Loading...
1976-10-20 - Plan Commission - Minutes REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION Balsamo/Frank (Phoenix) Chevy Chase, Ridgewood October 20, 1976 Chairman Carl Genrich called the Rmmeeting to rBatf9:1alo Grove,iIllinois. the Public Service Building, 51 pp Boulevard, Commissioners Present: Chairman Genrich Mr, Harris Mr. Keister Mr. Goldspiel Mr. Jacobs Mr. Kandel Commissioners Absent: Mr. Mendenhall Mr. Shields Mr. Kuenz Mr. Salvatore Balsamo, Developer Also Present: Al Frank & Associates Mr. Ken Rodeck, sneer Mr. Frank Angelotti, Engineer Mr. William Hitzeman, School District 96 Mr. Stan Crosland, Park District Mr. William Kiddie, Park Board Mr. John Marienthal, Trustee Mr. Charles McCoy, Director of Public Works Mr. Carl Rapp, Director of Community Development Mr. William Whited, Administrative Assistant Balsamo/Frank Continuing the discussion from the Public Hearing, Chairman Genrich stated he had talked with the Staff regarding the problem of where the houses go on the lots and they felt that generally if there was some way of showing rear yard set back lines on this plan, that would be a way of handling it. Chairman Genrich felt that identifying an enclosed storm drainage system on the plan would give the enforcement of the concept that the Plan:-. Commission is looking for, if the developer is agreeable. Concerning the problem of the right-of-way, Chairman Genrich thought it might be better to show exactly on the plan what the Plan Commission is recommending. If the developer will agree on one or two points the Plan Commission feels might improve the plan, we can get his commitment to revise it and take action on the revised plan Chairman Genrich asked if the developer is agreeable to showing an enclosed storm drainage system on the plan. Mr. Rodeck stated that the drainage is a function of the final engineering and this is not Plan Commission Page 2 October 20, 1976' completed at this point. He added that he thinks the Commission is talking about a combination of storm sewer drainage in drainage tile and overland. Without reviewing the engineering he could say that they would not let any more then five lots in one drainage direction drain overland and at that point they would pick it up with drain tile or pipe. Mr. McCoy said that lately he has gotten a commitment from developers if in checking on grading and engineering they think any rear yard drainage problems would occur, at that point they would correct the problem or, if during the course of construction any problems would occur, the developer will correct them then. Mr. Balsamo stated that they would agree to providing additional drainage if it is required. During the Public Hearing Mr. Rapp had suggested that the developer go from a 60' right-of-way to a 50' right-of-way and off set the street in order to increase the lot size by 5' . There was considerable discussion of this during the Regular Meeting. The conclusion was reached that the right-of-way would remain at 60' with sidewalks on both sides but would be reduced to 50' on the cul-de-sacs with sidewalks on one side. Mr. McCoy felt this would make the corner lots much nicer. Mr. Balsamo agreed with this. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Angelotti stated that the rlght-of-way on the access to Camelot is 50' . Chairman Genrich asked if the developer would agree to developing a landscaping plan for the detention area. Mr. Balsamo stated that they would be agreeable to this. Chairman Genrich asked the developer if he would be agreeable to the Village rezoning this project at. a later date from R-9 PUD to R-6. Mr. Balsamo replied that he would be. Commissioner Goldspiel pointed out to Mr. Balsamo lot #147 which was marked as being 5800 square feet. Mr. Balsamo stated that this was an error and marked this lot as a minimum of 6000 square feet on the exhibit plan. Chairman Genrich summarized the following points: 1. The developer has agreed to abide by a 30' rear set back line on each lot. 2. The developer has agreed to work with the Staff in final engineering for this plan and if there are instances where the Staff feels that it is important that there be an enclosed storm drainage pipe system behind certain homes, the developer will install these. 3. The plan dated October 20, 1976, will be revised to show a 50' right-of-way with sidewalks on one side only on the cul-de-sacs. (This will give the benefit of certain larger lots which the Commission feels is important.) Plan:,.Commission page 3 October 20, 1976 4. The matter of how the maintenance of the detention area will be handled and whose responsibility it is has not yet been determined and needs to be resolved. 