1981-04-29 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes REGULAR MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Chatham Manor
Steeple View Plaza
Milwaukee Avenue Corridor
April 29. 1981 Town Center Retail Proposal
Mr. Button called the Regular Meeting to order in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp
Boulevard, Buffalo Grove at 7:35 P.M. on April 29, 1981. Roll was called:
Commissioners Present: Mr. Goldspiel
Mr. Glover
Mrs. Reid
Mrs. Kaszubowski
Mr. Button
Mr. Shifrin, arrived at 7:40 P.M.
Mrs. Sheldon, arrived at 8:15 P.M.
Commissioners Absent: Mr. Shields
Mr. Davis
GOmmiasioner-Goldspiel made a motion that Mr. Button, Secretary, serve as Chairman
of the meeting, in the absence of the Chairman and Vice—Chairman. Commissioner
Kaszubowski seconded. Approval was unanimous.
Also Present: Mr. A. T. Henderson, Developer, Steeple View Plaza
Mr. D. B. Miller, Traffic Analyst, Steeple View Plaza
Mr. W. L. Meinholz, Engineer, Steeple View Plaza
Mr. R. L. Anastacio, Architect, Steeple View Plaza
Mr. A. R. Putrenieks, Investor, Steeple View Plaza
Mr. J. R. Sloan, Attorney, Steeple View Plaza
Mr. M. Gitlitz, Attorney, Town Center
Mr. H. Eisenberg, Ken Tucker and Assoc., Town Center
Mr. J. Lindgren, Traffic Analysis, Town Center
Mr. Stern, Tax Impact Analyst, Town Center
Mr. J. Schudt, Engineer, Town Center
Mr. J. Winstead, Architect, Town Center
Mr. R. Brown, Jewel Real Estate, Town Center
Mssrs. Brim and Braun, Consultants, Town Center
Mr. C. R. Knoche Jewel Construction Director, Town Center
Mr. J. Marienthal. Trustee
Mr. E. Hartstein, Trustee
Mr. W. Raysa, Village Attorney
Mr. R. Kuenkler, Village Engineer
Mr. J. Truesdell, Village Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Reid moved approval of the April 1, 1981 minutes subject to correction.
Commissioner Kaszubowski seconded. Regular Meeting — Page 3 Top: Poll was 5-1.
Page 6, Vote on Motion to Re—appoint Commissioners Goldspiel, Sheldon and Shifrin:
Those Commissioners Abstained. Page 5, Last line: more should be move.
Voice Vote was Unanimous ,Approval. (Goldspiel, Glover, Reid, Kaszubowski) Abstain:
Commissioner Button.
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
- 2 _
Commissioner Glover moved approval of the April 1, 1981 Public Hearing Minutes
subject to corrections with Commissioner Kaszubowski seconding. Page 2, Paragraph
1: Change Lake Cook Roads to Lake Street. Page 4, Paragraph 12: add after garage
doors, "which would be all along the back of each single story building."
Voice Vote was Unanimous Approval. (Goldspiel, Glover, Reid, Kaszubowski, Shifrin)
Abstain: Commissioner Button.
Commissioner Reid moved approval of the April 15, 1981 Regular Meeting minutes
subject to correction with Com. Glover seconding. Page 3, paragraph 3, line 3:
change invision pedestrain to envision pedestrian (sp.) ; Page 4, delete paragraphs
5, 6, and 7. Voice Vote was Unanimous Approval. (Goldspiel, Glover, Reid, Kaszu-
bowski, Shifrin) Abstain: Commissioner Button.
Commissioner Kaszubowski moved approval of the April 15, 1981 - Cedar View, Public
Hearing with Commissioner Reid seconding subject to corrections. Page 2, Paragraph
11: finish last sentence "in the front portion of the property." Page 2, Paragraph
7: change Mayor Bryan's to Mayon Ryan's; also add to the last sentence "that they
had no objection to the office development as it was not against the Buffalo Grove/
Arlington Heights agreement. Page 3, Paragraph 2: Strike At the present time and
make it "Under the proposed plan..." Page 3, Paragraph 10: change plan to play.
Page 3, Paragraph 11: finish last sentence to read sworn in. "as he is not testify-
ing to the facts, but stating his client's case." Voice Vote was Unanimous Approval.
