1970-02-25 - Plan Commission - Minutes X 4 BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
•
`"" PUBLIC WEARING 2/25/70
1../ SUBJECT: To consider the application of Richard J. brown Associates, Inc.
for an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Village of Buffalo Grove,
adopted March 23, 1961, as amended allowing the construction of a
planned development, including multiple family condominium and/or
apartment structures, and other buildings, on the described property.
The meeting was called to order at 8:00PM by Chairman Berth for the purpose
of hearing the public in this regard.
Roll call was held. The following were present from the Commission:
Merrill Hoyt, Carl Genrich, Bon Zitzewitz, Larry Gann, Howard Mendenhall,
John Guidotti, Stan .Harr, Richard Heinrich, Wallace Berth.
There were approximately 185 people present excluding commission members,
Attorney Richard Raysa and our Engineer, Mr. Murvyn Sisson.
Chairman Berth read the public notice which was dated and published on
February 2, 1970, 44i n 57 e 7 q 7 t009T T lft. r)11q Fc:Js. PS I?t g►v.yts/2 4 q
oetnNwokt Was C t 1.4 tO 44. ; a
Chairman stated regular plan commission meeting would be held following the
public hearing.
Me..S wowteat $Alsewo) Kn.R.P,um*n. twk.R.GO Rl#irS, Ha t aAreA N.T.NuoQ,k 1
Introduction of R. J. Brown and his representatives114 were sworn in.
Wko
Mr. R. J. Brown spoke on the condominium project. He stated that in the
`� original plan,approval was granted for single, duplex and apartments and
commercial development. The plan was revised...the duplex was dropped, the
density was lowered, and the rental units became high-priced units. This was
all under the R-9 zoning. However, he felt that although R-9 allows flexibility
it limits the asthetic value. He therefore, requests the present planned develop-
ment of condominiums. These will range in price from $26,000 to $47,000 and will
appeal to the older families...the freedom age...families with older children,
retired couples, etc. Believe this would eliminate any over abundance of small
children since these units are not planned for small children. In this plan,
the density is again reduced, however the total value is increased. The
retention basis, which is actually the Lake, was the result of working out
drainage problems with the surrounding Village and in accordance with court
approval. As a result of the layout of the retention basin, the Y-shaped
buildings approved under the previous ordinance on this matter could not be
built. Introduced Mr. Balsarmo, Architect.
Mr. Salvatore Balsamo, Architect - stated his qualifications then presented
a slide presentation on the condominium project. The project is a self-
`` contained development. Approximately 25 acres. The Lake is to contain storm
�./ water runoff. it is a controlled lake, an engineered lake. There will be
recreation facilities for the residents. The project will be landscaped with
hills, screened with fencing, and hidden parking - 5G% of which will be
underground. There will b e a lobby with elevator, mansard roof. He then
described the individual layouts of the condominiums...for example, one is
1000 to 1500 sq. ft. with formal diningroom and livingroom, 2 baths, large
foyer, dressingroom off the master bath, 2 bedrooms. Another one is larger
with a fireplace in the livingroom, large diningroom, a study, 2 bedrooms,
2 baths, etc. All units have their own heating and laundry facilities.
1
-2- Plan Comm. Pub. Hearing
• 2/25/70
Mr. Patzer, Engineer - Stated his qualifications and then described the
engineering on this project. Present sanitary system is adequate. Metropolitan
Sanitary District tie-in has been approved. It will not be connected to any
other system in Buffalo trove. Storm sewer...the lake will take the runoff
from 72 acres. Will rise 4.8 ft, outfall 6" tile will retain_l41. This is
a fresh water lake. No cater will be dumped on the homes in the area. This
lake is in conjunction with the approval of Judge Covelli at a recent hearing
between Buffalo Grove, wheeling, etc. to improve the drainage in the area.
There will be no stagnant water. The Utility Company will expand the present
water capacity. A cross connection system will be made as soon as the
condominiums are started. There will be a 5000 gallon reservoir built.
Bids have been let already.
