access shall be provided to the property by no more than the following two access points to a public street: a) There shall be one access point to the Subject Property from Voltz Road via a public road system. b) The access from the Subject Property north to Lee Road via a public road located within a public right-of-way, shall be modified so as to provide full public and emergency access. 4. Parking. Signs stating “No Parking Between Signs” shall be installed generally south of the driveway for Lot 33 and north of the driveway for Lot 34 as shown on the Site Plan to prevent on-street parking along the bend in the proposed loop road in the general vicinity of the proposed perpendicular parking spaces. 5. Intersection Improvements. The Applicant shall install a dedicated right-turn lane on westbound Voltz Road at its intersection with Waukegan Road. 6. Compliance with all Village Codes & Regulations. Other than the specific relief recommended by this resolution, the proposed development shall meet all Village codes and regulations, including but not limited to the Zoning Code, the Village of Northbrook Subdivision and Development Code (1988), as amended, the Standards and Specifications for Public and Private Improvements Manual (2000), as amended, and all building, fire, and life-safety code requirements. 7. Final Plan Approval. Prior to final plan approval of the development by the Board of Trustees, the Applicant shall submit a final plan and final plat for Village staff review and approval pursuant to all Village ordinances and regulations, which shall be in general compliance with the approved Development Concept Plan. As part of the final plan approval submittal the Applicant shall work with Village staff to develop a specific maintenance plan for the Conservation Area, which shall allow for Village oversight to ensure compliance with the plan. 8. Transferability. Any special permit for the planned development concept plan shall be granted to Edward R. James Partners, LLC as contract purchaser and shall not be transferable without formal approval of a transferee assumption agreement by the Board of Trustees. 5 Resolution No. 15-PC-13 Docket No. 15-04 – 1220 and 1230 Voltz Road FAILED THIS 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015. AYES: (4) Cyphers, Elisco, Melnick, Schimel NAYS: (5) Elfant, Jacobs, Collison, Pepoon, Franklin ABSENT: (0) ABSTAIN: (0) /s/ Marcia Franklin___ Marcia Franklin, Chairman Northbrook Plan Commission ATTEST: /s/ Thomas R. Poupard_____________________ Director of Development and Planning Services 6 Resolution No. 15-PC-13 Docket No. 15-04 – 1220 and 1230 Voltz Road EXHIBIT A Site Plan 7 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR Anets Woods 1230 VOLTZ ROAD VILLAGE BOARD REVIEW PACKAGE October 20, 2015 Village Board Committee Meeting Presented to The Village of Northbrook BY: October 8, 2015 Mr. Thomas R. Poupard, AICP Director of Department of Development & Planning Services Village of Northbrook 1225 Cedar Lane Northbrook, IL 60062 Re: Anets Woods Planned Development Planning and Zoning Committee Submittal Dear Mr. Poupard: We are pleased to present this submittal to you in anticipation of the forthcoming appearance in front of the Village Board’s Planning and Zoning Committee on October 20th. As discussed in the submittal, this revised plan represents a very concerted effort to address the concerns mentioned during the Plan Commission hearings, as well as comments from the Board and our neighbors. We look forward to the meeting and thank you and your staff for your input concerning this revised approach. Respectfully submitted, EDWARD R. JAMES PARTNERS, LLC Jerry S. James President cc: Tracy Doar James Anetsberger Edward James Michael Balas Harold Francke 2550 Waukegan Road, Suite 220 | Glenview, IL 60025 | 847-724-8200 phone; 847-724-8185 fax | www.erjames.com SECTION I: SUMMARY OF PLAN REVISIONS REVISED CLUSTER SINGLE FAMILY PLAN DATED 10-05-15: The objective of this new plan is to minimize neighborhood impact with respect to density, tree loss, and traffic, while offering substantive community benefits, including significant open space, meaningful fiscal benefits to the school districts, and a high quality community that serves a real and growing housing need in Northbrook. More specifically, the new plan addresses concerns expressed by the Plan Commission and the Village Board by: 1) Reducing the number of homes from 36 to 34; 2) Increasing usable open space to include three open space/park areas, connected by a walking path; 3) Incorporating park area amenities including seating areas and a fire pit; 4) Setting aside additional ROW for a right-turn lane at Voltz and Waukegan