McHenry Times

City of Woodstock Plan Commission met Sept. 17.

Here is the minutes provided by the commission:

A special meeting of the Woodstock Plan Commission was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairman Cody Sheriff on Thursday, September 19, 2019, in the Council Chambers at Woodstock City Hall. The Agenda for this Special Meeting was posted no less than 48 hours in advance of the meeting and the media and all Commission members were notified of the meeting.

Chairman Sheriff explained the processes and procedures for the meeting. A roll call was taken.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Donna Besler, Arturo Flores, Don Fortin, Steve Gavers, Robert Horrell, Doreen Paluch, Jackie Speciale, Erich Thurow, and Chairman Cody Sheriff.

COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT: Building and Zoning Department Director/Staff Liaison Joe Napolitano, Economic

Development Director Garrett Anderson, and City Planner Darrell Moore.

OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Jim Prindiville, Councilman Gordon Tebo, Transportation Commission member Mark Indyke, and City Clerk Cindy Smiley.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Motion by D. Paluch, second by R. Horrell, to approve the September 19, 2019 Plan Commission Agenda as presented.

Ayes: D. Besler, A. Flores, D. Fortin, S. Gavers, R. Horrell, D. Paluch, J. Speciale, E. Thurow, and Chairman C. Sheriff. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: none. Motion carried.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by D. Paluch, second by D. Fortin, to approve the minutes of the August 22, 2019 Plan Commission meeting as amended:

 Remove the word “provide” from page 2, paragraph 6, sentence 1

Ayes: D. Besler, A. Flores, D. Fortin, S. Gavers, R. Horrell, D. Paluch, J. Speciale, E. Thurow, and Chairman C. Sheriff. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: none. Motion carried.

1. PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no comments forthcoming from the public.

2. OLD BUSINESS

There was no old business.

3. NEW BUSINESS

a) Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment from M1 Light Manufacturing District to R3 Single-Family Attached Residential for 638 Washington Street

Motion by R. Horrell, second by D. Paluch to open the Public Hearing to consider a Zoning Map Amendment from M1 Light Manufacturing District to R3 Single-Family Attached Residential for 638 Washington Street.

A roll call vote was taken.

Ayes: D. Besler, A. Flores, D. Fortin, S. Gavers, R. Horrell, D. Paluch, J. Speciale, E. Thurow, and Chairman C. Sheriff. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: none.

The Public Hearing was opened at 7:04 PM. A roll call was taken.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Donna Besler, Arturo Flores, Don Fortin, Steve Gavers, Robert Horrell, Doreen Paluch, Jackie Speciale, Erich Thurow, and Chairman Cody Sheriff.

COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None

Chairman Sheriff confirmed the presence of a quorum and that the Public Hearing was properly noticed. Petitioner Peggy Porter was sworn in by City Attorney TJ Clifton.

Ms. Porter stated she and her husband have been trying to sell the subject property for some time and have been unsuccessful because lenders do not want to lend based on the current zoning. Therefore, they are requesting to have the zoning changed to R3.

Chairman Sheriff opened the floor to Commission comments or questions.

There were no comments or questions forthcoming from Commissioners Speciale, Gavers, Besler, Thurow, Fortin, or Flores. Commissioner Paluch stated given the fact that there is residential to the south of the property and that it has been used for residential purposes for a long period of time, she is in support of the petition with which Commissioner Horrell agreed.

Chairman Sheriff opened the floor to Public Comment. Being none, Public Comment was closed by Chairman Sheriff.

Motion by R. Horrell, second by D. Paluch, to recommend to the City Council a zoning map amendment for property located at 638 Washington Street from M1 Light Manufacturing to R3 Single Family Attached, the basis for such motion being that in reviewing the Findings of Fact that the Commission must refer to, Commissioner Horrell is in agreement with all listed in the Staff Report and finds none objectionable.

A roll call vote was taken. Ayes: D. Besler, A. Flores, D. Fortin, S. Gavers, R. Horrell, D. Paluch, J. Speciale, E. Thurow, and Chairman C. Sheriff. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: none. Motion carried.

The Public Hearing was closed at 7:11 PM

b) Public Hearing – Variations to Allow Additional Sign Square Footage at 11701 Catalpa Lane.

Motion by D. Paluch, second by R. Horrell to open the Public Hearing to consider variations to allow additional sign square footage at 11701 Catalpa Lane.

A roll call vote was taken.

Ayes: D. Besler, A. Flores, D. Fortin, S. Gavers, R. Horrell, D. Paluch, J. Speciale, E. Thurow, and Chairman C. Sheriff. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: none.

The Public Hearing was opened at 7:12 PM. A roll call was taken.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Donna Besler, Arturo Flores, Don Fortin, Steve Gavers, Robert Horrell, Doreen Paluch, Jackie Speciale, Erich Thurow, and Chairman Cody Sheriff.

COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None

Chairman Sheriff confirmed the presence of a quorum and that the Public Hearing was properly noticed. Commissioner Speciale recused herself and exited the Council Chambers at 7:13 PM.

Lisa Pettinelli and Ron Ottenger representing the petitioner were sworn in by City Attorney TJ Clifton.

Ms. Pettinelli stated recently Studio 2015 changed its name and updated its logo. She noted they have been at the current location for 12 years, opining the signage is old and needs updating. Noting visibility is critical, she stated with the current signage the business lacks visibility off Route14 and also lacks a natural flow of traffic.

Chairman Sheriff opened the floor to Commission comments or questions.

Noting the recent action taken by the Commission on a request for signage on Starbucks, which also fronts on Route 14, and the fact that the requested signage is for multiple businesses, Commissioner Gavers expressed his support for this request.

Commissioner Paluch stated the purpose of the signage ordinance is to allow for businesses to have visibility and to guide the public, opining this request accomplishes both.

There were no questions or comments coming from the remaining Commissioners.

Chairman Sheriff opened the floor to Public Comment. There being none, Public Comment was closed.

