Loading...
1977-02-16 - Plan Commission - Minutes REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION Falcon Development, Friedman Development February 16, 1977 Chairman Carl Genrich called the meeting to order at 8:10 F.M. in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard. Commissioners Present: Chairman Genrich Mr. Harris Mr. Keister Mr. Shields Mr. Goldspiel Mr. Jacobs Mr. Kandel Commissioners Absent: Mr. Mendenhall Mrs. Force Also Present: Mr. Jerry Falcon, Developer Mr. John Kinley, Toups Corporation, Falcon Development Mr. Alan Uman, Toups Corporation, Falcon Development Mr. James Otis, Otis & Associates, Friedman Dev. Mr. Ronald S. Cope , Attorney, Friedman Development Mr. John Hooper, Engineer, Friedman Development Mr. Stan Crosland, Park District Mr. William Kiddie, Park Board Mr. William Hitzeman, School District 96 Mr. Bart Delaney, Engineering Aide Mr. Carl Rapp, Village Engineer Approval of Minutes Commissioner Kandel made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 2. Commissioner Keister seconded the motion. The motion carried. There were no changes or corrections. Commissioner Shields moved to approve the minutes of the Public Hearing of February 2. Commissioner Kandel seconded the motion. The motion carried. There were no changes or corrections. Falcon Development Mr. Jerry Falcon, President of Falcon Development Company, stated that he and his brother are contract purchasers of the subject property which is located on Arlington Heights Road about 1600 feet north of Dundee Road at Nichols Road. It consists of approximately 49 acres. They are requesting approval for annexation under R-6 zoning. The plan is for 180 single-family lots taking into consideration ground conditions, drainage , etc. Mr. Rapp stated that he has gone through the entire plan with the developer several times. There are no engineering problems that are insurmountable. Plan Commission Page 2 February 16, 1977 The developer is meeting Village standards and conforms to R-6 zoning with no variations. They are .3 of an acre short on their park dedication but have a proposal for a cash donation on this. Commissioner Kandel asked if they were planning on sidewalks. Mr. Rapp replied that there will be sidewalks on both sides of the street. Commissioner Harris asked what is on lot 20. Mr. Falcon replied that there is an existing home on this property. He added that in his purchase agreement he will own this also. Commissioner Harris stated that he is concerned about the traffic generated onto Arlington Heights Road from the development. He asked where the street lined up in connection with the driveway for the school across Arlington Heights Road. Mr. Falcon replied that it is directly across from the north driveway of the school. Commissioner Harris asked if the developer had done any traffic studies. Mr. Kinley stated that they had purposely lined their street up with this driveway because upon improve- ment of Arlington Heights Road, there will be a median cut for the school. Also, with the signalization of Bernard and Nichols at Arlington Heights Road there would be traffic control to alleviate this area. In reponse to Commissioner Harris, Mr. Kinley stated that they have a 27' pavement on the main street. They do not feel this is a collector street. They do not want this to be a collector in the event that Kennicott should be expanded. Regarding the turn movements on Arlington Heights Road, Mr. Rapp stated that there would be four lanes of pavement with a median strip. It will have left and right turn movements. They have requested signalization for Bernard but don' t have enough traffic to warrant it so this inter- section will not be signalized. Mr. Uman reviewed the engineering of the property. The ridge line runs north to south. The majority of the property drains to the southeast corner and a small portion drains to the northwest. The sanitary sewer lines in the existing subdivisions to the east are overloaded so the decision was made to run a line from the south, up Arlington Heights Road and bring it into the site. Regarding the water, there is a line existing in front of the school site and they will tap onto this in two locations. Commis sioner Harris asked if there wa s some waytoget more pedestrian an p access through the development. He was referring mainly to the loop street on the west. Mr. Kinley stated that they did not feel it would be successful to start promoting rear-yard walkways in a project of this size. Mr. Falcon added that this is a straight subdivision and they are intentionally trying not to get involved with a PUD. Commissioner Harris asked if they meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Kinley replied that there are no exceptions. They have a minimum lot size of 6600 square feet and an average lot size of 7720 square feet. Forty percent of the lots exceed the minimum requirements. 