Loading...
2006-11-15 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 11/15/2006 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from November 1, 2006) BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION November 15, 2006 Village Transit Station Areas Plan Buffalo Grove and Prairie View Metra Station Areas Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Smith Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Commissions absent: Ms. Bocek Mr. Cohn Mr. Podber Also present: Mr. William Brimm, Village Manager Ms. Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Manager Mr. Barry Gore, Camiros Mr. Bruce Kahn, Village Trustee Mr. Steve Trilling, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Ms. Nidhi Vaid, Associate Planner Ms. Heather Tabbert, Regional Transportation Authority The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit 1: Concept Plan, Buffalo Grove Station area, undated Exhibit 2: Illustrative Site Plan, Site A, undated Exhibit 2A: Illustrative Site Plan: Typology, Site F, undated Exhibit 213: Illustrative Site Plan: Typology, Site D, undated Exhibit 2C: Illustrative Site Plan: Typology, Site G, undated Exhibit 3: Illustrative Site Plan: Rendering Exhibit 4: Computer Perspective Rendering Exhibit 5: Computer Perspective Rendering Exhibit 6: Photos of Similar Development Projects Exhibit 7: Photos of Similar Development Projects, Mundelein Exhibit 8: Circulation Plan Exhibit 9: Implementation& Policy Plan Exhibit 10: Letter from Charles Cohen and John Mink, School District 102 to Bill Brimm, dated November 1, 2006 Exhibit 11: Memo from Robert Pfeil to Plan Commission, dated November 9, 2006, Transit Station Area Plan RTAP/TOD Project, Buffalo Grove and Prairie View Metra Station Areas Mr. William Brimm stated this starts the process on the Buffalo Grove train station area plan and then back to Prairie View for any remaining questions. He thanked the members of the community for coming and noted the Village staff was here to answer any questions they had. Ms. Ghida Neukirch stated she would like to emphasize the issues raised at the last public hearing and then she wants to present new information, specifically as it relates to the Buffalo Grove station area. Ms. Neukirch stated that one of the most common questions received when this project began was why Buffalo Grove is doing this. She stated the Village is in the process of updating its 1998 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan sets forth land use designations and helps serve as a guide to the Village as it pursues development and re-development opportunities. For several years what they have heard from elected officials, residents and businesses is an interest in creating a "downtown" around the train stations. She noted they have heard of several models in Mt. Prospect, Arlington Heights and Deerfield and different communities that were creating what is called transit oriented development around their train stations. Trans oriented development is basically mixed use planning. She stated the Village wanted to review the feasibility of creating this mixed use plan around not only the Buffalo Grove station area but also around the Prairie View station area since that is part of the Comprehensive Plan and the future planning for the Village. Mr. Neukirch noted receipt of a grant from the RTA to help fund this initiative and stated the Village Board put together a steering committee which consisted of Village representatives, representatives from the RTA, Metra, PACE and Lake County. The process involved a great deal of public feedback through various meetings. Ms. Neukirch stated another question asked about the proposed residential developments around the train stations. She cited densities that are presented in other communities. The property at Milwaukee and Half Day Road has been approved and has 11 dwelling units per acre. Lincolnshire's downtown area ranges in densities from about 8.5 to 25 units per acre. Deerfield's South Commons area has 153 units for about 10.8 units and they go up to 73 units per acre as their highest density. Palatine ranges from about 28 units per acre to 79 units per acre. She noted they were interested in finding out the feasibility of creating this mixed use plan around the train station and what has been identified through the consulting team is that it is not only feasible, it is anticipated to be a very viable plan. She noted they would like to improve the PACE system. The PACE system as presented on the plan is depicting the PACE station to move to the east side of the tracks for greater efficiency She further stated they want to create mixed uses to compliment the double track systems of the train and create a pedestrian link to connect the whole system. It is a mixed use plan to create a community within a community. Ms. Neukirch stated the implementation portion of this plan has a gradual long-term implementation plan. She noted they have at least identified a plan which can help guide the Village in the planning process as it moves forward. Mr. Barry Gore of Camiros reviewed some slides previously presented at the public hearing. He once again noted that global warming, oil peaks, traffic congestion, population increases, long commutes and affordable housing are creating a need for better land planning and he believes the proposed plan can address all those issues in a small way. Mr. Gore received the Concept Plan for the Buffalo Grove train station stating they looked for potential opportunity sites