Motion by D. Paluch, second by R. Horrell, to recommend approval of variations in accordance with the plans submitted for Studio 2015 Jewelers at 11701 Catalpa Lane:

1) For the permanent directory ground sign at Catalpa Lane entrance, a variation from the maximum allowed 40.8 square feet to 65.2 square feet; and

2) For the permanent directory ground sign fronting US 14, a variation from the maximum allowed 83.2 square feet to 96.7 square feet.

A roll call vote was taken. Ayes: D. Besler, A. Flores, D. Fortin, S. Gavers, R. Horrell, D. Paluch, J. Speciale, E. Thurow, and Chairman C. Sheriff. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: none. Motion carried.

The Public Hearing was closed at 7:19 PM

Commissioner Speciale entered the Council Chambers and rejoined the proceedings at 7:20 PM.

3c. Public Hearing – Special Use Permit/Planned Unit Development/Preliminary Plat of Subdivision for Founder’s Crossing to allow a residential development on property located on the west side of Clay Street, South of First Street Amendment

Motion by R. Horrell, second by E. Thurow, to open the public hearing for the purpose of considering Special Use Permit/Planned Unit Development/Preliminary Plat of Subdivision for Founder’s Crossing to allow a residential development on property located on the west side of Clay Street, South of First Street Amendment.

A roll call vote was taken. Ayes: D. Besler, A. Flores, D. Fortin, S. Gavers, R. Horrell, D. Paluch, J. Speciale, E. Thurow, and Chairman C. Sheriff. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: none. Motion carried.

The Public Hearing was opened at 7:21 PM. A roll call was taken.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Donna Besler, Arturo Flores, Don Fortin, Steve Gavers, Robert Horrell, Doreen Paluch, Jackie Speciale, Erich Thurow, and Chairman Cody Sheriff.

COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None

Chairman Sheriff confirmed the presence of a quorum and that the Public Hearing was properly noticed. Spero Adamis, Rhonda Rawson, and Kenneth Rawson were sworn in by City Attorney TJ Clifton.

Mr. Adamis introduced the developers and provided brief information on each, including their experience in developing many projects. He stated they also have a team including engineers, architects, and surveyors behind the development. Mr. Adamis stated they heard the comments from the residents loud and clear, and changed the plans accordingly, which is what they are here to talk about.

Mr. Rawson talked about the original zoning and showed a depiction of the Hummel plan and also what is being proposed. He stated the Hummel Development had 48 townhomes approved in the northeastern quadrant, while Founder’s Crossing is proposing 47 homes. He stated banks are reluctant to finance townhomes and have many policy restrictions on them, which is why they are proposing this product instead.

Mr. Rawson talked about the assessments for townhomes vs. single-family detached, noting the assessments are higher for townhomes, meaning a homeowner will pay less in the proposed development, resulting in the homeowners’ association being in a better financial position with the proposed development. He stated this also results in the homeowners being able to purchase more with their money.

Mr. Rawson showed an MLS report indicating there is only 2.1 months of inventory for homes within the price point proposed for Founder’s Crossing, reinforcing the demand in the Woodstock community.

Mr. Rawson quoted from a report developed by Tracy Cross & Associates, who evaluated the market potential for residential development in Woodstock, which stated condos were not being built and the market for homes such as those proposed in Founder’s Crossing “far exceeds” any other form of higher-density multifamily.

Mr. Rawson talked about future growth potential and synergy with homes in the area, opining neighboring properties will become immediately viable as a result of this development, and older properties will be more attractive. He stated growth creates development.

Mr. Rawson talked about the declarations, stating future builders will not be able to make changes, ensuring they must follow the aesthetics so the development will never deteriorate.

Concerning who will want to live in this development, Mr. Rawson quoted from the Tracy Cross study, “This particular product concept.will appeal to a broad spectrum of the market including young singles and couples without children; couples in their initial states of family formation; young families; empty-nesters; and non- traditional households.”

Ms. Rawson stated she is an Architectural Design Consultant, providing more information on her professional history and resume. She stated while she is not an architect, she works closely with architects. She stated she will work on this project with both architects and engineers from the beginning to end.

Ms. Rawson stated they love Woodstock noting multiple trends are happening and Woodstock “hits the mark on all of them.” She stated this is an urban, high-density development with neo-traditional houses, which will work together with the Square. She noted the Tracy Cross study stated this is the best type of housing for this location, because it is the best fit for the market. Ms. Rawson stated people want to live Downtown and be able to walk to the Downtown area, and its restaurants and the Metra. She opined this development gives a sense of authenticity and harkens back to simpler times, noting this is achieved with architectural style and a feeling of community. Ms. Rawson also opined this will spur other development.

Ms. Rawson described other similar developments that have used this product, including Libertyville, showing photos of these developments. She talked about the architectural style of the development, opining it is unifying for the project. She described the roots of the design, noting they are in the Gothic Revival style. She showed images of historic homes and compared these with images of the proposed homes, and how they exhibit the influence of Gothic Revival.

Ms. Rawson showed images of the garages, stating they will be sloped for drainage and how they will be ADA accessible. She stated the homes will feel nine feet apart because of how the porches are located.

Ms. Rawson talked about the changes that have been made to the plan since the initial presentation, noting them to be:

 Boulevard on Newell

 4’ wide greenway between Metra & boulevards

 7’ greenway between existing townhomes

 Park C – optional extra parking or park with trees & circular seating feature

 Guest parking

 More open land than UDO ordinance requires

 Two brick apartments

 With rooftop terraces

 Monument sign

 Park features

 Walking path to dog park

 Walking path to Metra

Ms. Rawson showed a depiction of the two proposed apartment buildings, noting both buildings will have six units on each of the top three floors, for a total of 18 units per building. She stated parking will be located on the first floor. She stated each unit will be approximately 1,100 sq. ft. Ms. Rawson described the features of each apartment to include two bedrooms, two bathrooms, washer/dryer, high-end finishes, extra storage space, and a rooftop deck. She stated the buildings will be all brick and gave a representation of what the buildings will look like.

Noting their wish to make this look like an extension of the Square, Ms. Rawson stated they may include entry monuments similar to those on the Square.

Chairman Sheriff opened the floor to comments and questions from the Commission.

