1971-02-10 - Plan Commission - Minutes A\
0,1\1101//
' PUBLIC HEARING February 10, 1971
`.J Continuation of a Public Hearing began on January 20, continued
to February 3 and to February 10, 1971.
Chairman Berth called the hearing to order at approximately 8 :05 P.M.
,-- Upon roll call the following were found present:
Mr. Guidotti, Mr. Genrich, Mr. Haarr, Mr. Mendenhall, Mr. Gamm,
Mr. Fader and Mr. Yost, also Chairman Berth.
Absent : Mr. Hoy _ = Mrs. Spence
Mr. Richard Houpt stated he would present as exhibits, to help .
clarify certain questions that were raised at the last hearing,
copies of public notice of statement of intent to dissolve Gregg
Builders Corporation, public notice of the dissolution, certi ie
copies of the dissolution papers, copy of the deed in trust and
copy of the Insurance Title Commitment from Chicago Title and
Trust Company. Additionally, he presented a copy of an engineer-
ing and financial report to the Village of Buffalo Grove by Hattis
Engineering on the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Buffalo
Utility Company citing the fact that when this study was made, it
considered 900 units for this parcel of land and a letter from Mr.
Gill, Superintendent of School District No. 21 stating that the
population figures per apartment and impact upon the school system
presented by the petitioner were correct and further stating the
school district would have no valid basis for filing an objection
to this project. All of the above were presented to Chairman Berth
and marked as Exhibits one through eight. Mr. Houpt further stated
that the Engineer as well as the planner are in attendance tonight
so that the answers to questions posed by the Commissioners would
be answered as accurately and quickly as possible.
Mr. Patzer was recognized and produced an exhibit depicting the
Buffalo Creek Water Shed which is involved in the drainage of the
proposed development. He depicted the area in colors and stated T.
only Unit 7 and the Arlington Addition drain into the sewers on
the park property and then into the sewer which runs into the
culvert across the Golf Course to the Creek. He stated Unit 5
does not enter the property at all. He further stated the Cambridge
area is in a separate water shed. No area north of Hawthorne Road
is connected to the sewer system. He further stated that the
Village Engineers have seen preliminary drawings and agree that
the sewers are adequate. He further stated the Village Engineer
has stated that there is adequacy of water facilities since im-
provements have been made with the purchase of the private utility •
and there will be additional storage supply. Mr. Yost questioned
Mr. Patzer as to whether he had given consideration to the size
PUBLIC HEARING February 10, , 1971 -2-
water retention pond needed on site should this De required. Mr.
Patzer stated preliminary figures based on a year rain with
7.6 cfs would require a basin of 4.8 acre feet. Mr . Yost stated
based on MSD requirements he has calculated the need for a 30.82 acre
foot basin. Mr. Patzer stated they would be required to retain for
their property only. Mr. Yost stated the storm sewers seem to be
adequate and discharge into the creek, however, the Village has
been on record to be against direct discharge into the Creek and
has adopted a policy requiring storm water retention facilities .
Mr. Patzer stated if the engineer deems it necessary, they will,
of course, comply, however, they have not planned for any such re-
tention. Mr. Patzer ' s exhibits were marked 9 and 10 and accepted
by Chairman Berth.
Mr. Katzenberg was then recognized and presented a revised copy
of the statistical breakdown covering the PUD reference building
coverage and floor area ratio. (Exhibit marked #11) . He stated
he would like to summarize the plan re-emphasizing the planning
elements . He presented charts showing the economics of the plan
and the effect on the school district and Village ; traffic con-
ditions and traffic impact. He stated they developed a plan oriented
to three separate areas of development, dispersing traffic to take
advantage of arterial street resulting in a plan that would utilize
L existing capabilities and disperse traffic with a minimum effect.
Secondly, they tried to orient a plan to the market studies in
the area. He stated he personally recommended density higher than
that allowable under R-9 rezoning. He stated they developed one and
two bedroom units since three bedroom units are considered unde-
sirable in the area. He stated the plan is designed to create
interest with a variety of exposures and views . He stated they
have proposed a landscape program which is not just trees . He
stated they have created earth mounding which together with planting
would buffer visual effect of cars parked. He stated they have
recommended mature planting within the project to give effect, trees
with a 25 to 30 foot height and 3 to 4 inch base. He stated they
have recommended recreation facilities in three separate locations
and have provided space for additional facilities should they be
needed. He further stated they have suggested the type of planting
to go into the park and school area, to have ball playing fields,
picnic areas, etc. He stated pedestrian walkways have been de- •
signed throughout the project to connect with existing pedestrian
walkways to the park, school and shopping center. He stated they
worked with the firm of Alan M. Voorhees, traffic consultants con-
cerning an analysis of the effect of traffic in the area. He
.
)
a
-...dmaskswaj
PUBLIC HEARING February 10, '1971 -3-
submitted into evidence a letter from the firm which was entered
as Exhibit 12 and is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Mr. Haarr then questioned floor area ratio figures . Mr. Houpt
stated they are considering the total site since the roadways
`/ and pedestrian walkways will be owned and maintained by the project.
