Lennar Proposed 320 Unit P.U.D. Info
On Tuesday, 4/2/24 the Woodstock City Council approved all of the preliminary measures that will allow the Lennar Riverwoods proposed high-density development off of Doty and Lucas Roads in Woodstock to go forward. The Woodstock Mayor and the City Council emphasized that Woodstock had not had a major development in a decade and that this proposed development was necessary for Woodstock’s future. The objections were not based on whether or not growth is good for Woodstock–but whether this particular series of parcels is where Woodstock should grow. Our concerns about this development included critical environmental issues given the proposal’s density along the Kishwaukee River Watershed, the official NRI report indicating that the vast majority of the acreage has “severe building limitations,” building on a sensitive aquifer as well as the impact on Woodstock’s long-term water supply, the destruction of most of an oak forest with a tree-replacement plan, as well as traffic issues along Lucas Road and Route 47.
Important Information:
For those interested in some of the editors that appeared regarding this Development that is slated to go forward:
- Click the link the follows for a Letter to the Editor of the Woodstock Independent by Gunnar J. Gitlin.
- Click the link that follows for the Northwest Herald Article, titled:
- Click the link that follows for a Guest Column in the Woodstock Independent by Leslie Kvistad.
- Terri Willcockson
Background:
• 320 Units Proposed on 135 Acres.
• 244 Single Family, 76 Duplex “homesites” = 320 units total.
• Annexation of 2 parcels of land on Lucas Road- County land to be annexed into Woodstock.
• Lennar (originally Realen Homes) proposed this subdivision in 2004-2008, but lower-density single-family homes. Then they were not using the two McHenry County parcels off of Lucas Road. This is where Lennar plans to place the 76 high-density duplex units here.
• Main entrances off Lucas Road. Second entrance off Memorial Drive by the hospital.
• $1.5-plus Million Impact Fees Request. Lennar requests $1.5 Million reduction in impact fees from the City of Woodstock. Under Illinois law these must be “specifically and uniquely attributable to the new development.” Lennar requests to pay nothing for parks, library, streets, or police. They also request a departure from Code regarding “review and inspection fees.”
• Zoning: Nearly all the land surrounding the property is County property: zoned A1 (agriculture). Part of the property had been rezoned to R1-B (single-family detached with 8,500 sq. ft. minimum lot sizes). This occurred when the developer pursued a lower-density plan prior to the 2008 recession. The southern portion of the property that Lennar proposes for the subdivision is outside the city limits, along Lucas Road. It’s zoned A1. The developer seeks to amend the zoning to R3. R3 is single family attached houses. This zoning also allows for duplexes and townhomes.
- For further information regarding the current zoning, click here: 2.0 Zoning Woodstock 2022 Parcel Location Map.
- For more information regarding what this means on typical lots including variances sought, click here: Proposed High Density Lot Size Typical
The development adopts the highest density allowed by the City of Woodstock for single-family homes and duplexes. In fact, Lennar would require a variance from those minimum requirements to allow smaller lot sizes, narrow setbacks, and narrower streets. See: Unified Development Ordinance City of Woodstock, p. 10 of 31 (Table 7A.2). This table provides the details for high-density R3 (single-family including duplexes, etc.) zoning for Woodstock. See p. 3, 7A.2 [District Descriptions] and p. 10, 7A.2 [Area and Bulk Requirements]. To best understand what R3 zoning means, consider the following taken from the City of Woodstock’s zoning ordinance:
“This district provides opportunities for higher-density attached dwellings, such as duplexes, townhomes or rowhouses.”
At the Plan Commission meeting on December 14, 2023, Lennar acknowledged that this zoning change would open the door to further R3 development alongside this 320-unit proposed development–in what’s now farmland. This presented a question for the City of Woodstock: whether Woodstock wants to be like Lake in the Hills and have Route 47 coming into Woodstock become the next Randall Road.
This is why the objectors urged that Woodstock should consider Woodstock’s Comprehensive Plan.
• Woodstock’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Click here for the Woodstock Comprehensive Plan 2008. This Plan is being updated with the timetable for the new plan to be potentially approved this Spring. Yet at the time of the meeting, the City could only look backward to establish whether it has met the requisite standards. The developer could not demonstrate compliance with the current needs of Woodstock, since the new plan had yet to be receive formal consideration by the City Council.
At the Plan Commission meeting, it was suggested that the lines drawn on the exiting Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map were arbitrarily chosen. Yet two current Plan Commissions whose names are on the Land Use Map both voted against the measures presented for a vote. One Commission member looked to the map itself and pointed out that much of the land had been designated either as a resource conservation corridor or resource conservation area. It was urged that this designation should not be lightly ignored.