Road; and 5) Adding a sidewalk from the entrance eastward along Voltz Road to the overpass. In addition to these plan enhancements, our revised petition removes the prior request for any school impact fee adjustments and continues to provide the tree preservation public benefit through a combination of site planning and the inclusion of an underground detention vault that saves substantially more trees than would otherwise be achieved in a conventional detention plan. With respect to traffic impact, the revised plan incorporates a cul-de-sac in the southeast area of the site, along with a more natural curving connection to Lee Road, where we are proposing a controlled access for use by the residents and emergency responders. This approach has been successfully implemented at Fox Meadow in Northfield and offers several benefits including: convenience for residents coming and going from/to the north; dispersion of traffic from this community, so that residents need not use Voltz for peak hour trips; and elimination of any cut-through traffic that could adversely impact the Anets Woods residents, neighbors to the north, as well as neighbors on Voltz road who regularly use the Voltz/Waukegan intersection. The roadway will include the 27’ pavement width as required by the Subdivision Code. With the revised roadway configuration including the curving connection to Lee Road and the cul-de-sac, a revised minimum centerline radius of 102 feet throughout the entire site is requested, along with the cul-de-sac dimensions of 120 foot right-of-way and a 96 foot pavement diameter. We are prepared to make a small portion or all of the road private if the Village believes that to be a necessary condition for implementing the roadway design and the controlled access gate. Finally, the plan contemplates a permanent, non-exclusive easement over the Village-owned outlot at the southeast corner of the property to allow for an extension of the east detention basin. We are proposing that this easement be granted in consideration of our dedication of additional right-of-way at the southwest corner of the property to the Village to facilitate the potential future construction of a right-turn lane on Voltz Road. A more detailed discussion of the plan changes summarized above is contained in the remainder of this submittal. SECTION II: DISCUSSION OF PLAN CHANGES A) Revised Road Configuration: As previously stated, the new plan introduces a cul-de-sac in replacement of the prior plan loop road, and a comparison of the updated plan to the previous plan can be seen below. 10-05-15 Site Plan: 7-21-15 Site Plan:  Introduction of cul-de-sac, with enhanced landscaped berm and increased front-yard setback  Reduction in number of homes along Voltz from five to three  Reduction in number of homes adjacent to Country Lane from nine to eight This revised road configuration reduces the number of homes along Voltz Road from five to three, with only one of the three homes having a backyard orientation to Voltz Road. This number is identical to the R3 subdivision across the street. The revised configuration also increases the setback along Voltz Road by 33%, from 30 feet to a minimum of 40 feet – exceeding the R4 standard for planned developments. This increased setback also facilitates a larger berm to further increase the privacy of this commmunity and screening from Voltz Road. The exhibits below are intended to depict how this new community would be experienced from the vantage point of our neighbors and those travelling past the Voltz Road frontage. To further enhance privacy and visual impact along Voltz Road, the new plan eliminates the center island at the entrance. This will reduce the overall width and scale of the entrance, while still providing for two outbound lanes. The entry monuments and landscape improvements at the entry will remain, but the smaller scale of the entryway should be more in keeping with the low-key but elegant character of Voltz Road, as can be seen at Bridlewood Road, a nearby private road community to the east. B) Reduced Density and Other Planning Metrics: Compared to the original 38-unit plan presented in July of 2014, the revised 34-unit plan represents a 10.52% reduction in overall density, equivalent to 2.12 units per net acre gross, and 2.45 units per acre net. Also, in response to comments by several trustees, the revised plan now incorporates a substantial increase in the minimum separation between the residences, from 12 feet in the initial plan to the current 18 foot minimum, and a minimum 25 feet between all homes along the north property line. In addition, the new plan eliminates any variations to the required 40 foot setback along the