1976-10-13 - Plan Commission - Minutes WORKSHOP SESSION
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Zale Development, Plaza Verde Phase II
October 13, 1976
Chairman Carl Genrich called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. in the
Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard.
Commissioners Present: Chairman Genrich
Mr. Mendenhall
Mr. Harris
Mr. Keister
Mr. Goldspiel
Mr. Kandel
Commissioners Absent: Mr. Shields
Mr. Jacobs
Mr. Kuenz
Also Present: Mr. Ed Zale, Developer
Mr. Bruce Johnston, Architect, Zale Development
Mr. Jon Nelson, Architect, Zale Development
Mr. Bill Griffin, Noffaan Group.
Mr. Robert Cowhey, Engineer, -Zale Development
Mr. John Mayes, Attorney, Zale Development
Mr. Ron Grais, Attorney, Plaza Verde
Mr. Marvin Hymen, Plaza Verde
Mr. Sherwin Braun, Architect, Plaza Verde
Mr. Albert Haeger, Engineer, Plaza Verde
Mr. Harold Roggendorf, School District 125
Mr. Stan Crosland, Park District
Mr. William Kiddie, Park Board
Chairman Genrich stated that Mr. Shields would not be at the meeting
because he is ill and Mr. Kuenz will not be present either because he
is going out of town.
Mr. Zale distributed copies of a rough draft of the annexation agreement.
He also provided a list of property owners and the legal description of
the property for the Notice of Public Hearing. These were turned over to
Mr. Whited.
Mr. Zale stated that some revisions were made on the plan based on the
input received from the Staff and the Plan Commission. The revised site
plan was mailed to the commissioners at an earlier date and is marked
Exhibit 630-3 in the Plan Commission files.
Mr. Johnston stated that pursuant to the last meeting with the Plan
Commission, they have reinstalled the east-west bike path system and
have added a north-south bike path. This bike path system ties the parks
Plan Commission
Page 2 October 13, 1976
together and links the neighborhoods with the school site. This came about
from several meetings with the Staff and their continuing work on the
layout of streets and lots, respective open space, etc.
Mr. Johnston stated that there are fewer lots than in the previous plan
and the open space is about the same. The total open space is 27 acres.
This includes the parks, well site in the north and the area in retention.
They are showing a detention area in the park on the west.
Mr. Johnston gave a breakdown on the lot sizes as follows:
40% - 6500-7000 square feet
22% - 7000-8000 "
16% - 8000-9000 " "
10% - 9000-10000 " "
12% - above 12000 "
On the collector streets they are showing a 70' right-of-way with 35'
pavement back-to-back with curb. The other right-of-ways are 50' with
a 27� pavement back-to-back. There is a 4' walk on both sides of the
collector streets. The minor streets have the walk on one side. Where
possible they tried to keep the walk on the side that feeds into the park
or school site. A walk is also shown in the rights-of-way of both Busch
and Weiland Roads.
Mr. Johnston stated that they tried to keep a minimum dimension of 40'
in terms of open space in the bike path system. The path itself is of
a blacktop asphalt substance and is 8' in width.
Mr. Johnston pointed out that another major change is that they have cut
down on the number of cul-de-sac streets. On the first plan there were
35 and this plan has approximately 23. They have also tried to keep the
long cul-de-sacs to a minimum.
Mr. Roggendorf questioned the advisability of splitting the school site
into three sections with the bike path. He asked if they had a rough idea
of how much area is in each section. Mr. Johnston stated that it is
probably between 2i to 3 acres. He added that they tried to fit the bike
path in the best way they could. They will agree to see how the school
site is developed and install the bike path according to that. There is
room in each section for the school or a ball field.
Mr. Roggendorf asked when that bike path would actually go in. Mr. Rapp
stated that it would be one of the last things in the project.
Mr. Roggendorf asked if lot 12 was taken out of the school property.
Mr. Johnston stated that the configuration of the site may be a little
different from the last plan but there is still 8 acres. When the area
on the west side of the school site was relaid it may have pushed either
lot 11 or lot 12 out slightly. Mr. Roggendorf asked if the School Board
would have the option of relaying lot 11 or 12. Mr. Johnston stated they
would.
li
Plan Commission
Page 3 October 13, 1976
In reply to a question from Chairman Genrich, Mr. Roggendorf stated that
there has been no expressed interest from the School Board in meeting
with the developer. Mr. Zale stated that they would be happy to meet
with the School Board. Chairman Genrich stated that he would like a
written statement from the School Board by November 3 and if there is
a need to meet with the developer, the School Board should contact
Mr. Zale.
Mr. Kiddie questioned how the bike path would affect the homes along it,
how much the bike path would be used and the cost of maintaining it.
