1976-09-29 - Plan Commission - Minutes WORKSHOP SESSION
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Phoenix Route 83 Development
September 29, 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 (arrived 8:40 P.M.)
Mr. Harris (arrived 8:45 P.M.)
Mr. Keister
Mr. Goldspiel
Mr. Jacobs
Mr. Kandel
Commissioners Absent: Mr. Shields
Mr. Kuenz
Also Present: Mr. Al Frank, Developer, Phoenix Development
Mr. Salvatore Balsamo, Architect, Phoenix Development
Mr. K. Rodeck, Developer, Phoenix Development
Mr. Frank Angelotti , Applied Engineering Co. (Phoenix)
Mr. Stan Crosland, Park District
Mr. Wm. Kiddie, Park District
Mr. K. Rapp, Village Engineer
Mr. Hitzeman, Superintendent, District 96
Mr. Wm. Whited, Administrative Assistant
Mr. J. Marienthal , Trustee
Chairman Gen rich stated that the purpose of the workshop meeting was to discuss
the Phoenix Route 83 Development, two additional items he wished to discuss,
and a request from Trustee Bogart for the Plan Commission to review the Village-
Park District Agreement recently adopted by the Board.
Mr. Frank distributed copies of the dimension plan of the single family plan
previously submitted. He said they had met with the Village Staff one week ago
in order to go over technical detail of the plan and Karl Rapp noted that a
Staff Report on the meeting would be prepared for the Public Hearing scheduled
for October 20.
Frank said that a new occurrence had been Frank Angelotti 's receipt of a letter
from Steven Samet, Levitt 's engineer, (dated September 21 , 1976) in which Levitt
(now the Phoenix Property's surrounding owner) states that the Plan Commission
suggestion for an east access to the development rather than the previously planned
northern Banbury access will be acceptable. However, they make two stipulations
with regard to implementation of the change: that Balsamo-Frank pay all expenses
incurred in making the plan change (estimated up to $4500) and that it be done
within ten days. Frank said they can live with the first request but not the
second and that if the east access is a Village criteria, they will need Village
assistance in persuading Levitt that more than ten days in needed.
Plan Commission September 29, 1976
Page 2
Village Engineer Rapp requested of Frank the right to restrict the type of
house on corner lots with net usage of 3345 sq. ft. Frank responded that no
variations in setbacks will be requested and they plan to build small houses
on these small lots.
Frank reminded the Commission that they were present to request a change in
final development plan only and not requesting rezoning. The zoning will
remain R-9 Special Use PUD. Chairman Genrich requested that the record show his
request that the Village Staff Report review the R-5 engineering standards and
�./ lot sizes in order to indicate comparatively the relationship between this R-9
and an R-5.
Commissioner Goldspiel said he felt it was contrary to good planning principles
to build what is essentially single family housing in multifamily zoning and
he speculated as to whether such a situation would provide adequate protection
for the homeowner from other owners converting houses to other uses. He asked
what would be the objection to matching the zoning to what is being built. Frank
said they couldn 't get this lot size on straight residential and it would open
the box with the school and park donation.
Commissioner Goldspiel asked about street width and Frank replied that the 27'
width had been worked out on the staff level between their engineer and the
Village. Rapp noted that the staff had arrived at the width in terms of compat-
ibility for single family and the current requirements in the development.
Commissioner Goldspiel repeated that it doesn't seem appropriate to call the
plan PUD or treat it with PUD zoning. There was discussion of the possibility
of changing the zoning to straight R-6 or R-9. It was concluded that the plan
has to go PUD because of R-6 or R-9 lot size requirements (6600 sq. ft.) in
excess of those on the submitted plan (6000 sq. ft.) .
Commissioner Keister pointed to the recurring situation in the Village of reverting
to smaller lot single family whenever a parcel zoned PUD multiple doesn't sell
and felt Goldspiel 's objections were valid.
At this point Commission Kandel asked for clarification of the purpose of the
meeting. He noted that the Commission has options concerning the plan only
as the zoning has already been determined. Kandel objected to the lack of
open space and parks and recreation in the single family plan, however, felt
that the Village Attorney should decide what the developer is responsible for
since this parcel is under another annexation agreement. In favor of the
single family plan, on the other hand, he pointed to the reduced economic
impact on the school system as a result of lowered density. Commission Goldspiel
felt the location of the parcel near a busy highway and next to a probable
l commercial area favored the townhouse plan.
�•/ Attention turned to recreation facilities and Frank stated there will be none
in the single family plan. Chairman Genrich asked about the size of the
detention basin. After some delay, Frank said it should be about one and one/half
acres, 5' deep, and will cover up to lot lines other than what it will take to
berm. He said this is final engineering which, of course, hasn't been done.
After discussion of the possibility of a recreational use for the basin, Karl Rapp
said he was definitely convinced there could be some recreational
usage.
Plan Commission
Page 3 September 29, 1976
Commissioner Jacobs outlined the major issues in the matter :
1 . Donations - no park or recreational donation required of
developer according to his interpretation of Annexation
Ordinance ; also Village Attorney's opinion.
2 . Zoning - They are not requesting zoning change . Commission
can only approve one plan or the other.
3. Density - Do you prefer more (242 townhomes) or less
(151 single family) ?
4 . Legal interpretation of the existing Ordinance under which
parcel was annexed is necessary and Plan Commission has
nothing to do with this .