north property line, and provides a 40 foot setback from Voltz Road, 33% greater than the required R4 minimum front yard setback. Finally, the revised plan provides an average of 17,744 square feet of net site area per lot, nearly 150% of the R4 minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet. Even while proposing a clustered planned development, the new plan now meets or exceeds all R4 minimum separation and setback standards. These changes are summarized further in the table below, which includes a comparison between the current plan, the plan voted on by the Plan Commission at the August 4, 2015 hearing, and the original plan presented to the Board in concept in July 2014. Current Plan Plan Comm. Original Planning Standard R4 Standards 10-20-15 7-21-15 July 2014 Overall Site Area 16.78 Acres 16.78 Acres 16.78 Acres 16.78 acres Less: Waukegan Road ROW NA -0.76 -0.76 -0.76 16.02 acres; 16.02 Acres; 16.02 Acres; Adjusted Gross Site Area NA 697,685 SF 697,685SF 697,685 SF Total Units NA 34 36 38 Units Per Gross Acre (16.02) NA 2.12 2.25 2.37 Internal ROW Area NA 94,523 SF 104,377 SF Not Presented Net Site Area (Acres) NA 13.85 Acres 13.62 Acres Not Presented Net Density NA 2.45/Acre 2.64/Acre Not Presented Net Site Area Per Lot 12,000 SF 17,744 SF 16,481 SF Not Presented Front Yd. Setback - Voltz Road 30 Feet 40 feet 30 feet 20 feet (% Minimum Required) (133%) (100%) (66%) 40 feet – bldg. Rear Yd. Setback North Property Line 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 30 feet- deck (% Minimum Required) (100%) (100%) North Property Line Minimum Side 18 feet min 25 feet 25 feet 12 feet Yards Voltz Road Minimum Side Yards 18 feet min NA 21 feet 15 feet min. 25% of Lot Internal Minimum Side Yards Width, or 18 18 feet 18 feet 12 feet feet Garage Driveway Length (Door to NA 21.0 feet 21.0 feet 19.5 feet Sidewalk) Street Pavement Width 27 feet 27 feet 27 feet 26 feet Street Right-of-Way Width 60 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 2.0/Unit Min. 4.0 /Unit 4.0 /Unit 4.0 /Unit Parking (Garage – 2.0; (Garage – 2.0; (Garage – 2.0; Min. Apron - 2.0) Min. Apron - 2.0) Min. Apron - 2.0) Guest Parking (Off-Street) NA 18 18 NA Total Maximum Lot Coverage 50% Max 19% 20% NA Note: Please refer to Exhibits A and B for enlarged versions of the Current Plan and the previous plan dated 7-21- 15, including the site data tables referenced in the chart above. C) Tree Preservation: The current plan with its revisions maintains substantially the same tree preservation benefits that were presented to the Plan Commission on August 4th, with updated quantities as follows: Specimen Trees in Fair or Better Condition Total # # Preserved % Preserved Heritage 42 33 79% Landmark 153 97 63% Totals 195 130 67% The ability to achieve the tree preservation measures set forth above is tied to the plan’s installation of an underground detention vault in the center of the property (beneath the park area). A conventional detention scheme, while affording a significant cost savings by forgoing the vault, would result in more significant tree loss, as the existing grading patterns of the site would indicate that the alternate location for detention would be in the heavily-treed northwest area of the site. D) Open Space and Plan Amenities: In response to comments made by several Plan Commission members, in addition to the preservation of the large forested areas of open space along the western areas of the site, the current plan integrates three new park areas connected by a central walking path. In addition to the walking path, the parks will feature several seating areas, an overlook into the conservation area, and a fire pit in the east park. Three Pocket Park Amenities The center park’s width at its widest point spans approximately 125 feet, and extends for nearly 403 feet, equivalent to 1 and 1/3 football fields in length. The park overlooking the conservation area has a width of just over 80 feet. An artistic rendering of the east park area fire pit is shown below, and is included in larger size within Exhibit C: An artistic rendering of the central park seating area overlooking the west park and Conservation Area is shown below and is also included within Exhibit C: E) Perimeter Sidewalk Along Voltz Road: In response to issues raised by the neighbors and a comment made by Plan Commissioner Pepoon, we revised our plan to extend the sidewalk on Voltz Road from the entrance eastward along the property’s entire Voltz Road frontage to provide for enhanced pedestrian safety, and to encourage connectivity and pedestrian access to and from Meadowview Park from Voltz Road. F) Annual School and Municipal Fiscal Impact and Payment of Impact Fees: In