(Goldspiel, Glover. Reid. Kaszubowski. Shifrin) Abstain: Commissioner Button,
Commissioner Glover moved approval of the April 15, 1981 - Town Center Public Hear-
ing with Commissioner Kaszubowski seconding subject to corrections. Page 2. Para-
graph 4: Change Father to Father Duffy. Page 3. Paragraph 2: Delete Mr. Lindgren's
statement and insert "They should be ticketed." Page 3. Paragraph 6: change invi-
Sion to envision. Page 3, Paragraph 10: Add "At the time of the Town Center Pro-
posal, there was a promise that it would not compete with the existing commercial
developments in the Village, because of limitations of the uses at the Town Center."
Page 4, Paragraph 14 (last): add, after B. G. Roads "with sewer." Page 5, Para-
graph 3, Line 6 - delete "not" - Commissioner Glover does oppose...also Line 9 of
the same paragraph - delete "well as to." Page 6. Paragraph 5: Change impass to
impasse (sp.) Voice Vote"-was Unanimous Approval. Abstain: Commissioner Button.
Commissioner Glover moved approval of the April 15. 1981 - Revision to Article XI,
Section 6 of the Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance Public Hearing, subject to correc-
tions with Commissioner Shifrin seconding. Last Paragraph: add to first sentence -
"as no persons present wished to be heard." Voice Vote was Unanimous Approval.
Abstain: Commissioner Button.
COMMUNICATIONS - Mr. Marienthal reported:
One phone call was received from the President of the Association in Arlington Heights
that backs up to the development that was approved by this Board. He felt that some
of the people that spoke that evening, spoke inappropriately for the Association,
wherein they said they would consider legal action. The gentleman said he felt it
was the majority feeling of the Association, that they were happy with what had
transpired at the Plan Commission Meeting.
BDDC and TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - No reports.
Commissioner Kaszubowski moved that the order be reversed on the Agenda; and that
Item C be considered at this time. Commissioner Glover seconded. Unanimous Approval.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
April 29, 1981
•
•
- --
•
•
•
w
e
-3—
C. Final Plat of Subdivision — Chatham Manor, Unit No. 1
Mr. Truesdell noted the two comments made in the letter from Mr. Kuenkler
1. Add a 1 foot scale.
2. Interior angles should be delineated on the Plat.
Commissioner Glover noted the revision is not dated. The surveyor's seal is dated.
Mr. Joseph Mc Bride, Surveyor stated it is normal to have the surveyor date a Plat.
If a revision is made, the surveyor will re—date and re—sign the Plat.
Commissioner Glover asked that the Staff determine this positively for future refer—
ence. He asked if the Plat is of a model home area basically? If so, why is there
no areas dedicated for a park and detention?
Mr. Kuenkler stated that the Annexation Agreement usually specifies that the park
will be plated and-dedicated along with, or not later than Phase No. 2.
Mr. Truesdell explained that.the preliminary annexation agreement has with it the
basic plan, and Weiland Road, the Park and Detention area are indicated as Phase No. 1
but not required for platting.
Mr. Kuenkler stated that the Detention and Weiland Road will be off—site improvements
to Phase No. 2. He was not certain when it would be platted and dedicated.
Mr. Raysa clarified the situation by stating the owner did not own the whole parcel.
and could not take up the option until a later time. The Annexation Agreement did
state they would approve that property as off—site.
Commissioner Glover recommended the Plan Commission approve the final plat for the
Subdivision Chatham Manor. Unit No. 1; dated April 24, 1981. Subject to:
a) the addition of the scale 1 inch is equal to 100 feet.
b) delineation of the interior angles on the boundary of
the Platt.
Commissioner Kaszubowski seconded the motion. Discussion followed: Commissioner Gold—
spiel wanted to make sure that all the angles had been checked out because it was a
very difficult arc to follow.
Mr. Mc Bride said that this was part of a computer program which automatically gives
the read—out of all angles.
Mr. Kuenkler said there was really nothing missing on the Plat. All the information
is given. te
Commissioner Button stated that the ordinance requires /angles°fie shown on curval i near
markings. Voice Vote was Unanimous Approval. Motion Passed 5 to 0. The Plat will
be signed later.
