Loading...
1981-02-18 - Plan Commission - Minutes PUBLIC DARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION Cedar View February 18, 1981 Chairman Shields called the Public Hearing to order in the Municipal Building; 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove at 7:38 P.M. Commissioners Present: Chairman Shields Mr. Goldspiel Mrs. Sheldon Mr. Davis Mr. Glover Mrs. Reid Mrs. Kaszubowski Commissioners Absent: Mr. Shifrin Mr. Button Also Present: Mr. D. Asher, Developer Mrs. V. Clayton, Village President Mr. J. Marienthal, Village Trustee Mr. W. Balling, Village Manager Mr. J. Truesdell, Village Planner Mrs. I. Park, Administrative Assistant Chairman Shields announced that the Public Hearing scheduled for this meeting will be continued until March 11, 1981. because the developer had not yet submitted all the necessary documentation. Chairman Shields adjourned the Public Hearing at 7:39 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ' G� Kathleen Comer, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: Patrick Shields, Chairman REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION Lake County, Vernon Township Comprehensive Plan Alternative III B February 18, 1981 Chairman Shields called the Regular Meeting to order in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove at 7:40 P.M. Commissioners Present: Chairman Shields Mr. Goldspiel Mrs. Sheldon Mr. Davis Mr. Glover Mrs. Reid Mrs. Kaszubowski Commissioners Absent: Mr. Shifrin Mr. Button Also Present: Mr. D. Asher, Developer Mrs. V. Clayton, Village President Mr. J. Marienthal, Village Trustee Mr. W. Balling, Village Manager Mr. J. Truesdell, Village Planner Mrs. I. Park, Administrative Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Kaszubowski moved approval of the minutes of the January 21, 1981 Regular Meeting subject to corrections. Commissioner Glover seconded the motion. Page 2, paragraph 9 change paragraph to read Delta means angle of deflection of the arc page 3, paragraph 4 under ABSENT delete Glover; page 3, paragraph 8 change Gutton to Button, page 3, paragraph 10 change are to is; page 4, paragraph 5 change Gutton to Button; page 6, paragraph 10 change for to of; pageparagraph chan e loose to lose. gP g 7, 9 g AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Sheldon, Glover, Reid, Kaszubowski NAYES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Shifrin, Button ABSTAIN: Commissioner Davis Commissioner Davis moved that the Public Hearing for Cedar View be reschedul- ed for the meeting of March 11, 1981. The motion was unanimously approved. 1 - 2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Goldspiel - Nortran has eight planning priority projects for the year. Three of these concern Buffalo Grove. One is for the Soo Line Railroad proposal that is going to be included in the funds for the study of the Skokie Swift. There will be another study of a connection between our Village and Hawthorn Shopping Center. There will also be a study of an east/west corridor route, either Dundee or Lake Cook Road. Mr. Pinz is our representative on Nortran. They are interested in developing tentative loca- tions or recommended locations for railroad stations along the Soo Line and he feels this should involve the Plan Commission as well as the Transportation Commission. Mrs. Park - We are putting together a report with various location regulations for a railroad statirn. I will take it to the Transportation Commission and they will send it along to the Plan Commission. Chairman Shields read a letter addressed to him from Mr. Balling dated February 5, 1981 regarding the Town Center. LAKE COUNTY, VERNON TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALTERNATIVE III B Mr. Balling - We have been working regularly with VAGA to bring about a plan. It is our understanding that they intend to give our alternate plan, which was submitted previously, a full review. Lake County has submitted their Alter- nate III B plan to us. We have attempted to evaluate that plan and developed what we feel is a compromise planning concept. We feel this could provide the framework for a planning agreement between Buffalo Grove and Lake County. We would like to review that document with you this evening. We are pursuing an accommodation with the County. I _ Mr. Balling - Our alternative compromise plan does not deviate from the plan we submitted to them. We feel we can make a positive recommendation for a boundary line for Buffalo Grove. We also feel we can make a recommendation for a basic land use distribution. It is in our long range interest to cooper- ate with the County. Mr. Truesdell briefly reviewed the Alternate III B plan and Buffalo Grove's compromise plan. Mr. Balling in answer to a question from Commissioner Goldspiel replied, "We have submitted a plan to VAGA and they have not responded to it yet". Mr. Truesdell - We could say their Alternate III B Plan is their answer to our plan. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting February 18, 1981 - 3 - Mr. Balling - The plan we have tonight does not deviate from the plan we sub- mitted to VAGA. Commissioner Goldspiel - I think the III B Plan is disastrous and unsupport- able. I think we are compromising before our submission is acted on. The III B Plan is a non plan. It is exclusionary zoning. There are so many basic mis- statements of fact in the material that we got from the County that I see no way they can plan on them. I think it would be an extreme error on our part to accept any part of an arrangement that is based on those misstatements of fact. They have misstated the water situation grossly. They are claiming a lack of sewer capacity at a time when they have money to build a sewer plant. This is basically wasting federal funds. In their projection they show District 96 as being overcrowded. I understand we are looking toward closing schools in District 96. The statement regarding not putting money into the roads is ludicrous when we consider the motor fuel taxes that are developed and all kinds of programs that are available. The facts do not stand up. That means, to me, the plan will not stand up. We are worse off to have a court rezone our township than confront the County. The terminology of Vernon Hills as an urban core is ludicrous. How does this thing work economically? What is the bottom line? Mr. Truesdell - The botton line was that in the Village of Buffalo Grove itself there was a very slight decrease. The impact was not quite as positive as our plan. Our plan was positive but slightly less positive then it was previously. Commissioner Goldspiel - They are making an assumption that no growth or severe- ly circumscribed growth or growth where they want it will have a desirable impact. From what we were given that is not supported. As to the proposed plan, I go from the premise that I would buy the basic premise in this plan. I would prefer to challenge Alternate III B in the courts. It appears that there has been a shift of industrial away from District 96. It appears that there has been a change in density in the direction that would produce higher expense. I do not see benefiting District 103 and not helping District 96. It is a bad idea to get into an agreement with VAGA when the federal govern- ment is studying zoning in suburban Chicago and they could say who ain we sue for exclusionary zoning. They would see that we have an indefensible township plan. We will be in court and our neighbors will not stand behind us. Mr. Balling - You are uncomfortable with the compromise land plan because of the density reduction and shifting of the office and industrial property? Commissioner Goldspiel - This is not a viable projection as a whole. It does not meet with the things we are trying to accomplish with the other plan. Commissioner Davis - I believe that VAGA and certain members of Lake County are black mailing this Village. I agree with everything that Commissioner Goldspiel said. I do not think the alternate plan is a good idea until we hear from them regarding the plan we submit. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting February 18, 1981 - 4 - Mrs. Clayton - Regarding the plan that the Plan Commission approved, the board ratified and sent to the County, I think you did not understand that we are not going to get an answer. Their response is Alternate III B. They do not have the money to spend to review that plan. Commissioner Goldspiel - It seems to me the answer to our problem is to annex the property. Mr. Marienthal - I do not think you are going to be able to enter into a boundary agreement with your neighbors. It is not going to stand up in court if you do. Mr. Balling - If we proceed individually within a short period of time we are going to get active opposition from the County. Over the long term you are creating an adversary position with the County. Mr. Asher - I agree with Commissioner Goldspiel's basic comments. The market reality is one thing they have not addressed here. There are now more than 600 large estate type lots available within a mile of this property that have been available for a long period of time and it appears will be available for a much longer period of time. The market study we have done does not show a need for homes of that nature. We are talking about, at the very least, 4i250,000 to S300,000. What they are advocating is more vacant land. The sewer plant is 40%o utilized. It is less than 40% utilized because part of the 400 is in reserve by the North Shore community for an increase they might never use. It needs more sewage put into it to benefit the community. Water is available. Regarding roads, Route 22 has to be expanded with the useage that is there today. Route 83 is in the same position. They should be expanded without any further addional traffic to handle the present traffic. The taxes and fiscal advantages are obviously null. This does not have a very positive impact compared to the plan you have approved. The III B Plan was given to me five or six years ago by Mr. Kendig and the mayor of Long Grove as the way it was going to go. Mr. Ralph Campbell came up with that plan in 1972 or 1973. The economics are bad. The road system is a smoke screen. The sewer system does not fly. The water is available. I agree with Commissioner Goldspiel. It is a bad deal for you. Commissioner Glover - We feel the III B Plan is unreasonable. Mr. Balling - We are not asking for anything that has not been on our plan. What we really see is kind of a short term individual focused problem. Our proposal does not overreach in the interest of VAGA. We want to be able to make a positive statement. Commissioner Goldspiel - If the y are goin g g g to adopt Alternate Plan III B any way, I do not see what difference it makes what we do. We will be held ac- countable for any concessions that we offer and they will want to know what Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting February 18, 1981 - / more we are going to do for them. I feel that we should annex as much as we can as long as we can. Mr, Truesdell - I do not feel we are givingconcessions. I feel the two plans are not that far apart. Buffalo Grove or District 96 will not be hurt. In terms of concessions we are not compromising in agreeing to the open space. I think we are ending up with what is better for not only Buffalo Grove but for the neighbors around us. Commissioner Goldspiel - If no one is going to buy it what is going to happen to it. Mr. Balling - I think we are prime for annexation. If the County can put it together, that is a good place for open space. If they can't put it together, we still have to deal with that issue. Commissioner Kaszubowski - I feel that cooperation is important. We have to present that shows that we are goingto cooperate and that is not something P going to hurt our Village. There are going to be a lot of boundary agreements with the County. We have to have something concrete when this comes before the County Board. Commissioner Glover - The plan that we are submitting better be a realistic plan because we might have to live with it. Mr. Truesdell - I would not recommend signing an agreement until we have pur- sued it. Commissioner Goldspiel - If the roads are the one thing we have to worry about in cooperation with Lake County, I think that by the time you have your 20,000 or 40,000 Lake County and Buffalo Grove residents living up there having problems that we will. be able to get done what is necessary in the County. We need a list of how we can be hamstrung if it is accepted over our protest Commissioner Sheldon - The population of Buffalo Grove is very close to equal- izing the population in Lake and Cook Counties. The voters are the ones that can do something to change this. Down the road we will be able to make an impact in Lake County. Commissioner Davis - You are not going to get the cooperation of the people of Buffalo Grove if you short change the people in District 96. That plan you cannot change if you are locked into an inter-governmental agreement. Mrs. Clayton - Being locked into an agreement is exactly the reason for the boundary agreement to be more generalized. It will be flexible. Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting February 18, 1981 - 6 - Mr. Balling - What we are agreeing with is a basic agreement. We are not going to yield any of the statutory agreements, the agreement itself being a good faith agreement Chairman Shields - What are you looking for tonight? Mr Balling - We have been given a deadline from VAGA to respond back to Lake County at the meeting of February 27, 1981 It would be our desire to receive output from the Commission on three basic concepts: 1) we are looking for the concept of a boundary as being a reasonable boundary for Buffalo Grove 2) that there is some land use pattern that accompanies that boundary and 3) we would like to make a positive statement in the Lake Couny planning process. We are very much in opposition to the sewer; utilities and highway assump- tions There are many things that we are not in agreement with Lake County. Commissioner Goldspiel moved to recommend to the Village Board that any land use agreement to be entered into in connection with boundary agreements should be in accordance with the land uses in accordance with the Buffalo Grove Com- prehensive Plan as it will be adopted in 1981. Commissioner Sheldon seconded the motion AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Sheldon Davis, Glover, Reid Kaszubowski NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Shifrin, Button The motion passed 5 - 0. Commissioner Goldspiel moved to recommend to the Village Board that for the purposes of developing a boundary agreement in Lake County, that the Plan Commission accept an agreement proposed on the boundaries currently in the master plan based on Alternative Two Buffalo Grove Planned Use Plan Update including the Forest Preserve based on contractual agreements now in exis- tance . Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel Sheldon Davis Glover Reid, Kaszubowski NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Shifrin, Button The motion passed 5 - 0 Mrs Clayton thanked the Plan Commission for their discussion and stated that their comments will be taken into consideration Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting February 18, 1981 - 7 - The Plan Commission had no objection to a positive statement to be made at the February 27, 1981 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Davis moved adjournment with Commissioner Kaszubowski seconding the motion. Chairman Shields adjourned the meeting at 10:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ? Kathleen Comer Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: /r0e-o -1- //4 4e-z3(erti- Patrick Shields Chairman Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Regular Meeting February 18, 1981