Mr. Gottlieb, Kenroy Representative - stated his qualifications. Stated the
relative effect of the Brown developments on the surrounding area property
values. The original R-9 was for Y-shaped buildings and the request now is
for offset 1watia buildings. The shape is different, location is changed in
relation to the houses, the lake is larger, there is now a couple of 6 story
buildings proposed instead of wings of two four story buildings and this would
have some adverse effect on the houses backing up to them. He suggested the
6 story building be lowered to 4 story and the Dundee Road building be increased
from 6 story to 8 story building. He stated that the second plan of Mr. Brown's
(the condominium project requested) has no greater adverse effect on the value
of the homeowners property than the original R-9 plan did and the Y-shaped
apartments that had been approved for that zoning. As far as the money value
is concerned, he stated you will not lose any money on the sale of homes in
the area because there are always some buyers who do not mind buying a home
backing up to a condominium or apartments, and there are other buyers who
will object. Your buyer will find you.
Mr. Carl Gardner, City Planning Consultant since 1931, in private practice
for 17 years, Director of Chicago Plan Commission, Chicago Housing Commission, etc.
He outlined the property surrounding the R. J. Brown condominium development...
East and South are single family detatched homes; West there is a vacant lot
with one house, commercial zoning for 250t which contains a car wash; across
the way is the Bank, Ranch Mart, Gas Station, Medical Center, and the Arlington
Heights Golf Course. There are three criteria for planning...(1) the size
and shape of tract, topography, tree cover, etc; (2) compatability to
relative surroundings; and (3) Is the proposed use needed to develop a
balanced use. In his opinion, the use as presented is the best for this area.
It is needed for the balance of types, fits in with the current suburban
trand, and there is a need in this area for this type development. He does
not feel this would have any adverse effect on surrounding area. It is the
logical transisional use between commercial and single family homes. The
Zoning District map calls for this type of development.
Mr. R. J. Brown summarized. The plan as proposed is a high quality, high
valuation plan which will add to the community. He then quoted facts and
" figures from the brown folder attached to this report. He listed the net
gain to the School Districts, to the Village, etc. He also mentioned there
would be private roads which would be maintained by the developer and/or
owners. Also mentioned that they could modify one six story building and make it
into a 4 story building and make the Harltte'fteeid building V stories instead.
c.OEtl1fJQ..
Aft Ivk1�.N1 W.
-3- Plan Comm. Pub. Hrg. 2/25/70
Questions to Mr. Brown and Mr. Joseph Murphy, his Attorney -
? - Would the Y-shaped buildings be used if the present condominium request is
turned down?
A - No. If the exhibits are not approved the old plan will not be used as the
cost would make it impossible. They would have to go to a low cost rental
project.
? - Are these units apartments?
A.- No. It is 100% condominium units.
Note: further questions followed. These are the answers:
Total height of the 4 story from ground to top of roof varies from
39' to 51'; on 6 sterywoii70.1.14., it will vary from 59' too67' with a
'a�i
maximum of 76'A tenance buildin on the plan is only a 20x20' shed.
If all buildings were limited to 4 story it would be economically
unfeasible to build...would have to down grade the plan. Mr. Brown has
a firm committment for the mortgage money for this condominium project.
The 6 story building will be 80' from the property line and another
40' from the houses. There will be no parking between the buildings and
the single family homes. The private road is about 10 feet wide. There
will be a planting strip and a fence between the property line and the
private road. There will be at least a five foot fence on the property
line and there will be no overhead lights. If the bottom fell out of
the condominium market and some of the condominiums had to be rented
the rentals would have to be very high, for high-income families oizly.
The walls are solid masonary - 11eick, concrete topping on wood base.
Water use capability ths 10,25# designing Well #t2 for 1000 p.g.m. -
1,500 gal per min plus pumping 2,000 g.p.m. There will be a standby do
natural gas in case of power failure. Storage 800,000 gallons. Will
deliver 180% of the demand.