response to comments from the Village Board and the Plan Commission, we are withdrawing our previous request to determine the school, park, and library impact fees based on population and student generation data gathered from our similar prior age-targeted developments, and we will adhere to the standard density tables used in the determination of the impact fees. Based on our prior experience, we still believe our proposed development will generate very few school-age children and will provide material positive fiscal impacts to the school and park districts. The on-going positive fiscal benefits accrue from the increase in annual property tax revenue and the relative absence of school-age children, along with the one-time impact fees. A quantification of the projected benefits of the age-targeted Anets Woods development for the School Districts is recapped in the table below: Northbrook Glenbrook ANETS WOODS FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY School District High School #28 District #225 Expected # of School-age children (1) 2 1 One-time School Impact Fees $139,128 $83,490 Estimated Annual Property Tax Revenues $199,000 $157,300 On-going Net Annual Fiscal Impact (2) $154,800 $130,400 10-Year Net Fiscal Benefit Including Impact Fees $1,687,128 $1,387,490 (1) Projection based on verified current enrollment at nearby comparable age-targeted communities. (2) Based on projected increase in property tax revenue, state and local aid, and per-student expenses. In addition to the amounts shown above, upon full occupancy annual property taxes of approximately $41,000 and $36,000 will be paid to the Village of Northbrook and the Northbrook Park District, respectively. Additional one-time impact fees of approximately $238,000 and $10,000 will be also be paid to the Northbrook Park District and the Northbrook Public Library. G) Traffic: The traffic testimony previously submitted indicates that the proposed development (then at 36 units, and now at 34) will not generate any material traffic impacts upon the adjoining road networks, and will not cause a change in the levels of service at the Voltz and Waukegan Road intersection. This information was included in prior submittal packages, including the original traffic study dated January 23, 2015 and a supplemental memo dated June 8, 2015. From this information, projected traffic counts are summarized in the tables below for (1) traditional single-family detached housing development, and (2) senior adult single-family detached housing similar to that proposed for Anets Woods. In both scenarios, no material traffic impacts to adjoining roadways and no level of service changes at the intersection were projected. With the reduction of two homes, the amount of traffic-generation related to the current 34-unit plan would be slightly less than that shown in Table 2 below. Table 1 Trip Generation Rates AM Peak Hour of PM Peak Hour of Land Use Daily Trips Adjacent Street Traffic Adjacent Street Traffic Single-Family Detached Housing 9.52 0.75 1.00 Senior Adult Housing - Detached 3.68 0.22 0.27 Table 2 Traffic Generation Volume Comparison – for Previous 36-unit Site Plan AM Peak Hour of PM Peak Hour of Traffic Generation Estimates Adjacent Street Adjacent Street Daily Trips (36-unit plan) Traffic Traffic In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Single-Family Detached 8 27 35 27 15 42 206 205 411 Housing Senior Adult Housing - 2 6 8 13 8 21 96 95 191 Detached As has been noted previously, as compared to households with school-age children, “empty- nesters” do not have the same concentration of trips during the AM and PM peak hours, resulting in part from the absence of teen-age drivers and the lack of school and after-school related trips. We have also noted that this target audience tends to have seasonal fluctuations in traffic volume, resulting from the fact that many of the residents may spend significant periods of time away during the winter months, and/or at lake homes during the summer. Notwithstanding the above, we acknowledge the concerns of the neighborhood regarding “cut- through” traffic on Voltz Road. In prior testimony, our traffic consultant presented IDOT data comparing volume in 2010 with 2014 data. This data showed a dramatic increase in traffic volume along Voltz Road, likely due to construction on Willow Road, the nearby major east- west arterial and the use of Voltz Road as an alternate route. Since our last hearing, work on Willow Road has been completed. Our traffic engineer was asked to complete new traffic counts to assess the changes related to completiong of Willow Road, and the results of these new post-construction traffic counts are summarized in the