Mr. Whited stated that the Village has looked at the maintenance cost
and does not see any problems.
Mr. Rapp stated that Mr. Zale and his staff have done an excellent job
in solving the problems of the plan. The bike path system gets people
off the streets and gets them in four directions for usage of the
recreational sites. Public Works has offered to maintain the bike
system and to eliminate something that valuable to the community would
be adverse. The real cost is in the construction of the bike path,
the maintenance is insignificant. Mr. Whited added that it has been
Village policy to encourage bike paths.
Chairman Genrich stated that after reviewing the previous plan there
were problems that existed relative to the size of lots, right-of-way
widths and drainage. We looked into this and the bike paths helped to
lessen these problems.
Commissioner Mendenhall asked if the school district was taking the
remaining donation 'due':ineash. Mr. Roggendorf replied that they are
taking a cash donation equivalent to a little over three acres.
Commissioner Mendenhall asked Mr. Crosland if the Park District is short
in terms of acreage on usable land. Mr. Crosland replied that they have
included the school site and come up with 15 acres.
Commissioner Mendenhall asked the developer if he would be putting in
the stub street on the south end. Mr. Zale replied that they would be
to a point. The small part to Route 83 will come from the developer
on the south.
Commissioner Mendenhall stated that the commercial and multi-family do
not seem to fit in with the rest of the development. He ,added that they
seem very small. Mr. Zale stated that they plan on a neighborhood strip
center of perhaps 40,000 square feet. With thcvprojected main commercial
area over by Route 83 they could not justify a larger commercial piece.
Commissioner Mendenhall made the suggestion of;phtting the apartment
complex in the southwest corner because it would be closer to the
town center. Mr. Zale stated that they put the apartments in the corner
they did because there is a natural break with the creek and retention
that goes through that area. There are also some trees that would break
it off from the single family.
Plan Commission
page 4 October 13, 1976
Commissioner Mendenhall questioned the need for the bike path south of
the school. Mr. Johnston stated that the flow in this area is into that
bike path and into the school. The people in the area to the south will
probably attend that school and this is the natural way to get to it.
Commissioner Harris asked Mr. 'Zale if he had done any other single-family
developments in the Chicago area. Mr. Zale stated that there is one in
Rolling Meadows that has similar houses to the ones they propose in this
development but the ones in Rolling Meadows are clustered together more.
In response to a question from Commissioner Harris, Mr. Zale stated that
he and the Hoffman Group are in partnership in the land but will build
separately. Their prices will overlap but his (Mr. Zale4s) will be a
little higher. They will be building different kinds of houses.
Mr. Harris asked what type of zoning they are requesting. Mr. Zale
replied R-9 PUD. Mr. Whited stated that he suggested R-9 PUD for
several reasons:
1. There are a wide variety of lot sizes.
2. Bike path system
3. Some compromises were brought about by the plan that would
require a lot of variations.
4. There is no other way to get both apartments and single-family
in the,,etkor tjpes of zoning and it would be too cumbersome
to zone these two parcels differently.
Commissioner: Harris asked how large a school would be built. Mr. Roggendorf
stated that they would provide for 600 students with the option of building
on.
Commissioner Harris stated that there were a couple of areas where he felt
they could move the cul-de-sacs around because even though a child could
see the school from his house, he has to walk out of the way to get to it.
Mr. Nelson replied that moving cul-de-sacs around arbitrarily does not
necessarily work when it comes down to final grading. He added that in
any kind of plan there are going to be certain lots where you have to
walk around the block to get to the school.
Regarding sidewalks on one side of the street on the minor streets,
Commissioner Harris stated that he knows people in Strathmore who have
this and are not happy with it. Mr. Johnston stated that this development
is different from Strathmore in that there is a major delineation between
major and minor streets. This has enabled the bike path system. Commissioner
Harris asked if they could put a 4' walk on both sides of the street with
the right-of-way they have. Mr. Johnston replied that it would conflict
with the utilities. It is also a question of scale. They want these to
be minor streets and having the sidewalks on one side makes them appear
{ more to be minor streets.
Commissioner Goldspiel stated that if the question is having full right-
of-way and sidewalks on both sides or the bike paths, he thinks we should
have the right-of-way.
•
Plan Commission
Page 5 October 13, 1976
Commissioner Goldspiel stated that he doesn't think this property should
be zoned R-9. Mr. Whited replied that the idea behind R-9 is to give the
Village and the developer more flexibility.
Commissioner Goldspiel stated that he wondered if the east street going
out to Busch Road should be wider. Mr. Johnston stated that this is
still a minor street.
Commissioner Goldspiel asked how they plan to phase this development.
Mr. Zale stated that they would probably start on the south and move
north and east.