Question by one of the Commission members to Mr. Raysa, Village Attorney -
? - If Mr. Brown did make his one building 8 stories tall, would this increase
allow side yard requirements as per our ordinances?
A - Mr. Raysa stated that this requirement could be waived since this building
would be located opposite commercial property.
At this point, The Chairman turned the meeting over to the Cambridge Civic
Association. All members testifying were sworn in7Hci wte.t. tut, (.to FNoms.��
rtre.03610ER towt.t) \NUR .Wsu k.) tAn W•lhavert .
Leo Anderson Chairman of Planning & Zoning Committee of Cambridge Civic
Association (CCA). Objected to development. Complete statement copy attached. (1)
Earl Marshall, Cambridge Resident - Objected to development. Complete copy
of his statement is also attached. (2)
Mr. Walter Fuller, CCA - Reviewed with Plan Commission parts of Zoning
Ordinance of 1961. Requested that the plan commission review and rule on
the applicability of the Zoning Qrdinance articles as sighted in regards to
this proposed project. Complete copy of his statement is attached. (3).
Mr. Richard Raysa, Village Attorney - According to the 1963 Illinois Statute,
the definition of a Condominium is that they are multiple dwellings or
-4- Plan. Comm. Pub. Hrg. 2/25/70
apartment buildings...therefore, there is no height restrictions on these
buildings under our current R-9 Zoning.
Mr. Walker, CCA, stated he is an engineer by profession. The past summer in
Cambridge showed there was definitely not enough water...low water pressure.
Until proper facilities are made, they would prefer no action be taken until
guarantees are made that water and drainage is initiated. Also, Mr. brown's
proposal stated this would be condominiums and/or apartments...not just
condominiums. (No copy of his statements were given in written form)
William Drake, CCA - Objects to condominium development from an esthetic
value. Complete copy of his statements are attached. (4)
Leo Anderson,CC* - Closing statement. Presented Petition with 601 signatures.
Copy of his statement is attached. (5)
Following are Questions and Answers on the project - Some questions from
members of the Commission, some questions from the audience. All persons
asking questions were asked to state their name and address for the benefit
of the tape. Chairman recognized each and every citizen, members of the
commission, representatives of R. J. brown Associates, and the Cambridge
Civic Association for their comments and statements as well as questions.
? For Mr. Gottlieb - What would be the effect of this development on the
surrounding property?
A - Regent Park is the best in the suburban area.. .this project is similar
or better. Development would have a positive effect on the Village as
a whole. If this project is developed as specified here tonight, it
would have no adverse effect on the sale of homes in the area. When
this land was originally zoned R-9 that was when the effect was made
on the value of those homes...As you all know, in spite of the fact that
that land was zoned R-9, the homes in Cambridge did not go down in cost,
but have risen steadily.
? For Mr. Brown - Would you agree to make the change from 6 story to 8 story
building and make the one 6 story building a 4 story building as suggested
if the land plan of your development did not have to be altered?
A - Yes, as long as the site plan did not have to be changed.
? For Mr. Brown - Regarding the Maintenance shed which was mentioned, what
type shed will this be and how big?
A - It is a maintenance shed for storage only, located in the South East
portion of the property. it is 20' x 20' , one story, for snow removal
equipment and mowing equipment.
? by Mr. Guidotti to Mr. Raysa, Atty. - Regarding the legality of the previous
ordinance since the written notices were not sent to the homeowners in
the area at that time. Would that ordinance still be legal?
A by Mr. Raysa - If the present plan is not approved and it reverted to the
original plan, it would be R-9 zoning with no limit on height. Village
would be stopped from throwing out the zoning granted and he would be given x
authority for R-9. Only section that would revert to commercial zoning is
one small section.
--5- Plan. Comm. Pul Hrg. 2/25/70
? - Is the water system as proposed adequate? -�
A. - From Mr. Decker - The plans have been approved by the Engineers. An op Ln
agreement is presently being considered by the Village Board with the Utility
Company. The plan as proposed is adequate. The Bond sale has nothing to
do with the proposed water supply. Sewer and water interchanges will be
made with the Buffalo Utility Company regardless of whether the bonds are
sold or not.