Commissioner Shifrin moved the regular meeting be adjourned and reconvened at the
close of the Public Hearing. Commissioner Goldspiel seconded. Unanimous Approval.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
April 29, 1981
r
- 4 -
Commissioner Sheldon reconvened the Regular Meeting at 9:45 P.M.
Commissioner Shifrin moved the Plan Commission recommend to the Village Board
the following procedures with respect to the Planned Development dated April 20, 1981;
Plan C: 1. Out Lot A - Recommend Annexation and Zoning to B 3;
and Site Plan Approval
2. Out Lot B - Recommend Rezoning to B 3 Zoning;
and Site Plan Approval
3. Out Lot C - Recommend Rezoning to B 3; subject to
Use and Site Plan Approval at a later date.
4. Out Lot D - Recommend Annexation and Zoning to B 3;
subject to Use and Site Plan Approval
at a later date.
Commissioner Kaszubowski seconded the motion. Discussion followed.
Commissioner Glover stated there was some virtue in restricting the uses of Out Lots
C and D. He would like to amend the motion to include a necessary 2/3 maj ority vote on
future uses when recommended.
Mr. Henderson agreed to this restriction and added that they will co-operate with the
Commission's proposed uses in the future.
Mr. Raysa said Lots A, .B,, & C should only be a majority because of the Annexation
agreement.
Mr. Marienthal said the Village Board had seen the specified uses for A, B, & C.
They did not want the developer to have all the uses open to B 3 Zoning. The corner
is a Gateway to B.G. Careful consideration should be given to use.
Commissioner Glover suggested that .the recommendation include that the Annexation
Agreement reflect the agreement of the developer with the Village that when Out Lots
C and D are planned in the future; that the developer agrees that the site planning
and use by approved by a 2/3 majority vote by the Plan Commission.
Commissioner Goldspiel proposed that Out Lots C and D be placed adjacent to__each
other; and the driveway be moved to the North end of Out Lot D. He is concerned
with the commercial use that could be planned on the size of Lot C or Lot D.be-
cause the kind of use desired typically has a larger frontage than either of these
lots. If the driveway is moved to the North edge of the property, it would then
line up better with the Town Center.
Commissioner Kaszubowski felt this would force the developer to develop those lots
as one property. The Commission tended to agree with her.
Commissioner Button made the following amendment to the motion:
The Plan Commission recommends a requirement that
any Site Plan and Use for Out Lots C and D by approved by
a 2/3 majority vote by this Commission.
Commissioner Kaszubowski seconded the amendment. Roll Call Vote was taken:
AYES - Goldspiel, Button, Shifrin, Glover,
Reid, Kaszubowski
NAYS - None ABSTAIN - None ABSENT - Shields and Davis
Amendment Passed 6 to 0.
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
April 29, 1981
r
•
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
•
' .
•
•
•
•
- 5 -
Commissioner Shiftin revised his motion as follows:
I move we recommend to the Village Board the following procedures
with respect to the Planned Development dated April 20, 1981 as
designated Plan No. C -
1. Out Lot A - Recommend Annexation and B 3
Zoning and Site Plan approval.
2. Out Lot B - Recommend Rezoning to B 3
Zoning and Site Plan approval.
3. Out Lot C - Recommend Rezoning to B 3;
subject to Use and Site Plan approval
by a 2/3 vote at a later date.
4. Out Lot D - Recommend Annexation and
Zoning to B 3; subject to Use and Site
Plan approval by a 2/3 vote at a later date.
Commissioner Kaszubowski seconded the motion. Discussion followed:
Commissioner Goldspiel asked for an opinion on his suggested:.driveway proposal.
Mr. Miller responded. He felt that only one full access drive at the South end
on Lake/Cook Road would be too close to the signals; since it would only be about
560 feet from the intersection. It would create a problem trying to co-ordinate
the signals. The Steeple View proposal is better because it provides better access
to the property as well as better service to both sites. No island would be needed.
The drive (Western) could be shifted, or angled to align with the Town Center.
Their goal is to keep the drive North. of Lot D.
Commissioner Goldspiel asked how difficult it would be to get a curb cut off Rt. 83.,
if something different is done with Lots C and D?
Mr. Miller said he would not want the drive to be any closer to the proposed drive
to the North, but it could be moved slightly to the South where Rt. 83 has a raised
median.