Commissioner Speciale thanked them for their effort and the time they have put in before the Plan Commission. She asked them to address the comments from the Fire/Rescue District.

Mr. Rawson stated they just received the comments this evening and have not had time to study them. He stated they ran into the same ladder issues in another community and were able to work them out. He opined all of these things can be worked through with changes, but noted until he has an opportunity to sit down with the Fire/Rescue District and City Staff, he cannot be specific. He stated the plan is to work with the District and Staff.

In response to a question from Commissioner Speciale, Mr. Rawson stated there is no plan to buffer the space along the railroad tracks as this belongs to Union Pacific.

Commissioner Speciale noted they added parking, and stated she wants to like this proposal, but opined there still is not a lot of parking. Mr. Rawson stated he would like to do something on the border between the two HOAs to create a walkway and green space. He stated some people have told him they want more grass and others have said they want more parking. He noted if Staff asks for more parking, they will put in more parking; if they ask for more green space, they will put in more green space. Commissioner Speciale stated the people she has spoken with want more parking.

In response to a question from Commissioner Speciale regarding a one-bedroom option for the apartments, Mr. Rawson stated the market is strong and research has shown that two bedrooms are better for sales.

Commissioner Speciale stated someone brought to her attention that parking wars can happen over time in situations such as is being proposed, and asked who will have the right to shared parking. Mr. Rawson indicated this can be addressed in the Declarations.

Commissioner Gavers stated he is not a fan of alleys, opining it will be a nightmare for first responders, as they will have a hard time getting through if someone is parked in the alley. Mr. Rawson stated the alternative would be putting the garage in front with the house behind, and he has been told not to do this. He stated the alleys are wide enough and noted the HOA will maintain them. Commissioner Gavers maintained alleys are not good, and urged Mr. Rawson to get rid of 20 lots in favor of more green space. Mr. Rawson stated they have a market to appeal to, noting homes such as this are selling.

Noting Mr. Rawson stated he wishes to mirror Libertyville, Commissioner Gavers stated Woodstock is not Libertyville.

Commissioner Gavers again expressed dissatisfaction with the alleys and talked about how fire trucks could be accommodated. Mr. Rawson stated he cannot address the alleys, as the project would not be viable if built in the way described by Commissioner Gavers. He stated he does not wish to be involved in a development with the garages in front.

Commissioner Gavers asked about Outlot G, noting it is 6 ft. 4 in. wide. Mr. Rawson responded this was put in as a result of a request from the Commission for a walkway to the dog park. In response to a question from Commissioner Gavers as to why this is referred to as an outlot, Mr. Rawson stated this is the way it was named by the surveyor. Mr. Napolitano stated this makes it clear to the HOA that they are responsible for the maintenance of this area.

Commissioner Besler thanked them for coming back, stating she appreciates that it costs them money to come back. She stated she liked their presentation this time, giving the Commission a better idea of what they are asking for. She stated she likes the plan, which reminds her of where she was born and raised in Chicago, noting the neighbors were close and they walked everywhere. She stated her only concern is with the recent comments from the Fire/Rescue District. She stated the apartments provide the density they are looking for, but they are also looking for commercial.

Mr. Adamis stated he has been in retail/commercial business for 30 years, opining there is a lot of opportunity in Woodstock. He stated the name of the game in retail is rooftops with housing surrounding the retail. Mr. Adamis stated the idea is to use this development as a kickoff for retail. He stated the hardest part about retail building is that signed leases are needed to get things financed and talked about the current climate in retail, which is affecting building and financing. He stated they would love to build retail in Woodstock, but want to start with more residential, which is what this project is all about.

Commissioner Paluch stated other than the differences identified, the primary difference in this plan is the addition of two apartment buildings instead of 10 houses. She asked if the petitioner has any specific designs as to what those buildings are going to be. Mr. Rawson stated there will have to be feasibility studies done to find out what the demand is. He noted building the homes around the apartment buildings will change the demand. Ms. Rawson noted the apartment buildings will be the later phase so there is time to figure out the market, what will sell, and what will stimulate the economy. She noted they are talking with other owners in town and have found there is a demand, stating they were told 80 people inquired about 1 apartment. In response to a question from Commissioner Paluch as to why the apartments are the final phase if there is a demand, Mr. Rawson stated they know the greatest demand is for single family. He opined owning is better than renting.

Commissioner Paluch stated they are still talking in general terms and opined they are dangling the apartments in front of the Commission with no specific plans, because they were told the Commission wants more density. She questioned Mr. Rawson’s sincerity in his desire to build the apartment buildings. Mr. Rawson disagreed stating they are waiving $1.6 million in TIF funds if the apartment buildings are not built. Explaining this, Mr. Napolitano stated the City is negotiating a Development Agreement with the developer that would address these concerns.

Commissioner Paluch challenged the petitioner’s statement that this development provides more open space than what is required by the UDO. Mr. Rawson pointed out the open/green space. Stating he did the calculations, Mr. Napolitano provided information on how this was calculated stating he used the figures provided in the UDO. Commissioner Paluch stated open space is a concern for her as there are ranch units that practically cover every square inch of their yards. She challenged the calculations noting she views this as a cluster development, which requires 35% open space. Mr. Napolitano stated the requirement is 2 acres per every 1,000 people, noting it is estimated this developer will result in an estimated 265 persons. He stated this is not a greenfield that is on the fringes of town with 35% open space required. He stated it is in the Downtown, opining 35% open space would not be wanted in Downtown. Mr. Napolitano stated the overlay district is more appropriate when looking at the Downtown, noting requiring 35% open space in the Downtown area would mean there won’t be much development in the Downtown.

Mr. Rawson talked about how this type of project has spurred development in other cities. He described the rooftop option that will be available with the units that will offer more outdoor space to the residents.

Commissioner Paluch noted the petitioner’s previous comment that one of the things that makes townhomes more costly to construct is the need for fire-rated components between the units. She opined with the separation of the houses only six feet, apartment fire-rated components should be used. Ms. Rawson stated the requirement for the use of fire-rated components is five feet.