In response to Commissioner Goldspiel, Mr. Zale stated that they planned
two and three-story apartment buildings. Commissioner Goldspiel asked
if he would be amenable to putting this into writing. Mr. Zale replied
that he would.
Commissioner Keister stated that he wished to commend the developers for
responding to the input received in the past and coming back to the Plan
Commission with what he thinks is a very viable plan which incorporates
a lot of things the Plan Commission has been asking the developers to do.
The bike path system is something that gives the Village some interior
pedestrian and bike traffic that seems to flow very well.
With regard to zoning, Commissioner Keister stated that he would think
it would be to the Village's benefit to have whatever type of zoning that
would bring us within the lower ranges of the zoning ordinance so we can
build a development without too much paper work. However, if that leaves
too many open ends we can look at it further at the time of studying the
annexation agreement.
Commissioner Keister asked how wide the access to the bike path on the
south is. Mr. Johnston replied that it is 10' and widens to 301 . He
added that it should be looked at as an easement. Commissioner Keister
suggested that the developer make sure that the people that buy the two
lots near the easement be made aware that it is there.
In response to a question from Commissioner Keister, Mr. Johnston stated
that they intend to have some designation on the street of where the bike
path crosses.
Commissioner Kandel stated that he also wanted to thank Mr. Zale and his
staff for working to come up with a plan that was worked out using the
input of the Staff, Plan Commission and Engineering Department.
Mr. Kiddie questioned the size of the detention/retention area on the
right-hand size of the plan. Mr. Johnston stated that 90% of the land
will be usable most of the time. Mr. Kiddle asked if they would accept
the suggestion that the lake be increased in size to 6i acres as shown
on their August plan. Mr. Johnston stated that on their original drawing
they had intended some of the park to be detention area.
1
v '.
Plan Commission
Page 6 October 13, 1976
In response to a question from Commissioner Goldspiel, Mr. Cowhey stated
that the existing creek bed is 6 to 7 feet deep. They will treat the
detention area as an extension of the creek.
Mr. Bogart stated that the retention area will not meet the requirements
as negotiated by the Village Board and the Park District. It is too small
in acreage. He asked that the Commission take a hard look at it because
he doesn't think the Village will want to maintain that park site.
Chairman Genrich stated that the Public Hearing will be held at 9:00 p.m.
on Wednesday, November 10, and summarized the following points made in
the discussion:
1. By November 3 he would like to have a written statement
from the Park District and School Board on this project.
2. Chairman Genrich asked the developer to check out the
cul-de-sacs in parcels 10 and 29 and see if they can
accommodate the suggestion regarding the school children.
The hearing will be held on the plan dated September 24.
3. He would like the developer to have a sketch showing the
phasing of the development at the Public Hearing.
4. By November 3, at the latest, the developer should provide
a written report stating what they intend to do, describing
the project, and include the statement on the two and three-
story apartment development.
5. Chairman Genrich would like Mr. Johnston to meet with Mr. Whited
and review the new standards developed by the Village and Park
District and also consider the comments made by Mr. Kiddie
in terms of refining the retention and detention area.
6 . The Plan Commission would like to have a written Staff Review
no later than November 3 addressing the question regarding
the zoning category and also including how this proposal
relates to the new Park and Village standards for park land.
After further discussion regarding the zoning, it was decided to ask for
an R-6 PUD.
Plaza Verde
Chairman Genrich stated that when the original plan was approved there
Li were some indications about what would happen on this portion of the
property and this is a significant change from that so the Plan Commission
will hold a Public Hearing on this preliminary plan which is marked
Exhibit 174-13 in the Plan Commission files.
Mr. Grais stated that he is in general partnership with Marvin Hymen.
They now own the parcel that was last referred to in May 1974 as Plaza
I
i
I
i
\.1
\-1
Plan Commission
Page 7 October 13, 1976
Verde Phase II. Phase I has been completed. Their concept is to continue
the same quality of development emphasizing the rather successful office
building that was built at the eastern end of the Plaza Verde site.
Mr. Braun gave a presentation of the plan. He stated that Plaza Verde
Phase II will be on 6.6 acres. The ground floor covers an area of
54,000 square feet. This will be done in phases. In reality what they
will be building now will be the restaurant and Building F and then
go into Building G. The future commercial is really a volume of space
which is allocated for commercial but they do not know what that volume
consists of at this moment. The savings and loan shown on the plan is
a land plan also. It may not occur.
Mr. Braun reviewed the statistics listed on the plan. He added that the
restaurant is a Burger King.
Mr. Braun stated that they will be using the same drive as Plaza Verde
Phase I. They are proceeding down with it so everything is interconnected.
