Loading...
1976-11-17 - Plan Commission - Minutes REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION Chevy Chase November 17, 1976 Chairman Carl Genrich called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.M. in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard. Commissioners Present: Chairman Genrich Mr. Mendenhall Mr. Harris Mr. Keister Mr. Shields Mr. Goldspiel x r. Jacobs Mr. Kandel Commissioners Absent: Mr. Kuenz Also Present: Mr. William Johnson, Owner, Chevy Chase Mr. Gerald Sherman, Attorney Mr. Robert Grossman, Associated Planners Mr. William Kiddie, Park District Residents of Chevy Chase Mr. John Marienthal, Trustee Mrs. Donna Force, Prospective Member Mr. Carl Rapp, Director of Community Development Mr. William Whited, Administrative Assistant Approval of Minutes Commissioner Mendenhall moved to approve the minutes of November 3, 1976. Commissioner Shields seconded the motion. The motion carried that the minutes be approved subject to the following changes: Page 3, paragraph 1, insert the word "eastern" before "building" in line 3; page 4, paragraph 6, add "and they would consider it" to the last sentence; page 4, paragraph 7, change sentence 2 to read, "Mr. McCoy stated that the circumstances causing the flooding have been corrected." Chevy Chase At the previous meeting with Chevy Chase, residents of the single-family homes in Chevy Chase not scheduled for annexation expressed their concern regarding their water supply and whether they would be forced to annex into Buffalo Grove, Chairman Genrich explained to the residents present tonight that the Village legally cannot do anything to interfere with their water supply. He added there is no intent on the part of the Village at this point in time to take any steps to annex the subdivision most of the residents live in. Plan Commission Page 2 November 17, 1976 Chairman Genrich stated that tonight's meeting would be of a conceptual nature and they would try to stay away from details. He asked Mr. Sherman to begin their presentation. Mr. Sherman stated that at the previous meeting it was made clear that the annexation would be beneficial to the Johnson family. He added that they also think it would be of substantial benefit to the Village. This may be the last time they have an opportunity to acquire a tract of land this large under common ownership. It would bring the community closer to Lake Michigan water. It also would increase the tax base because roughly 2/3 of the land proposed for annexation will be industrial and commercial. Mr. Sherman stated that they feel this annexation would not pose any additional burdens to the sewer and water system. The owner and/or developer will be responsible for construction of sewer and water. Mr. Sherman went on to state that there are recreational activities that this area will offer to the community. There will be a substantial lake and a water network that winds throughout the entire property that will be available for public use. Mr. Grossman displayed an aerial photograph of the central portion of the property stating that the property consists of 646 acres and is 2 ` miles in an east-west direction. Mr. Grossman also showed a plan showing the relationship of the property to the present corporate limits of the Village and a superficial soils inventory by the U. S. Department of Agriculture which shows the classification of soils. The area with the best soil is located east of Milwaukee Avenue and has been condemned by the Lake County Forest Preserve District. Mr. Grossman presented an illustration showing the present zoning of the property. The portion of the property to the west is in the planning area of Buffalo Grove. To the north are Inverrary and Winston Square. This area is zoned UR3-C which is multiple-family zoning in Lake County. Other zoning shown in Lake County is UR2, a sub-divided area; UR1, single family with 8,000-9,000 square foot lots; and, commercial along Milwaukee Avenue. In Cook County there is B-5 and M-1. A proposed land use plan was shown next by Mr. Grossman. The area to the west is identified as an industrial tract. Among the areas they consider givens are the forest preserve tract, the land zoned for industrial and commercial in Cook County and the single-family sub-division. Mr. Grossman stated they looked into alternatives to save the golf course but because of MSD requirements they are satisfied there is no possibility of doing this. Once the golf course was no longer a viable possibility, they looked into other features. The stream will offer major recreational opportunities to people living on the site. They have negotiated two major intersections with the highway department with an additional entrance to the north. Between the two intersections is an area they felt was best suited to an office complex. This will overlook the water system. The Plan Commission Page 3 November 17, 1976 multi-family and townhouse areas are mixed. Mr. Grossman stated that they propose the densities be broken up. They are thinking of two and three-story apartment buildings. Referring to the open space and parks, Mr. Grossman stated that the total open space and parks in their proposal is roughly 60 acres and presently the Village has 45 acres. Mr. Grossman referred to the proposed zoning map stating that the proposed zoning include B1, B2, B3 for commercial; M1 districts for the industrial areas; R8 and R9 for multi-family and R6 and R5 for single-family. Mr. Grossman presented a map showing the proposed annexation. He stated the Lake County Forest Preserve District is reluctant to have their land annexed into the Village so the area proposed for annexation is reduced by 150 acres. The existing single-family area is-not proposed for annexation at the present time. Mr. Grossman referred to a revision of Table 1 which had been distributed to the commissioners at an earlier date. The actual area proposed for annexation is 443.7 acres. Referring back to the proposed annexation map, Mr. Grossman stated that the total area shown in yellow on this is not under the control of the Johnson family or is inaccessible and amounts to 34.4 acres. A cross-section showing how the open space relates to housing was shown to the Commission. Mr. Grossman said the pond would be 15'-16' deep. Regarding the school and park land dedications, Mr. Grossman stated that they take the position that it would not be the responsibility of the Johnson family to make land dedications for areas already developed. The calculations should be based on what they are asking to be annexed and what is under the control of the Johnson family. Mr. Sherman added that the areas to the east of Milwaukee Avenue already have a dedicated park. Mr. Grossman said that the park shown along the river east of Milwaukee are platted but were never taken by anyone. Mr. Grossman referred to the items listed in the minutes of August 18 which were to be taken care of before tonight's meeting and replied to these. At that meeting it was stated that there is a deficit of 10 acres in their donation. They do not think there is a deficit. In their calculations the total number of people that will be generated from the townhouses and apartments will be 4,606. This figure was based on the following: Townhouses - 97.4 acres which would produce 780 dwelling units = 257 people Apartments - 74.7 acres which would produce 1195 dwelling units= 2,032 people 4,606 The requirement is 5.5 acres per 1,000 which would mean 25.3 acres are required. Their total dedication is 60.4 acres. They are offering a 51 acres school Plan Commission Page 4 November 17, 1976 site. The required is 8 acres. If it is decided that the school site should be made larger, they would do this by changing the location of a collector roadway. They calculate that there will be 503 elementary, 114 junior high and 162 high school students. Regarding the quality of the land, Mr. Grossman stated that the park and school sites are on the prettiest parts of the site. At the previous meeting the Plan Commission asked the Johnson family to show the phasing of the development when they returned this week. Mr. Grossman stated the first phase would be to connect the existing customers on the present utility system to the Lake County sewer system. This means extending the line through Inverrary and Winston Square. There is some existing capacity in the sewer line coming from the north and this would provide for the development of the properties in area 1. Phase 2 will be the area to the east and southwest. Phase 3 will be the central area, phase 4 the commercial, phase 5 the area just east of the tracks and phase 6 will be the industrial. Mr. Grossman added that they may drop a portion of phase 1 and take in part of phase 2 along Milwaukee Avenue if they have ah opportunity to develop it. In response to other requests made by the Plan Commission at the August 18 meeting, Mr. Grossman stated that they will meet with the Park District tomorrow night, the draft of the annexation agreement and list of property owners are almost prepared and the planning reports were sent to the Park and School Districts. Chairman Genrich asked if they have an overview of what they visualize for the annexation agreement. Mr. Sherman stated that he would prefer presenting it as a whole. The area would be zoned but there would be a subsequent requirement of preliminary and then final plat approval. This will be put into the annexation agreement. Mr. Johnson stated that he had personal comments to make regarding the following in Mr. Larson's memo of November 12: Paragraph lA - Either the owner or developer would be responsible for the retention basin and roads. Once annexed, however, he thinks it should be the Village's responsibility to provide for sidewalks, bike paths and landscaping. Paragraph 1B - Regarding sentence two, there is a question of feasibility. This is something they will have to think about. Paragraph 1C - This should read "owner and/or developer." Also, if they provide some of the improvements they feel they should receive a payback on either tap-on fees or eventual water and sewer fees or however it can be worked out with the Village. Paragraphs El and E2 - The concept outlined would be looked upon with great askance by developers. If the builder does not want to comply with the amenities listed they would be Plan Commission Page 5 November 17, 1976 dealing with a piece of land that is unsaleable. Also, the densities as outlined are exceedingly low unless additional amenities are met and this may lock them into a situation where they cannot sell the property because the builder may not want to provide these amenities. Mr. Whited reviewed the expenditures. The total cost benefit figure is $74,854. He added that this is definitely not a project that loses money. The figures he gave were for the Village only. Commissioner Keister asked if they see any potential for single-family development in the area. Mr. Grossman replied that the high cost of working with the land and retention/detention requirements put land cost too high. With regard to the number of zoning areas, Commissioner Keister asked if they are still going with what they originally presented. With the zoning they are asking for they will end up with very small lots. If there is potential for single-family it should be zoned for single-family and if that doesn't occur and a developer wants to purchase the land and develop it at a higher density, Commissioner Keister would rather have him come in with a plan for changing the zoning. Mr. Grossman replied that R8 and R9 allow single-family. He further stated that they must have flexibility to allow different types of land use. What is the market today may not be the market tomorrow and they don't want to get locked into a land use. Commissioner Keister stated that without a bike path arrangement it would appear there could be excessive travel from the eastern portion of the property to the school. Mr. Grossman explained that the distance is approximately 3 mile and he does not think that is too far to walk. Also, there is a bridge across the pond so there is a way to travel internally. In response to Commissioner Keister, Mr. Sherman said it will be the developer's responsibility to put in sidewalks in accordance with Village standards. Mr. Johnson added to this that he does not think the owner would want to be responsible for the bike path or landscaping, however. Commissioner Kandel asked what impact the MSD late on the west side of the Village would have on this property. Mr. Grossman replied that it is an entirely different drainage system. Commissioner Kandel wanted to reiterate his feeling on single-family zoning for the property. To allow the higher density zoning at the outset takes a lot of the control out of the Village's hands on how this property will be developed. He would like to have the developer come back and ask for a change to a higher density if necessary. In response to this, Mr. Sherman stated that from the cost to the Village standpoint the higher density is better. Commissioner Kandel said that in an area that is already an asset the best possible use should be -made of_it. The cost difference could be made up in industrial cost revenues. Mr. Sherman pointed out that anumber of controls are built into R8 and R9 with respect to single-family development, to which Commissioner Kandel replied that the area that is most useable for development could best serve the Village with a lower density than R8 or R9. plan Commission Page 6 November 17, 1976 Mr. Grossman stated that the land through the central portion of the site is low. The flood plain would have to be deepened to make it buildable. The early estimates of just moving the land for retention is $8,000 an acre. After adding the improvement costs and land costs it would cost $52,000 to make the land buildable for single-family. Chairman Genrich asked the Staff to look into this and see if there are adequate controls. Commissioner Harris asked what agreements the Johnson family would be willing to make to make sure the Village gets a variety of housing types. Mr. Sherman replied that they would be willing to incorporate this within reason in the annexation agreement. They will accept the controls specified in the R8 and R9 districts plus additional controls restricting housing types to certain maximums. Commissioner Harris inquired about the possibility of putting single-family along the river where the trees are. The reply was that there are not a lot of trees in that area and this area is not as desirable as other parts of the property. Commissioner Harris stated he would like to see something for the elderly on a site this size. Mr. Grossman replied that this is a pos- sibility but the Johnson family is not in development. The supply and demand factor governs the economic system, housing market and the eventual sale of this property. Preplanning it does not seem realistic. There was a short discussion regarding the 10-acre deficit figure. Commissioner Harris did not think this figure was accurate. In response to a question from Commissioner Harris regarding the grading, Mr. Johnson stated that the grading would be done in phases. Compensation grading will take place as the development takes place. Concerning who would do the grading, it would depend on the agreement the seller made with each individual developer. Commissioner Harris stated that after so many acres of residential are developed there must be some commercial or industry. He would like this in the annexation agreement. Mr. Johnson replied that this is something they will have to discuss. Commissioner Mendenhall stated that he thinks the plan looks like a big apartment complex. He asked if there are sidewalks in the single-family area east of Milwaukee Avenue and if the water and sewer will meet Village requirements. Mr. Johnson replied that there are some sidewalks but that the water and sewer will not meet the requirements. Regarding the parks that are platted along the river, Commissioner Mendenhall asked if these can be moved. Mr. Sherman said the existing plat presents problems in moving parks but there may be a possibility. One of the single-family residents asked if the stream that runs through the property now will be enlarged. He added that they have had the water tested and according to the tests it is dead and he asked if the Plan Commission Page 7 November 17, 1976 lake they plan will be a dead lake also. In response, Mr. Grossman stated the stream would be enlarged. They were not aware the stream was polluted. Mr. Sherman stated the lake will not be for swimming. To this Mr. Rapp added that they will meet with the EPA on this site and the water quality will be adhered to. Mr. William Frost, Vice-President of the Homeowners' Association, suggested that the R1 district be placed just west of Chevy Chase Drive because it is the same elevation as the homes east of Chevy Chase Drive and they would not have to move the earth. Another resident concurred with this and added that they will be an island in the middle of apartments. Leo Vogler, a resident, stated that there are enough houses, apartments and condominiums. He would rather see the area remain open land and asked the Plan Commission to take this into consideration. � r. Rapp reported that they have done a full analysis on the existing water (,1;� i and they are very antiquated. As much as possible will be salvaged, however, and water will be provided. Regarding the sewage treatment plant, he has met with the EPA and will meet tomorrow with Lake County to get federal funding to assist the people living in the area so they won't have to pay on this later. Commissioner Goldspiel asked if the portions not annexed would be a deficit to the Village. Mr. Whited replied that he would suspect any service the Village provides they would pay for. Some money may be lost because the Village has to bring what is presently there up to our standards. Commissioner Goldspiel concurred with the other commissioners regarding the need for more diversity on the type of development. He further stated that in looking at this tract there seems there are some very positive things about it, especially in terms of a transportation pattern. He asked if any kind of market research has been done on the saleability of the land. Mr. Sherman replied that they have done a considerable amount of research through Mr. Grossman's office and individual contacts. They have had certain developers go along with them as they worked out the phases. There seems to be a market at this point for the townhouses, probably in fourplex units. Commissioner Goldspiel asked about a road shown between Lake-Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue. Mr. Grossman stated that this was a service road in the commercial area. Mr. Sherman added that this has been changed and there will be only one opening onto Lake-Cook Road. Commissioner Goldspiel asked if the stub streets on the north connect to openings to the north. Mr. Grossman replied that they did. In response to another question from Commissioner Goldspiel, Mr. Grossman stated that only the major collector streets are shown on the plan. A resident of the single-family homes entered her objection to the plan stating that they would be surrounded by apartments. Commissioner Goldspiel stated that they previously indicated that they were not basing their figures on park donations on platted single-family. He asked if they are including platted single-family which is not built Plan Commission Page 8 November 17, 1976 upon and still under Johnson ownership. Mr. Grossman replied that they are not including these areas, to which Commissioner Goldspiel responded that it is his personal position that if the Johnson family wants to annex these areas, they should be included in the computation. Mr. Kiddle stated that he and his board have not received any of the new computations. He added that it is his contention that the Johnson family has not met the requirements of Resolution 72-35 and quality of the land. Chairman Genrich summarized the key points of the meeting as follows: 1. The developer will provide copies of the document showing the exact area to be annexed to the Plan Commission. 2. The phasing, financing of water, drainage network and sewer system should be addressed in the annexation agreement. 3. The developer should meet with the School District. 4. A list of surrounding property owners should be supplied to the Plan Commission for the Notice of Public Hearing. 5, By December 1, the Staff should have a-written Staff Report. Also, the Staff should look at the single-family platted area near the river and give their feelings in terms of will it develop as single-family and can it be upgraded in any way? (a) Chairman Genrich would like the Staff to find out what it can about the park site along the river. Look into this with the Park District staff and see if there is any potential for accepting it. 6. Provide drafts of the annexation agreement by Wednesday, December 1. 7. The Staff will check with the Appearance Commission regarding trees that would be worthy of saving. 8. The _Plan Commission would prefer to go with amenity bonuses as set forth in the PUD Ordinance. 9. The Plan Commission wants to emphasize their stance that they would like to see some area zoned for single-family development. 10. The Plan Commission would like to see if there are some better ways of attaining variety in this development. They would like both the Staff and developer to consider this. 11. The Staff should meet with the Park District Staff and Mr. Grossman and make sure they are comfortable with the park situation and interpret the ordinance with them. Plan Commission Page 9 November 17, 1976 12. The Plan Commission would like the Staff to tell in their report what the implications will be for the people in the unincorporated area in terms of water and sewer cost (include the rates). 13. Mr. Whited and Mr. Rapp will look into the road system and internal transportation. Check with Lake County Transportation Study and see if there is any possibility of getting a'commuter station in there. Commissioner Mendenhall objected to Mr. Larson's memo of November 12 in which he listed site development controls. They didn't follow the PUD Ordinance. He also objected to Mr. Larson taking the initiative he did in writing the controls. Chairman Genrich stated that it was a joint effort between him and Mr. Larson to try to give some direction to this. After further discussion and a poll of the Commission it was decided that they would go with the amenities listed in the PUD Ordinance although this isn't a PUD. Adjournment Commissioner Keister moved that the meeting adjourn. Commissioner Kandel seconded the motion and the meeting adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, 4nda Isonhart Recording Secretary APPROVED: Carl Genrich, Chairman V Li