Loading...
1976-02-04 - Plan Commission - Minutes REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION Miller/Schwartz & Bank of Buffalo Grove/Poppin Fresh Pies February 4, 1976 Chairman Carl Genrich called, the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. , February 4, 1976, in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard. Commissioners Present: Chairman Genrich Mr. Mendenhall Mr. Harris Mr. Keister Mr. Shields Mr. Jacobs Mr. Kandel Commissioners Absent: Mr. Goldspiel Also Present: Mr. George Brotzman, Engineer for Pillsbury Mr. Daniel Light, Realtor Mr. David Potter, Bank of Buffalo Grove Mr. Joseph Ash, Attorney Mr. Edward Schwartz, Developer Mr. Jerome Soltan, Architect Mr. John Marienthal, Trustee Mr. Arnold Seaberg, Village Engineer Mr. William Whited, Administrative Assistant Commissioner Jacobs questioned whether or not either of the developments before the Plan Commission tonight had gone before the Appearance Commission yet. Chairman Genrich replied that the general procedure is that they go before the Appearance Commission before they can obtain building permits. The Appearance Commission also makes a recommendation to the Village Board. Approval of Minutes Commissioner Shields moved to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 7, 1976, and Commissioner Mendenhall seconded the motion. The motion carried that the minutes be approved subject to the following changes: On page 4, paragraph 1, change "includes" in line 4 to "excludes" and "inclusions" in line 6 to "exclusions." Commissioner Shields moved to approve the minutes of the Bank of Buffalo Grove Public Hearing, January 21, 1976, and Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion. The motion carried that the minutes be approved subject to the following change: On page 3, paragraph 2, change "restaurant" in line 3 to "building." Plan Commission Page 2 February 4, 1976 Commissioner Shields moved to approve the minutes of the Miller/Schwartz Public Hearing, January 21, 1976, and Commissioner Kandel seconded the motion. The motion carried that the minutes be approved. There were no changes or corrections. Commissioner Mendenhall moved to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 21, 1976, and Commissioner Keister seconded the motion. The motion carried that the minutes be approved. There were no changes or corrections. Bank of Buffalo Grove/Poppin Fresh Pies Mr. Potter of the Bank of Buffalo Grove distributed copies of the Plat of Annexation (Exhibit 1015-8) and a combined site plan (Exhibit 1015-11) which included the Pillsbury and Bank of Buffalo Grove property. The Plat of Annexation is referred to as Exhibit A in the annexation agreement and the combined site plan is referred to as Exhibit B. The commissioners had been mailed a copy of the annexation agreement. Mr. Potter stated they had been asked to clear up two items for tonight's meeting. The first was the inclusion of item #7 in the annexation agreement which reads as follows: "The Developer agrees to submit a Plan of Development on the undeveloped portion of the property (identified as proposed lot 2 on the Plat of Annexation) to the Planning Commission and the Corporate Authorities for approval. This plan is to include details on any proposed buildings on lot 2." By including this in the annexation agreement they are saying that anything the bank desires to do with the remaining property is subject to Village approval. The second item was the request for a combined site plan which has been provided. The site plan shows a 25' set back, 12' buffer, one curb cut on Dundee Road, one curb cut on old Buffalo Grove Road, a water line down the Pillsbury property and across the easement (this is subject to engineering). Commissioner Jacobs asked if the annexation agreement is negotiated on with a member of the Board or Mr. Raysa present. Mr. Marienthal stated that it will be reviewed by Mr. Raysa before it goes to the Board. Mr. Potter added that Mr. Larson and his staff will also go over it before it goes to the Board. While the Plan Commission was reviewing the annexation agreement, Mr. Potter described the development to the members of the public present. He stated that Pillsbury proposes to put a Poppin Fresh Pie restaurant on a 15G'x300' lot. The Bank of Buffalo Grove owns the remaining portion of the property which is 250'x300' . There is no buyer at present for this portion but they are asking for entrance into the Village. The development plan has been narrowed down as much as possible without having a buyer for the site. Plan Commission Page 3 February 4, 1976 Mrs. Barbara Floyd, 923 Greenridge, asked Mr. Potter what would happen to the people in the homes that are presently standing on the property. Mr. Potter stated