Roll Call Vote was taken on the motion:
AYES •• Goldspiel, Button. Shifrin, Glover,
Reid and Kaszubowski
NAYS - None
ABSTAIN - None
ABSENT - Shields and Davis
The Motion Passed 6 to O.
D. MILWAUKEE AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY
Mr. Truesdell presented a Resolution for Landscaping along Milwaukee Ave. He briefly
explained that Lincolnshire and Riverwoods had a study done regarding the landscaping
of the corridor along Milwaukee Avenue. A resolution was drafted and it concerns
Buffalo Grove l s interest in Milwaukee Avenue.From Rt. #22 to Lake/Cook Road a green
belt is proposed that will be kept in its natural condition. A frontage road system
will be devised and other State right-of-ways will be landscaped. Mr. Truesdell said
he does not see a need for an 80 foot setback. He feels that there may be a need for
this 80 feet of property, and does not feel this is going to be a really scenic area.
He is in favor of retaining any natural trees that may be there.
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
April 29, 1981
S
n
•
w •
•
T
Commissioner Glover made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend endorsement
of the Proposed Resolution No. 81. Commissioner Kaszubowski seconded. Discussion
followed, but no changes were made. Roil Call Vote was taken:
AYES - Button. Shifrin, Glover, Kaszubowski
NAYS - Goldspiel and Reid
ABSTAIN - None
ABSENT - Shields and Davis
Motion Passed 4 to 2.
B. TOWN CENTER - Ken Tucker Association
Mr. Gitlitz presented a revised plan and noted some changes of major concern:
#1. Entrance on Buffalo Grove Road as a
former access has been eliminated.
#2. Service access located behind the
shopping area has been connected to
the main area. It runs behind all
the shops and back.
#3. The Forcythe property has been
incorporated into the development.
Mr. Truesdell's Memo was mentioned, but Mr. Gitlitz just received a copy and had
no comments at this time. The memo was dated April 28, 1981.
Mr. Eisenberg described the new site plan. The Jewel Store is shown on the South
end of the site. After meeting with Mr. Brim and Mr. Truesdell the new plan was
drawn up according to their suggestions. Retention must be considered, but shops
can be stretched out along Buffalo Grove Road up to the Village Green. In 5 or 10
years, as Buffalo Grove grows, an'access point along the East will be used. Now
the traffic would enter from Lake/Cook Road. The Buffalo Grove entrance will be
an access road or a service road. Mr. Eisenberg felt that people would drive in
and out of the Jewel parking area and not shop at the stores at the opposite end.
Little or no drawing power exists for these shops at the end of the development.
Possibly one or two of the service type facilities such as a restaurant or bank
would get any business. They feel few merchants would rent stores located so far
from the Jewel Anchor. Actually two separate centers would be created with this
plan.
Commissioner Sheldon asked about the engineering aspects of the plan and the eleva-
tion of the Jewel Store with relation to Lake/Cook Road.
Mr. Schudt said the height of the Jewel Building is 25 feet. Slope along the S. pro-
perty line is 9 ft. high.
Commissioner Glover said he did not think the proposed site plan reflected ideal
land use, Gne problem would be the intsri-relationship with the Steeple--view Dev.
and the one across the street to the East on Rt. 83, but it does open up a better
inter-relationship with the houses that are on this parcel. One of the main ob-
jectives the Plan Com. has when developing the Town Center was to consider the need
for access for the existing homes. Eliminating the South driveway on Buffalo Grove
Road will bring in traffic from Checker Road where 36% of the people would enter.
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
April 29, 1981
ti
•
•
f
•
•
•
•
•
t • •
•
•
•
•
• n
O n
- 7 —
Mr. Schudt felt there would be no market West of Arlington Heights Rd. He described
the traffic pattern. The service drive could be opened up as an access.
The Commission discussed other shopping centers in the area and noted the fact that
people will shop wherever they can "see" the stores. The probability of people using
the footpath in the colder or snowy weather was noted. It was mentioned that most
people go to a food store in one trip and will return for other shopping items.
Mr. Knoche presented the plan for the new Jewel/Osco Bldg. It is connected to other
stores which are recessed. The appearance is varied elevations since the end is 181 —
the next segment about 211 and the Jewel/Osco is 241 — they are also on different
planes with the first area about 61 in front of the second and the second about 61 to
81 out in front of the end stores. The area will be landscaped and screened -
The building has brick treatment between each step to give the appearance of separate
buildings, however the two ends are blank walls. Landscaping will be used extensively.