at the train station that might be developed to land uses that are oriented toward the train station. That usually means mixed uses but also multi-family housing types and how dense they are actually depends on actual development proposals and what the housing market might bring. It also includes retail right next to the train station and in this area a small amount of office. He noted a couple of currently vacant properties which could be developed as a mix of housing a bit of retail. Mr. Gore reviewed the illustrative plans which tries to actually measure out to see if some buildings can fit, how they can be arranged and what sort of amenities can be placed there. This does not mean the actual development will end up like that but some of it is a good outline of how things might happen. Mr. Gore reviewed Site A which is the Concrete Erector site which is quite large and they planned for some single-family or three flat homes or townhouses so that they are complimentary to what is behind them right now. Mr. Gore stressed their assignment was to figure out if trans oriented development could be done here, which can be done, although they feel it will take a long time. He noted the first one that might go is an 8 acre, 270 unit development for about 30 units per acre on Site A. Mr. Gore reviewed Site F which is currently owned by PACE. The PACE facility includes a bus turnaround and a parking lot dedicated for commuter parking. He noted their plan is possibly for a retail building which would provide parking and a Walgreens. They also kept 95 commuter parking spaces next to the platform. What you end up with is a retail development for a Starbucks, deli, pizza joint, flowers and newspapers so that people heading to the train in the morning can park, walk, get a cup of coffee and get on the train. On the way home they would go back the other way, buy some flowers, pick up take out dinner, etc. He noted that is the kind of relationship they are looking for where you don't have people starting their cars and driving to get up to the retail and then restarting their cars to get home. Mr. Gore reviewed Site D which shows a relocation for PACE to the east side of the tracks. This plan is dependent on whether or not the Siemens Corporation and property owners are interested in pursuing this development. The benefit might also be for some new access for pedestrians to the station. Mr. Gore stated they are looking for an office development on Site G even though office development is not major at this time. They also feel the introduction of some residential in the midst of this industrial park might work. They have tried to build amenities into the plan with roof top plaza and parking underneath for both residents and office use as well as a food court and gathering spots. He noted that if it can go big enough and they create a community within a community, this could be a nice place to live. Mr. Gore stated they felt it would be a good idea to put into the plan things that the Village expects to have happen. One of the main ones is a roadway along the Com Ed power lines once there is re-development and added to the public right of way. Development proposals would also be required or expected to create a connection from the present bicycle path through to the station. One of the other important things is the ability to get access to the east platform. Mr. Gore stated they are suggesting a future land use plan noting the yellow would be residential, a yellow/red for mixed use development, red for retail development. There are also different phases. Phase 1 would be the movement of the PACE facility to the east side within the next five years. Also they have put Phase 1 on the Concrete Erector site which could perhaps be developed before some of the other ones. Phase 2 would be on the two vacant parcels at the intersection of Busch Parkway and Deerfield Parkway. Phase 3 encompasses where the Commerce Court Business Center is now and the MI Group as they are relatively new buildings. Chairman Ottenheimer summarized the letter from School District 102 dated November 2006 noting it basically indicates the school district is somewhat concerned with the types of development going in based upon the impact upon the schools in terms of the number of children it will produce in the schools versus the insignificant economic impact. They would like to see some high end condominiums in terms of improving the tax base. Commissioner Teplinsky asked Mr. Gore to address the comments and concerns of the school district. He asked what is envisioned for the type of mix of the residential component proposed. Will these be for people with families, empty nesters or what? Mr. Gore stated the way it appears to be happening in other towns is these units seem to be sold mostly to young professionals who do not necessarily have children or are just starting to have children as well as to people whose children have already left the house. That is the type of market that developers are looking at here especially at the Buffalo Grove station. The townhouse units may have a number of pre-school age children but in Buffalo Grove the school age children families seem to prefer the single-family home. Commissioner Teplinsky noted that with the number of new units that are being proposed he can understand why the school district would be concerned about substantially overburdening the schools with too many kids and feels it is very important to draw the distinction between apartments and single