1 Plan Commission Page 3 February 16, 1977 Commissioner Harris asked what type of houses they planned to build. Mr. Falcon stated that 50% would be three-bedroom and 50% four-bedroom. They will be basically two-story with the garages tucked into the living area. There will be an overlap into the garage area of living space. All will have basements, two-car garages and two or two and one- half baths. The living area exclusive of basement and garage will be in the range of 1600 to 2200 square feet. They estimate the homes will be in the $70,000 - $80,000 price range. Commissioner Harris asked who would pay to run the sanitary sewer from down near the mall. Mr. Falcon replied that he would pay for it but would like a recapture agreement in the event someone else should want to tie in with it. Referring to the detention areas, Mr. Falcon stated that one is 1 acre (the one in the northwest corner) and the other is 2.4 acres. Commissioner Keister inquired about the depth of the water in a 100-year rain. Mr. Uman stated that they are aiming for a maximum depth of 5' . There is a maximum slope of 3 to 1 and they will landscape around them. With regard to the right-of-way along Arlington Heights Road, Mr. Rapp stated that there will be a 100' right-of-way, 50' off the center line. He added that they have also indicated a 40' dedication at the west end l of their collector street in the event Arlington Heights should -axpaidt Ende i Kennicott. Commissioner Keister asked if the developer felt this could be economically feasible under R-5. Mr. Falcon replied that it would not be. He would lose too many lots in order to make it a worthwhile venture. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he is concerned about the school and park requirements. Mr. Kiddle asked the developer to explain in more detail why he felt it was not possible to have the parks placed on interior streets. Mr. Uman replied that if the parks were placed in the interior, they would not serve as detention areas and they could not get a dual use out of the facility. He added that they cannot legally take the drainage out of the basin and put it in another direction. Mr. Kiddie asked if the developer felt that the two detention areas would be free of water after a period of 72 hours. Mr. Kinley replied that they would be provided there is no more rain in that period. Commissioner Keister inquired if the Park District had a Master Plan for this area. He also wondered if they felt there is a need for a neighbor- hood park in this area with the school park across the street.Mr. Crosland stated that at the time of the Master Plan they did not know this would go into residential. Regarding the school park, Longfellow is across a four-lane highway (eventually) and it needs further development as a recreational facility. In response to a question from^'Chairman Genrich, Mr. Kiddie stated that the required donation is 3.7015 acres and the developer shows a donation of 3.4, so this does not meet the requirements. Plan Commission Page 4 February 16, 1977 Commissioner Goldspiel asked if the developer knows what Arlington Heights plan to do with the area to the north of this development. Mr. Falcon said that he is not aware of anything in this area. Mr. Rapp stated that he would check on this. Commissioner Goldspiel asked what is west of the possible Kennicott extension. Mr. Kinley stated that he thinks Arlington Heights plans for some type of park facility. Mr. Kiddle stated that the Park Board had received some communication on this and they were talking about some �./ type of multi-purpose in the park framework. facility Commissioner Goldspiel asked if the Village Staff could find out the timetable for when the sanitary,operation will cease. Also, whether it is likely to be reopened. 4;:afa9,(,j))3),119 Chairman Genrich asked Mr. Rapp to check the status of the Stavros property, the plans and boundaries for the landfill ,area, the plans for the triangular piece of property, and plans for Nichols Road. Commissioner Goldspiel inquired about the projection in terms of children that will be generated by the project. Mr. Falcon stated that based on the 1977 figures there will be a total of 673.02 children. There would be 232.2 school age children which is broken down to 109.8 elementary, 57,6 junior high and 64.8 high school. Commissioner Goldspiel was concerned about the width of the street and the exit onto Arlington Heights Road. He suggested running a street north to Nichols and funnel the traffic out onto Nichols and Bernard rather then across from the school. He added that possibly then they would have enough traffic to warrant the signal at Bernard. Mr. Rapp stated that the impact of this development on Nichols and Bernard would be minor. It would not make much of a change in terms of the signal. Signalization is in the future but it will come eventually. Commissioner Keister stated that the Village should think about getting some school walk signs at this point. Commissioner Harris stated that he feels the developer could work out a roadway onto Nichols and closing up the other without losing any lots. This would also eliminate any possibility of through