In response to questions from Commissioner Horrell, Mr. Rawson clarified ownership of the property and the project, stating Wintrust is the owner, and he and Wintrust have financial interests. He described how developments have different LLCs. He provided information about the structure of Wintrust and on Tracy Cross & Associates, noting Tracy Cross was hired by Wintrust.

In response to questions from Commissioner Horrell, Mr. Napolitano described the property that is owned by the City. He again stated the City is working on a TIF agreement with the developer. In response to a question from Commissioner Paluch as to how this relates to Mr. Rawson’s statement about the return of TIF funds, Mr. Napolitano stated that one of the items being discussed is that the developer will forfeit $1.6 million in TIF incentives, if the apartment buildings are not built. In response to further questions, Mr. Napolitano stated by the time the project gets to the point where the apartments would be built, the TIF will have generated funds, which will be put in escrow per the development agreement. Mr. Rawson stated they are donating land to the City near the Public Works Department.

In response to Commissioner Horrell’s comments questioning the numbering of the Preliminary Plat, Ms. Rawson stated this was numbered incorrectly by the surveyor and will be changed.

In response to questions from Commissioner Horrell, Mr. Napolitano confirmed the submittals were received from the petitioner within the required time. He stated there have been no comments from the Historic Preservation Commission as the petitioner has not appeared before them as yet. He noted they will go before the HPC for the materials.

Commissioner Horrell stated he thinks this concept is good and has no problems with the architectural design. He stated he does not like the plat, opining it would work well on a site with more acreage and more park area. In response to a statement from Commissioner Horrell that the book previously referred to by Ms. Rawson as the basis for this development states it is better suited to an area with open space, Ms. Rawson acknowledged this reference, but opined that does not apply to this type of project, which is a neo-traditional concept.

In response to a statement from Commissioner Horrell that the landscape plan did not show the number of trees, Ms. Rawson stated they did a tree count in the past and have that information, but noted they will also ask for recommendations and input that will be incorporated into the final plan.

Commissioner Horrell stated his biggest concerns are the variances. He stated he realizes this process is a trade- off. He talked about the many variances being requested, detailing them, and noting they represent very significant reductions, and stated he does not see what the City is getting for these. In response, Mr. Rawson stated this is an infill project and this is what you go through with an infill project. He stated this project and the Hummel development are very close, as he showed earlier. Commissioner Horrell stated Mr. Rawson showed the north half of the Hummel project, so he is comparing the proposed project with only half of the Hummel project. Mr. Napolitano clarified that the variances requested are the worse-case scenario and are for the ranch units. He stated the units with detached garages are different so the entire site will not be 90% covered.

Commissioner Horrell stated the development, which Mr. Rawson compared this project to, has 26 homes while Founder’s Crossing will have 86. He talked about the two projects, opining this proposal feels cramped. Ms. Rawson compared this with the typical city block in Chicago, stating dense, trendy development is popular.

Commissioner Horrell stated in addition, the 40 ft. right of way, lack of elevations for the apartment buildings, and lack of retail cause him concern. He noted the previous development envisioned 31,000 sf of retail and 36,000 sf of commercial, stating losing 60,000 sf of commercial/retail is a sticking point for him. Mr. Adamis stated the retail can happen in Woodstock and can happen on the Square, but will take time and rooftops. He stated the previous development did not happen for a reason. Commissioner Horrell stated we know that will not happen if we fill this area with homes.

Commissioner Thurow stated his primary is concern is traffic from the several hundred cars. He talked about the traffic in this area now, opining there are not a lot of ways to get in and out of the proposed development. He stated he is looking to the future and how this area is going to change and how traffic will move through the Downtown area. Ms. Rawson stated with this style of house and this style of development being walkable, there hopefully will not be as much traffic. She noted this density corresponds with the 2020 Vision and opined traffic may have been addressed in this vision. Commissioner Thurow stated he was part of the 2020 Vision process. He stated he does not know how this will be addressed and is concerned with the number of vehicles going through this area.

Commissioner Fortin stated this is a very unique concept. He opined it is a matter of looking at it and asking if we want something like this in the community or not. He stated he likes the concept, but is concerned whether it is trendy, noting it is a change from what we are accustomed to. Commissioner Fortin stated he agrees that the urban concept can complement and promote the Square, and acknowledged there are many concerns that need to be addressed along the way. In response to Commissioner Fortin’s questions concerning the alley ways, particularly regarding snow removal and the Fire/Rescue District’s comments, Mr. Napolitano stated the developer is looking to work with the Fire/Rescue District and the City to find ways to make this work. He stated concerning maintenance, the alleys would all be private so this would not fall on the taxpayers. He noted the City will be responsible for snow removal on all streets, but not the alleys. Commissioner Fortin expressed concern about if the alleys were blocked. Mr. Napolitano noted this is true of any subdivision where the only access to homes is from the front, noting these homes will have access from both the front and the back. Commissioner Fortin expressed agreement that it is not desirable to have garages facing the street.

Commission Flores stated traffic is his biggest concern talking about problems he encounters when he is in this area and opining adding these units will add more traffic. He asked if stop signs, speed limits, and other traffic controls have been discussed.

Commissioner Flores stated he would like to see something happen on this property and thanked the developer for taking the time with his proposal. He stated he wants to see something there that is good for the City and is right for this piece of property. He noted once something is built on this site, the land will be gone, opining there is still more work to be done on this proposal.

Commissioner Flores opined things were different in 2004. He stated seeing housing on this site would be a good idea, but stated this looks too crowded to him. He stated he likes the idea that housing in this area near the train station would attract people to Woodstock, but noted he doesn’t think so many houses need to be built. He stated he would like to see bigger lots with more traditional homes. He suggested building 2/3 this amount of homes and having more green space. He opined the apartment buildings are a good idea.

Noting he reviewed the covenants and restrictions, Commissioner Flores opined there is not much homeowners can do with their property.

Commissioner Flores stated we should think about how this development will benefit the community and ask who we are targeting, opining it seems to be a little bit of everything for not really anybody.

