Loading...
1981-04-29 - Plan Commission - Minutes REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION Chatham Manor Steeple View Plaza Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Town Center Retail Proposal April 29, 1981 Mr. Button called the Regular Meeting to order in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove at 7:35 P.M. on April 29, 1981. Commissioners Present: Mr. Goldspiel Mr. Glover Mrs. Reid Mrs. Kaszubowski Mr. Button Mr. Shifrin, arrived at 7?40 P.M. Mrs. Sheldon, arrived at 8:15 P.M. Commissioners Absent: Mr. Shields Mr. Davis Commissioner Goldspiel made a motion that Mr. Button, Secretary, serve as Chairman of the meeting, in the absence of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Commissioner Kaszubowski seconded. Approval was unanimous. Also Present: Mr. A. T. Henderson, Developer, Steeple View Plaza Mr. D. B. Miller, Traffic Analyst, Steeple View Plaza Mr. W. L. Meinholz, Engineer, Steeple View Plaza Mr. R. L. Anastacio, Architect, Steeple View Plaza Mr. A. R. Putrenieks, Investor, Steeple View Plaza Mr. J. R. Sloan, Attorney, Steeple View Plaza Mr. M. Gitlitz, Attorney, Town Center Mr. H. Eisenberg, Ken Tucker and Assoc. , Town Center Mr. J. Lindgren, Traffic Analysis, Town Center Mr. Stern, Tax Impact Analyst, Town Center Mr. J. Schudt, Engineer, Town Center Mr. J. Winstead, Architect, Town Center Mr. R. Borwn, Jewel Real Estate, Town Center Messrs. Brim and Katz , Consultants, Town Center Mr. C. R. Knoche, Jewel Construction Director, Town Center Mr. J. Marienthal, Trustee l Mr. W. Raysa, Village Attorney v Mr. R. Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. J. Truesdell, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Reid moved approval of the A pril 1, 1981 minutes subject to correction. Commissioner Kaszubowski seconded. Regular Meeting - Page 3 Top: Poll was 5 - 1. Page 6, Vote on Motion to re-appoint Commissioners Goldspiel, Sheldon and Shifrin: Those Commissioners Abstained. Page 5, last line: more should be imove. Voice vote was unanimous approval. (Goldspiel, Glover, Reid Kaszubowski) Abstain: Commissioner Button. 1 - 2 - Commissioner Glover moved approval of the A pril 1, 1981 Public Hearing minutes subject to corrections with Commissioner Kaszubowski seconding. Page 2, Paragraph 1: Change Lake Cook Roads to Lake Street. Page 4, Paragraph 12; add after garage doors, "which would be all along the back of each single story build- '. ing. " Voice Vote was unanimous approval. (Goldspiel, Glover, Reod, Kaszubowski Shifrin) Abstain; Commissioner Button. Commissioner Reid moved approval of the A pril 15, 1981 Regular Meeting minutes subject to correction with Commissioner Glover seconding. Page 3, paragraph 3, line 3: change invision pedestrain to envision pedestrain; Page 4, delete paragraphs 5, 6, and 7. Voice Vote was unanimous approval. (Goldspiel, Glover, Reid, Kaszubowski, Shifrin ) Abstain: Commissioner Button. Commissioner Kaszubowski moved approval of the A pril 15, 1981 Cedar View, Public Hearing with Commissioner Reid seconding subject to corrections. Page 2, paragraph 11; finish last sentence "in the front portion of the property. " Page 2, paragrapy 7: change Mayor Bryan's to Mayor Ryan's; also add to the last sentence "that they had no objection to the office development as it was not against the Buffalo Grove/Arlington Heights agreement. Page 3, paragraph 2: strike - At the present time and make it "Under the proposed plan . . . " Page 3, paragraph 10: change plan to play. Page 3, paragraph 11; finish last sentence to read sworn in. "as he is not testifying to the facts, but stating his client's case. " Voice vote was unanimous approval. (Goldspiel, Glover, Reid, Kaszubowski. Shifrin) Abstain: Commissioner Button. Commissioner Glover moved approval of the April 15, 1981 - Town Center Public Hearing with Commissioner Kaszubowski seconding subject to corrections. Page 2, paragraph 4: Change Father to Father Duffy. Page 3, paragraph 2: Delete Mr. Lindgren's statement and insert "They should be ticketed. " Page 3, paragraph 6, change invision to envision. Page 3, paragraph 10: Add "At the time of the Town Center Proposal, there was a promise that it would not compete with the existing commercial developments in the Village, because of limitations of the uses at the Town Center. " Page 4, Paragraph 14: Add after Buffalo Grove Roads "with sewer. " Page 5, paragraph 3, Line 6 delete "not" - Commissioner Glover does oppose. . .also Line 9 of the same paragraph delete "well as to. " Page 6, paragraph 5, change impass to impasse. Voice Vote was unanimous approval. Abstain: Commissioner Button. Commissioner Glover moved approval of the April 15, 1981 Revision to Article XI, Section 6 of the Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance Public Hearing, subject to correstions with Commissioner Shifrin seconding. Last paragraph: add to first sentence - "as no persons present wished to be heard. " Voice vote was unanimous approval. Abstain: Commissioner Button. Com COMMUNICATIONS - Mr. Marienthal reported: One phone call was received from the President of the Association in Arlington Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting April 29, 1981 - 3 - Heights that backs up to the development that was approved by this Board. He felt that some of the people that spoke that evening, spoke inappropriately for the Association, wherein they said they would consider legal action. The gentleman said he felt it was the majority feeling of the Association, that they were happy with what had transpired at the Plan Commission Meeting. BDDC and TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - No reports. Commissioner Kaszubowski moved that the order be reversed on the Agenda; and that Item C be considered at this time. Commissioner Glover seconded. Unani- mous approval. C Final Plat of Subdivision - Chatham Manor, Unit No. 1 Mr. Truesdell noted the two comments made in the letter from Mr. Kuenkler 1. Add a 1" to 100' scale. 