Loading...
1977-08-17 - Plan Commission - Minutes REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION Friedman Property August 17, 1977 In the absence of Chairman Genrich, Commissioner Harris was selected as Chairman Pro Tem. The meeting was called to order at 8:10 P.M. in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard. Commissioners Present: Mr. Harris Mr. Kandel Mrs. Force Mr. Capitel Commissioners Absent: Mr. Genrich Mr. Shields Mr. Goldspiel Mrs. Sheldon Also Present: Mr. James Otis, Otis Associates Mr. L. P. Shassian, Wilmont Homes, Inc. Mr. William O Reilly, Park Board Mr. Stan Crosland, Park District Mr. John Marienthal, Trustee Mr. Bart Delaney, Engineering Aide Mr. Harris stated that due to the lack of a quorum, a Regular Meeting could not be held and the Commission would go directly into a Workshop Session on the FriedmaneProperty. Friedman Property Mr. Otis stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to discuss the eight points that were considered at the original workshop meeting on February 16 and see the changes that have been made in the plan subsequent to that. He displayed a copy of the revised plan which had been distributed to the commissioners and stated that it is the result of meeting with the Park District and talking with the School District and trying to get various concerns of theirs taken care of. Mr. Otis described the plan. They have reduced the lots to 109 units and tried to keep the same basic concept of island parks with a recreational park in the southwest corner. They have been in touch with the school districts and they are in basic agreement with the plan. Mr. Hooper, the engineer, is in touch with Mr. McCoy and they are working on the engineering. This should be done prior to the Public Hearing. Plan Commission 8/17/77 -2- Mr. Otis stated that in reducing the number of lots, they have increased the size of the lots, They still have some basic concerns about the buildable areas on certain lots. Because of this, he has requested certain variations. On their corner lots they are asking for a requirement of front yard on one side only. Also, .ithey are asking fdr an average rear yard depth of 30' . Regarding the tax base on this development, they have estimated it to be $4,800,000 on an annual basis. Also discussed at the previous meeting was the fact that they did not have a developer. Mr. Shassian has been brought in as the developer. Sidewalks and paths were not shown on the original plan. They are now shown on this plan. Mr. Otis stated that they have been corrected to meet the additional requirements of the Park District. One of .their requests was to provide access into the northernmost common park from the multi-family along with a network of pathways going into the existing park on the west. He added that it is their intention to dedicate the common areas to the Park District. Mr. Otis stated that one concern they have is that i.n a plan which provides for outlying parks, there is not a centralization of park area. They do not have one area that is large enough for a baseball diamond which would meet the requirements of a pony league or more serious baseball groups. Mr. Otis introduced Mr. Shassian who stated that he shares the same concerns as Mr. Otis. Mr. Crosland felt there should be a clear definition of the three common areas. That is, are they parks or are they maintenance liabilities? He feels they are apparently viable recreational usage areas - passive use areas. There is a total of five acres of park land so they exceed the resolution. A recommendation of the Park Board would be to shift the central common area so it would adjoin the park in the southwest corner. They are looking at combining this site with the Willow Stream park. Also, because they feel the extension of Farrington Lane will make it a major access point to Strathmore they would like a bridgework structure going approximately northwest from the two acre park site over the creek to attach the subdivision internally to the park site so residents will not have to come out to the street or sidewalks to get into the parking lot area. They are talking about a bridge more substantial then a foot- bridge which is already planned by the developer. This is adjacent to the Village salt supply and they would like to attach the maintenance program and the park site, if at all possible. Mr. O'Reilly stated he has not looked into it but was concerned about the possible maintenance liability for the three common areas. Mr. Otis stated that Mr. Shassian is concerned about the configuration and planning of the multi-family. He agrees with this and thinks a more Plan Commission 8/17/77 -3- compatible form of multi-family can be worked out. The number of units they propose should not vary (may possibly be one less). Mr. Delaney asked if the service road would be readjusted in the townhome area. He thinks it is too close to the intersection and animal hospital. Mr. Otis replied that this is something they have talked about changing, also. In response