traffic if Kennicott is ever expanded. Mr. Falcon stated that they could possibly extend the street through lot 37. Mr. Rapp felt that with the traffic on Bernard it would be more restrictive to get into that intersection. He will give the Plan Commission a memo regarding this. Commissioner Goldspiel suggested exiting across from Beechwood. Mr. Joseph_ Wachtel, 404 Weidner, stated that even if the access is onto Nichols and the Arlington Heights Road access is closed, children will still use the park. They will go two ways, down Nichols and through the park. Plan Commission Page 5 February 16, 1977 Commissioner Shields asked if the developer had made any provisions for connecting to the property on the south, if and when it is developed. Mr. Falcon replied that this property is unincorporated Cook County. They have nothing to work with in terms of planning. Regarding putting a sidewalk along Arlington Heights Road, Mr. Falcon stated that according to the ordinance they have to do this. At Mr. Crosland' s request , Mr. Uman showed the low areas on the plan and stated that basically the entire site of both detention areas would be able to be used for active recreation. Mr. Falcon added that according to their figures the cash donation would be $7500. Chairman Genrich asked that the following be done before the next workshop meeting with this developer: 1. The developer should meet with the Staff and Park District. 2. The developer should meet with the Park Board. 3. Look into the land immediately to the south and determine what the logical retention area is for it. 4. The Staff should meet with the Police Department regarding the traffic problem and work out a better plan with the developer. 5. The developer should provide the Plan Commission with a draft of an annexation agreement. (The developer stated that he has already given this to the Staff. ) 6. The developer should meet with the Superintendent' s Office of District 21. 7. Chairman Genrich asked the developer to prepare a document summarizing what they are requesting. 8. Chairman Genrich asked the developer to give more consideration to going to R-5 instead of R-6. 9. Review with the Staff whether there would be bike path possibilities. 10. Chairman Genrich asked that when the developer revises his plan he visualize Arlington Heights Road as it will be improved. 11. On the revised plan the exact acreages of the detention basins should be shown. 12. Show the sidewalks on the revised plan. 13. The Staff should check with the Appearance Commission and see if there are any trees worth saving. (Mr. Genrich would like a letter regarding this from the Appearance Commission. ) 14. The Staff should check on the proximity of the reclamation area to this project. Plan Commission Page 6 February 16, 1977 Friedman Development Mr. James Otis, Otis and Associates, stated that the property in question is a 32+ acre parcel located west of the intersection o.f Route 83 and Buffalo Grove Road and immediately around the old service station which is being converted to an animal hospital. Immediately to the west is an existing park and the R-4 district of Levitt. Immediately to the south is a piece of property that is presently in the county and on the Master Plan is intended to be B-3 and residential PUD to the west of the creek. Immediately to the west is the section which on the Master Plan was scheduled for commercial. Mr. Otis showed an overlay with the existing zoning in various areas. East of the Levitt parcel is the sewage disposal plant and existing Park District land. The property proposed for this development is presently zoned B-3. The golf course to the south is R-4 and there is a M-1 area to the north with Zale immediately to the west of this. Their proposal is for a PUD with a density of just over 4 units per acre and an equivalent to R-4. They have laid it out as an R-4 subdivision. Their basic concern is Route 83 which is a fairly heavy traffic road. They would like to have a buffer of 20 multiple-family units on Route 83 in the northeast corner and then create a single-family detached PUD with a lot of open space primarily in park. The park shown in the western portion is adjacent to an existing park. A concept they have tried and feel works is going back to the old common neighborhood square. A common is provided in front of the homes so there is open land in front of the house. This is the basic concept of the plan. The lots are smaller than what R-4 would be but they have 7+ acres of common open area on the plan. There is a pathway that connects to the main park so everyone would have access to the park. It goes through the park and through the entire subdivision. There is also access to the tot lot. The lots are closer to an R-6. Another aspect they would like to consider is a zero lot line concept. Their setback' lines whether standard or zero lot line would conform to basic R-4 setback standards. The rear yard is 30' , front yard is 25' and a minimum of 15' between the homes. If you provide a 5' easement on each