family residences. Commissioner Khan asked how much more population are we discussing between the 1998 Comprehensive Plan and this new plan. Mr. Gore stated these types of units are probably looking at something like 2-2 1/4 persons per dwelling unit. The Buffalo Grove station is similar in the number of people. He stated he cannot really compare it to the 1998 plan. He stated that especially around the Buffalo Grove station which is a very difficult property and especially east of the tracks he does not see it as something a lot of people with small children will be that interested in. He also noted that the school district's concern with a loss of income from conversion of industrial land to residential was somewhat lessened due to the fact that the two big sites that were looked at in the plan are vacant and do not provide all that much tax revenue. He also noted the conversion could take almost 20 years to accomplish and it will happen incrementally. Commissioner Khan asked if traffic or transportation engineers were worked with during the TOD plans to see if the Village's infrastructure is ready to accept this kind of traffic in the future. Mr. Gore noted he understands people are worried that the illustrative plans would bring a lot more traffic to Prairie View. In fact, it is Half Day Road being expanded from two lanes to four lanes that will bring more traffic through Prairie View. There have been many studies that show that if you expand the roadway then people will choose that road to travel on and it will be congested quickly. The overall traffic levels on any of the Village's roads will be much more affected by how much more low density development you see ten miles west of here than you will from this development. Commissioner Stark asked if any retail is perceived on the bottom levels of Sites A, B or C. Mr. Gore stated they do not think so for Site A. The only thing they put into the plan is a small amount of neighborhood convenience or perhaps a small restaurant at the very entrance from Deerfield Parkway. He noted they had a great deal of discussion about what would be the right amount of retail to get in here. The main thing is the exposure because there are people coming all day long to the train station does make it somewhat viable because it is very visible. The other big consideration is with the Village's goal to do more retail development along Milwaukee Avenue which is only a mile to the east. Commissioner Stark stated he feels that sections G, E and H could be used as a destination for people not in Buffalo Grove. He asked if U.S. Equities felt that some higher end restaurants could be supported in this area. Mr. Gore noted that area is at the intersection of Busch and Deerfield Parkway. He stated the main way to make that happen would be to build in some of the users, so basically dependent on people living up there in Site H. In Site G he noted they thought they could do some retail on the second level of the office building and have it come out onto the plaza. The big attraction here would be to make it a lunchtime destination for the many people working in the business park. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated between the Prairie View area and the Buffalo Grove area we are talking about an increase of about 3,700 new residents which is about a 9 percent increase over our current population. She noted only the plan for a small park in the Prairie View area and no others. She noted her concern about the strain on the library and other similar facilities for people especially park facilities. Mr. Gore noted there is good pedestrian access to the creek and the trail system and if you cross Deerfield Parkway then you are into some existing parks right there. He stated they tried to focus on creating some internal park spaces. On Site A they have both the pedestrian greenway and another parkway which is 40 x 330. He stated they were looking at more passive spaces and at the Buffalo Grove station they were focusing on internalizing that open space. On Site G they have a very large plaza space and on Site H they have a relatively large internal green space they are showing with a pool and tennis courts, and health club. Ms. Neukirch stated they did have an opportunity to meet with Mike Rylko, Executive Director of the Buffalo Grove Park District, and a request was made by him at the last public hearing to increase the green space on the 40 acre Stancliff property from 2 '/2 acres to 5 acres. At this station area he had no concerns with additional park space for the district to serve the residents in this area. Commissioner Smith noted there had been a suggestion made at one of the focus groups for a minor league type stadium which would be something different. He asked if it would be feasible here. Mr. Gore stated they have not seen them as part of stationary plans because with that type of stadium you would need parking next to it. That sort of land use would probably not be considered something that would generate transit riders. Everything about the plan, including the density of the developments and the land uses are their main focus for generating transit riders. That sort of recreational land use is not something they would consider to take up a lot of land around the train station. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. The public hearing was reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Gore stated that Prairie Crossing had previously been mentioned as a potential model. He stated it is very much in keeping with what they have in the plan for Prairie View. However, at a recent meeting with the developer of Prairie Crossing, it was noted they had over 600 acres to work with and the Stancliff property here would not be the right place for something like the Prairie Crossing development. Mr. Gore stated they have been talking to staff about the boundary agreement with Lincolnshire and they understand there is this boundary agreement and they are proposing to staff that in the implementation chapter they write a section about that stating that the Village of Buffalo Grove recognizes there is a boundary agreement and anticipates the densities will be followed unless at some future point the two villages decide they would entertain development proposals that were denser and then the plan east of the tracks could be referred to as a model for the way the densities might be arranged. Mr. David Panitch, School Board member of District 102, stated they are concerned about the density of children entering this area. They have done independent studies that have taken into consideration that this is something that will be developed. They do not have serious concerns as long as this development is over a long period of time. They would like some clarity on the demographics for the Prairie View area development. Mr. Gore stated Waterbury Place and Noah's Landing would be very similar to the proposed development for Prairie View. Mr. David Saltiel, Trustee for Village of Lincolnshire, stated the Plan Commission looks to the Comprehensive Plan for guidance. He noted he is troubled by the information in the report when the boundary agreement between the Villages may or may not be honored here. Mr. Saltiel stated they spent months negotiating with the Village of Buffalo Grove to come up with an agreement they could live with. The whole idea was that developers could not pit one Village against another. This plan basically takes a 6 unit per acre area and bumps it to 27 units per acre. He stated he is imploring the Plan Commission to understand that the planning and negotiations for the planning have already taken place with respect to those properties. There is no more negotiating. He further noted the reality is that developers come in, they look at the Comprehensive Plan and they make a decision. If it's in the Comprehensive Plan, they can do it. He asked the Plan Commission to abide with decisions that were made a year and a half ago because they were right then and they are still right now. Ms. Pam Newton, 18th District Representative of the Lake County Board, stated she is speaking on behalf of the county's land use plan for this area. A mixed use plan is different from a high density plan. This is a high density plan for the Prairie View area. She noted the regional plan commission who met to hear and deliberate this particular plan was never invited to vote and offer guidance as this is the jurisdiction of Lake County zoning. Ms. Newton stated Prairie View under the land use plan of Lake County reconsidered its framework and Comprehensive Plan just a few years ago. She noted she intended this land to remain in agreement with Lincolnshire as the low residential suburban community that it currently supports. She noted that a Comprehensive Plan is meant to be a land use guide for future development. She noted that if it is allowed on paper, it will come. This is what she cautions against. In closing Ms. Newton noted she studied the traffic commuter use and family use at Noah's Landing and she was surprised to see so many cars pulling out and indeed two cars pulled into the train station parking lot and took the train. This just shows you cannot control what users and how many people will occupy the units. Ms. Newton asked the Plan Commission to please respect the planning that has taken place previously. She also asked that the boundary agreement be respected. Mr. Ed Walters, 23171 Prairie Lane, stated there are five homes that have signed pre-annexation agreements with Lincolnshire and he wonders how the plan can show these properties as part of the plan. Ms. Neukirch stated the Village conducts a Comprehensive Plan update which takes into consideration unincorporated property around its jurisdiction. She stated it is not feasible for the Village to look and do research for all the pre-annexation agreements and not count those properties because those can always be withdrawn at any time as they are not binding annexation agreements. Mr. Gore noted the drawing just shows some new buildings but does not have a line showing whether they are in the Village of Buffalo Grove or whether they are in the Village of Lincolnshire. If those people are set against any sort of redevelopment here then the redevelopment shown on the plan will not happen. He further noted that at one of the workshops some of the owners of the properties which are mentioned tonight asked for higher densities than were negotiated in the boundary line agreement. Ms. Neukirch stated they do understand the boundaries as set forth in the boundary agreement with the Village of Lincolnshire. She stated what they wanted to do here is because those properties immediately north and south of Brockman in the boundary agreement are designated for the Village of Lincolnshire, they wanted to round out those areas for future planning. She noted what they heard from property owners, builders and anyone who has come forward even at this time is should anyone want to pursue any kind of development for this property, obviously we have a boundary agreement and they have to talk to the owners first and foremost to find out the availability of that property. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that what is being said here is that the plan is not a done deal. It is a concept only in idea and not in specifics. The Village of Buffalo Grove has no intention of voluntarily violating any boundary agreement or making any homeowner do anything against their will. This is for illustrative purposes only and is not a specific, concrete plan. Mr. Walters asked how you can get a good idea of what to vote on if property that is not available for that development is part of the plan. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that is all part of how the Comprehensive Plan works. These are the long range goals and this is what our future planning goals contemplate. Whether it comes to fruition is questionable. Mr. William Brimm stated he would like to reaffirm that while these properties are subject to pre-annexation agreements, they are still in a state of flux. Overall, they are following the guidance in State statutes and looking at unincorporated properties that are within a mile or mile and a half of our municipal boundaries. Those statutes suggest responsible planning and part of responsible planning is looking at unincorporated properties to mitigate and minimize isolated pockets that are not planned for. We acknowledge and respect the boundary and planning agreement and we will continue to work within the framework that has been negotiated. Mr. Walters noted that with all the densities being put there, there will be a lot of additional traffic which is already quite heavy. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that any time a development comes before the Plan Commission and into the Village of Buffalo Grove, we have a series of workshops where the Plan Commission reviews the plans and takes into account a number of considerations, most significantly traffic studies. If the Plan Commission is convinced that traffic will be significantly impacted in a negative way, we have the right to reject that proposal or we have the right to recommend that certain changes are made in a plan for traffic patterns so as to minimize the negative impact on the area. Mr. Don Jespersen, 16406 Route 22, stated Mr. Gore's presentation struck an important note that continues to be overlooked which is global warming. What Mr. Gore is trying to help us appreciate is that as a planning commission you have the opportunity to look at what will be best for our children and grandchildren. We must all think about trains that will run on some type of energy that will reduce air pollution. The high density areas designed around train stations are going to have to be implemented if we are to address our future. He recounted the story of an area surrounded by Niles, Des Plaines and Glenview that wanted to retain their view of cornfields which eventually disappeared all around them and who are now facing the problem of no way to repair aging sewers and water mains and streets and cannot receive help from anyone. What is happening is that developers are now trying to buy the properties but not at fair market value. Mr. Jespersen also asked if the Village of Buffalo Grove would go back to IDOT and ask them to straighten out the mess they have created at the closed crossing. He noted the residents there have a legitimate problem which will only get worse in the future. Ms. Robin Stiebel, 23065 Prairie Road, stated that the residents are self sufficient in the water issue. She noted some people have already gone to Lincolnshire water and the rest are still on well and septic and therefore water is not the problem for Prairie View. Ms. Thomas Driscoll, 23071 Prairie Lane, stated the problem Mr. Jespersen is referring to is the inability to make a left turn going north on Prairie Road. It will be a huge bottleneck and will force traffic through the Kris View Acres subdivision. He further noted that the statement about the study conducted into the Stevenson population stated it would shortly peak and then start to drop. However, that study did not take into account the new developments because the study was based on demographics of existing homes only. That is a concern that should be noted. Commissioner Smith asked Trustee Saltiel if his testimony was personal opinion or the Board's opinion. Mr. Saltiel noted he told his Board he would be here and it is the opinion of the Board. Commissioner Smith asked once again if any parcels came before the Buffalo Grove Plan Commission and passed would eventually have to go before Lincolnshire for further approval. Mr. Raysa stated the agreement with Lincolnshire would have to be amended. Mr. Saltiel stated that does create a problem. First, developers look to the Comprehensive Plan as their bible and they do hold it up to note exactly what they are going to do. When you have a Comprehensive Plan like that is inviting proposals like that. Secondly, it creates an issue for the Lincolnshire Village Board if the Comprehensive Plan is approved with a plan that inconsistent with the boundary agreement. It will force them to make certain decisions that they would wish not to make. Therefore, they are asking that at this stage and at the Village Board stage it be addressed appropriately and show in the Comprehensive Plan the densities that appear in the boundary agreement with appropriate references to the boundary