that they are leasing the homes on a 30-day basis and were notified several months ago of these plans. Mrs. Floyd questioned the purchase of the homes by the bank and Mr. Potter stated that the bank bought the homes several years ago from the owners. Mr. Light, L. B. Andersen & Co. , stated that he was involved in the purchase of these homes and the bank had purchased the homes for the purpose of expanding their facilities but this did not prove to be necessary. Commissioner Harris stated that paragraph 10 in the annexation agreement refers to offsite utilities and he asked Mr. Seaberg if there are any offsite utilities required for this project. Mr. Seaberg stated that he may ask them to extend the water main to the back of the property. Commissioner Jacobs stated that annexation agreements can now be in effect for ten years instead of five and he would suggest that this one be for ten years. Commissioner Mendenhall stated that he felt paragraph #6 should be reworded. At present it can be interpreted to say that if the developer meets the zoning requirements he can build and the Village cannot say no. Mr. Potter stated that this is the reason they put in paragraph #7 in which it states that the bank will come back with the plan of development on the remaining site for approval from the Plan Commission, Appearance Commission and Village Board. Commissioner Mendenhall stated that regardless of paragraph #7, paragraph #6 should be reworded. After further discussion, Commissioner Jacobs agreed to work on new wording for paragraph #6. Commissioner Kandel asked Mr. Potter if he had any objection to eliminating taverns and auction houses under the B-1 zoning. Mr. Potter replied that he would agree to omitting auction houses but preferred to leave taverns in. He added that there are many reputable establishments which require a liquor license and he does not want to discourage anyone from making an offer. Commissioner Keister questioned the lack of a 12' buffer strip at the rear of the Pillsbury lot on the combined development plan. There is a 12' buffer shown on lot 2 but it stops at the Pillsbury lot. Mr. Brotzman, engineer for Pillsbury, stated that this was an error and that it will be shown on the final plan. Commissioner Keister stated that he was confused about the 25' setback line and the 35' building line shown on the plan. Mr. Potter stated that the 35' building line was shown on the plan because it was necessary to show it on the plan for Cook County and the man who drew up the plan said he had to show it on this also. Commissioner Keister replied that it was not necessary to show it on this plan and if it is shown on the final plat the developer will not be able to build anything further out then 35'. All that is needed is a Plan Commission Page 4 February 4, 1976 25' setback line. They will have to show one off of Ellen Drive and old Buffalo Grove Road also. They will also have to show how the driveway on Ellen Drive lines up with the driveway of the nursery school across the street. Commissioner Shields made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board the approval of the Petition for Annexation(Exh.1015-h to the Village of Buffalo Grove and B-1 General Business District zoning subject to the changes in the Annexation Agreement (Exhibit 1015-13) and subject to the changes on the Plat of Survey (Exhibit 1015-11) as discussed. These changes are: 1. The Annexation Agreement would be in effect for 10 years. 2. Paragraph #6 of the Annexation Agreement will be changed to include the following terminology: "If the Developer desires to make any changes including but not limited to type of land use, architectural design, setback requirements, utilities, etc. , as identified in the existing Plan of Development as herein approved, the parties agree that changes in the Plan of Development will require the submission of amended plats or plans, together with proper supporting documentation, to the Plan Commission and other applicable Corporate Authorities to consider changes in this Agreement which would allow the desired changes to the Plan of Development. The Corporate Authorities may, at their sole discretion, require additional public hearings before either granting approval or denial of such changes and/or use proposed. 3. Annexation Agreement would exclude the land use of auction houses. 4. The plan is being accepted conditional upon the developer providing the 12' rear planting strip on the entire south side of the combined parcels. Commissioner Kandel seconded the motion and the following vote was taken: Commissioner Mendenhall no Commissioner Shields yes Commissioner Harris no Commissioner Jacobs yes Commissioner Keister no Commissioner Kandel yes Chairman Genrich voted "yes" and the motion carried. Commissioner Mendenhall stated that once this is approved the door will be open for more developments of the same type. Commissioner Jacobs stated that the Village Board should be alerted that point #2 in the motion should be expanded on and be a little Plan Commission Page 5 February 4, 1976 more specific. He advises that the Village Attorney and developer get together to work out language that is mutually satisfactory. This development will go before the Village Board on February 16. Commissioner Shields will represent the Plan Commission in this regard. Miller/Schwartz Mr. Ash presented the revised plan (Exhibit 176-16) for the Miller/Schwartz development and stated that the height of the buildings along the single-family homes has been changed to two-story, there are now 308 units and the setback is now 40' instead of 30' . They have also added play lots. He asked Mr. Soltan to give the details of the plan. Mr. Soltan stated that the height of the two-story buildings is approximately 20' . The PUD ordinance requires that the setback along single-family homes be twice the building height. As a result, the setback in this area is 40' for three of the seven buildings and for the other four the setback is from 70' to 100' . They have eliminated from consideration the existing well site which belongs to the Village. Three play lots have been provided. The retention pond is still about one acre but the configuration of it has been changed slightly. Drainage will be through an under- ground pipe with a swale at the surface. Landscape area is still 51% and building coverage is 16%. Mr. Soltan presented a plan showing how the area would be developed if the Village sold the well site to the developer. The plan is the same as the other except for the addition of a building which would make 316 units. Mr. Ash stated that they were asking for approval of the plan without the well site and if the Village sells the site to the developer they will ask for approval of the plan with the well site. Mr. Ash stated that in revising their plan they had attempted to address themselves to the objections raised by the homeowners. Mr. Ash stated that the three-story units will be sold in groups of six and the two-story will be sold in groups of eight. The developer proposes that a homeowners' association be created. Mr. Ash distributed copies of a sample of Declaration of Covenants (Exhibit 176-15) for a homeowners' association. This sample is one used in another village and they would not want to duplicate it. The homeowners' association would cover maintaining the open areas and exterior maintenance. Each building would get one vote. An amount of assessment would be set and this would go into a fund to cover maintenance of these areas. If any of the owners did not pay the assessment the association would have the right to assert a lien against the building and could sell it. A provision was added to Plan Commission Page 6 February 4, 1976 the declaration that the Village would be a party to the agreement with the right to assert a lien against any building for reimbursement of all costs for expenses in connection with any exterior maintenance it may need to do because of the owner's and homeowners' association neglect to do so. Commissioner Kandel asked what the possibility of a building being sold to more then one owner was. Mr. Ash stated that it is possible it could happen but it is not the marketing concept that the developer has. Commissioner Keister asked if the play lots were considered part of the open area and if they would be developed as play lots. Mr. Ash stated that they would be considered open area and be maintained by the homeowners' association. Also, they will be equipped as play lots. Commissioner Harris stated that one of the things the Plan Commission had asked them to do was consider accepting the current PUD requirements. Mr. Soltan said the current PUD requires a setback of twice the building height from single-family lot lines and once the building height from adjacent multi-family. They have provided these setbacks and with the possible exception of number of units he did not feel that anything else was violated. They are allowed to cover 35% of the land with buildings and they covered only 16%. Commissioner Harris asked if they plan to put in the recreation facilities as the development is built. Mr. Soltan replied that as each area was built the play lot would be put in in that area at the same time. Commissioner Harris asked if the developer was meeting the density requirements. Mr. Whited stated that if they are allowed to count what Miller has already built in apartments he could meet the density requirement without any trouble. Chairman Genrich reported that the Village Staff met with the Park District to clarify what some of the issues are that the Park District feels Miller has yet to fulfill and essentially what they are obligated to fulfill. The issues and determinations made are: 1. Park District's interest in providing parkway trees for the park and school sites - The Village Staff essentially is certain that Miller is not obligated to do this and conveyed that to Mr. Crosland. 2. Matter of grading and elevation changes in that parcel - There might be some minor grading that needs to be done but it did not appear that Miller is obligated to do anything. The Village Staff has facilities and equipment necessary and would be willing to take care of what minor grading needs to be done. 3. The Staff was in contact with Miller relative to some public improvements that needed to be made prior to final acceptance of the project and release I'I I Plan Commission Page 7 February 4, 1976 of insurance funds that the developer had to provide. One of the things agreed to by Miller was that they will make a payment of $4,825 to cover needed repairs and improvements which includes a swale between Mill Creek and Frenchman's Cove. Mr. Marienthal stated that the Village Board did not accept the improvements at the Monday night Board meeting because of problems with the Park District. Therefore , this has not been accepted. Mrs. Betty Reid, 990 Crofton Lane, stated that she wanted to reiterate that even though the plan is much better than the one presented at the Public Hearing, most of the people in her neigh- borhood are still very much opposed to three-story buildings. In reply to a question from the Commission, Mr. Seaberg stated that he still didn't know about the sale of the well site. They will try to get a water study done but it will not be available until this summer. Mrs. Barbara Floyd, 923 Greenridge, stated that she had talked with Mr. Crosland and no information has been submitted to the Park District regarding the play lots. Commissioner Mendenhall stated that he had talked with them today regarding this. Commissioner Keister stated that the play lots are not Park District property. Mrs. Floyd stated that this plan is not a compromise to what Miller originally proposed. Miller was originally going to provide a park in the buffer strip between the single-family homes and apartments. Commissioner Mendenhall stated that this was talked about but never approved and also Miller had wanted commercial in return for the park. Mr. James Kuenz, 907 Greenridge, stated that the method of ownership is still his primary concern. He recommends that the homeowners' association have control of the interior as well as the exterior of the buildings. Mr. Ash said that this is something that has not been decided yet. Mr. Marienthal asked about the deeding of the land. Mr. Ash stated that it is fee simple. Mrs. B. Personius, 1000 Crofton Lane, stated that she had not seen any drawings of what the back of the buildings would look like and this is what she would be looking at. Mr. Soltan stated that the back of the buildings will look similar to the fronts. There will be no garbage cans because there will be areas in the parking lots for trash collection. Mrs. Golin, 915 Greenridge, asked what percentage is parking area. Mr. Soltan replied that the total blacktop area between parking and street dedication is 33%. Plan Commission Page 8 February 4, 1976 Commissioner Mendenhall made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board disapproval of Plan D (Exhibit 176-16) as presented February 4, 1976. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion. The following vote was taken: Commissioner Mendenhall yes Commissioner Shields no Commissioner Harris no Commissioner Jacobs yes Commissioner Keister no Commissioner Kandel no The motion was defeated. Commissioner Keister made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board the approval of Miller/Schwartz Development Plan D (Exhibit 176-16). Commissioner Harris seconded the motion and the following vote was taken: Commissioner Mendenhall no Commissioner Shields yes Commissioner Harris yes Commissioner Jacobs no Commissioner Keister yes Commissioner Kandel yes The motion carried. This development will go before the Village Board on February 23. Commissioner Kandel will represent the Plan Commission in this regard. Future Agenda After a brief discussion the Plan Commission agreed to invite the Park District Board to the February 11 meeting with Levitt-Wagner Farm and Surety Homes-Didier Farm. Adjournment Commissioner Shields made a motion to adjourn and Commissioner Keister it seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, d2/ APPROVED: Li da Isonhart Recording Secretary Carl Genrich Plan Commission Chairman