lot line you maintain accessibility of one lot onto the other for maintenance. When you have a 30' rear yard and minimum of 15' between the houses it enables you to develop land on the side yard as well as rear so you can open up to the side as well as to the rear. This creates a very attractive atmosphere. Mr. Otis continued, stating that they are not limiting themselves to the zero lot line plan. They like the idea and feel it will work. The Village can decide if they are right. This type of development would be important in terms of designs of individual homes and how they are situated to each other. Mr. John Hooper described the engineering aspects of the plan. The 1 sanitary sewer layout is quite simple because the main interceptor is Plan Commission Page 7 February 16, 1977 along Route 83. It has more than adequate slope and depth. Regarding the storm drainage, according to the ordinance they have developed two separate detention areas. One is near the multiple-family and the other is in the southwest corner. The one in the southwest corner would be just a depressed area and would pond to a maximum of li' and drain off in three to four hours. It is almost a natural basin. The other retention area is very small. There is a Water main at Lake-Cook Road and Buffalo Grove Road and one along Farrington. They would tie in with these. The streets are standard width. Around the park areas the streets are 20' single-lane and one-way. They have standard curb and gutter and paving. 4-)Mr. Rapp stated that on the entrance off Buffalo Grove Road, someone has to go around the common area to get to his house. Mr. McCoy has requested 911'0' pavement around the common areas. Regarding sidewalks, Mr. Hooper stated that there would not be sidewalks in front of the homes near the common areas but there would be sidewalks within the common areas. Mr. Rapp stated that he felt the traffic pattern was the major issue of this plan. Mr. Hitzeman stated that he has not met with the developer on this plan. Regarding the 20' streets, he did not know how this would allow a school bus if there is parking on both sides of the street. Mr. Otis replied that there is parking on only one side of the street. In response to a question from Mr. Hitzeman, Mr. Otis stated that there are 116 single-family units and 20 multiple-family. There are two and three bedrooms in the single-family. The townhouses would also be two and three bedrooms. He will mail plans of the development to Mr. Hitzeman. Mr. Rapp asked what the plans were for maintenance_.in the common areas. Mr. Otis replied that they would like to complete them according to Park District standards and then dedicate them to the Park District, not the cul-de-sacs but the common areas and the park itself. Mr. Kiddle asked if they planned to have any sidewalks on Farrington. Mr. Otis replied that they did plan on this. Commissioner Keister asked if the pathways would be paved and Mr. Hooper replied that they would be. Regarding the walkways, Commissioner Keister asked if they could designate some of them to be regular 8' wide bike paths in addition to walkways. Especially the main one from the southeast corner linking over to the park. Mr. Otis replied that they could do this. Mr. Otis stated that these homes will be priced in the 70's and 80's and will be approximately 1800 to 2200 square feet. In terms of design, the Plan Commission page 8 February 16, 1977 concept would be the same in terms of the house itself as Ancient Tree. Chairman Genrich asked who the petitioner is and also who the developer will be. Mr. Otis stated that the owner of the property is Harold Friedman. He has retained Otis and Associates to design and plan this area to what he feels would be in the best interest of the Village from a residential standpoint. The plan could be accepted by the Village subject to the condition of selecting a particular developer. There is not a developer l at this time. Mr. Cope stated that Mr. Friedman is trying to get a concept created for this land. He will try not to find a developer who is not acceptable to the Village. The plan itself will limit the type of home that is built there. Before they can reach the point of getting a developer they have to go from B-3 zoning to R-4 and find out if the concept is acceptable and then they will sit down with a developer. He added that they cannot build what isn' t the approved plan. Commissioner Jacobs stated that t Buffalo Grove's feeling abo ut this tYpo of plan is influenced by who is going to develop it because if a plan is laid out and you put a low-grade developer in, he will build low-grade homes. He can be in conformity with the plan and still build this type of home. In response to Commissioner Kandel, Mr. Cope stated that Mr. Friedman is looking for a quality development that will attract older people. Commissioner Harris asked why they are not providing a buffer zone along Buffalo Grove Road like the one along Route 83. Mr. Otis stated that it is primarily a traffic consideration. They do not