Mr. Yost questioned why the traffic consultant decided to split
the traffic flow on Golfview in both directions. He stated the
majority of traffic would go towards the school site and Golfview
to the stop sign and west to the train station. Mr. Katzenberg
stated it was based upon their analysis of the overall area and
location of employment centers .
Mr. Guidotti questioned whether Mr. Katzenberg included in his
study concerning economics, the apartment areas already approved
or under construction in the Village and Mr . Katzenberg stated
he had. Mr. Guidotti further questioned why the development is in
three separate areas with separate recreation centers rather than
interconnecting the areas with streets . Mr. Katzenberg stated it
will be built in a three- stage program because of studies on market
, conditions and also to allow flexibility for the type of individuals
that would be living there. He stated they were also looking at
a condominium concept if market conditions would indicate such a
need. He stated from an internal standpoint, they are trying to
create open space that will minimize the impact or relationship
between pedestrian and vehicular traffic inside the project. He
stated they would be able to disperse traffic throughout the entire
area with difference accesses. Mr. Guidotti questioned whether an
alternate plan has been considered should water retention be re-
quired. Mr. Katzenberg stated there was none. He stated it has
been discussed and would have a strong influence on change in plan.
Mr. Guidotti further questioned why Mr. Katzenberg would recommend
higher density. Mr. Katzenberg stated it would of course be of
greater benefit to the developer and the Village but it has to be
a viable kind of development since if it is unsuccessful, it would
cause problems for both the developer and Village. He stated he
felt the market would sustain higher density as would the property.
9:13 P.M. Chairman Berth declared a recess
9 :30 P.M. The meeting was reconvened
Mr. Gamm questioned whether a survey had been done reference
amount of traffic during construction. Mr. Katzenberg stated
it had not, however, it is feasible to keep all construction traffic •
off of Golfview Terrace.
PUBLIC HEARING February 10, 1971 -4-
Mr. Fader questioned whether the higher density was environmental
or commercial . Mr. Katzenberg stated it was environmental con-
ditions stating the project would take 5 to 7 years to complete
and the potential market is such that the project could sustain
the increase over 900 units and still remain desirable. Mr.
Katzenberg stated he has worked around the country on many types
of projects, rural multi-family, urban multi-family and suburban
multi-family. He stated he was in Puerto Rico last week where
there will be a 60 - 80 unit per acre development built in San
Juan. He stated density is based on meeting market demands and
having a viable project. Mr. Katzenberg stated higher density in
a concentrated area can provide a better economic base on the
overall metropolitan area. He stated if higher density is properly
done within economic capacity, it is the right thing. Mr. Berth
then stated that the Attorney for the Concerned Homeowners sub-
mitted an exhibit as to their idea of a site plan and asked
whether Mr. Katzenberg had examined it or had an opinion on it.
Mr. Hoyt stated it was not presented in the light of being a
good plan but in changing the traffic flow on Golfview Terrace.
Mr. Houpt then stated that as a result of these hearings the
`► owners requested Mr. Katzenberg to review the plan, adopting means
v of accommodating some of the concerns expressed by the various
witnesses . He then presented to the Commissioners, a letter which
outlined certain conditions and changes in the property, which
the developers have agreed to. The letter was read for the benefit
of the public and is attached hereto marked Exhibit #13. Mr.
Katzenberg then presented a revised exhibit depicting the changes
to the buildings stating it is less than what he would like
however, the major concern is traffic on Golfview and this would
alleviate part of the problem. A revised data sheet was sub-
mitted and marked Exhibit 14... Chairman Berth stated with the
reduction from 900 to 870 units, what effect would the change have
on the economic analysis . Mr. Katzenberg stated the revenues
would lessen proportionately.
Mr. Houpt then stated this concluded their presentation, however,
he would submit to Mr. Haarr floor pla s of the building showing
a floor area. He stated there will be>7 two bedroom units and
13 one bedroom units per building. He further stated these plans
are not being represented as being maximum building size for any
building to be constructed.
Mr. Hoyt then stated he would enter an objection, however, since
he is not certain whether the revisions would be allowable under
PUBLIC HEARING February 10, 1971 -5-
the public notice regulation. Mr. Houpt stated he understood
the purpose of public hearings was just that, to make changes
should they be deemed necessary as a result of testimony heard,
and they are trying to cooperate with the Plan Commission. Chair-
man Berth then stated the Plan Commission would attempt to make
a decision at the regular meeting of the commission on February
17. The stated the petitioners would be on the agenda for 8 :45
P.M. He further stated Mr. Hoyt has asked to give a summary at
a regular meeting and will be allowed time from 8 :45 P.M. to
9:00 P.M. He further stated Mr. Houpt would be allowed to
summarize from 9 :00 P.M. to 9 :15 P.M. should he so desire .
There being no further testimony, Mr. Genrich moved the public
hearing be concluded. Mr. Gamm seconded the motion and it
carried unanimously.
Time : Approximately 10 :05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
ir
Recording Se reary
•
•
--- ..r._ _ �._._ 4...;.;__
a.
V
I
r