Loading...
1976-02-18 - Plan Commission - Minutes 1 I PUBLIC HEARING Buffalo Grove Plan Commission Marquardt/Brosio February 18, 1976 Chairman Carl Genrich called the meeting to order at 8: 15 p.m. , February 18, 1976, in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard. Commissioners Present: Chairman Genrich ! Mr. Mendenhall Mr. Keister Mr. Shields Mr. Jacobs Mr. Kandel Commissioners Absent: Mr. Harris Mr. Goldspiel Also Present: Mr. Raymond Brosio, Developer Mr. George Zimmerman, Developer Mr. Dennis Hetler, Attorney Mr. James Ray, Architect Mr. Robert Bogart , Trustee Mr. Richard Heinrich, Board of Zoning Appeals Mr. James Kuenz, Prospective Member Mr. Arnold Seaberg, Village Engineer Mr. William Whited, Administrative Assistant Chairman Genrich read the Notice of Public Hearing published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on Monday, January 26, 1976. He asked Mr. Dennis Hetler to identify those present in this regard. Mr. Hetler introduced Mr. James Ray, Architect. Chairman Genrich swore in Mr. Hetler and Mr. Ray as witnesses and asked them to begin their presentation. 1 Mr. Hetler stated that he is the attorney for Mr. Brosio and Mr. Zimmerman, the developers of the proposed shopping center. They are appearing before the Plan Commission for the purpose of amending the site plan to the annexation agreement dated April 1, 1974. The annexation agreement zones the property in question as B-4. Mr. Hetler asked Mr. Ray to describe the proposed development and elaborate on the entrances and exits. Mr. Ray presented the proposed site plan, Exhibit ##109-14, and stated that the shopping center is 25,000 square feet in the area of the small shops and 15,000 square feet for the hardware store which gives a total of 40,000 square feet. The code requirement for parking is 133 but they are providing parking for 190 cars. Plan Commission Page 2 February 18, 1976 Mr. Ray stated that the renderings are now being redone in preparation for their meeting with the Appearance Commission. The proposed style is Williamsburg Colonial. They have established a very broad concourse walk and this is well landscaped. There will be a large canopy and colonial offsets. Three driveway entrances and exits have been established. The one to the south in conjunction with the bank property will be an entrance and they will establish another driveway just to the north of this as an exit. There will be a drive near the centerpoint of the building for exiting and entering. It is a split drive according to county highway requirements. Also, there is a third entrance at the north end of the property. In his opinion, the split drive will take most of the traffic. The northern driveway is mainly for trucks and they propose that they go clockwise around the building and out the new proposed south driveway. Mr. Ray referred to a memo from Mr. Seaberg to Mr. Larson dated January 29, 1976, in which Mr. Seaberg outlines and diagrams changes he proposes in the driveway locations. Mr. Ray stated that he does not agree with these changes. Mr. Seaberg proposes that they eliminate the north driveway and move the center drive to the north to line up with the Ranch Mart driveway. Mr. Ray stated that they are against these changes for the following reasons: 1. Traffic will be encouraged to dart across Buffalo Grove Road between the shopping centers. 2. There will be extra turns for incoming and outgoing traffic. 3. Truck traffic will be encouraged to take a counter-clockwise route. 4. Cars pulling out of parking spaces near the main drive will be backing into traffic coming into the center. 5. Use of the drive common with the bank will be encouraged with Mr. Seaberg's plan. It is the developers' intent that the center drive take the most traffic. Mr. Ray stated that it is proposed for the sanitary sewer to run in an east-west direction. A lift station would be installed to elevate the usage to the level of the sewer across the street. He added that they will take water from the west side of Buffalo Grove Road and bring it across. This has to be worked out further with Mr. Seaberg. Commissioner Mendenhall asked Mr. Ray how far off the street the sidewalk is. Mr. Ray stated that it is 25' . Commissioner Mendenhall asked if they will be berming in the front. Mr. Ray replied that they will be slightly, Plan Commission Page 3 February 18, 1976 Commissioner Jacobs stated that the traffic flow at the south entrance was of concern to him. Because of the large amount of cross-traffic going into the bank he asked if that entrance could be controlled in any way. Mr. Ray replied that an alternative would be to leave the bank drive alone and build another but they did not like this. Commissioner Jacobs asked Mr. Ray if they plan to use colonial fixtures in the parking lot. Mr. Ray stated that they did. In response to a question from Commissioner Shields, Mr. Ray stated he had talked with Mr. Dettmer regarding access for fire equipment and Mr. Dettmer had stated that there was ample distance between the cars and the building for the firemen to work in and this was what was important. Commissioner Keister stated that he felt the parking could be broken up somewhat. He suggested they eliminate some of their parking and do more landscaping. Commissioner Keister stated that he agrees with Mr. Seaberg regarding the possibility of lining up the central driveway with the Ranch Mart driveway and perhaps widening it. Mr. Ray stated that of the reasons he listed for being against Mr. Seaberg's proposal, the fifth one was the most important. He could not accept this change unless forced to. Commissioner Kandel stated that he also agreed with Mr. Seaberg' s pro- posal. The plan shows two openings from the bank property into the shopping center and Commissioner Kandel added that he was also concerned about people going west on Dundee,turning into the bank parking lot and cutting across it to the shopping center. He stated that he also agrees with Commissioner Keister regarding breaking up the parking. Regarding the parking, Commissioner Keister suggested that the three openings between cars parked near the building be widened to channel people into the shopping area. Mr. Ray replied that they could widen the openings but there is going to be a good six or seven feet between cars. Mr. Seaberg stated that the more intersections there are the more sources of problems there are because accidents occur at intersections. In this proposal he is trying to eliminate intersections. He added that additional problems arise when you try to solve one and there is no easy solution to this problem. The possibility of installing a barrier had been raised but people try to go over these. Also, the installation of traffic signals had been mentioned but the Highway Department would not permit this. Plan Commission Page 4 February 18, 1976 Commissioner Keister stated that he felt there are too many parking spaces and it will not look good from the front. Mr. Brosio stated that the parking lot sits higher than the street and there will be quite a bit of landscaping. He did not think the bumpers of the cars in the lot would be visible from the street. Mr. Seaberg stated that he had another alternative to the driveway issue but it would require changing the direction of the trucks around the shopping center. There would be an 'bxit only" on the north end and the main drive would be between what is now the bank drive and the center drive. The bank drive would be "enter only" and widened and buffered so a truck would have to go in and around the back of the center and out the north drive. Mr. Hetler stated that he felt everyone had come to the conclusion that there are pros and cons in whatever is done. They have come up with a plan that uses the suggestions made by the Plan Commission in previous meetings. He added that in his opinion this plan is an asset to the Village. Mr. Whited stated that all public agencies had been notified of this Public Hearing and there was no response. Mr. Brosio stated that he wanted to leave the plan as it is. Commissioner Kandel asked if a letter had been received from the Bank of Buffalo Grove consenting to the use of a common drive with the shopping center. Chairman Genrich stated a letter had been received and Mr. Miller, President of the bank, was at a previous meeting and verbally given his consent. The letter from the bank is marked Exhibit #109-15 in the Plan Commission files. The Public Hearing adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, APPROVED: L nda Isonhart Recording Secretary Carl Genrich Plan Commission Chairman REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION Marquardt/Brosio & Surety Homes/Didier Farm, Levitt/Wagner Farm February 18, 1976 Chairman Carl Genrich called the meeting to order at 9:30 p.m. , February 18, 1976, in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard. Commissioners Present: Chairman Genrich Mr. Mendenhall Mr. Keister Mr. Shields Mr. Jacobs Mr. Kandel Commissioners Absent: Mr. Harris Mr. Goldspiel Also Present: Mr. Raymond Brosio, Developer Mr. George Zimmerman, Developer Mr. Dennis Hetler, Attorney Mr. James Ray, Architect Mr. Richard Kaufman, Surety Homes Mr. Mike Ives, Surety Homes Mr. James DeFrancia, Levitt Mr. Richard Piggott, Consulting Engineer Mr. Richard Lapham, Park District Board Mr. Stan Crosland, Park District Mr. Robert Bogart , Trustee Mr. Richard Heinrich, Board of Zoning Appeals Mr. James Kuenz, Prospective Member Mr. Arnold Seaberg, Village Engineer Mr. William Whited, Administrative Assistant Approval of Minutes Commissioner Shields made a motion to approve the minutes of February 4, 1976. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion. The motion carried that the minutes be approved. There were no changes or corrections. Marquardt/Brosio Chairman Genrich stated that the plan presented tonight is an amendment to the annexation agreement dated April 1, 1974. This is a five-year agreement requiring them to come back in with a plan should the plan presented here tonight not be constructed. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he felt the matter of ingress and Plan Commission Page 2 February 18, 1976 egress will have to be resolved. Commissioner Keister stated that the Village Board may have some suggestions in this regard. The Plan Commission can suggest that an alternative be prepared for consideration and submitted to Mr. Seaberg. Commissioner Jacobs made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board the approval of the amendment to the annexation agreement of April 1, 1974, for the proposed shopping center, otherwise known as the Marquardt/Brosio proposal, Exhibit #109-14, subject to the Staff and developer developing an acceptable traffic pattern in and out of said site. Commissioner Mendenhall seconded the motion and the following vote was taken: Commissioner Mendenhall yes Commissioner Jacobs yes Commissioner Keister no Commissioner Kandel yes Commissioner Shields yes The motion carried. Surety Homes/Didier Farm & Levitt/Wagner Farm Chairman Genrich stated that the Plan Commission is attempting to consider these two developments jointly. They are on adjoining pieces of property. Mr. Kaufman is asking for rezoning of 17 acres of the Surety parcel and annexation of the balance. Because he is asking for straight zoning on the 17 acres, a Public Hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals is required. In order to expedite things Mr. Heinrich, Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals, is meeting in conjunction with the Plan Commission tonight in a workshop with these developers. The Plan Commission and Zoning Board will hold their Public Hearings on the same night. Chairman Genrich stated the developer met with the Park District last week. The Park District felt the recreation area should be more centrally located in the Surety Homes portion. Mr. Lapham stated that based on Surety's calculations they have a acreage requirement of 4.5 acres for recreational land. The land they propose to donate gives the Park District a usable space of 2.9 acres. This does not meet the Village requirements in terms of acreage. Mr. Crosland stated that the Park District proposes that a portion of the area in the northern parameter be developed into a tot lot to make up the difference. Commissioner Jacobs stated that according to the ordinance the developer must give 4.5 acres of totally usable land to the Village. It is the obligation of the Park District to get together with them and come up with usable land. Mr. Crosland stated that he had been told that even though the entire 4.5 acres is not usable as recreation area, it is suitable for construction of homes. Also, they suggest that a lot on the northeast side of the area proposed for recreation land be cut in half to give better access to this area. Half a lot could then be added to the southern end. Plan Commission Page 3 February 18, 1976 ll Lapham stated t� + *� n T; _�_; _` n_ does ner 3[3J'jlol Mr. aee-Lth -i-a k-Dis t1 i u �s cc '�-,r,ti s , ate byrs M - Cro =�;a. ' 'hey want 4.5 acres of --ws�V Vggoa v land that is suitable for active recreational use. It is up to the developer to come back to them with a proposal that meets these requirements. He added that,personally, he is not in favor of the location of the proposed recreation site. Mr. Ives stated that they met with the Park District on Thursday night at which time they presented this plan. At that time they were anticipating that around two acres would be utilized for dry storage retention. They offered to come up with a second alternative at the request of the Park District if they could give the developer some idea as to the type of activity expected in the park. Mr. Ives reviewed the grading plan (Exhibit # 222-3 ). He stated the shaded area consists of 1.58 acres. This is the detention pond. The maximum slope on the outside bank is 3 feet horizontally to 1 foot vertically. The maximum slope on the internal bank is 5 feet horizontally to 1 foot vertically. This would make 3.93 usable acres, not 2.9 as stated by the Park District. Mr. Piggot, consulting engineer, stated that he put a swale between the lots and ballfield because Mr. Kiddie indicated that the houses would be above the park site and their backyards would drain across the park site. Instead of this he could put in a straight pitch from the lots and this will make the land usable. Chairman Genrich stated that the guidelines for park land and recreational land dedication are set forth in Village ordinance 72-35. He asked the recording secretary to send a copy of this ordinance to each of the Plan Commission members. Chairman Genrich asked Mr. Ives if the entire 4.5 acre site is buildable. Mr. Ives stated that homes could be built on all but two acres. Chairman Genrich stated that in this instance more then Surety Homes is being discussed. The Plan Commission is developing the correct procedure that will solve this problem on all projects in the future. Mr. DeFrancia stated that Levitt has a similar but not identical problem regarding their dedicated park land. The original plan with recreation land was approved by the Village Board. Now, they are coming back with a change in the plan and are being told by the Park District that the recreation land is not suitable. Mr. DeFrancia asked whether they are now forced to comply with the Park District's request even though the plan has been approved. Mr. Bogart stated that when land is donated and the Park District turns it down it automatically belongs to the Village and it is up to the Village to maintain it. What is needed is land that the Park District can develop so the Village doesn't end up with it. Plan Commission Page 4 February 18, 1976 Mr. DeFrancia stated that they would be willing to give up the church site which would make a total of 14.5 acres donated. Commissioner Mendenhall stated that the well site is taking up usable land and he suggests that they put the well site under usable land even though it will cost extra money. Chairman Genrich made two requests of the developers: 1. Surety should find some way to make the site in question acceptable to the Park District before they meet with the Plan Commission again. Perhaps they could build on the usable portion in order to free another usable portion. He added that he would like to schedule the Public Hearing on this parcel as soon as possible. 2. Mr. Sleek, Mr. Crosland, Mr. Seaberg and Mr. Larson should get together to see if there is a way to make a park area that is acceptable. Adjournment Commissioner Kandel made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Keister seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. 1 Respectfully submitted, Li da Isonhart Recording Secretary APPROVED: Carl Genrich Plan Commission Chairman •