Title
Cherry Ridge - Kimball Hill - Discussion
History
On September 4, 2007, the Village Board requested additional information regarding the status of the Cherry Ridge project. In particular, staff was requested to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of allowing Kimball Hill to move forward on the South parcel without owning the North parcel.
Background:
The Cherry Ridge project was approved by Village of Orland Park on May 1, 2006 . The development agreement was approved on February 19, 2007. The approved subdivision includes property on both sides of 153rd street and is proposed to be a neighborhood based, mixed housing product subdivision, including neo-traditional single-family homes (68), Villas (31) townhomes (250), condos (80) and a small neighborhood commercial center. This project is considered a transit-oriented development, given its close proximity to the train station. The total approved net density for the entire subdivision is 5.29/acre. While this project was approved as one subdivision, staff did anticipate phasing of the project, similar to many other residential projects in Orland Park. Additionally, the approved development agreement does not prohibit phasing of the project.
Project Status:
In June of 2007, staff met with representatives from both Andrews and Kimball Hill to discuss the status of the project, including the pending acquisition of the North piece of property by Kimball Hill. Trustee Dodge also assisted staff by participating in these meetings. During these meetings, staff was very clear with both parties that proposed changes to the approved subdivision, including density changes, would not be supported by the Village. Representatives from Andrew did ask whether the Village would consider revisions to the approved plan in order to allow for greater marketability of the North Parcel. Again, staff reiterated the project was approved as one subdivision and a request for higher density would not be recommended. After discussing this project further with the Board privately, it was agreed to allow Kimball Hill to proceed with construction on the South parcel, as the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.
Attached please find a memo from Kenneth Friker outlining the advantages and disadvantages of allowing Kimball Hill to proceed with construction on the South Parcel. Staff concurs with Mr. Friker’s review and opinion. Additionally, staff believes the approved project is a good project for the community and would not recommend any changes to the overall site plan, regardless of who ultimately is the developer in the future.
Density Comparison:
In an effort to assist the Village Board with a density comparison between Cherry Ridge and other similar projects, the following breakdown has been compiled:
Cherry Ridge - North 3.95 d.u./net acre 2.29 d.u./net acre
68 Single Family
72 Townhomes
31 Villas
171 Total Units
43.28 Net Acres
74.81 Gross Acres
Cherry Ridge - South 10.04 d.u./net acre 8.32 d.u./gross acre
178 Townhomes
80 Condominiums
258 Total Units
25.7 Net Acres
31 Gross Acres*
Colette Highlands 9.28 d.u./net acre**
122 Townhomes
96 Condominiums
218 Total Units
23.5 Net Acres
Orland Crossing 9.32 d.u./net acre 6.37 d.u./gross acre
85 Townhomes
Gross Acres 13.35
Net Acres 9.12
*Gross acreage for the south parcel includes 153rd ROW dedication, which is not reflected on their site plan calculation table that breaks down the North and South parcels.
**The above calculation does not include any of the park that was provided as part of the Planned Development. This Planned Development also included single family homes and the overall net density of the entire project was 5.8 d.u./acre (285 units on 49.1 buildable acres).
Conclusion:
In summary, there is not a significant density difference between Cherry Ridge - South parcel and other similar multi-family areas. While there is no dispute the housing market has significantly changed during the last 18 months, it will not last forever. Staff recommends this project stays as one project not two and both Andrew and Kimball Hill should be held to the terms of the signed development agreement.