to Mr. Delaney, Mr. Shassian stated that the bedroom count at this time is still 50% three bedrooms and 50% four bedrooms. Mr. Delaney inquired about the length of the long cul-de-sac. Mr. Otis stated that this was brought up on the original plan and Mr. Hooper was to discuss this with Mr. McCoy. The latest engineering drawings are suppose to conform with the requirements. Mr. Delaney reported that he showed this plan to the various departments and Mr. McCoy will be getting together with Mr. Hooper prior to the Public Hearing. The Police Department thought this was an excellent plan, the school districts feel it is in conformance and the Fire Department had no objections to it. Commissioner Capitel asked why the multi-family was put up against Route 83. Mr. Otis replied that multi-family is the typical transitional area from commercial to single-family. He added that they tried to provide a sense of open space and freedom within the plan 33y not fronting the units entirely on Route 83. However, they feel the townhomes may be acting as too much of a buffer. They might go into a larger residential unit that is similar to a townhouse but more of a four-plex. Commissioner Kandel asked where the water retention area is. Mr. Otis replied that the detention area is basically in the southwest corner. This will be dry most of the time. Commissioner Kandel read from the minutes of February 16 which stated that there are two detention areas. Mr. Otis checked the engineering plans and stated that there are two, one near the multi-family and one in the southwest corner. Commissioner Kandel questioned the walkways. Mr. Otis stated that if there is a planned network of bicycle paths planned for the area, he thinks it would be fair to say that they would want to cooperate. Commissioner Force asked what zoning the lot sizes conform to. Mr. Otis replied they conform more to an R-4. Also in response to Commissioner Force, Mr. Otis stated that they would be asking for variances on a little less then 20% of the lots. Commissioner Force asked if the Park District feels they can maintain the common areas. Mr. Crosland replied that there is obviously a logistics problem in moving the machinery from a number of small sites but this is something the Park District will have to face in the future. Commissioner Force asked if the developer had given any serious thought to duplexes in the townhouse area. Mr. Otis replied that he questions the Plan Commission 8/17/77 -4- term "duplex". A more viable use than four townhouses would possibly be to take a cuplex that looks like one large single-family home, soften the lines and maybe tie in two large units on each side which would give it the configuration of a large manor house. Mr. O'Reilly was concerned that when the Park District maintained the north and south common areas it would be as if they were maintaining front yards. Mr. Otis stated that it would be much easier for them to go with a straight grid plan, but the proposed plan is much more interesting. Commissioner Harris asked about the price range of the homes. Mr. Shassian replied they would be $70,000 to $90,000 units and will be about 1500 to 1800 square feet. In response to Commissioner Harris, Mr. Otis stated that about 30% of the lots are 5400 square feet, the smallest lot size. The largest lots are 10,000 to 12,000 square feet. Most lots fall around 8700 square feet. For the Public Hearing they could have a preliminary plat with the actual dimensions shown. Commissioner Harris asked if they were planning on building Farrington Lane. Mr. Otis replied that he is not sure how this will be worked out. Their property stops before the right-of-way. A short discussion followed regarding whether Farrington is in the Village or County and what the developer's responsibility is in putting in the extension to Route 83. Mr. Delaney was asked to check on this. Commissioner Harris was concerned about the maintenance of the common areas. He stated that improper maintenance of these areas will affect the value of the houses and this affects a lot of property owners. He is not convinced this should be public land. Commissioner Harris asked that ten days before the Public Hearing the developer present a plan showing whether the property around this development is owned by the Village or Park District. He also would like a tax study which shows income and expenditures. Commissioner Kandel asked about the possibility of asking the developer to limit the minimum lot size to R-6. He suggested that moving the park site to the west may eliminate some of the smaller lots on that particular area. Commissioner Harris asked Mr. Delaney to check on the required minimum width of the pathways and let the developer know and also to have the Annexation Agreement on this property at the wDrkshop meeting with this developer on September 7th. The Public Hearing was set for September 21 with a Workshop Session scheduled for September 7. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Linda Isonhart, Recording Secretary