2. Interior angles should be delineated on the Plat. Commissioner Goldspiel noted the revision is not dated. The surveyor's seal is dated. Mr. Joseph McBride, Surveyor stated it is normal to have the surveyor date a Plat. If a revision is made, the surveyor will re-date and re-sign the Plat. Commissioner Goldspiel asked that the Staff determine this proitively for future reference. He asked if the Plat is of a model home area basically? If so, why is there no areas dedicated for a part and detention? Mr. Kuenkler stated that the Annexation Agreement usually specifies that the park will be plated and dedicated along with, or not later than Phase No. 2. Mr. Truesdell explained that the preliminary annexation agreement has with it the basic plan, and Weiland Road, the Park and Detention area are indicated as Phase No. 1 but not required for platting. Mr. Kuenkler stated that the detention and Weiland Road will be off-site improvements to Phase No. 1. He was not certain when it would be platted and dedicated. Mr. Raysa clarified the situation by stating the owner did not own the whole parcel, and could not take up the option until a later time. The Annexation Agreement did state they would approve that property as off-site. Commissioner Glover recommended the Plan Commission approve the final plat for the Subdivision Chatham Manor, Unit No. 1; dated April 24, 1981, subject to: Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting April 29, 1981 } - 4 - a. the addition of the scale 1 inch is equal to 100 feet. b. delineation of the interior angles on the boundary of the Plat. Commissioner Kaszubowski seconded the motion. Discussion followed: Commissioner Goldspiel wanted to make sure that all the angles had been checked out because it was a very difficult arc to follow. Mr. McBride said that this was part of a computer program which automatically gives the read-out of all angles. He assured that the plat closed. Mr. Kuenkler said there was really nothing missing on the plat. All the information is given. Commissioner Button stated that the ordinance requires interior angles to be shown on curvalinear markings. Voice vote was unanimous approval. Motion passed 5 to 0. The plat will be signed later. Commissioner Shifrin moved the regular meeting be adjourned and reconvened at the close of the Public Hearing. Commissioner Goldspiel seconded. Un- animous approval. Commissioner Sheldon reconvened the Regular Meeting at 9:45 P.M. Commissioner Shifrin moved the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board the following procedures with respect to the Steeple View Plaza Planned Development dated April 20, 1981; Plan C: 1. Out Lot A - Recommend Annexation and Zoning to B 3; and Site Plan Approval 2. Out Lot B - Recommend Rezoning to B 3 Zoning; and Site Plan Approval 3. Out Lot C - Recommend Rezoning to B 3; subject to Use and Site Plan Approval at a later date 4+. Out Lot D - Recommend Annexation and Zoning to B 3; subject to Use and Site Plan Approval at a later date. Commissioner Kaszubowski seconded the motion. Discussion followed. Commissioner Button stated there was some virtue in restricting the uses of Out Lots C and D. He would like to amend the motion to include a necessary 2/3 majority vote on future uses when recommended. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting April 29, 1981 • - 5 - Mr. Henderson agreed to this restriction and added that they will co-operate with the Commission's proposed uses in the future. Mr. Raysa said Lots A, B, and C should only be a majority because of the Annexation agreement. Mr. Marienthal said the Village Board had seen the specified uses for A, B, and C. They did not want the developer to have all the uses open to B 3 Zoning. The corner is a Gateway to Buffalo Grove. Careful consideration should be given to use. Commissioner Button suggested that the recommendation include that the Annexation Agreement reflect the agreement of the developer with the Village that when Out Lots C and D are planned in the future; that the developer agrees that the site planning and use be approved by a 2/3 majority vote by the Plan Commission. Commissioner Goldspiel proposed that Out Lots C and D be placed adjacent to each other; and the driveway be moved to the North end of Out Lot D. He is concerned with the commercial use that could be planned on the size of Lot C or Lot D because the kind of use desired typically has a larger frontage than either of these lots. If the driveway is moved to the North edge of the property, it would then line up better with the Town