agreement. Commissioner Smith asked how Mr. Gore would follow up on that testimony regarding meeting the boundary agreement provisions which apparently would not be possible in this plan. Mr. Gore stated the only thing he can suggest is to discuss with staff whether or not to put the illustrative concept in the final document or not. He further noted that the Concept Plan is somewhat the same as what we call the implementation and policy plan. The Concept Plan says for the Stancliff property, which is Site G, is for a single-family residential subdivision with a substantial public open space component on the 40-acre site at Port Clinton Road. He noted many Comprehensive Plans do not have illustrative drawings at all and they are only future land use and statements like this. Ms. Neukirch stated if it is the Plan Commission's direction to staff this evening to be consistent with boundary agreement, they would suggest is taking the detail plans out of this document and just having a designation of single-family residential for the Stancliff property and then multi-family. She noted what they wanted to do with this plan is to look to the feasibility of what are better and more enhanced uses that could be considered around the train which is what this plan addresses. It is not meant to contradict any past agreements that we had. If the Plan Commission wants us to just have a plan that is consistent with the boundary agreement, we can take out the detailed drawings and just leave the references to single-family and multi-family. Commissioner Smith stated it is his personal opinion that is the way he would like to go because he could not vote for this and totally disregard the agreement that we have. Mr. Gore stated he and his team worked very hard on this plan and their assignment was to try to see whether or not transit oriented development could be done at the Buffalo Grove station and Prairie View station. What we are hearing from the Village of Lincolnshire is why are you doing a plan now that is not in agreement with that boundary line agreement. However, he asks the question as to what the density was in that boundary line agreement based on and what consideration was given to the fact that there is a regional transit facility directly across the street. Mr. Gore stated a good place to put multi-family residential development is across the street from a train station. He also wants to clarify that they pushed the envelope on the Stancliff property deliberately to see what peoples' feelings on that would be and they put it up to 2.9 dwelling units per acre. His personal feeling as a professional planner is that is nowhere near dense enough for what it should be next to a train station such as this. The fact that .9 dwelling units per acre is going to lead to some kind of fight between the two villages is unfortunate. He also noted they revised the dwelling units north of Brockman where they remeasured the property. South of Brockman where they had 23 dwelling units per acre on what was 6 units per acre. This is not a huge property at about 4 '/2 acres. The fact that they cannot even fit an apartment building in next to the train station is not good regional planning. Mr. Brimm stated they have heard the intent of what has been suggested. He noted they are respectful of the boundary agreement with Lincolnshire and believe that it should be maintained and recommend it be seriously considered. He further noted they will continue to support the densities and types of mixed uses that have been suggested on the west side of the railroad tracks which they believe is appropriate. Commissioner Khan asked how many years to boundary agreement is good for. Mr. Brimm noted it is open ended. Commissioner Khan asked if that is 20 years or 30 years and asked if there is an automatic turnoff time on an open ended agreement. Mr. Raysa stated the agreement is in effect for 20 years with extensions available every five years. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 11/15/2006 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION November 15, 2006 Amendment of the Village Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the Provisions of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 IL,CS 5/11-12-7) concerning Village Transit Station Areas Plan Buffalo Grove and Prairie View Metra Station Areas Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 9:50 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Smith Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Commissioner absent: Ms. Bocek Mr. Cohn Mr. Podber Also present: Mr. William Brimm, Village Manager Ms. Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Manager Mr. Barry Gore, Camiros Mr. Bruce Kahn, Village Trustee Mr. Steve Trilling Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Ms. Nidhi Vaid, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the public hearing minutes of November 1, 2006. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Stark stated he attended the Village Board meeting on November 6, 2006 and there were no referrals to the Plan Commission. TRANSIT STATION AREAS PLAN: AMENDMENT OF THE VILLAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL CODE(65 ILCS 5/11-12-7) Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Khan to recommend approval to the Village Board of the Comprehensive Plan proposal for the Buffalo Grove station. Commissioner Teplinsky stated the Buffalo Grove station proposal is far thinking and it achieves the goals which need to be achieved and addressed. With respect to the school district issue he does not feel this is something that needs to be addressed at this time but he agrees that the type of residential development which seems to be proposed probably tends not to encourage a lot of school age children. It is a terrific mix of residential and commercial and will allow the Village to really take advantage of the train station area and he will support the plan. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated she is conflicted with this plan. She noted she understands the goals of a transit oriented district but is concerned with dumping about 2000 people into a relatively small area which will be too many people in the area and the traffic that will be generated will be too heavy. These people will not just be going to work. They also have to go to the grocery store or church or other things. This will increase traffic in that area tremendously. She also stated they had thought Noah's Landing would be for empty nesters and we were disappointed. She is fearful that the same thing could happen here. It is a nice plan but she cannot go with it unless it is scaled back somewhat. Commissioner Stark stated he likes the concept and it will be a jewel in the Village which will attract businesses and will be good for the tax base. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he likes the concept but one of his concerns has always been about retail only around the station. That implies it may be busy Monday through Friday during prime commuting hours but then dead on the weekends which would not help the viability of businesses. Therefore he is a proponent of the development around the Buffalo Grove station. He stated you need a proper mix of business and residential as one will not exist without the other which is the true meaning of mixed use development. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Smith, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Ottenheimer NAYS:: Kenski-Sroka ABSENT: Bocek, Cohn, Podber ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 5 to 1. Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval to the Village Board of the Prairie View station area Comprehensive Plan, subject to the plan being amended to remove detailed plans and make it consistent with the Lincolnshire boundary agreement so that it identifies the Stancliff property as being single-family residential at 2 units per acre. Commissioner Khan stated he would like to add that if the two properties mentioned do not develop during the term of the agreement with Lincolnshire then we should reconsider at that time. Chairman Ottenheimer noted there has been a motion by Commissioner Khan to the effect that if these projects are not developed while there exists a boundary agreement between the Village of Buffalo Grove and the Village of Lincolnshire, these projects come back again for reconsideration without the boundary agreement consideration. Chairman Ottenheimer seconded the amendment. Commissioner Teplinsky stated he does not want anything to be construed that would prohibit the Village from revisiting the Comprehensive Plan during the term of the boundary agreement and this type of limiting language might be interpreted to tie our hands at some point in the future. He stated he feels we should be able to go back and revisit the plan whenever the plan is to be revisited regardless of whether the boundary agreement is still in effect and he would not be in favor of this amendment. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion for amendment to approve subject to the boundary agreement and the vote was as follows: AYES: Khan, Ottenheimer NAYS:: Smith, Kenski-Sroka, Teplinsky, Stark ABSENT: Bocek, Cohn, Podber ABSTAIN: None The motion was defeated 4 to 2. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the original motion stands Commissioner Teplinsky stated he likes the plan and in particular the fact that the Prairie View area is to remain unique in character. He has no reason to disbelieve the need for this sort of development around transit stations. With respect to the boundary agreement, it has been his understanding that there is a mechanism in the agreement to allow us to go back to the Village of Lincolnshire in the event we want to pursue something that may not be consistent with that agreement. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Smith, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Ottenheimer NAYS: Kenski-Sroka ABSENT: Bocek, Cohn, Podber ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 5 to 1. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman Ottenheimer thanked the commission for a lot of hard work during this process but it is a significant and major component of our Comprehensive Plan. Also he wanted to reiterate that a Comprehensive Plan is not a definite but merely a framework by which the commission can plan for the future. He also thanked staff for their hard work and dedication and for giving the commission the tools to help make an informed decision. He also thanked the public for their input which is necessary in order to move forward and to make what he hopes is the right and proper decision now and in the future. FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil noted that the next meeting will be held on December 6, 2006. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS -None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Khan and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair