Loading...
1980-03-24 - Village Board Committee of the Whole - Minutes SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS, HELD MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1980, AT THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD, BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS. President Clayton called the meeting to order at 9:00 P.M. Mr. Balling explained that the purpose of the Water Workshop this evening is to bring the Board up to date in a presentational form on the status of the Northwest Suburban Water System Venture, of which the Village is a charter member, and also the latest inquiries by the DMAP Water Commission in their interest in the Village of Buffalo Grove as a purveyor of lake water. He stated that Volume II Fiscal and Technical Studies by the Water Venture have been distributed, and are on file in the Clerk's office. Mr. Balling stated that the Village has been asked by the Board of Directors of the Water Venture to evaluate the Volume II study and report back to the Board of Directors in writing by May 7, 1980, as to the preferences on the engineering and financial alternatives which were presented in the Phase II report. Mr. Balling stated that tonight 's presentation would be a broad summary of the technical aspects of the engineering; the financial considerations; and a brief presentation on the DMAP contract, which is an alternative to the Venture. Mr. Boysen then explained the water routing, and other technicalities. In summary, Mr. Boysen stated that the staff would recommend that the Board direct the Village representative on the Board of Directors of the Northwest Suburban Water System to report that the Village of Buffalo Grove recommends approval and acceptance of the engineering report as submitted, providing a preference is cited for the alternate deed transmission main on the basis of this being the minimum cost alternative identified in the study. Also to be highlighted would be that the preferred principal point of delivery would be Well #7 site, and the preferred route of delivery to that site would be from the currently proposed point of entry to the Village at the Southwest corner, along Dundee Road, east- erly, then northerly up Buffalo Grove Road. This routing would be the most cost effective. Mr. Balling also noted some benefits of the proposed routing system. He cited the memo of March 3, 1980 from Mr. Neumayer, which compares the Venture Phase II and the Share Plus 3 alternatives. Mr. Brimm then gave an overview on the report of the fiscal consultant. He said that the basic scope of the Nuveen Phase II work was to review alternatives for organizational structure for the project, review project risks, alternative rate systems, come up with some conclusions and a summary of Phase II , and leave some room for thought before proceeding on to Phase III . Discussion took place on the various ways for Buffalo Grove to obtain the most cost effective manner of routing to the Village. Mr. Neumayer also highlighted the financial considerations involved in each alternative. Mr. Balling then explained that the DMAP Water Commission was originally formed between the towns of Des Plaines, Mount Prospect, Arlington Heights, and Palatine. Des Plaines has since terminated their relationship with the Commission. Mr. Balling stated that it would be in Buffalo Grove's interest to seek full member- ship in the DMAP Water Commission. The contract indicates that they will provide Buffalo Grove with two service points . `.' ' COMMITTEE OF E WHOLE MARCH 24, 1980 PAGE TWO The first contract discussed was. DMAP/Evanston. Mr.Balling stated that Evanston would not be able to provide for the contract service area without capital expansion. This contract does not provide for automatic renewal . The second document discussed was the DMAP/Chicago source. Mr. Balling stated that the key issue of this contract is the firm storage capacity. The third document studied was the DMAP/Buffalo Grove contract. The overall comment here is that there is not sufficient data available to make a decision at this point. It is strongly felt that Buffalo Grove should seek an expanded construction commitment from DMAP. Mr. Balling stated that, in the Progress Report #4, which is the Department of Transportation report, many of the elements are consistent with Buffalo Grove planning and water venture planning. Mr. Balling stated that they wish to take Board comments back to the DMAP Water Commission. Trustee Hartstein stated that he thinks the Board might benefit by some reflection and review of the reports which have been made tonight. Mr. Baling stated that a follow-up meeting would be scheduled in April . President Clayton asked if there were any additional comments on the DMAP contract. Trustee Hartstein stated that he felt the Village Attorney should review the contract. Trustee Marienthal asked if there were any cost involvement. Mr. Balling stated that there have been no request for money at this point. FIORE/HILLTOWN Mr. Sommer stated that the plan submitted in October would not have an adverse affect on the Village's systems, subject to the recommendations of the Harland- Bartholomew report. Mr. Sommer then highlighted the points in the report from staff dated March 20, 1980, on file in the Clerk's office. Mr. Mikes explained what had been done since the last time they met with the Board. He said they believe this plan meets the objectives desired. Mr. John Kinley highlighted some of the goals for development of the Village, and pointed out how they feel they have complied with these goals. One of the goals of the Village is that the overall land use distribution shall be developed in a manner which will insure an economic balance residential , commercial , office and in- dustrial land use. Mr. Kinley stated that this is the key to what he wants to talk about tonight. He stated that, in line with the Bartholomew report, they have taken a closer look and have substantially changed all of the land use allocations on the western portion of the property, and have no density shown along that area that is greater than 2. 