Center. Commissioner Kaszubowski felt this would force the developer to develop these lots as one property. The Commission tended to agree with her. Commissioner Button made the following amendment to the motion. The Plan Commission recommends a requirement that any Site Plan and Use for Out Lots C and D be approved by a 2/3 majority vote by this Commission. Commissioner Kaszubowski seconded the amendment. Roll Call Vote was taken: AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Button, Shifrin, Glover, Reid, Kas- zubowski NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Shields and Davis Amendment passed 6 - 0. Commissioner Shifrin revised his motion as follows: I move we recommend to the Village Board the following procedures with respect to the Planned Development dated April 20, 1981 as designated Plan C. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting April 29, 1981 - 6 - 1. Out Lot A - Recommend Annexation and B 3 Zoning and Site Plan approval. 2. Out Lot B - Recommend Rezoning to B 3 Zoning and Site Plan approval. 3. Out Lot C - Recommend Rezoning to B 3; subject to Use and Site Plan approval by a 2/3 vote at a later date. 4. Out Lot D - Recommend Annexation and Zoning to B3; subject to Use and Site Plan approval by a 2/3 vote at a later date. Commissioner Kaszubowski seconded the motion. Discussion followed: Commissioner Goldspiel asked for an opinion on his suggested driveway pro- posal. Mr. Miller responded. He felt that only one full access drive at the South end on Lake/Cook Road would be too close to the signals; since it would only be about 560 feet from the intersection. It would create a problem trying to co-ordinate the signals. The Steeple View proposal is better because it provides better access to the property as well as better service to both sites. No island would be needed. The drive (Western) could be shifted, or angled to align with the Town Center. Their goal is to keep the drive North of Lot D. Commissioner Goldspiel asked how difficult it would be to get a curb cut off Route 83, if something different is done with Lots C and D? Mr. Miller said he would not want the drive to be any closer to the proposed drive to the North, but it could be moved slightly to the South where Route 83 has a raised median. Roll Call Vote was taken on the motion: AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Button, Shifrin, Glover, Reid, Kaszubowski NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Shields, Daivs The motion passed 6 - 0. D. MILWAUKEE AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY Mr. Truesdell presented a Resolution for Landscaping along Milwaukee Avenue. He briefly explained that Lincolnshire and Riverwoods had a study done regard- Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting April 29, 1981 - l - ing the landscaping of the corridor along Milwaukee Avenue. A resolution was drafted and it concerns Buffalo Grove's interest in Milwaukee Avenue, From Route 22 to Lake/Cook Road a green belt is proposed that will be kept in its natural condition. A frontage road system will be devised and other State right-or-ways will be landscaped. Mr. Truesdell said he does not see a need for an 80 foot setback. He feels that there may be a need for this 80 feet of property, and does not feel this is going to be a really scenic area. He is in favor of retaining any natural trees that may be there. Commissioner Glover made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend endorse- ment of the Proposed Resolution No. 81. Commissioner Kaszubowski seconded. Discussion followed, but no changes were made. Roll Call Vote was taken: AYES: Commissioners Button, Shifrin, Glover, Kaszubowski NAYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Reid ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Shields, Davis Motion passed 4 - 2. B: TOWN CENTER - Ken Tucker Association li Mr. Gitlitz presented a revised plan and noted some changes of major concern: 1. Entrance on Buffalo Grove Road as a former access has been eliminated. 2. Service access located behind the shopping area has been connect- ed to the main area. It runs behind all the shops and back. 3. The Forsythe home has been incorporated into the development. Mr. Truesdell's memo was mentioned, but Mr. Gitlitz just received a copy and had no comments at this time. The memo was dated April 28, 1981. Mr. Eisenberg described the new site plan. The Jewel Store is shown on the South end of the site. After meeting with Mr. Brim and Mr. Truesdell the new plan was drawn up according to their suggestions. Retention must be consider- ed, but shops can be stretched out along Buffalo Grove Road up to the Village Green. In 5 or 10 years, as Buffalo Grove grows, an access point along the East will be used. Now the traffic would enter from Lake/Cook Road. The Buffalo Grove entrance can be a service road. Mr. Eisenberg felt that people would drive in and out of the Jewel parking area and not shop at the stores at the opposite end. Little or no drawing power exists for these shops at the end of the development. Possibly one or two of the service type facilities such as a restaurant or bank would get any business. They feel few merchants would rent stores located so far from the Jewel Anchor. Actually two separate centers would be created with this plan. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting April 29, 1981 r - 8 - Commissioner Sheldon asked about the engineering aspects of the plan and the elevation of the Jewel Store with relation to Lake/Cook Road. Mr. Schudt said the height of the Jewel Building is 25 geet. Slope along the South property line is 9 feet high. Commissioner Glover said he did not think the proposed site plan reflected ideal land use. One problem would be the inter-relationship with the Steeple View Development and the one across the street to the East on Route 83 but it does open up a better inter-relationship with the houses that are on this parcel. One of the main objectives the Plan Commission has when develop- ing �the Town Center was to consider the need for access for the existing homes. Eliminating the South driveway on Buffalo Grove Road will bring in traffic from Checker Road where 36% of the people would enter. Mr. Schudt felt there would be no market West of Arlington Heights Road. He described the traffic pattern. The service drive could be opened up as an access. The Commission discussed other shopping centers in the area and noted the fact that people will shop wherever they can "see" the stores. The probability of people using the footpath in the colder or snowy weather was noted. It was mentioned that most people go to a food store in one trip and will return for other shopping items. Mr. Knoche presented the plan for the new Jewel/Osco building. It is connect- ed to other stores which are recessed. The appearance is varied elevations since the end is 18' - the next segment about 21' and the Jewel/Osco is 24' They are also on different planes with the first area about 6' in front of the second and the second about 6' to 8 ' out in front of the end stores. The area will be landscaped and screened. The building has brick treatment between each step to give the appearance of separate buildings, however, the two ends are blank walls. Landscaping will be used extensively. There is a 4 foot berm which is planted with trees. The building will be 35 feet away from the pavement at the east and can be moved to be 50 feet away from the pavement. Mr. Brim was asked to comment. He stated that the developer has one set of concerns and the Village has a set of concerns. Discussion has arisen con- cerning whether or not the original concept designated in the B 5 Ordinance is still valid. He gave the following analysis of the issue: ( Plan 1-Buffalo Grove engrance opposite Church Closed; Plan 2 Jewel to South) Advantages of the New Concept (The Blue Line Proposal) : 1. Takes the massiveness of the Jewel/Osco Store away from the center of the site and moves it to the Lake/Cook Road end. There are elevation differences. 2. Jewel/Osco would be 35 feet off Lake/Cook Road. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting April 29, 1981 - 9 - 3. Other stores would be somewhere about 30 feet off Lake/Cook Road. 4. Screening and Signage along Lake/Cook Road could incorporate very handsome treatment. 5. Low Scale Buildings along Route 83 have benefits from a planning point of view. They will also hide the parking lot effectively. 6. Access to the Village Green is opened up conceptually. 7. Opens up possible development of the Western parcels; which could be integrated with the Center. 8. A major entrance on Route 83 is committed to on both scheme. Also, will allow for a major entry off Checker some time in the future. A possible 2nd road off Buffalo Grove Road would not present as many problems as the initial scheme. li 9. When the rest of the Town Center is developed, and Checker Road is a significant entrance; the Buffalo Grove Road entrance could be closed. 10. If the Engineering Department allows retention to be developed along the South East corner of the site, could in fact open up a tremendous vista from the corner of Route 83 into the Center. 11. From a functional standpoint, with a proper amount of landscap- ing consideration, this concept is probably closer to the Village concept. Problems with the New Concept, which can be pragmatically foreseen by the Developers. 1. Food store shopping is a singular type of trip. 2. Visability from the Route 83 approach is not as good. Possibly the Village could develop a sign package for the rear end of the small stores. Possibly additional display windows could be placed out there. Advantages of Scheme No. 1: 1. The Buffalo Grove access taken out will alleviate the problem of the "back door approach. " 2. The whole aspect of the entrance to the Town Center was not so much statistics, nor the Church, or the School or the bus - but how does one want to enter the Town Center. 3. Making Buffalo Grove Road a service road is a benefit. Mr. Brim is concerned with the size of the Jewel/Osco store. He feels it is too large. He sees only one elevation, not three as suggested by the developer. There are some details which must be worked out with the Jewel Corporation. Relative to the houses that are on Buffalo Grove Road with relation to the Center, Mr. Brim said it must be recognized that at some time, this area will be zoned Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting April 29, 1981 - 10 commercial. It should be considered now, that those areas will probably be converted to stores or office buildings. The Village should not be sensitive to the residential concerns. Perhaps the Village ought to look at the Town Center with some philosophical alternatives; such as 3 or 4 major developments. There must be a willingness to compromise. A decision must be made as to whether the Village wants to focus "in" on the Town Center. If the Jewel is left on the South, then extensive landscaping would be a major concern; as well as elimination of the large mansonary wall. Mr. Brim said, further, that the Plan Commission should decide which scheme is the best for the Village. If the Buffalo Grove Road entrance goes through, it seems that it will be difficult to develop the corner lot. It could go in temporarily, and eliminate it in the future; or move the access road down to Church Street; or let the Route 83 entry be the major one and some time in the future, the Checker Road entry will be a secondary major access. Commissioner Sheldon asked that it be noted, that it is not necessarily true that people only do food shopping in one trip. With the economy being what it is, many are reversing their shopping pattern to purchase retail items first then stop for food items last. Commissioner Sheldon asked for a decision regarding which plan is the preferred plan, so that the discussion could continue based on the B 5 Ordinance. Commissioner Shifrin asked if there were other plans to be considered, not just two - but possibly 3 or 4 where mentioned. The developer indicated the different possible locations of the Jewel/Osco building, but added that the number 2 scheme would probably not be built. It could end up to be a white elephant. This would damage Buffalo Grove. However, the first plan would be more workable. Their stand is based upon marketability. The number 2 site is tight, retention questionable, and leasing would be difficult. If the Plan Commission goes with plan number 2 - it may have to look for another developer. One reason for that decision is that the property they must acquire is very expensive and they have to be certain that it is economically feasible. For instance, a restaurant would not want to be at the end, it would prefer exposure closer to the Jewel/Osco. The Jewel representative stated their position remains the same as it was initially. They were asked where they would like to locate a store and their answer was to face Lake/Cook Road where the traffic is. But when told that location would block the rest of the Center they agreed to face Route 83. If they must turn their backs, the most unattractive part of a food store, Jewel would probably reject the proposal. Commissioner Shifrin commented that Plan Number 2 set up three separate shopping centers. He posed the question of whether the Commission wants to see 3 parcels and 3 centers or modules. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting April 29, 1981 - 11 - Mr. Brim agreed that this is the issue be brought up. Plan Number 2 is a good plan, but not if it is to relate to a Town Center. Considering the Church Street approach which allows the Westerly portion to be developed in large pods, would be a benefit to Buffalo Grove. By eliminating the South end of Buffalo Grove entrance, it will allow development of the corner sites. The appearance of the sides and rear of a food store must be considered and also the size of the building that close to Route 83. Many details must be considered, but a decision should be made about which way to go. Commissioner Sheldon directed the Plan Commission to resolve this issue before preceeding. The purpose of the B 5 Ordinance was that the Town Center was to provide for the development of a pedestrain oriented central district. The requirements of Section 731 were read. Do we want large buildings on the end and little buildings in the middle? Earlier, discussing Steeple View we wanted an open corner concept. Commissioner Shifrin said the underlying intent of the B 5 Ordinance was to develop the Town Center as one parcel. As few developers as possible were to be brought in. Now the plan being considered (No. 2) is a nicely planned circle, but it does not follow the original concept. The developer noted that together with Mr. Callahan they have a total of over 30 acres which almost surrounds the Village Green. They would try to acquire the property on the other side of the Village Green. They are expecting to expand North of the Jewel Store on the North. They also hope to acquire pro- perty on the Eastern side of that road (south of the residential) and would have all the commercial concentrated all along Route 83 from the North to the South in Buffalo Grove. To the West, there is no plan as yet. The developer felt it could be used for a couple of specialty type commercial uses, or extend office space. Supply and demand would determind the application of the original 1976 Ordin- ance. li Commissioner Glover proposed a poll to determine the feelings of the Commission. Does this revised development plan provide the requirement of the integrated overall design for development of the Town Center in accordance with the B 5 Ordinance? AYES - None ABSTAIN - None NAPES - Commissioners Goldspiel, Button, ABSENT - Commissioners Shifrin, Glover, Reid, Kaszubowski Shields, Davis Total: The Commission voted unanimously that the plan does not conform to the B 5 Ordinance. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting April 29, 1981 - 12 - The original intent of the B 5 Ordinance was discussed. Is it realistic? Is it possible to meet the B 5 Ordinance? If marketing of the retail center is not practical, what is? ! Commissioner Glover proposed a second poll. Mr. Hartstein phrased it. In spite of the fact that this plan does not meet the B 5 Ordinance, does the Plan Commission want to proceed with they type of proposal? AYES: Commissioners Button, Kaszubowski ABSTAIN None NAYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Shifrin, Glover, ABSENT: Shields, Davis Reid Total: The Commission voted 4 to 2 against proceeding with a plan such as No. 2. Commissioner Shifrin asked the question - Does the Plan Commission wish to consider this plan or any subsequent plans, such as this plan, on its own merits; provided that it is integrated into the Town Center; or does it wish to proceed in terms of an entire development? If not, does the Commission proceed under the B 3? This was discussed for a time and then another poll was taken; Are the objectives of the B 5 Ordinance, as constituted January, 1980 practical. AYES: Commissioners Glover, Reid ABSTAIN: Commissioner Shifrin NAYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Button, ABSENT: Commissioners Kaszubowski Shields, Davis Totals - Ayes:2 Nayes:3 Abstain: 1 (The abstention goes with the majority - no) Commissioner Button presented the question of how is the B 5 not practical; and what would be practical? Commissioner Goldspiel commented that his objections are the same whether the section is B5, Bl, B2 or B3. The Commission has the same obligations not to land lock. The same obligation to develop the property Commissioner Sheldon asked - Is this type of concept practical and viable today? Or is an integrated plan viable today? Mr. Brim stated that the B 5 Ordinance was conceptualized as a walk-in; downtown; Village type of Mall on the 80 acres. This is not really practical in the real world today, in terms of getting 80 acres of any kind of develop- ment serviced in one package. What is important is to retain the best of the B5 Ordinance's features. A focal point, a green space, a way to walk between buildings from the Center without driving out of the confines of the Center. To relate the Village Green to all the modules in a meaningful way. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting April 29, 1981 - 13 - One fact that seems certain is that the use change must occur and automobiles must be considered. Right now, it is highly unlikely that one developer is going to be able to develop the concept of the Master Plan. It is likely that the modular concept will work out, but the concept of walking between the pods should be viable and would help the area become a mall type of center. He agreed the B 5 concept should be re-reviewed. Commissioner Sheldon called for a poll to see if the Plan Commissioners were in agreement with Mr. Brim. Would they consider the concept he presented. This to be done at a future Workshop Meeting. Voice Vote was unanimous approval. Commissioner Goldspiel felt that Plan No. 1 could work. He said it is not fair to any developer to come in, and not give them some kind of definite direction concerning their proposal. We should move it along or bury it, or something - tonight. Commissioner Shifrin asked if the Commission could vote on the conceptual approval of the Town Center subject to specific modifications for planning purposes; or do we say it is conceptually incompatible and send them on their way2 y Commissioner Kaszubowski made this statement: Her original problem with the plan as presentee, was not in entirety the ingress and egress on Buffalo Grove Road, as such. The problem she had was coming in the back door. She could not see integrating the houses to the West in the Town Center at all. This modification has closed that entrance which didn't make a difference one way or the other, except it has given her an insight into the fact, that by moving the building with the driveway all the way around gives the oppor- tunity to integrate those areas to the West should they decide to sell their property. The opportunity is now open to get through there. Originally it was blocked off all together. She said she feels progress has been made toward integrating those houses to the West. Some minor changes must be done, but we have agreed that a food store is needed and all food stores have three sides. We must look at this from the marketing viewpoint, not just the planning standpoint, because of today's economy. Commissioner Glover said he would like to review the minutes from this meeting, then with a fresh start having the Town Center first on the Agenda. Each time it has been discussed, other business has been conducted first and the hour gets late. He suggests a review of what has been presented with the B 5 Ordinance in relationship to the plan. He has prepared a list, using the B 5 Ordinance as a guide for discussing uses, layout, criteria of appearance, etc. Commissioner Sheldon said a decision is to be made as to whether to pursue this plan or not. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting April 29, 1981 - 14 Commissioner Reid stated her agreement with Commissioner Glover that the Plan Commission meet with the Staff and the minutes at a Workshop. Since everyone has volumnious notes on the Town Center Commissioner Goldspiel said he felt this plan is an improvement. He finds the Commission's conceptual discussion an improvement. He cannot, at this time, "buy" it under any Ordinance - Bl, 2, 3, 4, 5 or any other. How would it be, if we said the problem is with the Village Green and we moved it to a different location? Commissioner Sheldon asked for a poll on the basic question, "Do we want to pursue this plan further at another time?" AYES: Commissioners Button, Reid, Kaszubowski ABSTAIN: Commissioner Glover NAYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Shifrin ABSENT: Commissioners Shields, Davis TOTALS; Ayes - 3 , Nayes - 2 Abstain 1 Commissioner Kaszubowski moved to adjourn at 12:30 A.M. and Commissioner ! Button seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimous approval. The meet- ing adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Bates, Secretary (Substitute) APPROVED BY: tAii-eSea—• Patrick Shields, Chairman Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting April 29, 1981 PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION Steeple View Plaza April 29, 1981 Commissioner Button called the Public Hearing to order in the Municipal Build- ing, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove at 8:10 P.M. Commissioners Present: Mr. Goldspiel Mr. Glover Mrs. Reid Mrs. Kaszubowski Mr. Button Mr. Shifrin Mrs. Sheldon Commissioners Absent: Mr. Shields Mr. Davis Also Present: Mr. A. T. Henderson, Developer, Steepleview Plaza Mr. D. B. Miller, Traffic Analyst, Steeple View Plaza Mr. W. L. Meinholz, Engineer, Steeple View Plaza Mr. R. L. Anastacio, Architect, Steeple View Plaza Mr. A. R. Putrenieks, Investor, Steeple View Plaza Mr. Harms, Owner of Adjacent Parcel, Seidel Nursery Mr. J. Marienthal, Trustee Mr. W. Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. R. Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. J. Truesdell, Village Planner Commissioner Button read the Public Hearing notice as published in the local newspaper. He then swore in Messrs. Henderson, Miller, Meinholz, Anastacio, Putrenieks and Sloan. Mr. Henderson gave Commissioner Button the returned recepits of the notices that were mailed to the residents living within 250' of this site. Mr. Henderson presented the site plan with landscaping; and described how the development will enhance and relate to Steeple View. He described the office building and the two out buildings which are designated as a restaurant and banking facility. He also presented a chart which identified the entrance to the Town Center as it relates the proposed Steeple View Plaza. The chart designated the nursery property which is being sought as part of the develop- ment along with the Gerschefske Estate. With this ownership factor being considered, the two entrances shown on the site plan are felt to appropriate, and central to the overall planning. - 2 - Mr. Anastacio presented the three-story office building. Each floor will be 17,500 square feet, for a total of 52,000 square feet. An 8 foot bike path has been added; and a sidewalk along Route 83 has been added. Parking spaces for 202 cars will be provided which is 10% more than Buffalo Grove requirements. There will be 1 handicap space for each 25 stalls. Dumpsters will be fenced in with brick to match the building. First Floor faces South; rear North, dumpsters on the East with the with the service entrance, a racquet ball court for the tenants only. Basement: Sauna, showers for men and women, Exercise room, Meeting rooms and the rest mechanical equipment and storage. 2nd and 3rd Floors: Typical office with exits at each end of the building. Elevations were pre Brick with plastered facia board. Samples were pre- sented sented, Bronze glass, height of building: 35 feet from the roof line to the sidewalk. All requirements will be met. Mr. Meinholz described the preliminary detention plans which have been reviewed by the Engineering Department. Also included was site lighting, sanitation, sewer and water. The detention area was developed to be part of the Steeple View Condominiums and has the capacity to handle the additional property. Drai age from any property to the North will not be able to be brought over to Lake/ Cook and Weidner. There are two different drainage basins. Number 1 goes over to Weiland Road and Number 2 goes to Route 83. Part of the Route 83 area has been diverted to Weiland with the permission of the County Highway Department. Additional plans will have to be submitted to the Cook County Highway Department for the Northern piece of property. There is an existing underground pipe which can be connected to feed lines. During heavy rains, water collects in the ditch on Route 83. The Cook County Highway Department has a storm sewer which will be extended in the future as Route 83 develops. Mr. Henderson stated that if the final computations require additional acre feet of detention, he has agreed with the Engineering Department on a corner location. Mr. Meinholz continued de scribing the sanitary sewer, which connects to the Lake County Interceptor. There 12 inch water mains along the West and South property lines and a 10 inch water main will be installed to the North edge of the property. This 10 inch line will eventually connect with the 12 inch line. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing April 29, 1981 - 3 - Exterior Lighting surrounds the property as required. Interior lighting is being proposed for all the parking areas. The grades are designed to handle the 10 year storm by means of the storm sewer. The grades are set up to handle the 100 year storm by bringing the water overland to the detention area. Mr. Miller reported on the findings of the review of traffic during the peak hours. The traffic study revealed a need for three (3) access drives. Two drives off of Lake/Cook Road and one off of Route 83. The eastern most drive on Lake/Cook will be a full access drive with both left and right turns in and out; and will be properly designed with a raised island to prohibit left turns in and out. The eastern drive need not align with the Medical Center drive because of light traffic into that facility. Traffic signals will probably never be warranted at this location. On Route 83 one access drive is proposed. It will be a full access drive, temporarily. When the parcel to the north develops; full access will be provided there aligned with the Town Center. At that time, Mr. Henderson's drive will be reduced to right in/right out only. Commissioner Button asked for any questions regarding the presentation from the public. There were none. Commissioners Kaszubowski, Glover and Reid had no questions. II Commissioner Goldspiel asked Mr. Harms what plans he had for his property. Mr. Hamrs - It takes time to phase out a landscaping business. He has agreed to cocoperate with Mr. Henderson and they have proposed a joint operation. No specific development is planned, but he noted his land is zoned commercial. He does not object to the proposed plan to line up an access drive with the Town Center. There are no cross easements. Outlots B and C were discussed at length. Previously Lot C was agreed to be shown without a particular building. It has been changed. Mr. Henderson stated they hoped to develop Lot C as stated in the annexation agreement. They do not have a Savings and Loan or Bank for Lot C. Nor do they have a restaurant for Lot B. In order to comply with the Village Board request, they have placed the proposed businesses on the site plan. He said it would be easier to live without having to designate lots, but added they would have to be inserted later. The Commissioners discussed the other possible uses of Lots B and C, as well as the possibility of the desire of some developer to combine them. Mr. Raysa explained that Lots B and C are being considered for re-zoning. He noted the north part of A would be annexed. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing April 29, 1981 • - 4 - Commissioner Sheldon was concerned about what possible businesses could be placed on Lot B if it is zoned B3. It was noted that any planned development would have to approved. The Commission was polled to determine the use of Lot C. Yes - Locked Financial No - Open to B 3 AYES - None NAYES - Reid, Glover, Kaszubowski, Goldspiel, Shifrin, Sheldon ABSTAIN - None ABSENT - Shields, Davis The poll indicated that Lot C shall not be locked as a financial institution. Engineering - Commissioner Reid asked Mr. Kuenkler if the proposed method of handling 10 year storms and 100 year storms is the usual procedure. Mr. Kuenkler asnwered that it is the normal way of doing this. A 100 year storm is handled over ground. Lighting - The Appearance Commission reviewd Architecture and Lighting. However, the lighting should blend in with the other lighting in the area. Mr. Truesdell commented that there is a standard level of lighting requirements which must be met. Traffic - Discussion of the location of the alignment of the driveway on Lake/Cook Road with the Town Center driveway followed. There is a range proposed so that the exact location can be determined at a later date. Mr. Lindgren stated that they would not want the driveway any closer than 660 feet from the center line of Lake/Cook Road Mr. Truesdell stated that the drive should be as far away as possible from Lake/Cook Road and no closer than 660 feet. He said that the critical point is that the two driveways must be aligned. This would be a requirement. Mr. Marienthal agreed that the Village Board would require realignment not closer than 660 feet from Lake/Cook Road. This is necessary to co-ordinate the traffic signals. Messrs Henderson and Harms both felt there would be a problem if a driveway goes through the center of Mr. Harms property. Several alternatives were discussed. Commissioner Goldspiel moved that the Public Hearing be adjourned. Commissioner Glover seconded the motion. Upon unanimous approval Commissioner Button closed the Public Hearing at 9:30 P.M. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing April 29, 1981 r - 5 - Respectfully submitted, Shirley Bates, Secretary (Substitute) APPROVED BY: �! �%rJu-crCa+G Patrick Shields, Chairman li Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Public Hearing April 29, 1981