The section addressing the Unique Character of Woodstock emphasizes at page 9 that our unique character is “shaped by the variety of agricultural activity around the city, the considerable amount of environmentally sensitive areas in the presence of open spaces and undeveloped lands between Woodstock and the municipalities to the east and the southeast.” The next section of the Plan is titled, “Natural Features and Open Landscape Preservation.” It opens by stating, “The preservation of natural areas and open landscapes also sets Woodstock apart from other municipalities.” The Plan refers to “reduced development density” being due to conservation area as well as privately owned parcels containing wetlands and woodlands.” Finally, the Plan provides Implementation Strategies to meet public infrastructure goals. It states that the City of Woodstock should, “Adopt land use controls to protect the recharge function of the groundwater recharge areas in the City’s planning area.” See Plan, no. 5, p. 38, “Implementation Strategies.”
This development will alter the unique character of Woodstock and will fail to protect our sensitive aquifers. These were major considerations in establishing the Plan since much of this area is a natural resource area and a natural resource corridor. Click here to see where Lennar would place the Development versus the land use that has been designated by the Land Use Map: Resource Conservation-Side-by-Side Maps.
Key Points:
• Severe Building Limitations for both basements and slabs on nearly 90% of acreage. According to the required Natural Resource Inventory Report, (NRI 23-061-4521) 88.5% of the area has “severe limitations” for basements and slabs. Despite problems identified, the plan is for partial basements on all single-family homes. The Executive Summary at p. 3 stated, “It is recommended that the structures have crawl spaces instead of basements…” This was also consistent with the expert testimony by Dave Brandt, a retired soil scientist with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service who worked at the Woodstock office for 26 years.
The executive summary warns of “problems for future property owners” including “cracked foundations, wet basements, lowered structural integrity.” By way of comparison, the official soil and water reports of properties over 5 acres in McHenry County were obtained. Including this proposed development there are 12 properties since 2015. The other developments range in size from 8 acres to 92 acres. Of those, none had nearly as substantial floodplain acreage. No other proposed development had the percentage of hydric soil (saturated, flooded or ponded) in the range of the proposed development. And not one other proposed development that involved rezoning had severe limitations for slabs of more than 28% of the overall acreage compared to 88.5% severe limitations for both basements and slabs. Yet at the City Council meeting where the decision was made the Mayor showed a map urging that much of McHenry County was built in hydric soils. But it was the combination of soil types that is unique to these series of parcels. A breakdown of the soil on this land where the P.U.D. will be placed is:
Soil | |||||||
39.04 | Hydric | Soil formed in conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding for extended periods during growing season. | |||||
9.62 | Organic | One simply cannot build on organic soil. | |||||
52.91 | Somewhat poorly drained: Seasonal high water 1 to 2 feet below the surface | ||||||
101.57 | Total acreage with all 3 of these soil beyond problematic soil types for basements. | ||||||
135 | Total Acres | ||||||
75% | Percentage with these beyond problematic soil types. |
Click on the link that follows to see Gunnar J. Gitlin’s letter to the City of Woodstock, Plan Commission, addressing the severe building limitations identified by the NRI Report. Gunnar Gitlin Letter to CoW Plan Commission
Lennar will have basements built on all of the single-family homes despite the concerns identified by both the NRI Report and the expert testimony. Lennar further acknowledged that the reason for including basements is market demands. Mr. Brandt testified that nearly all of the acreage on which the development would be built has either a moderately-high or a high potential for shallow-aquifer contamination.
• Increase in Potential for Flooding in the Area. The Report indicates that if the development occurs on hydric soils, this raises the concern for “loss of water storage in these areas and the potential for increased flooding in the area.” The Report emphasizes the importance of potential “hydric inclusions” as a soil type. (NRI report p. 40).
There’s also a soil type that is called poorly drained soil. The last category has seasonal high water at only 1 to 2 feet below the soil surface. The combination of these three soil types consists of 75% of the overall acreage. The expert report by Dave Brandt warned of building homes with basements on land with all three of these soil types. He emphasized that it can’t be done responsibly.
• Remnant Oak Woodlands. Lennar has insisted upon using a 20-year-old tree survey. Lennar will destroy by their estimate half of the high-quality trees (and more likely more than 60% of the high-quality trees). These are part of remnant oak savanna on this property. Because of the additional cost of updating the tree survey, Lennar refused to provide to the City a current survey. Note that the City changed its standards for tree surveys since the original 2004 survey. See: Section 8A.1.3. The current UDO requires tree surveys that identify trees with diameters starting at 4 inches. The older survey required only 6 inch diameter trees to be surveyed. The bottomline was that a survey from 20 years ago with different standards failed to comply with our current UDO. Yet even that 20-year-old survey showed that there were 1,138 high-quality trees six inches or more in diameter. And over 200 of these trees are more than 200 years old. So, the Developer will be destroying half of these trees.
[Tree Standards: Tree Protection] B2 of our UDO provides:
As part of the preliminary plat and final engineering plan submittal, a tree survey as defined and provided for in this Ordinance is required. Trees intended to be preserved shall be depicted. A tree preservation plan prepared by a qualified arborist, forester, or similarly qualified professional in the field of natural resources is also required as part of the final engineering plan submittal. Failure to submit these items is a valid reason to delay consideration of a preliminary plat or to withhold approval of final engineering plans or a final plat until such items are available. (Ordinance Number 09-O-64, adopted October 20, 2009).
There are “Content Requirements” for a Special Use Permit. The UDO provides at 4.4.2(G), “If the subject property is vacant and undeveloped, and not part of a platted subdivision, information shall be provided which depicts…trees having a diameter measured at breast height (dbh) of four (4) or more inches.” The UDO contains a definition of “shall” stating, “The words “shall” and “will” are mandatory and not discretionary.”
When certain Plan Commissioner’s urged Lennar to present an updated tree survey, Lennar stated that due to the additional cost that they simply would not do so. In the words of Lennar at the Plan Commission meeting: “I think we’ve made a business decision that the dollars that would have to be spent to meet your requirements for a tree survey… There’s no bang for the buck to do that.”
It is suggested that there’s a reason that Lennar has opted out of completing a survey are the requirements of Woodstock’s tree replacement ordinance. Without a “tree replacement plan” as required by the UDO, the Woodstock City Council could not determine how many trees would have to be replaced. Yet a conservate hand-count determined that the Developer would destroy more than 62% of the high-quality trees. If we apply this percentage, the law would require the Developer to replace 4,849 trees of the smaller size. Yet the City has overlooked these requirements. Yet was urged that before waiving the requirements of our Ordinance, there should have been be a baseline of what is required under that ordinance.
And the stronger point is that given the particularly problematic soil conditions based upon the expert testimony and the NRI including the negative impact on our shallow aquifers, it is urged that the City should not waive the requirement of our law to green light this Development.
For a further understanding on the impact of trees in trees in Chicago-land area see the 2020 Chicago Region Tree Census. Key findings included the fact that there are 172 million trees in the region, an increase from 157 million in 2010. The canopy cover increased overall from 21% to 23%. But it decreased in the City of Chicago and in McHenry County. The report points to the benefits in Chicago land that includes the benefits of avoided runoff in the area–which was $95 million in savings. Suburban Cook, DuPage, Kendall, Will, Lake and Kane all had increases in the critical regional forest figures. Outside of Chicago itself, only McHenry County had a decline. [See p. 24 of the 2020 Census.]
• High-Density Lots. Lennar proposes smaller roads (see attachment) & smaller lots sizes (below some of the minimum standards required without a variance).
• Green Space. Lennar has cherry picked numbers for what it posits is its green space. Yet most of the green space would be retention areas.
• Impact of Sensitive Aquifer Area. 41.9 acres of the land is on a Sensitive Acquirer Area (see map on page 2). As pointed out in the expert’s testimony before the Plan Commission, McHenry County is 100% reliant on our aquifers for our groundwater. and McHenry County is 75% reliant on our shallow aquifers. According to the expert testimony by Dave Brandt, it’s the combination of having such a large area that’s designated as a sensitive aquifer combined with the high potential for shallow aquifer sensitivity that requires that basements would not be built to avoid contamination of area wells. This also poses a risk that area well will go dry and long-term risks to Woodstock’s overall water supply. Woodstock’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan focuses on just this when considering new developments and emphasizes our responsibility to ensure an adequate and clean supply of groundwater. (See p. 12 of the Comprehensive Plan). The Plan explains at p. 22, “Woodstock relies on shallow aquifers which are vulnerable to contamination for its water. Protecting soils and establishing open landscapes is important because of the impact on water recharge areas, as well as its contribution to the visual and physical character of the community. Page 35 of the Plan states, “Contamination is a threat to shallow aquifers, as well as public and private wells, and the protection of the City’s well-head areas is of vital importance. In the past, the management of surface water has been an afterthought in urbanizing areas. As a result, corrective action has been more piecemeal, more difficult to design, and more costly. ” This development would fail to serve the goals of the Plan given the fact that the high-density duplexes would be located on this sensitive aquifer recharge area.
• Building on Kishwaukee River Watershed. Woodstock’s overall plan of 2008 has this specific area properly designated as a Resource Conservation Area and Resource Conservation Corridor. The Plan proposes wetland “mitigation” of the farmed flood plain adjacent to the Kishwaukee River.
More Info:
Megan Liebetrau – 815.919.8348
Jessica Rizza – 815.543.3351
Gunnar Gitlin – 815.404.3631 or 815.338.9401 (ofc)
Facebook Group for Lucas and Doty Roads: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2386915121474956