? to Mr. Brown by Chairman Berth - What is your desire in regard to this land
if this plan is not approved?
A - He has a large investment in the land and something has to be built on it
and quickly. If this plan is not approved he would have to re-design
and get new financing. The only money available is under the F.H.A. for
low cost rental housing. If this project is not approved, he would have
to seek other money, possibly from the Federal Housing Authority.
Harvey Cohan, Cambridge resident, attorney. Referred to the ordinance for
Zoning given to Mr. Brown 10/14/68. Stated he felt this was illegal.
Stated ordinance states 5 years from date it shall revert to R-1.
? From Mr. Heinrich of Plan Commission - What is the size of the retention
basis?
A - From jr. Patzer, Engineer for R.J. brown - Court has ordered a minimum
of 12.2 acre feet. This lake is greater than required.
? From Mr. Heinrich - Will the lake have to be put in regardless of the
decidion on this project?
A. - Yes. The lake is part of the court hearing agreement worked out with
Wheeling and Buffalo Lrove to alleviate the flooding in that area.
Mr. Joseph Murphy, Atty for R. J. Brown - Stated he believed the presentation
given by Mr. Brown was adequate to have the Commission vote in favor of the
request for the Planned Condominium development. In reply to previous statement
he stated that if approved, the developer may use the planned development,
if not approved, he may revert back to the R-9 unlimited height zoning. Thanked
Commission for allowing everyone to make their presentation and questions.
There being no further questions from the audience, nor from the Commission
members, the Chairman asked for a motion to close the hearing. It was
approved by unanimous decidion and the public hearing was adjourned at 11:45PM.
(22.67.x...titiottaez ex_
Minutes taken by:
Norma Krolak and Dorothy berth for
Wallace E. Berth, Chairman
Buffalo rove Plan Commission
4 CAI fib ,
l/lJ +1 b._
.
Wallace . Berth
Chairman
» t £yam �' h ` , iP .,�
.P
F
Fly, h ♦ `-
emu` ;
' _ S ..,,-.
y r
'et
7;
I' Pal, < � �, •'"h , aF •
'v, k �,
t
. r,
� f
' ,f'r;.? :M <'' ,. •. '�t r v ' ,' ,,_ i ',�"+S`„4 y33'k.17 fi
tk
ilos= y l� - ; xir - �"
.,,,,iiii,- ,. .. \,Y,1 ''` 4::00•'1 '/ ' .. .
•
y \• . •r o +i-. :c ;
b .:e � 1? ♦�y , M
F` t 5 h` Fa v'
. �,-.. '{• ` a Wes"{'' ,•. • Y�'� h - _. '.'X. '.
= i r -q,.
- 4 �41`� .- ��: \ \ ;,.. R L��f �•-i 1N � j is q� '�`�',Z Y
- ltj
a { 1 i �4` SK' . '4 Pg A.r x}'
•
� • t' .�r� ;;• +� t ' , '0 Y t tie.+ r�,-4 ,.• :, ,'
', ..Y �
SITE PLAN` "�` �_ g
•r. fir.. • + .!' a
r RICHARD 1. BROWN_ & associates
5 t r
etWAs1r 19 � � a i
s p a 1 _ ..=i . - 7 i i ,r 'r ,~ a tt t v:;f ,. ,...'
lath
DATA ON CAMH.'IDLE APARTMEN'i':5
pb,
TO'i
4 UNI'1'5
4- ,
51.4 1 and 2 bed-oom units
36 Villas • •
550 Total
RED rAL RANGE b i
•
Apartments •• $ 170 •• 270 (average $245) '
Villas - 325 - 425 (average -i70)
•
GAN I) AREA
23.85 Acres j �, 1.r
BUI1,DING COVERAGE 4 >.
14.25%Hof land 'area
Y1.'. CN ..k 13 f
ta
4`f ti
pO to t yip# x
Alloy able density @ 1800 sq. f t. per. unit isa 577 units ?' .