5. The developer has agreed to prepare a landscaping plan for the detention area in the southeast corner of the property. 6. If at some later date the Village desires to rezone this property from R-9 to R-6 zoning (as has been done on certain other projects in the Village after construction) , the developer is agreeable to doing this for the benefit of the Village. 7, The Plan Commission calls the Board's attention to the fact that a cash contribution to the Park District should be considered in lieu of the private recreational facilities which are no longer present but were present in the originally approved plan. 8. The Plan Commission is still interested and the developer is agreeable to changing the access road adjacent to Camelot. (Subject to negotiation with Levitt.) Commissioner Kandel made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board the approval of the Frank/Balsamo Plan, marked Exhibit #105-18 and dated 10/20/76, based on the following eight points which are to be brought to the attention of the Village Board. (The above listed points will be entered into the motion in the report sent to the Village Board.) Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion. Discussion on this motion followed. Commissioner Harris stated that he is not a believer that single-family (good, bad or other) is great. He feels that this is a bad development. He added that he is surprised to see a development like this from this particular group of developers because they have built developments in the Village far superior to this. He would rather gamble on the possibility of the earlier plan being developed then approve this. Commissioner Goldspiel stated his main objection is that this is a single-family development in the guise of a planned unit development but does not have the characteristics of a PUD. He can't see approving something in such a miszoned category. He added that the PUD ordinance is being used to undermine other ordinances. Commissioner Keister agreed with Commissioners Harris and Goldspiel in that at this point in time multi-family cannot be built in that particular area. That being the case, he does not feel the Village should jump into a single-family development guised under the PUD for which the original intent was brought forth several years ago. He said he thinks the Village should be flexible in considering single-family but should drop back to the kind of zoning that will give the Village a quality single-family development. He does not believe this is a quality single-family development. Plan Commission Page 4 Oc tober2JQ, 1976 Regarding turning down a development because the Plan Commission does not think it is the property use, Commissioner Kandel referred to the area where Grand Spaulding Dodge is now expanding. He stated that at one time the Plan Commission did not feel it wanted multi-family there and turned down a developer and now it is commercial. He feels that by turning a development down hoping that something better will come along, the Village may end up with something worse because of the economy today. The following vote was taken on the motion: Commissioner Harris no Commissioner Jacobs yes Commissioner Keister no Commissioner Kandel yes Commissioner Goldspiel no The motion did not carry. Commissioner Jacobs' Resignation Chairman Genrich stated that he had received a letter from Commissioner Jacobs in which he is submitting his resignation from the Plan Commission as of November 20 due to professional and business commitments. Chevy Chase Chairman Genrich referred to the minutes of the meeting of October 13 in which he summarized points made by the Commission at that meeting regarding the annexation of Chevy Chase. He read these points to the Commission and stated that this is the message he will take into the meeting that he has with the Staff in this regard. Commissioner Jacobs felt that any workshop session with Chevy Chase should be held with the Village Board and Plan Commission together. Commissioner Goldspiel said that it seems to him that what is necessary is a full scale master plan of the area and the Plan Commission should consider::it as if they were considering a master plan. Ridgewood Commissioner Kandel stated that he reviewed with Bill Whited the Plat of Survey for Ridgewood No. 2. There are eight items that have to be added to the plat. The linen has to be revised to incorporate these items and the developer wants to get it before the Board on Monday night. To enable him to do this the plat should be approved by the Plan Commission tonight. Commissioner Kandel moved that the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board the tentative approval of the Plat of Survey for Ridgewood No. 2, marked Exhibit #103-36 in the Plan Commission files,based on the inclusion of the eight items listed: 1. Put on the scale. 