In response to a question from Commissioner Flores, Mr. Rawson stated the price quoted for the homes is the base price, but includes many upgrades. Commissioner Flores compared this with the prices of the homes for sale now in Woodstock, noting they are in the market. He stated other subdivisions offer homes of similar square feet with bigger yards for the same price, which will be their competition. He opined buyers will prefer homes with bigger yards and less restrictions. He opined there is a need for housing in Woodstock, but feels this is too much.

Ms. Rawson acknowledged this style of housing is not for everyone, noting someone who wants lots of land would not want to live in a high-density area. She stated; however, if the City wants to grow and retail expand, a transit-oriented, high-density development with walkability would be in high demand near the Downtown. She opined development will spawn development, stating when people see that development can be supported in Woodstock, it will attract more developers.

In response to a question from Commissioner Flores, Mr. Rawson stated it is estimated that it will take 48 months to build this development out. He stated it seems the country is going into a tight market, but noted there are no loans on the land, so no interest costs. He stated financing will be for each home as it is built with no spec homes. In response to a question concerning when Phase II will be completed, Mr. Rawson stated he estimates 2021 or 2022, but stated it is difficult to know in this economy. He noted Tracy Cross stated in their letter that they will be able to build 24 units in a year.

In response to a statement from Commissioner Flores that the ideal homebuyer will be someone who does not live in Woodstock, Mr. Rawson stated he has been told that 37% of the homes in Woodstock are rentals. He opined this is a big market for this development as people want to own their home. Commissioner Flores stated he does not feel this is a product for first-time homebuyers, noting first-time homebuyers are not buying in Illinois. Noting the kind of buyer the petitioners have indicated this development is targeting, Commissioner Flores stated he is not seeing this kind of buyer. Ms. Rawson countered they know there is a market for this type of home, noting they are planning to advertise along the Metra line, which will draw people who do not live in Woodstock. In response to a question from Commissioner Flores, Ms. Rawson stated their market includes first-time homebuyers, younger people with no children, and empty nesters who will use the restaurants and businesses in the Downtown.

In response to questions from Chairman Sheriff, Ms. Rawson stated she did not know the distance between the apartment buildings and the homes, but noted there is an alley separating them. She stated the apartment buildings will be about 40 feet high and the homes about 27 feet high. In response to a question, Commissioner Gavers stated the brownstones are approximately 30 feet, but noted there is a grade that goes down. Chairman Sheriff stated he is trying to determine what this will look like and whether the houses will be eclipsed by the larger buildings. Ms. Rawson opined diversity is more interesting, noting it will look like an urban transit- oriented development (TOD) and talked about why townhomes are not being proposed.

Chairman Sheriff expressed concerns about the lack of fire suppression materials, noting this could allow fire to spread with the closeness of the homes. Mr. Rawson stated this is up to Staff and could be addressed. Ms. Rawson stated there are materials that are more fire retardant, noting they will take this into consideration and try to find a way to address this concern. Chairman Sheriff stated he would like this.

Erik Doersching of Tracy Cross & Associates was sworn in by City Attorney Clifton.

In response to a request from Chairman Sheriff, Mr. Doersching reviewed the data and information included in the letter from Tracy Cross.

Mr. Doersching stated they took a very objective and unbiased look at the market for this product, stating they were asked to look at the previous Hummel plan and compare the marketability to the proposed plan in today’s environment. He stated there is no condo market any longer. He opined this would be a tremendous risk to the previous plan due to the lack of a market for this type of housing. He stated it is clear from the market standpoint that the previous Hummel plan would struggle. He stated the homes proposed for Founder’s Crossing will sell to a cross section of buyers, stating this is a multi-generational subdivision. Mr. Doersching stated there is very little product available in the Northwest suburbs that have these characteristics. He noted this is an objective opinion. In response to a question, he stated Tracy Cross sources its own data, and creates and maintains a proprietary database. He talked about this database and where this information comes from, noting it is a database they have developed over the last 30 years.

In response to a question from Commissioner Paluch, Mr. Doersching stated they addressed the Hummel proposal as it existed, but with no modifications. He stated that proposal was heavily weighted to a market that does not exist anymore. He stated this property is in an uncommon area that is connected to an urban environment. Mr. Doersching stated this development is perfectly priced to generate 24 units per year, noting it is perfectly priced to succeed.

In response to a question from Chairman Sheriff, Mr. Napolitano stated he does not know the average daily traffic count on Clay Street.

In response to a question from Chairman Sheriff, Mr. Napolitano stated while it is possible to limit parking in the alleyways, they are private property so this would have to be a function of the HOA. Ms. Rawson stated they will absolutely do this, if it is desired.

Concerning traffic, Mr. Napolitano stated he looked at the Institute of Traffic Engineers, who stated apartments generate 6.65 trips per unit per day, townhomes generate 5.86 trips per unit per day, and single-family homes generate 9.57 trips per unit per day. Based upon this, it is estimated the Hummel Development would have generated 1,410 trips per day and Founder’s Crossing will generate 1,156 trips per day, meaning the proposed development will generate about 250 trips less than what would have been generated by Hummel as proposed.

Chairman Sheriff opined with the Route 47 improvements moving forward, it is possible a lot of people may not be going through the Square. Commissioner Gavers noted Clay Street School is still open.

Commissioner Gavers asked if the infrastructure currently in place can handle the stormwater runoff. Mr. Napolitano stated the City Engineer has looked at the preliminary engineering. He noted Hummel added private detention and there is detention north of First Street. Commissioner Gavers opined this is insufficient, asking if this one area can handle it without flooding. Mr. Napolitano responded it will be designed to handle it. In response to further questioning from Commissioner Gavers, Mr. Napolitano stated it can be designed to fit City standards and will have to meet City code requirements. In response to a question from Commissioner Gavers, Mr. Napolitano stated there will be storm sewers and drainage in the alleyways. Commissioner Gavers opined basements should not be allowed north of Newell Street. Mr. Napolitano replied the developer is aware that some of the property is unsuitable for basements. He stated there will be a soil report completed before any basements are installed.

RECESS

Chairman Sheriff called for a short recess. The meeting was recessed at 9:26 PM.

RECONVENE

The meeting of the Plan Commission reconvened in the Council Chambers at 9:35 PM. All Commission members present prior to the recess were present at 9:35 PM.