Commissioner Jacobs cautioned against going over the same points
repeatedly now and at the Public Hearing and resolving nothing.
Mr. Whited referred to the PUD zoning and wondering how it handles
the maximum four units per acre ; he noted the single family plan
is 151 units on 33 acres or 4 . 9 to the acre . Mr. Balsamo said
that according to the Ordinance under which annexed, there are
pluses and percentages for park and school contribution which allow
the increase from 4 per acre . Commissioner Jacobs requested a
legal interpretation of this point prior to the Public Hearing.
Mr. Frank said it was his personal opinion that the single family
plan is better for the Village and equally as good for him as
developer. It conforms better with surrounding areas as they are
surrounded on three sides by single family. Balsamo added that the
recorded townhouse plan is a workable plan, but it is not good.
Mr. Frank said the PUD designation is a legal fictionalism and
both he and the Commission recognized that fact.
Mr. Kiddie initiated discussion as to whether or not the original
owner of record was required to have any inhouse recreation under
the original plan. No definite answer was available .
Regarding the school donation, Frank said it would be the same
percentage of $103 ,000 for either plan and the contribution would not
be lowered.
Chairman Genrich took a straw vote regarding the preference for a
north (Banbury Lane) or east access street to adjoining development
if the single family plan was approved. Commissioners Mendenhall ,
Harris , Kandel , Goldspiel , and Kester voted for the east access as
did Chairman Genrich. Commissioner Jacobs stated 'no preference ' .
II' Goldspiel clarified the meaning of the vote saying "East is better
than north does not mean I buy the plan."
At the close of the discussion centering on the fact that the lots
will be the smallest in the Village and contain the same size house
Levitt is building on 6600 sq. ft. , if it is approved, Mr. Balsamo
said they would control final grading.
Plan Commission September 29 , 1976
Page 4
After continued discussion, Chairman Genrich said he felt no more
would be accomplished at this workshop and asked Mr. Whited for
the status of the Public Hearing. Whited said the only outstanding
information was the list of homeowners within 500 ' which presented
no problem and the Public Hearing would be held at 8 :00 P.M. on
October 20 , 1976 . Commissioner Keister left the meeting .
Village - Park District Agreement
Trustee Bogart referred to the Agreement Appendix A and B recently
adopted by the Village Board and to be attached to Resolution 72-35 .
He noted that the Plan Commission must enforce it and asked for
their comments .
The drainage time allowed for basins and flat land was discussed
and Comm. Harris noted an error in the time sequences (Appendix A,
II
A-1 and B) .
Discussed at length was the point at which evaluation of the donated
land takes place.. Commissioner Harris felt the land could not
be evaluated on the basis of the outlined criteria at the time of
annexation agreement and before engineering plans are in. Comm.
Kandel noted that Appendix A should be worked out with Engineering
and legal while the Plan Commission should be concerned with B .
Trustee Bogart stated that the Village Staff is doing a report on
the legal possibilities of making Appendix A and B a part of the
Subdivision Regulations . Mr. Kiddle stated that the Park Board
would like to see them added to Subdivision Regulations to give
Resolution 72-35 more force and effect at a time when developers
are attempting to soften it and shout it down.
At the close of the discussion, the Plan Commission was in general
agreement with Appendix A and B; however, expressed no opinion as
to whether it should be incorporated into the Subdivision Regulations
on the assumption that the Village Staff will give the matter more
study.
District 59 and Unit School District
Chairman Genrich referred to the information sheet from District 59
in which is outlined their desire to go to the unit school district
and take two schools out of District 214 . Chairman Genrich stated
that he felt in terms of quality education and economics , it should
not be done. There will be a Public Hearing regarding the matter.
After short discussion, Commission Kandel made a motion that the
Plan Commission make a recommendation that the Village Board review
the proposal by District 59 and voice an opinion as being opposed
to such a move because it would be to the detriment of the residents
of Buffalo Grove and futher, suggests that a representative of the
Village attend the Public Hearing regarding the matter. Commissioner
Goldspiel seconded and a voice vote indicated:
Commissioners Goldspiel , Mendemhaill , Kandel - YES
Commissioners Harris and Jacobs - ABSTAIN
Plan Commission September 29 , 1976
Page 5
October 6 Plan Commission Meeting
Because of the second presidential debate scheduled for October 6 ,
the Plan Commission meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 13, 1976 .
PUD Zoning
Trustee Marienthal asked the Plan Commission if they thought PUD zoning
was needed in the Village any longer. Commissioner Kandel said
"Yes , it is as there are too many large unsold parcels yet. "
Chairman Genrich said it was his feeling the PUD concept is good
but possibly, the Plan Commission hadn 't handled it quite right
when it was done. Commissioner Goldspiel favored doing away with
it because it hasn't been used as intended. Commissioner Mendenhall
disagreed that it should be abandoned.
Discussion continued; however , no action was taken .
Chevy Chase
Chairman Genrich said he wasn't satisfied with the Chevy Chase
situation and there followed discussion as to various approaches
to the annexation of the 600 acre parcel . Commissioner Jacobs said
he would favor a workshop session involving only Plan Commission
members in order to formulate just how the annexation and zoning
should be treated. Commissioner Kandel agreed. No action was taken.
The meeting adjourned at 10 : 00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
aren Fergadis
Recording Secretary Pro Tem
APPROVED:
dve' Le.e4e-G1-
Carl Genrich, Chairman