The service drive off Arlington Heights Road proceeds down and into Phase II
with everything that was requested on Phase I and exitsout onto Dundee
Road.
The lighting system that is presently used in Phase I will be copied::.
in Phase II.
Mr. Braun proceeded to describe the elevations as shown on Exhibit 174-14.
He stated they will be using the same berming effect that is onthe side
of JoJo's on Burger King. He added that this will not be one of the
typical free-standing Burger Kings. It is a rendition that is totally
compatible with Plaza Verde. The refuse area at Burger King will be
concealed by berming and a four foot wall.
Commissioner Kandel stated that Sullivan Pontiac has built up the front
portion of their lot. He asked if that would be much higher and if so,
how will they treat the problem. Mr. Grais stated that it would be
higher but it is not their property to treat. Sullivan's berms slightly
encroach on their property and they will have to discuss the problem
with the owners and the Village of Arlington Heights.
Commissioner Kandel asked what type of rentals they expect in the office
space. Mr. Grais replied that it would be much the same as they have
already. These are medical and professional services. He added that the
response from their sign so far has indicated this.
Commissioner Keister asked if they anticipated a single-story building
in the future commercial area. Mr. Grais stated that they did. They
also want to keep open the possibility of a movie theater in that area.
Commissioner Goldspiel stated that he thought it would be more desirable
to make the building more than one story and have more green around it.
Mr. Grais replied that this is not desirable economically. Space would
be hard to rent.
Plan Commission
page 8 October 13, 1976
Commissioner Goldspiel questioned the success of another restaurant on
Dundee Road. Mr. Grais stated that Burger King is confident that it will
succeed. They have even gone so far as to redo their building design.
Commissioner Mendenhall asked if they could make the wall that screens
the refuse area around Burger King higher. Mr. Braun stated that the
pavement is lower so the wall is actually about k+ feet high.
Commissioner Mendenhall asked if there would be room on the northwest
corner in the event the Village wants to put up a sign stating "You Are
Now Entering Buffalo Grove." Mr. Grais replied that he thinks there is.
Commissioner Harris asked if it would be possible to put landscaping in
front of Burger King similar to what is in front of JoJo's because they
have more parking than the ordinance requires. Mr. Grais replied that
this would be a problem because they leased the entire area to Burger
King. He added that the parking for Burger King should be kept on the
one side of the drive rather than having the customers walking across
the drive to get to the restaurant.
1 Commissioner Harris asked how the area where the future commercial site
is would be cared for until the building is constructed. Mr. Hymen
stated that it would be subgraded. After further discussion Mr. Grass
stated that they will seed it and keep it mowed.
Chairman Genrich stated that he is concerned about the close proximity
of the curb cuts onto Dundee Road. He suggested that the entrance on
the west side be made into a one-way service entrance. Mr. Braun stated
that he felt the two-way drive was necessary to make the plan function.
Mr. Albert Hae er Engineer, stated that he had a couple of Haeger, g , p points to
make:
1. The entrance to Burger King is on the west end of the
north side of the building. If the parking is not
immediately to the north side, you are forcing people
to park on the east and walk to the other side.
2. They have 32 spaces to the north for customer parking.
That is minimal to what Burger King usually puts on
their site. Normally it is 60.
Chairman Genrich scheduled the Public Hearing for 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday,
November 10.
Chevy Chase
Chairman Genrich expressed his continued concern that time is running
short for the Plan Commission to try to crystallize their policy as
it might relate to directing the Chevy Chase landowners and their
consultant in terms of the end product plan and zoning that will finally
result from our discussions and the Public Hearing.
Plan Commission
Page 9 October 13, 1976
There was considerable discussion among the Commission. C_hairman Genrich
summarized the points that seemed to be made and there was general agreement
on:
1. The Plan Commission has no big argument against zoning
smaller portions in the kinds of pattern actually being
requested by the landowners.
2. The primary concern is that this is a parcel of property that
is large enough that it can be a totally planned community
and a totally planned development. The proposals as set
forth by the consultant up to this time do not give this
kind of flavor to what is being proposed. The Plan Commission
would like to see a more detailed kind of proposal and
and expect the consultant to support the actual zoning
being requested and the reasoning and logic for requesting
these specifications.
3. The Plan Commission overall is not concerned so much with what
the density of the ultimate residential development might be
as they are with their primary concern of having a QUALITY
DEVELOPMENT. The real challenge is to find ways to insure
that this is going to be a quality development, especially
given the fact that a number of developers could be involved
in developing the end product.
Ridgewood
Mr. Whited presented the final plat for Ridgewood No. lip be signed.
This was signed once before but the material it was printed on was
defective and it had to be redone. Chairman Genrich signed the plat.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
nda sonhart
Recording Secretary