Loading...
1977-10-26 - Plan Commission - Minutes REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN CC!YISSICN Taggert Property, The Commons October 26, 1977 Chairman Carl Genrich called the meeting to order at 8:15 P.M. in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard. Commissioners Present: Chairman Genrich Mr. Harris Mr. Shields Mr. Goldspiel Mrs. Force Commissioners Absent: Mr. Kandel Mrs. Sheldon Mr. Capitel Also Present: Mr. Edward Holzrichter, Developer Mr. Joseph Raccuglia, Architect Mr. James Otis, Architect Mr. Lou Shassian, Developer Mr. Ronald Cope, Attorney Mr. Robert Bogart, Trustee Mr. William Kiddie, Park Board Mr. Tom Fennell, Director of Community Development and Planning Mr. Bart Delaney, Planning Coordinator Taggert Property Mr. Raccuglia described the plan which had been distributed 4 4v l$ 111111 N_ _ ft t MA_A':' 6- . There are two three-story buildings, 360' long with 34 condominiums in each building. They are similar to the Oak Creek condominiums in design. The vista is 288' in the center with many trees along the parkway. They intend to add to what is there presently. The buildings will be brick with a 40' side yard. There is 35' from the lot line to the parking and 58' to the building. They intend to have a median strip of planting and berming similar to Oak Creek. Ll Mr. Raccuglia also displayed a plan which contained two four-story buildings (Exhibit #1026-2). This would have a 368' vista. Each building would be 320' long and parking would be underground. There would be parking outside for 60 cars in each building compared with 92 spaces for each building in the three-story plan. Mr. Fennell stated that the road into the single-family development across Dundee Road would be about 150' to the west of the proposed entrance to this development. It would be desirable to either line the two up or make them further apart. He added that this plan is acceptable under the Plan Commission S.M. 10/26/77 i �1 i i I I I ,I �� i I,� -2- Zoning Ordinance and does begin to approach what is depicted on the Master Plan. Mr. Raccuglia stated that they could off-set the drive into the development and line it up with the street across Dundee Road. Commissioner Harris objected to the golf course being hidden behind this development. He also objected to the fact that the owner is selling - off parts of the course without regard to what is happening on Dundee Road. He added that he feels the developer has done what he could with a piece of property of this size and shape. Mr. Raccuglia stated that the size of the parcel was beyond his control. Mr. Holzrichter added that they are occupying about 1 acre of 5+ acres. Commissioner Goldspiel preferred the four-story plan. He feels this is the right use for this parcel because of the traffic situation on Dundee Road. He feels the entrance should be lined up with the street across from it but does not want to make more asphalt on the property by doing this. Commissioner Shields felt there was a lot of parking lot and very little open space. He preferred the four-story plan because there is more open space. He also does not like having the golf course hidden behind .the development. Commissioner Force stated that if the property is to be developed, this is the proper use for it. She prefers the four-story over the three-story. She is also bothered by the golf course in the back. Mr. Holzrichter stated that the density in the four-story plan is five more units in each building than in the three-story plan. The price range of the four-story -would be in the 50's and 601s. In the three-story it would be in the 400s and 500s. The difference in cost would be for the undergrOund parking. Mr. Kiddie stated that the developer has stated that they will be making a cash donation. If they put in tennis courts this would be a subtraction from the donation. Chairman Genrich asked if the Commission wanted to put a tentative stamp of approval on the four-story plan or advocate to the Board that we take a strong position with the golf course owner to reshape this. Commissioner Harris stated that even though this will not always be a golf course, he thinks the Village should ask .the owner to hire a planner to plan the entire 140 acres. Commissioner Goldspiel felt the Plan Commission's attention should be directed to the long-term planning of this area. Considerable discussion followed regarding future plans for the entire 140 acres and what effect this should have on this development. Plan Commission S.M. 10/26/77 -3- Chairman Genrich suggested that if the owner will not prepare a plan, it would behoove the Village to put together some sort of a plan and then go to the owner with preliminary ideas about what could be done over a long- term period. Commissioner Shields suggested getting a map of the area showing this parcel and what is adjacent to the golf course. Commissioner Harris stated that he objects to the Village 'doing the planning. He feels the owner should hire a planner and added that it is poor planning to develop the-area- in bits and pieces. _ Regarding the vista, Chairman Genrich asked if it wasn' t the idea to come down the street across from this development and see a vista. He thought perhaps the buildings should be situated differently. Mr. Fennell thought this issue should be addressed. Chairman Genrich stated that this is a personal proposal but the'idea was suggested to him. He^asked about the possibility of annexing the golf course at the same time this property is annexed. His answer was that Mr. Taggert would not have any objection if it didn't cost him any more money in taxes. He summarized the meeting as follows: 1. Chairman Genrich asked the staff to give some strong consideration and check with the Village Attorney as to what the implication would be taxwise if the Village were to require annexation of the entire parcel to Buffalo Grove when they annex this piece. 2. The Flan Commission is essentially saying they would like to go ahead with the four-story plan. 3. He would like the architect, Mr. Holzrichter and Mr. Fennell to sit down and discuss in some detail how the open space area could be put directly across from the street to the south. See if there is a design adaptation possible. 4. When the developer gets the schematic things worked out on the street, he should review it with Mr. Harris regarding the plantings. 5. The Plan Commission is requesting the Village Manager to ask the Staff to develop a tentative possible long-range plan for the golf course. It would be a point for further discussion with Mr. Taggert. 6. Chairman Genrich would like this plan to be submitted to the other public agencies so we will have cor._;rents by the next workshop. 7. The developer was asked to meet with the Park District as early as possible and convey their willingness regarding the donation in writing. A copy of this should be sent to the Village Manager. Plan Commission S.M. 10/26/77 1 �I �I' -4- 8. The developer should meet with School Districts 21 and 214. A letter regarding school donations should also be sent to them with a copy to the Village Manager. 9. A copy of the annexation agreerrient should be rrov-7.(ftC,. onE. ?ee )rior to the next wLrkoilop. 10. The developer should meet with the Staff regarding the annexation agreement. 11. The Staff was asked to touch base with the school districts about whether there are busing problems or sidewalk problems to be resolved. 12. The architect was asked to provide an overall schematic scheme of surrounding land uses, curb cuts, and the center of Dundee Road as it relates to this plan. 13. The Staff should determine the exact zoning requested and review the new plan in detail in terms of zoning conditions. 14. The Staff should address itself to the problem of sidewalks and identify the general detention/retention area. Another workshop will be scheduled on this development when these things have been done. zonin& Ordinance Changes Chairman Genrich stated he had received the proposed zoning Ordinance changes in rear lot requirements on corner lots and also the proposal on the ordinance which would permit a change in the accessory building problem. He asked Commissioner Harris to look these over and call him to schedule .a Public Hearing. The Commons (Friedman) Chairman ()enrich stated that the Park District has agreed essentially to accept and maintain after dedication sites A and C (large open area in the southwest corner and small open area in southeast corner) but has strong feelings that they are not interested in site B. If that is the case, the Village is presented with the problem of how site B will be maintained. A possible way would be through a homeowners' association. He asked for the developer's feeling on this. Mr. Shassian stated that they are not anxious to utilize a homeowners' association. There is a problem as to how strong an association would be. They feel it should be the responsibility of a governmental body, preferably the Park District. If not them, they would like to see the Village accept it because as an open space community, it should be in a public jurisdiction. He added that it should be either entirely maintained by a public body or else a',homeowners' association, not both. Plan Commission S.M. 10/26/77 j i i -5- Mr. Cope stated that as a practical matter, it is hard to maintain a control with a homeowners' association. The only enforcement mechanism is through the private homeowners. This is not a condominium situation where you can impose a lien on another person's property. He added that they are not eliminating the possibility of sitting down with the Village Attorney and working something out. Mr. Kiddie stated that the Park District has stated they are interested in sites A and C. Previously, site B was a miniscule center area. Now it is elongated. He thinks the whole approach is a long step away from Resolution 72-35. The Park District has a perfect right to state it's not a viable piece of recreational land but a continuation of backyards. Mr. Shassian reviewed how the plan has changed from the one originally presented. Chairman Genrich stated that the revised plan is the one the Plan Commission agreed on at the last meeting. Who accepts and who maintains the parks is ancillary to the basic deci$ion of the plan. Commissioner Harris agreed that this is ancillary to the plan but from a practical standpoint that is public access and he thinks there will be a security problem with the houses. Many, if not all, of these people will construct fences after several years. In response to Commissioner Harris, Mr. Shassian stated that there are 122 total units (including the townhouses). He also stated that they will be placing covenants and restrictions on the deeds. Commissioner Harris questioned the figure given in the Park District letter of October 18 as the income from this development. ffe came up with.a higher figure than they did. Mr. Otis stated that they attempted •to open up the townhouse circulation and access to the development and this dictated some of theshapes. in the most recent plan. Mr. Shassian stated that if they can get a public body to accept these lands as public open space, they are prepared to develop a bike path system from the south through to the north connecting Farrington Lane to Buffalo Grove Road. They are also connecting it through the park area and over to the footbridge thereby connecting it to Willow Stream Park. Commissioner Goldspiel stated that it is crucial that neither the Village 1 nor -the Park District be stuck with maintaining a lot of disparate parcels. 1 The real thing the Plan Commission should be doing is considering financial impacts as well as other impacts. If this would be a real deficit producing operation for the Park District, it does not seem to him either the Park District or the Village should have to pay an extensive cost. Or, if the Park District is making money on it, it does not seem right that the Village should be maintaining it. He added that he also bn. a es zero lot line single-family is the `eTong use for this parcel. He would like to see some- thi4g more dense. Plan Commission S.M. 10/26/77 4 -6— Commissioner Goldspiel felt there were also two important planning problems to be considered-. One would be the Joi in the road and thec,other is the corner lot problems. He was also concerned about the detention. Commissioner Shields stated that he prefers the last plan submitted by the developer. Commissioner Force stated that she would have difficulty accepting the latest plan. Even if the Park District would maintain it she feels that the people who would purchase properties abutting parcel B wil], not see it in the way the developer envisions it and they will start to fence it off. The whole purpose would be defeated. She added that to have the open space is very desirable but it should be where more people would see it. If in the back yards there will be less accessibility than in the front. Regarding exposing the open area to people entering the development, Mr. Otis stated that at both entrances they are exposed immediately to the common areas. Even if there are fences, they are opening up a vista. Regarding variations they are asking for, Mr. Otis stated that in terms of individual lot sizes, eliminating the common areas, they are averaging a minimum of 6,000 square feet and in R-4 the requirement is 8,750. The front yard requirement in R-4 is `O" and they average 5' . They conform to R-4 on side yards except they are suggesting a possibility of zero lot line on one side. They vary on the rear yard but are talking about a 301 rear yard average because they have some non-regular size lots. The R-4 requirement is 401 . Ninety percent of their lots back up to open space so they do not feel this is a handicap. In the multi-family they conform to R-9. Mr. Fennell stated that their findings are bacially the same. R-6 would seem to fit this type of development better. The minimum lot size is 6600 square feet and the developer indicates a minimum of 60. The zero lot line and rear yard would be a variation. The front yard would conform. Chairman Genrich asked if the Plan Commission would be comfortable with identifying these variations on the plan and once the plan is adopted the plan is the control and these would be the only exceptions considered. Commissioner Harris stated that he doesn't think it can be treated as an R-4, R-5 or R-6. He would like to leave it as an R-9 PUD and adopt it the way it is without any notations. Commissioner Goldspiel thought the comparison should be to R-5 rather than R-6. He did not think the Plan Commission was dealing with R-6 anymore. In response to Commissioner Harris, Mr. Shassian stated that the 15' on the side yards was a minimum. Plan Commission S.M. 10/26/77 -7- Regarding the plantings along Route 83, Mr. Shassian stated he will do the planting. This area is deeded to the homeowners. As for maintenance and the formation of a homeowners' association for this purpose, there is the same problem with enforcing restrictions and covenants as mentioned before. Commissioner Harris stated that he is concerned about the "S" curve. Mr. Fennell reported that Mr. McCoy felt the "Si" curve could be handled. The Police Department had a negative reaction to it. The Staff does not have a problem with it from a planning standpoint. Commissioner Goldspiel asked what the detention situation is. Mr. Otis stated that Mr. Hooper, the engineer, has "talked with Mr. McCoy and documents were submitted tonight which show the flood plain and where it crosses the property. The detention situation is worked out and there is no problem. Mr. Otis had asked for a report on Mr. Hooper's meeting with Mr. McCoy but did not receive it and Mr. Hooper is out of the country presently. Commissioner Force asked how wide the bike paths will be. Mr. Shassian replied that the easement will be according to the: minimum restriction of 15'. Mr. Fennell said that he would like to have 20' and Mr. Otis stated that this could be done. Mr. Fennell stated that if there is a viable alternative -to the "a" durve he does not think it would hurt the atmosphere of the development to take a look at straightening it out. He added that the issue of Farrington Drive should also be addressed in terms of where it should go and what it should do. In response to Commissioner Harris, Mr. Shassian stated that they would grade and seed the areas before dedicating them to the Village. Mr. Cope recommended that the Plan Commission recommend that the land be taken and maintained by a public body and if this is not viable„ they are prepared to form a homeswners' association to provide the maintenance. Commissioner Harris stated that the detention/retention basin should be shown on the plan as required by the Ordinati:ce.- -Mr. Otis stated that they will get this done immediately. Chairman Genrich stated that once the detention is shown on the plan it should be delivered to the Park Board by November 3 for their meeting of November 10. Chairman Genrich stated he would prefer to see this rezoned R-9-PUD- P.D.k-7 Special Use Zoning Category. The Plan Commission agreed with this. Chairman Genrich stated that the Plan Commission is not interested in any major revisions of the plan but asked if the developer could work with the "S" curve problem and have that print to the Plan Commission by November 3. Plan Commission S.M. 10/26/77 I I I • " I `.si I II �I I I i ill i II. -8- Indian Trails Library District Commissioner Goldspiel stated that the Indian Trails Library District Board is meeting tonight to discuss what to do in the face of the turning down of the referendum by the voters. He asked that the outcome of their meeting tonight be discussed by the Plan Commission at their next meeting. Adjournment The motion was made and seconded that the meeting adjourn. The -meeting adjourned at 11:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, L da Isonhart Recording Secretary APPROVED: Carl Genrich, Chairman i �� ��