table below. A copy of their memorandum dated October 7, 2015 outlining their conclusions is included as Exhibit D. Voltz Road Peak Hour Traffic Comparison Peak Hour Aug-14 Sep-15 % Change AM Peak Hour 338 294 -13.0% PM Peak Hour 489 337 -31.1% Not surprisingly, the new data show a significant decrease in traffic volume along Voltz Road. Notwithstanding these findings, our revised plan provides for the dedication of additional right- of-way along Voltz Road to allow for the construction of a right-turn lane, if the Village and its consultants determine that this should be installed. H) Lee Road Connection and Request For a Private Road Designation The revised plan contemplates gated access to Lee Road that can be controlled by electronic transponders for use by emergency vehicles and by residents of the Anets Woods community. This proposed configuration will allow residents to use this during peak hours and/or when they are going or coming from the north, rather than forcing them to use Voltz Road. While the overall traffic from this community is not expected to be significant, this controlled access will help disperse the community-generated traffic. Last, and not least, this arrangement will increase the safety for the future residents and our neighbors on Voltz and the neighborhoods to the north by preventing cut-through traffic that would enter and exit from Voltz Road. In order to facilitate a gated access from and to Lee Road, we are prepared to designate some portion or all of the internal road as a private road, in accordance with the preference of the Village. Any portion of the road, so designated as private would be maintained by the homeowners association, and such obligations would be set forth in both the ordinance and the homeowners association declaration. Each resident would be required to execute at the time of contract a specific affirmation of their obligation as a member of the HOA to abide by this private road maintenance obligation, if mandated by the Village as a condition of the planned unit development approval. SECTION III: RATIONALE FOR APPROVAL AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS RECAP Respectfully, we submit that our revised plan should be approved for the following reasons: 1) Community Need: The type of housing proposed for the subject property reflects a growing need within Northbrook and throughout the North Shore. Each day, at least 10,000 U.S. residents turn 65 years old, and this trend is expected to continue for at least the next decade. Within Northbrook, as of 2013, more than 45% of the population was 50 years or older, which is 50% higher than Cook County and the Chicagoland area as a whole. Without appropriate housing choices, some of these residents may be forced to look for housing alternatives outside of Northbrook. While there are other attached and multi-story housing choices in the area, the type of homes proposed for Anets Woods are in much shorter supply. These residences will include first floor master bedrooms, upscale finishes, open floor plans, modern appliances, access to shared open space amenities, and a homeowner’s association to take care of the landscaping and snow removal. These features are offered in a detached single family home with a two car attached garage. This form of housing is in great demand throughout the North Shore, because it represents an ideal transition for those residents that still want the privacy, convenience, space and modern advantages of new construction, but are not ready for or do not want to live in an elevator building, duplex, townhome, or other attached form of housing. The shortage of this type of housing is in marked contrast to an abundance of traditional single family homes throughout Northbrook and the North Shore. This R4 parcel, in fact, represents one of the few remaining parcels than can accommodate this type of housing, and we believe that the addition of more expensive traditional single family homes in this location will not increase housing choices for Northbrook residents, and may very well compete with and reduce the value of older traditional single family homes in the immediate area. In summation, the proposed community will offer a distinctly different type of lifestyle and housing choice that does not compete against the value of existing single family homes in the area, but will offer a needed choice for a growing segment of the Northbrook population. 