Note 2 , Y
J •Y a.,w c .A Y
SQULh west section 01 Comb ,idgi, is ' oned R-7 Under that
zoning 16R duplex units cot.ld ;lave been built. However
siuy;i0 family homes were ek,nfitruetoil insteolit for 1nc�t :.
rr tuckion cat' living units of 7.i I ' this iK suh r:l( tea
fr tm the 550 units in the planned al)ar.tment re , th plex, k3
nc• : is 4a0 unit •
it1
-'44,71 .4°4111, .$1,44, ,t it ...`,p- ' -`--- ',,-,'-44,-4, -4 '---•••.„-r't;;-.,.'1.:„,-" .,,,,,) . '.
-4 .lid" i 1 T ems'. .1 t- r" y y •
• ::4A::t!
Igp,
\ ij
.,'.1 a z y S - 5 a ' Al
ri Y
y" 3 a':d,y.,,� -r^ca�n � �•<'''' `'• t• S r-•e"w �' 'c"
--�s,rt^5r'`'@�� , "'` ^}•tom •`s =-y ..
a ,,` W tss,g' i t
gPi
ate. ' �y
1100.4.
t ". - ..'� t 'Y
.* ..`k«4
♦ .tea. _.
ca �� . - z
a.. R �:
'w
B
1
T
t am,..'.
.'„4"'G) ,,,,, ,..,: , : ?::
D _ E. UIN ROAD•ROLLING MEADOWS,IXa1N013 600011
F•._ PHONE 25S-6680
i .„
f i
S y{a gd • -
itie.
N
•
ry� cier CC
I 4 .'
i DATA ON CAMBRIDGE APARTMENT HOMES
TOTAL UNITS *
64 - 1 Bedroom _
416 - 2 Bedroom
- (288 small)
(128 large)
32 - 3 Bedroom , '
' 512 Total `
.
54 •
.
APPROXIMATE PRICE RANGE (SUBJECT TO COST INCREASES) .
1 Bedroom Units $ 25,000 • " ,t ;.
2 Bedroom Units (small) 28,000 • •
2 Bedroom Units (large) • 32,000- i. � .3.-,•w ,+• .-.*'
3 Bedroom Units 37,000 `4 t
.t f `fF+Po
} t
LANp AREA }•},t
23.85 Acres • � 4�
V j
BUILDING COVERAGE
' tz., A.
V 16% of Land Area
_
am. •
r
* Unit mix may vary, depending on' Market requirements. .• --. ,
However, total number of units will, not exceed, 512 ., v�, ',1` '_,, r:
• � � �
z w ,,a
4
�`.
STATEMENT AT THE BUFFALO GROVE PLAN Co;\:ISSION HEARING, FEBRUARY 25, 3sbe 1970
i y pare is Leo Anderson. I live at 986 Cambridge Drive. I p.m. chairmen of
the Pl. rsnine and Zoning Lore;ittee of the Caebridee Civic Association.
I have been designated to present the over-_ll view of the association in
r•eger+; to the proposed high rise co do;einiun and./or aparteents in the Cambridge
area. We arc opposed to this plan. I will outline tee nature of our objections,
nod oteers in our group will present the details of our objections.
You have just heard a very professional, s.eooth and convincing p csert&+.tion
of the ergunewts for this project. It nee certaa.ir. to b.c smooth and professional,
because this is a 17 and one-half million-dollar project, and those who stand to
profit by it. have bent all efforts to rake it go through.
We are groteeful to the Plan Co-rtission for the opportunity to be heard here.
We realize tb t the Commission eerabers work long hours with no compensation,
little thanks end freouent critic;so. And yet your role isx vital in the
functioning of local level democracy, for it in here that the people nay be
he:rd and their wants and needs corsidereei. We ask only th-t, you an nsider
those w x desires as carefully as you consider those of the opposition.
Now in regard to the Caabridco high rise proposal:
-We feel there ere serious doubts al to the leenlity of the project.