Chairman Sheriff called for Public Comment.

John McNamara was sworn in by City Attorney Clifton.

Mr. McNamara, 13 North Street, stated he is present representing himself and the Woodstock Station HOA. He gave a review of his background, noting 45 years’ experience in what is being discussed this evening, having worked in 12 major cities in planning this type of development.

Mr. McNamara stated the HOA recognizes that what is being considered tonight includes two large buildings near the Metra Station, which is more consistent with the previously approved development and also with the Downtown Development Plan. He stated there is still a variety of issues to be addressed, however.

He stated the proposed development includes 82 small single-family homes with minimal side-yard setbacks, no parkway plantings between the street and the public sidewalk, and minimal garage aprons off alleyways. He stated this is no better than a cheap subdivision masquerading as a neo-traditional development. He stated the development attempts to maximize site coverage with buildings at the expense of developing higher density to give the feeling of a development in a park-like setting.

Concerning the parks proposed for this development Mr. McNamara stated they are located on remnant parcels with no recreation amenities for children, noting he counted two benches.

Mr. McNamara opined the existing streets are not adequate to handle travel demand. He stated 82 homes will generate many trips and noted there still has been no traffic study of the surrounding streets, including Clay Street, which is a collector street, an emergency services corridor, and a pedestrian corridor. He opined the intersection of Clay and Church is likely to be a serious problem due to new traffic requiring a signal. Mr. McNamara stated parking from the DHFS building spills over onto neighboring streets and City lots as does Metra parking. He urged the City to require a traffic impact study.

Mr. McNamara stated although the developer has provided a market opinion letter, this is an opinion letter only, not a market study. Noting the letter indicates there is no market for condos, Mr. McNamara stated that is not the debate tonight. He stated this meeting is not talking about the Hummel plan or putting in condos.

Noting this is a prime site, Mr. McNamara stated there are not a lot of prime sites like this in Woodstock.

Noting the developer continues to provide illustrations of other neo-classic projects that start at $500,000 per unit, Mr. McNamara stated that is very different than the quality and standards of this project.

Mr. McNamara stated the people he represents agree that a replica of the Woodstock Brownstones is not possible today. He stated they do advocate for a plan that moves forward with some higher-density residential, not condos. He noted evidence there is a market for attached, single-family units. He noted he has found several projects being built elsewhere with townhome projects in the range of $250,000 to $280,000.

Mr. McNamara noted what he found by googling “Founder’s Crossing Woodstock Illinois,” stating it shows four models and also the name MI Homes. He asked if there is a relationship or partnership between the developer and MI Homes, whether that is the builder, or whether the developer will flip the property to MI Homes.

Mr. McNamara opined there are still critical unanswered questions that must be thought out before considering this project and before the City thinks about entering into an agreement.

Mr. McNamara asked when will the developer set up the meetings with the neighborhood that were promised to City Staff and the Commission.

Mr. Adamis stated there is no relationship with MI Homes. He opined this is a showcase development with no connection to MI Homes.

Sasha Zavinski was sworn in by City Attorney Clifton.

Ms. Zavinski, 134 First Street, stated she is really worried about the water. She stated she doesn’t think the infrastructure can handle the water now, noting her neighbor’s basement is full of water. She stated the area in front of El Niagara is in a flood plain. She opined there is no way this area can hold enough water once the surface is covered and urged the City to require a water study.

Ms. Zavinski stated part of the charm of Woodstock is living in small homes with yards and neighbors. She opined people do not move to Woodstock to live in Chicago and that this development will detract from the attractiveness of Woodstock.

Ms. Zavinski opined the train schedule needs to be expanded for this type of development. She opined many of the people living in this development would not be able to take Metra, which detracts from the idea of the development.

Chairman Sheriff asked if someone can come in to speak on stormwater, if there is another hearing.

Mark Indyke was sworn in by City Attorney Clifton.

Mr. Indyke stated many of his concerns have been expressed by others. He opined this plan is the same one that was submitted on May 23rd with the same density. He stated the petitioner did not address density, traffic, narrow streets, emergency services, snow removal, or lack of storage, opining he made minor changes, but did not address these.

Mr. Indyke noted the speakers were asked not to make this personal, but noting Commissioner Besler’s position at Home State Bank, asked her if she should recuse herself. Commissioner Besler deferred to the opinion of the City Attorney. City Attorney Clifton stated it is not a conflict as long as Commissioner Besler is confident that she can make her vote on what is best for the community and not Home State Bank.

Talking about the landscape plan, Mr. Indyke stated trees placed along the roadway will deteriorate the streets more rapidly. Mr. Indyke noted the City is investing considerable resources in this project. He expressed concern this will become a gated community, asking whether the public can access the dog park.

Mr. Indyke opined this project in this location is not what is needed in Woodstock. He opined people move to Woodstock to get away from an urban environment.

Noting this is being marketed as a walkable community, Mr. Indyke asked where the residents will walk to, noting they need a vehicle to walk to Jewel and the Post Office. He stated the goal of Woodstock is to become a walkable community, but noted this will not be achieved for ten years.

Mr. Indyke stated the City has many ordinances in effect, but opined because of the lack of police services they are not being enforced.

Mr. Indyke opined if there are alleys and minor roads, access will be limited. He opined there isn’t any storage space, meaning they will store things in their garages and park on the street.

Mr. Indyke stated when the developer is asked about something, he says they will look at it later. Mr. Indyke noted on May 23rd it was stated Ms. Rawson was an architect, which is not the case.

Mr. Indyke stated he is on the Board of the Moose. He noted at a recent meeting the leadership took a vote at which no one was in favor of having this development across the street from the Moose.

Allen Stebbins was sworn in by City Attorney Clifton.

Mr. Stebbins stated he just heard a “word salad presentation.”

He stated this is the most significant development site in Woodstock, noting it is in the Woodstock Historic District. Noting his service on the Historic Preservation Commission, Mr. Stebbins stated he helped write the design guidelines for the Downtown, noting one of the chapters deals with infill as it relates to the Die Cast site.