feel the traffic along Buffalo Grove Road will be what it is along Route 83. They have never been successful with multiple-family facing single-family. This is what they would have to do if they used multiple-family along Buffalo Grove Road as a buffer. They have no problem with backing single-family up to multiple-family. In response to Mr. Rapp, Mr. Otis stated that they will have to buffer around the animal hospital or even possibly put in a solid fence. Commissioner Harris stated that in terms of the unit types, he does not like all the garages sticking out in the Crossings. The design of the homes in this development prevents the residents from seeing out onto the commons. Mr. Otis stated that the design of the homes can be changed. The commons is an area to walk out into or drive by. Commissioner Harris stated that he liked the plan. Mr. Kiddie inquired about the soil composition in the park areas. Mr. Hooper stated that it is clay and is 100% buildable. Commissioner Keister stated that he basically likes the plan and the concept behind it. He does have a problem, however, of approving a plan without knowing who the developer is. With regard to the acreage Plan Commission Page 9 February 16, 1977 they would be giving to the Village , how much in excess of the resolution are they? He also asked them to identify the amenities which would lead to a PUD, Mr. Otis stated that they would supply all these figures to the Plan Commission but could not do this now. Commissioner Goldspiel stated that his reaction towards this plan is unfavorable. He would rather see a standard R-4 or even multiple-family. He thinks the zero lot line is a bad idea and doesn' t see any advantage to it in this case. He feels there is an access problem regarding the park in the left hand corner of the plan. The idea of having the Park District maintain the common areas which would not be of Village-wide interest is not good activity for the Park District. He doesn' t see the point of crowding units together to create square areas. He added that there is a bad traffic pattern and is also disturbed by the proximity of the animal hospital. Commissioner Shields stated that he feels it is a very creative plan. He asked if the cul-de-sacs as drawn are permissible to the Village. He asked that this be checked on. In response to Commissioner Shields, Mr. Otis stated that there are three lots in the plan they may omit. Commissioner Shields stated that he is also concerned about knowing who the developer will be. There was a discussion regarding whether the streets around the common areas should be one-way or two-way. With the exception of Commissioner Goldspiel the commissioners voted for one-way. (One-way and 20' ) Chairman Genrich summarized the points of the meeting as follows: 1. The developer should meet with School District 96 l 2. Review with the Staff the traffic plan relative to school buses, police, fire, etc. Are there any implications relative to Farrington Road improvement. Does the improvement of Buffalo Grove Road have any effect on this. 3. Mr. Genrich would be interested in knowing the treatment for the houses that back up onto Buffalo Grove Road. 4. The developer should supply the Plan Commission with a more detailed summary in terms of what they are asking for (school impact, economic impact, etc.) 5. It would be a plus if they could have the name of a developer. 6. Show the sidewalks on the plan and make them more apparont. 7. Mr. Otis should meet with the Staff and Park District Staff and review the plan in terms of the agreement between the Village and Park District. Plan Commission Page 10 February 16,1977 8. The Staff should address themselves to the problem of public ownership and maintenance of the squares, also the widths, improvements and maintenance of the green ways. Also, how will the park connect with the public land that is there? Commissioner Goldspiel questioned the location of the driveways around the corners of the commons. He wat also concerned about how the entry to the project would line up with what is on the other side of Buffalo Grove Road. Chairman Genrich asked Mr. Rapp and Mr. Delaney to identify to Mr. Cope the type of information the Plan Commission is asking for in the summary. Zale Mr. Rapp explained to the Plan Commission the changes made in the Zale plan for Village Board approval. He stated that the developer adhered strictly to R-6 zoning. He redid the plan completely in order to conform to R-6 zoning.There were no major changes in the traffic pattern. The revised plan was given to the Recording Secretary for the Plan Commission files. Ridgewood Chairman Genrich and Commissioner Kandel, Acting Secretary, signed the Plat of Survey for Ridgewood Development as approved at the Plan Commission meeting of October 10, 1976, and marked Exhibit #103-36 Adjournment Commissioner Kandel made a motion to adjourn and Commissioner Shields seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, • L' da Isonhart Recording Secretary APPROVED: '� Carl Genrich, Chairman