-fire believe the property values of the homeowners in the Cambridge area
will drop substantially if the project is Approved. •
-We de ea•^d absolute assurance that our w tfix,/ 1}c.1(x x eetil 4er/V
tiitteer present and future wa.t�r supply ent3 drainage facilities be adeauetely
provided for before auythine- is built in the area ire question.
.-rye feel that our esthetic sensibilities have been disregerd.ed in -this
plan, while en attractive prospect has been provided for the hiEh rise
dwellers.
-;:ost of all we feel that the aeceptence of those high rises would. set
a. der Brous precedent for the village. Whet. is at stake here is :,tot si reply
t.h.e injured feelings 3nd aperehncsi ons of t;ee residents of ten Ceebridr•a•
areas but r :t>aer the future direction of the entire village. You Eentle en
00 t,'>e ttlnn Co'.uissiOe have: asked. the Village eoard to set a F.ofiaite and.
specific restrict,ion on building heights. k/x/xO ;stet/lixX_ganc43s/t4:c '=tm/ /i •
The Board itself ha•s gone on record is f•._-ror of a density factor that eould
in e':.:ffect ei;b rise b:.i.ltarg; -ter. w i
_2 in Buffalo Grove. Now s a
good tine to put those principles tm into practical application.
If you wish to change our villeec ir+to a :aicrocose of netronolitar.
Chicago you should reco erred for this pine. gut if yo'i wish Buffalo Grove
to l en,i n nrirerily e. villa•.e of attractive h ace end a pleasant piece to
live, 'TOi.i must recoe end egeinnt i_t,. It .is up to you, we "eeel , to decide
our fut.i re direction.
Now I would like to yield the floor to Earl PA-rshell, wlao will address
himself to the nueetion of property values.
.•.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, in considering the effects of multi-
story structures in the Cambridge subdivision, I have sought opinions that could
be helpful in this consideration.
In a telephone ceversation with Mr. Walter Tomlinson, Vice President of Chicago
Federal Savings & Loan Association, I was advised by Mr. Tomlinson that under norm-
al lending conditions this firm would not consider maximum loans on the homes in .
the immediate vicinity of multi-story structures. Further in a discussion with a
representative of Real Estate Research Corporation, he indicated that four- and
six-story buildings would become primarily dominant and would overshadow resident
ial structures, especially those residential structures in the immediate area.of
the multi-story structures I mentioned.
Wesley Chemin, a realtor and real estate broker in Park Ridge, indicates that k.
in a competitive market where a choice of locations of residences for sale are
available the buyer would most likely choose a residence in an area away from the
multi-story structures. Then price would reflect choice of buyer, and it would be
up to the seller of the residence in the area closer to the multi-story structure
to shave price of his property in order to sell.
Mr. Joseph Nowicki, 'president of the International Society of Real Estate Ap-
praisers, indicates that residential property in the area of multi-story struc- t•
tures may perhaps be reduced in value as much as ten per cent.
For myself, I have been a real estate broker and have worked in the greater
Chicago area for more than 18 years. r%r experience is that the family takes res-
idence
in the suburbs to vacate congestion, enjoy dwelling in an area of less
traffic::and generally abate resemblance to urban or large city life. One of the
prime motives for taking residence in the surburban community seems to be defined
in the term "surburb." That definition appears in the New World Dictionary of
j the American Language, and I quote: "A district, especially a residential dis-
j trict, on the outskirts of a city, often a separate, incorporated city or town
of homes, abodes, houses, mansions or dwellings."15
If. indeed we are in this community of Buffalo Grove to enjoy a surburban way of
life, and if multi-story structures are constructed in our midst, and if because
of these multi-story structures our image is, changed or confused, if prime lending
; or maximum mortgages are withheld from us at the time any of us are interested in
selling our homes, it would appear that our homes will have indeed suffered con-
siderable loss of value.
Respectfully, • ,
Earl P. Marshall, 416 Trinity Court.
Buffalo Grove, Illinois
•
r i
"14 we. *".4:1 '1, "?z