Mr. Stebbins stated the Commission felt development on this site needs to be high quality and built with durable materials, noting they came to conclusions about dealing with substitute materials. He stated the use of brick in the Downtown came about due to fires on the Square. He noted they approved Hardie board, which offers fire resistance and comes in different finishes. He noted builders within the Historic District have been using these materials because it provides longevity. He described the materials that are not allowed in the Historic District.

Mr. Stebbins stated the concept looks pretty now, but asked how this is going to blend in with the Downtown in 75 years. He stated whatever is built at this location should age gracefully in context with the Downtown.

Mr. Stebbins stated everyone loves the sense of place Woodstock creates, noting it is not Chicago or Libertyville. He stated development is wanted here, but opined this is not it.

Mr. Stebbins stated when questions came up, the developers answered, “we will get to it,” but the Commission is being asked to approve it tonight.

Mr. Stebbins took issue with the landscape plan, noting the trees will mature to 50 feet and asking what will happen to the foundations or the streets when this happens.

Mr. Stebbins opined this is a subdivision that is dropped into the Downtown and asked what it will look like in 50 to 75 years. He stated the City needs to move forward and look at buildings that will fit in the context of the Downtown.

Mr. Stebbins then took issue with Ms. Rawson’s comments concerning Gothic Revival, providing information on the evolution of this style. He opined what is being proposed is a modern architect’s idea of what looks good now with no features that can be found in Woodstock.

Mr. Stebbins asked the Plan Commission to deny the Special Use, the variances, and the Preliminary Plat.

Michael Stanard was sworn in by City Attorney Clifton.

Mr. Stanard stated he renovated the former Ideal Gas Station and has been a professional designer for 40 years.

Mr. Stanard noted speakers were asked to refrain from personal attacks and stated he doesn’t mind personal attacks.

Mr. Stanard stated Ms. Rawson led everyone to believe she is an architect, noting he resents this. He asked about her credentials, noting he is asked about his credentials when making a proposal.

Stating he is a person concerned with aesthetics, Mr. Stanard opined there is nothing about this development that works aesthetically. He expressed doubt that Ms. Rawson did the renderings.

Mr. Stanard stated he knows the Plan Commission will vote this down, but noted he is worried about the City “fathers.” He opined this will be “a catastrophe, a boondoggle that the City will never recover from.” He stated this will be something the Mayor “can put a feather in his cap,” stating he knows about this. He opined this is a disaster in the making.

Mr. Stanard urged the Commission to vote this down and talk to the City Council “to wake them up.”

Dan Lemanski was sworn in by City Attorney Clifton.

Mr. Lemanski stated it seems to him as a taxpayer that the City is being looked at as an equity partner. He stated as an at-risk partner, he would like to know the magnitude of this partnership, noting he would like to see any incentives, any infrastructure improvements to improve the project, property, and the value of any TIF funds. He opined without these, this application is incomplete and urged the Commission to vote no.

In response to a question from Chairman Sheriff, Mr. Napolitano stated there are currently no incentives, with the City and the Developer in discussion of a Development Agreement.

Sue Zwierzycki was sworn in by City Attorney Clifton.

Ms. Zwierzycki expressed dissatisfaction with the proposal, stating she would never send a child to play in a park near a bunch of alleys. She opined this is a “death sentence waiting to happen.”

Ms. Zwierzycki stated most people with a two-car garage have them full of “stuff” and do not put their cars there. She stated there is at least one car in the traffic-way or street and asked where those cars will park in this development. She opined all those extra cars will have to park in the few parking spaces on the street or at the train station.

Ms. Zwierzycki stated she has lived on First Street for a long time, and opined opening Wheeler Street might take a lot of traffic off Clay, giving traffic relief to the neighborhood.

Chairman Sheriff closed Public Comment at 10:18 PM.

Noting he has heard the comments this evening, Chairman Sheriff asked if the petitioner wished to continue the Public Hearing this evening or revise his submittal and come back at a time specific. Mr. Rawson stated he would like to proceed to a vote, but noted he is amenable to conditions or recommendations to address concerns placed on any approval.

Chairman Sheriff opened the floor to Commission discussion.

Commissioner Speciale stated she has talked with a lot of residents and noted she would like to provide the perspective of a local manufacturer who is excited to see this development. She stated this individual stated he is excited to see the direction this could go because it is important to have more available housing and is in favor of more residents living Downtown. He stated it would be good to draw more employees to the area.

Commissioner Speciale stated she is ok with making a decision that is not popular and supporting something where there is a concern, but noted this is taking a long time to address this concern. She stated she is not sure she can agree with what she is looking at right now and feel the concerns will be addressed in the future.

Commissioner Gavers stated he believes everything has a place and he does not think this is the place for this development.

Commissioner Besler stated the Commission has been listening to this since February and she is still not settled as far as making a decision. She opined change is good and Woodstock needs and deserves change. She also opined something is needed in this area, noting the City has to start somewhere. She noted this is the first option the Commission has looked at and wondered if this is the only thing. She noted the developer has said this is as good as it gets, but stated the Commission has not seen anything else yet. She stated she knows rooftops mean retail, but noted she is not completely satisfied. Commissioner Besler stated traffic is a problem for her. She stated there are a lot of little issues, noting it is quite dense and does not seem popular with residents. Addressing the pricing, she asked who we really want to live there and who will really come to live there. She stated homes in this price range will attract families and empty nesters, noting this is a price point that will cover all, but asked who will really come. She then noted the information from the Fire/Rescue District, which is of concern to her. She stated she wants to make sure the City is approving a safe place for these people to live.

Commissioner Paluch expressed agreement with Commissioner Speciale’s comments concerning what manufacturers are looking for in terms of attracting employees, but stated she does not believe this proposal as presented is what those manufacturers were referring to, because in her opinion there are a lot of better options suited to this particular location.

She stated they touched this evening on the subject of transitioning from this property closely to the railroad down to the things that surround.

