Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan commission recommends approval of Prairie Garden development plan after design changes; applicant represented remotely
Summary
The Roscoe Plan Commission recommended approval of the Prairie Garden (Prairie Rose) plan to the Village Board after the applicant and staff described design revisions including building-material upgrades, a six‑foot privacy fence along the north property line, preserved detention basins and private maintenance of landscaping and accessways.
The Roscoe Plan Commission on June 11 voted to recommend approval of the Prairie Garden (also referenced as Prairie Rose) development plan to the Village Board after the applicant’s representatives described design revisions and staff reported that outstanding technical comments are minor.
The commission heard from Bridal Swanson, an Arc Design Resources representative for the project, and Jeff Lincolnheld, who joined remotely. Lincolnheld told commissioners, “This is Jeff Lincolnheld with Arc Design Resources. I'm mister Swanson's business partner,” and said he would support the project presentation in the applicant’s absence. Bridal Swanson said the application had been held over from the May meeting to allow the applicant to work with staff and address design concerns.
Commissioners and staff discussed several changes in the updated materials. Staff and the applicant said building elevations, windows and other materials were revised to address prior concerns. The applicant added a six‑foot privacy fence along the north property line and clarified that landscape areas and detention basins are included within the project and will be maintained by the property owner or homeowners association. The applicant said no internal sidewalks are proposed for the subsidiary private drives; the main recreational path that circles the larger development will remain in its current alignment and will not be extended through the new buildings. Evan, a planning staff member, noted that the existing loop path was approved under the original PUD and is a public‑use recreation easement that remains privately maintained by the homeowners association in that development.
Commissioners also asked whether driveways and the internal pavement would be public village roads; staff and the applicant confirmed the internal drives are private and will be privately maintained (including plowing and mowing). The applicant said the development provides a notable amount of green space and that detention areas are sized to accommodate both the new development and existing drainage.
After questions from commissioners and no additional public comment, the commission moved to recommend approval of the plan. The recommendation was presented to the Village Board as a positive staff and commission recommendation; the commission’s vote to recommend the plan to the Village Board was adopted during the meeting.
The applicant, identified at the meeting as Mister Pipitone, did not attend in person; Jeff Lincolnheld and Bridal Swanson represented the project. The commission’s recommendation does not itself approve construction; final approvals and any conditions will be decided by the Village Board and in subsequent permit processes.