5 dwelling units per acre. Along with the request to lower the intensity of land use along the northern border of the property, they now have 5-7 dwelling units per acre rather than 8-10, and then move into the open space. The IOR area adjacent to Prairie View should be clearly `./ defined and should be done in such a manner so as to preserve the Prairie View area. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MARCH 24, 1980 PAGE THREE The multi-family at the intersection of Route 22 and Prairie Road had been 12-14 to the acre and now has been reduced to 8-10 dwelling units per acre to accommodate a lower density townhouse type of development. Mr. Kinley stated that the original plan showed approximately 120 acres of open space, with 2,933 dwelling units . They are now showing 118 acres of open space, with 2,400 dwelling units . They have created three useable open space areas that are outside of the flood plain. Mr. Kinley illustrated the ways they had changed the character of the development along Route 22. Mr. Kinley stated that one point raised was that the utilities be placed under ground, and he said that they concur with that. Also, it was stated that there should be open space linkage, and he said that they certainly concur with that. Mr. Kinley then pointed out the changes which they had made in the road networks. They have tried to establish a rural character on a substantial portion of this land. He said that, on this plan, there are about 289 acres of land devoted to single family uses that are less than 2.5 units per acre. Trustee Hartstein raised two points of concern: the fact that there is not now a green belt area as there was in the first plan; and the feasibility of servicing the area north of Port Clinton Road. It was stated that 3.5 units per acre has the most economic disadvantages to all agencies involved. Trustee Hartstein stated that his main point of concern is the impact on the school districts. He feels there are only two ways to realistically deal with the problem: one is to make an absolute contingency that the property can only be annexed if the districts can be realigned; the other is to restudy the location of some of the IOR and commercial property. Trustee Stone commented that the fiscal impact on the school districts must be determined first. The financial consultant for the developer stated that, upon completion of the development, without realignment, there would be a positive fiscal impact on District 96 of between $750,000 and $850,000 per year. Trustee Marienthal stated that he has spoken with Mr. Mikes concerning specific areas, and he feels there has been some agreement reached on certain concerns. 1 . The two areas at the top which show 7 dwelling units to the acre - the developer has agreed to 4 or 5 dwelling units to the acre on both of those pods. 2. The pod of single family that is surrounded on two sides by 1 acre estate zoning - the developer has agreed to changing that 21 .7 acres to 1 acre zoning. 3. The area to the bottom on the single family where it. shows 2.5 dwelling units to the acre - the developer has agreed to 2.2 dwelling units per acre on this 24 acre parcel . ' COMMITTEE OF IRE WHOLE MARCH 24, 1980 PAGE FOUR 4. Regarding the C & 0 which is next to the single-family attached - there would be an additional 7. 5 acres of C & 0 which would be directed to the west. 5. Regarding the small portion of commercial on the bottom - there has to be a continuation of the particular park site, that being the prairie effect, the creek that runs through the area and the bike path that runs through the area, and approximately 4 acres of that commercial would become a park; possibly there would be no commercial there at all . If this took place, the dwelling units for the parcel of property would be 2,230, which would be a reduction in density of approximately 500 persons. Mr. Mikes said that he could speak for the developer, and that the developer would agree to those changes , assuming that is the extent of them, and that is a basis from which the Plan Commission can conduct hearings. Trustee Kavitt asked about the possibility of stopping development north of Port Clinton Road. Mr. Mikes responded that the backbone improvements for this parcel are in excess of $8,000,000 at this point, all of which have to be done just to begin considering the development of the IOR; therefore, it would not be feasible to halt develop- ment at Port Clinton Road. Trustee Hartstein stated that, at the very least, there could be, as part of the annexation agreement, some type of staged annexation so that the property north of Port Clinton Road would not be developed until all portions of the property to the south had been developed. Mr. Hartstein emphasized that he is speaking of staged annexation , not just phasing of development. President Clayton asked that each Trustee give their comments on the concerns that have been expressed. Trustee Marienthal 's concerns are noted above. Trustee Hartstein 's concerns are: the general density north of Port Clinton Road; making some switches with regard to having a positive fiscal impact on District 96; the green space connections. Trustee Stone stated that he primarily agrees with some of the changes suggested by Trustee Marienthal in terms of changes in density; regarding the school district, he feels that realignment should definitely be pursued, but he thinks we have to realistically look at what that total financial impact is going to be before we make annexation