Concerning Tracy Cross & Associates, she noted they did not look at if this is the best proposal for this site. Rather they were comparing the Hummel proposal and the environment in which that was developed with the proposal they were presented with. She stated what was not part of their study and not discussed was lower density options, such as townhomes and row houses. In terms of both the topography as well as what makes for a more proper transition as you take those two apartment buildings and put them right next to houses and then you have the existing rowhouses that are there, there is no transition. She stated there is not the density of population of rooftops that will attract commercial development the City wants because there is a lower population density with this site, but a larger footprint of density mass as far as the buildings are concerned. She asked if the City can invest in something better for this site. stating the answer is absolutely. She opined whether it takes two or three years to get a better development for this site that is more appropriate and that transitions from the immediate Downtown to Transit Oriented, she believes the City has an opportunity for this.

Commissioner Paluch noted a comment was made by the petitioner that we are not going to get commercial development. She stated they are talking about national franchise retailers. She stated she does not think the Commission envisions this is what potential commercial development at this site will be. She opined rather it will be restaurants, cafes, breweries and such that people in this development will want to participate in. She noted for those who were around when the original Woodstock Station development was proposed and approved, it was imagined there would be a synergistic relationship between the businesses on the Square and potential commercial/retail development that was on the site to work together to develop an overall stronger commercial area. She stated she is not willing to give up on that prospect and hope, just because of the first prospect to come along

She stated when looking at this proposal one also needs to look at the City’s existing planning documents and how this proposal relates to all of the planning, time, and effort, not just from this Plan Commission, but several Councils and other bodies to say this is who we are, and this is what we want Woodstock to be. She opined this proposal is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan, which designates this area as being Central Business District. She opined nothing in this proposal helps that and also is contrary to various expectations of the City’s UDO based upon the extreme variances that are being requested as part of the PUD. She stated this is also contrary because the concept of the PUD is give and take; the City will give on a setback or density requirement, for example, because it gets something. She stated if looking at the Comprehensive Plan and the UDO, one of the things that is wanted is more open space. She noted the total park area proposed with this development is half the size of her back yard. She stated she would like to think for 82 single-family homes and two apartment buildings with 36 units the developer could share more than her backyard.

Commissioner Paluch stated much work went into the Downtown Development Plan, which designates this as an opportunity site. She suggested this plan presents no opportunity. She opined all this proposal is are rooftops in a compact manner, stating the primary reason for its compactness is to make the proposal economically feasible for the developer. She stated she is not faulting the developer for this, as they are working to make money. She stated this proposal is not appropriate for this site; however, which presents the City with a lot of opportunity.

Commissioner Paluch stated she and the developer agree that this land is unique due to its proximity to the Square and its amenities. She stated she believes this land is truly unique and is not something they just need to “smash” the first proposal into just because it comes along and because the developer needs this density to make it economically feasible. She stated she believes the City needs to demand more for this site, and for that and many other reasons she stated she will not be supporting this proposal.

Commissioner Horrell expressed his agreement with the previous Commissioner’s statement. He opined this is all about location, noting it is an area where the City would like to see heavy pedestrian use, which would be a result of retail. He stated there is a separation between population density, with which he has no problem, and geographic density. He stated he would like to see the population density increase in a proposal, but not the geographic density.

Commissioner Horrell asked why the City would give up prime property near the Downtown opining more retail is needed. He opined the development needs to have more pedestrian friendly thoroughfares and features to tie it to the Square noting the only things tying it to the Square now are two brick buildings. He noted the Commission doesn’t know what these buildings will look like.

Commissioner Horrell stated he is not supportive of this proposal.

Commissioner Thurow expressed agreement with the previous comments, noting there has been no positive reaction to this proposal. He stated due to the inconsistencies and inappropriateness of the proposal, he is not in favor of it.

There were no further comments forthcoming from Commissioner Fortin.

Commissioner Flores stated he does not feel comfortable with the proposal. He opined it is a puzzle in the works, with the pieces not working together. He expressed his agreement with the other Commissioners.

Chairman Sheriff stated he is not in favor of the proposal based upon the testimony provided. He expressed concern about the setbacks and fire code issues. He stated he would like the homes moved to 8 feet between them and would like to see strong fire measures. Chairman Sheriff expressed agreement with the statements concerning transition, noting he would like to see a much smoother transition. He stated he does not disagree with the development, but does not feel it is appropriate at this location.

Motion by R. Horrell, second by D. Paluch, to recommend to the City Council denial of a Special Use Permit, denial of the PUD, and denial of the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision for a residential development on property located on the west side of Clay Street South of First Street based upon the Finding of Fact identified in the Staff Report, in particular a) the development is not compatible with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan because of lack of commercial and retail particularly in the southern area; b) the development does not meet the intent and standards of the UDO and the proposed exceptions requested under the PUD are not appropriate because the variances requested are numerous and severe and would provide no benefit to the City by making them; c) the proposed development at the subject location will significantly adversely affect the property values of the people already located in this area including the Brownstones; c) the development lacks sufficient open space with 90% of the space covered, which takes away from the natural resources.

A roll call vote was taken. Ayes: D. Besler, A. Flores, S. Gavers, R. Horrell, D. Paluch, J. Speciale, E. Thurow, and Chairman C. Sheriff. Nays: D. Fortin. Abstentions: none. Absentees: none. Motion carried.

Motion by R. Horrell, second by D. Paluch, to close the Public Hearing.

Ayes: D. Besler, A. Flores, D. Fortin, S. Gavers, R. Horrell, D. Paluch, J. Speciale, and Chairman C. Sheriff. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: none. Motion carried.

The Public Hearing was closed at 10:44 PM

Chairman Sheriff noted this will move to the City Council with a recommendation of denial.

4. DISCUSSION

Mr. Napolitano stated there will be a meeting in October.

5. ADJOURN

Motion by D. Paluch, second by R. Horrell, to adjourn this special meeting of the Woodstock Plan Commission to the next regular meeting at 7:00 PM on Thursday, October 24, 2019 in the Council Chambers at Woodstock City Hall.

Ayes: D. Besler, A. Flores, D. Fortin, S. Gavers, R. Horrell, D. Paluch, J. Speciale, E. Thurow, and Chairman C. Sheriff. Motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:46 PM.

https://www.woodstockil.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/plan_commission/meeting/32881/f_-_09-19-19_plan_commission_minutes.pdf