Lennar Proposed 320 Unit P.U.D. Info
In April, 2024, the Woodstock City Council approved all of the preliminary measures that have allowed 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. The concerns that had led to the Woodstock Plan Commission to reject recommending approval of this development were: 1) the proposed density along the Kishwaukee River Watershed, 2) the official NRI report indicating that the vast majority of the acreage has “severe building limitations,” 3) building on a sensitive aquifer as well as the impact on Woodstock’s long-term water supply, 4) the destruction of most of an oak forest without a tree-replacement plan as required under Woodstock’s UDO and 5) 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:
• 244 Single Family, 76 Duplex “homesites” = 320 units total.
• Annexation of 2 parcels of land on Lucas Road- County land that were annexed into Woodstock.
• Lennar (originally Realen Homes) had proposed this subdivision in 2004-2008, but with lower-density single-family homes. Then, they were not using the two McHenry County parcels off of Lucas Road. This is where Lennar will 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 requested and obtained a $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 requested 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 had proposed for the subdivision was outside the city limits, along Lucas Road. It had always been zoned A1. The developer obtain approval 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 obtained 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 was in the process of being updated at the time of the approval of the subdivision. 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 are on the then existing 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 objectors had urged that this development fails to protect our sensitive aquifers. This was a key consideration 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 had 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 had a map displayed showing that much of McHenry County was built in hydric soils. But it was the combination of soil types that is unique to this development that pointed out as beyond problematic by the objectors.
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. So, while the Mayor could point to developments on hydric soils not being uncommon, it was not recognized that these three soil types consist 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 and that mass grading of most of the property will bring about its own series of problems.
• Remnant Oak Woodlands. Lennar has insisted upon using a 20-year-old tree survey. Lennar will destroy more than half 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 in April of 2024 required tree surveys that identify trees with diameters starting at 4 inches. The older provisions of Woodstock’s UDO only 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 was 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.]
• 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