contingent upon realignment; regarding the green belt , he feels there is sufficient open space. Trustee Marienthal stated that, regarding the Park District, they want some capital improvement to be included in the park system itself. The developer has agreed to work this out with the Park District. Also, Mr. Marienthal stated that this particular piece of property can be very unique from the point of landscaping because of the amount of shrubbery available. Mr. Marienthal also feels that there may be some capital improvements to be upfronted by the developer when it comes to Village services , such as another public service center. Regarding the school district, Mr. Mikes told Mr. Marienthal that he feels realignment will be able to be attained. Mr. Mikes also suggested that the developer might upfront money to the school district in the interim period of time when there might be a deficit; this money would be over and above the school donation. Mr. Mikes stated `./ that they would discuss this; he also stated that at the point where there is a positive impact, they would expect some type of recapture. • • ' COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MARCH 24, 1980 PAGE FIVE Trustee O' Reilly feels that the overall density will have an environmental impact on the existing community; she feels that the fiscal impacts in the Harland- Bartholomew report are grossly inaccurate; she does not think that the IOR areas are logical or feasible; she feels that the largest impact of this development will be on Lake County people, and specifically District 96 people, and they will feel it in both their pocketbooks and in the environment. Trustee Hartstein stated that Trustee Marienthal 's comments regarding contribu- tions for capital improvements are well taken. He still feels quite strongly about the intense use north of Port Clinton Road. Mr. Hartstein's most significant concern is the impact on the school district, and he feels the phasing must be very tight in order to insure viability. Assuming some of these concerns could be worked out, he feels this plan could work. Trustee Kavitt would also like to see the entire area north of Port Clinton Road eliminated. He also agrees with Trustee Marienthal regarding capital improve- ments. He is not that concerned about the green belt connection. He also feels that a crucial element is the fiscal impact on School District #96. Mr. Kinley said that they are still flexible in terms of relocation of land uses . President Clayton stated that the Board would have to have the impact analysis before the plan could be sent on to the Plan Commission. The impact would have to be on the plan shown tonight, after it is revised. President Clayton stated that there would be another meeting on April 7, 1980, and all the fiscal impacts would have to be available and studied by staff at that time. Mr. Mikes asked if they should begin discussions with the school districts. President Clayton stated that those discussions could begin. Mr. Sommer stated that they should also contact the Park District so that there will be input from them at the April 7, 1980 meeting. Trustee Marienthal stated that he wants the school board to look closely at the suggestion of two more school sites. Moved by Stone, seconded by Kavitt, to adjourn the meeting. Upon voice vote, the motion was unanimously carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :20 P.M. 11• gutaLmt Janet M. Irabian, Village Clerk -.smi_...�,w®v _z_„>.4:.w. tw:s :.r«nr+iC ..::._ ,.•',za'..:.k, wLw.:r:�.� :w:. i.-.. w�r :. ,..Y,.: ia:G©r.+ ;...u.:r-.w.+-er. vw.;.:,.,.a.o.,.....,. :s•.aru';'s"il'i6Ailirra. 4 • VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE c4).1' VILLAGE BOARD ;w. PLANNING GOALS WORKSHOP �✓'�%'' Thursday, April 3, 1980 ' /) 7:30 P. M. - 10:00 P. M. Upper Level Conference Room ci INTRODUCTION (President Clayton) Objective: The Village is at a turning point of negotiation for the development of Citrust/Hilltown. It is essential that the Village Board fully and clearly articulate its goals to the developer to insure the attainment of Village planning policy. II MUNICIPAL PLANNING POLICIES - A staff observation (Balling and Sommer) • A What do the accepted goals for Buffalo Grove say and how can these assist us in dealing with the subject property ? (Sommer) • • B How could these goals be translated into planning and land uses? (Balling) Infrastructure 1) Subzone 1 (south) densities known to Buffalo Grove and those which respect Long Grove boundaries. Economy 2) Subzone 2 (central) lowest densities; buffered densities and industrial ratables. Amenities 3) Subzone 3 tnorth) relating a density which most closely reflects regional planning policy - Exclusive development or no development - Special service district for core infrastructure. III VILLAGE BOARD CRITIQUE AND BRAINSTORMING SESSION (Balling and Sommer) Objective: By critiquing the staff perspective, how does the Village Board perceive the annexation? A Specifically, what are the reasons the Village Board is pursuing this annexation? (list) ryefr�`+.-aDAM3 CAA � 4yb...r,.w_..F�.^raasti-aw..e.:.,ae�r.,.:,ro�.vraaiil:,ra5nc- _.,xT..rse12***.a+sr • • / Village Board Planning Goals Workshop April 3, 1980 • Page Two • B What are the goals the Board has for the disposition of this property and why? • C What specific land uses does the Board favor for this property and why? IV CONCLUSION Objectives: By the Board's own perspective what does it feel its • bottom line is for development of this property and how should this be expressed? A Project minimums 1) Population 2) Density (with or without structural restrictions) 3) Total dwelling units/maximum ORI floor area 4) Land use dist. by % of project 5) Economic threshold - developer 6) Economic threshold - Village & public agencies • Lee