2) Conservation and Appropriateness of a Planned Development Approach: The subject property is ideally suited for a cluster planned development that preserves the majority of the wooded area while offering the quality, intimacy, protections and certainty to the surrounding community that a planned development can offer. The Voltz Road area is unique, and it warrants a unique plan. A planned development, with a recorded declaration and detailed set of planned development documents, can offer greater certainty and assurances with respect to the immediate and long-term quality of the proposed development, as compared to a conventional R-4 subdivision. 3) Community Benefits: The proposed planned development offers an array of substantive community benefits, many of which would NOT accrue to the Village of Northbrook to the same degree if the property were developed under a traditional R4 development. As discussed in the preceding section, these benefits include the following:  a. Major tree preservation b. Creation of meaningful open spaces. c. Unique and expanded housing choices. d. Strong positive fiscal benefits to the school districts. e. Lower traffic impact. f. Reduced visual density g. Greater certainty with respect to design details and development quality. h. Greater certainty with respect to long-term maintenance. i. Greater open space in the form of three park areas and related hardscape amenities j. Dedicated right-of-way for a right-turn lane if the Village determines this to be necessary now of in the future. In addition, as stated above the new plan addresses concerns expressed by the Plan Commission and the Village Board, including: 1) Unit density reduced from 36 to 34; 2) Increased usable open space with three park areas; 3) Park area amenities; 4) Additional ROW for a right-turn lane at Voltz and Waukegan Road; and 5) A sidewalk extension from the entrance eastward along Voltz Road to the overpass. We hope that the new plan is perceived to have addressed most, if not all of the concerns expressed by the Plan Commission and the Village Board. The new plan, in our estimation, represents the proper approach for this unique property, and provides an array of community benefits, including housing choices that fill a real and growing need, preservation and enhancement of the property’s natural features, and significant fiscal benefits to the community’s school districts. EDWARD R. JAMES COMPANIES October, 2015 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D  Sam Schwartz Engineering D.P.C. Memorandum To: Mr. Jerry James, Edward R. James Homes, LLC Mr. Mike Balas, Edward R. James Homes, LLC From: Mark de la Vergne, Principal Kelly Conolly, PE, Project Manager Re: Voltz Road Traffic Counts Sam Schwartz Engineering, D.P.C. (SSE) conducted a traffic study for the proposed Anets Woods development, located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Waukegan Road and Voltz Road in Northbrook, Illinois. As part of the traffic study, SSE conducted traffic counts at the intersection in August 2014, while Willow Road was under construction. The traffic study made the assumption that the traffic along Voltz Road was higher than normal operating conditions due to vehicles taking alternative routes to avoid the Waukegan Road and Willow Road intersection. SSE conducted supplemental traffic counts at Waukegan Road and Voltz Road on September 9, 2015. Tables 1, 2, and 3 show a comparison of the traffic counts conducted in 2014 and 2015. The movements highlighted in yellow are those turning to/from Voltz Road. Table 1 Weekday AM Peak Hour (7:45-8:45 AM) Traffic Comparison Street Movement Aug-14 Sep-15 % Change NBL 14 7 -50.0% NBT 564 627 11.2% NBR 105 78 -257% SBL 74 76 2.7% SBT 880 980 11.4% Waukegan Road SBR 22 10 -54.5% EBL 18 19 5.6% EBT 6 7 16.7% EBR 14 12 -14.3% WBL 75 64 -14.7% WBT 0 0 N/A Voltz Road WBR 84 76 -9.5% Total Traffic at Intersection 1856 1956 5.4% Voltz Road Traffic Counts 2 October 7, 2015 Table 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour (4:45-5:45 PM) Traffic Comparison Street Movement Aug-14 Sep-15 % Change NBL 18 18 0.0% NBT 826 995 20.5% NBR 124 86 -30.6% SBL 120 91 -24.2% SBT 802 987 23.1% Waukegan Road SBR 20 13 -35.0% EBL 27 11 -69.3% EBT 4 0 100.0% EBR 16 7 -56.3% WBL 160 107 -33.2% WBT 6 6 0.0% Voltz Road WBR 85 53 -37.6% Total Traffic at Intersection 2208 2374 7.5% Table 3 Voltz Road Peak Hour Traffic Comparison Peak Hour Aug-14 Sep-15 % Change AM Peak Hour 338 294 -13.0% PM Peak Hour 489 337 -31.1% As can be seen from the tables above, despite the overall traffic volumes at the intersection increasing, the volume traffic on travelling Voltz Road has decreased in both the AM and PM peak hours, with a dramatic decrease during the PM peak hour. This is almost certainly due to the completed construction of Willow Road to the south. It is likely that this trend will continue as more drivers experience the convenience and reliability of Willow Road.