2. Put on the monuments. 3. Submit letter from the Postmaster. Plan Commission page 5 October 20, 1976 4. Show building setback lines. 5. Addition of "hereby dedicated streets." 6. Change "hereby dedicated school site" to "hereby dedicated public use." 7. Need two small angles in the northeast and northwest. 8. Surveyor must sign and put his seal on the plat. The motion was seconded and the following vote was taken: Commissioner Harris yes Commissioner Jacobs yes Commissioner Keister yes Commissioner Kandel yes Commissioner Goldspiel abstain Motion carried. Commissioner Goldspiel objected to the procedure. He said that he cannot conceive of approving the plat without the plat being at the meeting or being seen by more then one member of the Commission. This is something that should be done by the entire °'Commission and not just a committee of the Commission. Adjournment Commissioner Kandel moved that the meeting be adjourned. Commissioner Keister seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, 0AleakgoA[Alkti i a sonhart Recording Secretary APPROVED: ZA-ti Carl Genrich, Chairman FOOTNOTE: Approval of Minutes of September 15. Correction was made on page 4, paragraph 5, line 2. Insert "storm" between "the" and nn:_ /1151'it) "water". Minutes approved. (Per correction at November 3 meeting).�J� PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION Balsamo/Frank (Phoenix) October 20, 1976 Chairman Carl Genrich calledinthe 1Public RauppHearing Boulevard,°Buffalo Grooat ep•M• in the Public Service Building, 5 Illinois. Commissioners Present: Chairman Genrich Mr. Harris Mr. Keister Mr. Goldspiel Mr. Jacobs Mr. Kandel Commissioners Absent: Mr. Mendenhall Mr. Shields Mr. Kuenz Mr. Salvatore Balsam°, Developer Also Present: Mr. Ken Rodeck, Al Frank & Associates Mr. Frank Angelotti, Engineer Mr. William Hitzeman, School District 96 Mr. Stan Crosland, Park District Mr. William Kiddie, Park Board Mr. John Marienthal, Trustee Mr. Charles McCoy, Director of Public Works Mr. CarlRapp, Director of Community Development Mr. William Whited, Administrative Assistant Chairman Genrich read the Notice of Public Hearing published in the Buffalo Grove Herald. He swore in Mr. Salvatore Balsamo, Mr. Ken Rodeck, and Mr. Frank Angelotti as witnesses and asked them to begin their presentation. Mr. Balsamo stated that the development includes 33 acres located in the northwest section of Route 83 and Busch Road. It is surrounded on the south, 'north and east by single-family housing. The site was zoned as part of a four parcel zoning in Buffalo Grove as R-9 PUD which allowed the construction of 241 townhomes in accordance with an approved plan and in accordance with the village ordinances. Mr. Balsamo stated that they are asking for an amendment to ordinance #74-22a which would allow them to build 151 homes on single-family lots averaging 6500 square feet instead of the 241 townhomes which it is presently zoned for. Mr. Balsamo presented the plan which is marked Exhibit #105-18 in the Plan Commission files. At the request of Commissioner Jacobs, Mr. Balsamo dated the plan 10/20/76 and signed it. Mr. Balsamo stated that the plan has been modified to include some of the suggestions made by the Plan Commission at previous meetings. Plan Commission Page 2 October 20, 1976 Mr. Balsamo gave an estimated valuation of the construction of this plan and the townhouse plan: Townhouse plan - $10,800,000 Single-family plan - $11,300,000 Tax Revenue per Child: Townhouses - District 96 - 260 District 125 - 883 Single-family - District 96 - 513 District 125 - 1,355 III School Contribution: Townhouse - 94.50 per unit Single-family - 150.82 per unit Mr. Balsamo further stated that by changing the plan to single-family the density will be reduced from 7.6 units per acre to 4.5 units per acre. Mr. Hitzeman stated that he would like to have the question resolved that any further attempt to reopen negotiations of the public fund contributions at this time would be null and void. Chairman Genrich stated that at this point he does not think the Plan Commission can do this but it would be a proper question to ask the Village Board. Mr. Hitzeman asked if the Plan Commission would be in the position to recommend such a step to the Village Board. In response to Mr. Keister, Mr. Hitzeman stated that in the original pre-annexation agreement there was $103,000 totally locked into the agreement in 1972. They felt at that time that this was inadequate based on the number of units projected. It was far below the number of units projected, particularly when you consider that three school districts would be involved. The school district wonders if in view of the fact that there has been a change in the plan, that does not in essence open the door to the possibility of renegotiating the initial payment. Mr. Crosland reviewed his memo dated October 20, 1976. He asked that it be considered an advisory document. He summarized the points made in the memo stating that should the development have fallen under Resolution 72-35 they would have been required to provide 3.62 acres for Parks and Recreation. However, because of the original agreements they are not required to provide land donations with regard to the resolution. Mr. Crosland further stated that the street design has been revised and allows access through the Camelot subdivision. Some discussions earlier stated this would allow them to use a portion of the park provided through the donations of the Camelot developer. He added that the entire neighborhood is coming outttacre poor." 1 Plan Commission Page 3 October 20, 1976 Mr. Crosland read statement five in which he suggests that the Village encourage-the developers to provide cash donations for the construction of recreational facilities in the Camelot sub-division and/or re-evaluate their current position of providing nothing internally in their own sub-division. Commissioner Goldspiel stated that he assumes the street pattern is being changed to open to the east yet on the final drawings, this is not shown. Mr. Balsamo stated that they cannot show the outlet until they get approval from Levitt which they cannot get until it is approved by the Village Board. Mr. Whited stated that Levitt is willing to make the change as long as the conditions between Levitt and Frank are met. They are not doing anything as far as construction yet. Mr. Balsamo added that they have a letter from Levitt stating that they will do this. Mr. Rapp stated that previously the discussion has lent itself to the fact that the lots are very small. From an engineering point of view, if they go from a 60' to a 50' right-of-way and off-set the street, they could increase the lot size by 5' per lot. There would still be a 20' back-to-back pavement. Mr. Angelotti stated he would like to see the pavement stay centered with a 50' right-of-way and take a 10' easement on either side of the right-of-way to locate the sanitary sewer and water lines. The first 20' or 25' of the lot are not used in any way so the 10' easement would not harm the lot and allow the utilities to be placed under the pavement or between the curb and public walks. Mr. Rapp stated that due to the size of the lot and type of homes, he thinks they should request and get an agreement on some additional rear yard drainage with either a storm sewer or drain tiles. He feels it will become necessary in any lots that the grading presents a problem due to size. Commissioner Keister asked if this would create a larger diameter storm sewer for the Village in the street. Mr. Rapp replied that it wouldn't because this water is to be handled in the rear lot line through a drainage Swale. In response to Commissioner Kandel, Mr. Rapp stated that At would be more beneficial to the homeowner and Village to have the drainage enclosed and have a level yard. Mr. Rodeck stated that they will partially- have-. underground pipes. They will still bring the water to the back of the property but will not have a long expanse of lots between drains. Most of the water will be picked up with drainage pipe systems. Mr. Rapp stated that he would want the option for additional rear yard storm sewer and inlets to be provided if they feel they are needed. Commissioner Kandel asked if the developer would indicate a rear yard lot line depth, would that be`,theanswer? Mr. Rapp replied that it would. Mr. Rapp stated that he had a meeting with Levitt and theyhave they would entertain said the idea of oversizing the storm sewer in Camelot and providing more detention if the area in the southeast corner of Plan Commission Page 4 October 20, 1976 the Balsamo/Frank development were used for recreation. In response to Commissioner Goldspiel, Mr. Angelotti stated that this area is bowl shaped and from the rim of the bowl to the bottom it would be 5' .' He added that they have not decided whether to make this a detention or retention area. If it is used for retention there would be approximately a one-acre lake in the center. The lake would be at least 8' deep. Commissioner Goldspiel asked who would be maintaining the -area. Mr. Balsamo stated that the solution of the detention area is something that Mr. Frank would work out with the Village engineers. A homeowners' association would have to maintain it along with the entranceway. He added that the detention area would be graded and sodded or land- scaped. Commissioner Jacobs asked if they would have any objection to proposing some type of landscaping plan so anyone traveling up Route 83 would have an attractive screening to look at. Mr. Balsamo stated that he feels it would be in their best interest that there be some visual barrier. Commissioner Jacobs asked what would be backing up to the east of the detention basin. Mr. Angelotti replied that single-family homes would be on the east and their rear lot line would be the east line of the basin. Commissioner Goldspiel asked how large the detention area is. Mr. Angelotti replied that it is 1.76 acres. Mr. Crosland stated that the area is very marginal for recreation use. He would discard it as a viable recreation area. Mr. Kiddie suggested that some agreement be worked out that some amenities can be provided off-site to serve the needs of the people in the development. Commissioner Harris asked how much money will be donated to the school district from this project. Mr. Balsamo replied around $22,000 to $23,000 regardless of what is built there. Commissioner Harris stated that according to the resolution, if the developer cannot give land or provide recreation facilities he has to give dollars. It is his opinion that since they have dropped the recreation they are no longer complying with the ordinance so a cash donation should be provided. Mr. Balsamo stated that it is their position that this should be talked about with the Village Board and not the Plan Commission. He added that they understand the need for recreation facilities and their relationship with Levitt has been that they would like to eet oin with them in recreation that would r \�� satisfy both communities. They will sit down with Levitt but cannot make any commitments to anything because we are talking about a third party interest. Commissioner Keister asked if the developer would be willing to negotiate with the Park District for some sort of cash donation to the Park District for building facilities on the Levitt property. Mr. Balsamo replied that they would not be willing to do this. Plan Commission page 5 October 20, 1976 Commissioner Keister stated that due to problems in the Village caused by lot size in relation to drainage the Village has become sensitive to the type of housing and where it is built with regard to the lot size. He feels further consideration should be given to what the gross area is at ground level on any particular site. Also, it is important to put the right house on the right lot. In conjunction with the rear yard drainage, the Plan Commission might want to consider or have the developer give some input on what is the maximum gross area at the ground level that they would contemplate building on these lots and possibly even tie them down to where the building would be situated on the lot. The size of the right-of-way and whether there is going to be some type of underground storm sewer system for the rear lot have to be considered with this. Mr. Balsamo presented a drawing illustrating the problems that they have found relative to drainage in a couple of developments. It also shored how the drainage should be handled in these instances. In response to Commissioner Jacobs, Mr. Balsamo stated that the square footage of the houses tohbuilt in this development is from 1500 to 2000 square feet. Commissioner Goldspiel asked if there would or would not be a homeowners' association. Mr. Rodeck stated that they would create one for.. the common areas (cul-de-sacs, entrance way, maintenance of detention area). There was further discussion regarding the establishment of a homeowners' association in which Mr. Rodeck stated that the entrance way is their own custom design with custom landscaping and they have not discussed with the Village whether they will maintain this particular type of landscaping. If they wont do it, the developer will have to set up an association to maintain it. Commissioner Goldspiel stated that in the Workshop presentation they discussed a minimum lot size of 6000 square feet. There are lots shown on this plan which are less than this. Mr. Balsamo stated that this was an error by the draftsman and marked the exhibit copy of the plan with the correct dimensions. The Public Hearing adjourned at 9:14 P.M. Respectfully submitted, APPROVED: 714 Li da Isonhart (/;11 Recording Secretary Carl Genrich, Chairman