There is a 4 ft. berm which is planted with trees. The building will be 35 ft. away
from the pavement at the least and can be moved to be 50 ft. away from the pavement.
Mr. Brim was asked to comment. He stated that the Developer has one set of concerns
and the Village has a set of concerns. Discussion has arisen concerning whether or
not the original concept designated in the B 5 Ordinance is still valid. He gave the
following analysis of the issue:
Advantages of the New Concept (The Blue Line Proposal) :
1. Takes the massiveness of the Jewel/Osco Store away from the center
of the site and moves it to the Lake/Cook Road end. There are elevation differences.
2. Jewel/Osco would be 35 ft. off Lake/Cook Road.
3. Other stores would be somewhere about 30 ft. off Lake/Cook Road.
4. Screening and Signage along Lake/Cook Road could incorporate very
handsome treatment.
5. Low scale buildings along Rt. 83 have benefits from a planning point
of view. They will also hide the parking lot effectively.
6. Access to the Village Green is opened up conceptually.
7. Opens up possible development of the Western parcels; which could be
integrated with the Center.
8. A major entrance on Rt. 83 is committed to on both scheme. Also, will
allow for a major entry off Checker some time in the future.
A possible 2nd Road off Buffalo Grove Road would not present as many
problems as the initial scheme.
9. When the rest of the Town Center is developed, and Checker Road is a
significant entrance; the Buffalo Grove Road entrance could be closed.
10. If the Engineering Dept. allows retention to be developed along the
South East Corner of the site. could in fact open up a tremendous Vista
from the corner of Rt. 83 into the Center.
11. From a functional standpoint, with a proper amount of landscaping con—
sideration, this concept is probably closer to the Village concept.
Problems with the New Conce t' which can be ra ticall foreseen:by the Developers.
1. Food store shopping is a singular type of trip.
2. Visability from the Rt. 83 approach is not as good. Possibly the Vil—
lage could develop a Sign Package for the rear end of the small stores.
Possibly additional display windows could be placed out there.
BuFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
April 29, 1981
ti
n
Advantages of Scheme No. 1 :
1. The Buffalo Grove access taken out will alleviate the problem of
the 'back door approach.'
2. The whole aspect of of the Entrance to the Town Center was not so
much statistics, nor the Church, or the School or the bus — BUT how
does one want to enter the Town Center'
3. Making Buffalo Grove Road a service road is a benefit.
Mr. Brim is concerned with the size of the Jewel/Osco Store. He feels it is too
large. He sees only one elevation, not three as suggested by the developer.
There are some details which must be worked out with the Jewel Corporation.
Relative to the houses that are on Buffalo Grove with relation to the Center,
Mr. Brim said it must be recognized that at some time, this area will be zoned
Commercial. And it should be considered now, that those areas will probably be
converted to stores or office buildings. The Village should not be sensitive to
the residential concerns. Perhaps the Village ought to look at the Town Center
with some philosophical alternatives; such as 3 or 4 major developments. There must
be a willingness to compromise. A decision must be made as to whether the Village
wants to focus "in" on the Town Center. If the Jewel is left on the South, then
extensive landscaping would be a major concern; as well as elimination of the large
mansonary wall.
Mr. Brim said, further, that the Plan Commission should decide which scheme is the
best for the Village. If the B. G. Road entrance goes through, it seems that it
will be difficult to develope the corner lot. It could go in temporarily, and
eliminate it in the future; or move the access road down to Church St.; OR let the
Rt. 83 entry be the major one and some time in the future, the Checker Road entry
will be a secondary major access.
Commissioner Sheldon asked that it be noted, that it is not necessarily true that
people only do food shopping in one trip. With the economy being what it is. many
are reversing their shopping pattern to purchase retail items first then stop for
food items last.
Commissioner Sheldon asked for a decision regarding which plan is the preferred plan,
so that the discussion could continue based on the B 5 Ordinance.
Commissioner Shifrin asked it there were other plans to be considered, not just two —
but possibly 3 or 4 were mentioned.
The developer indicated the different possible locations of the Jewel/Osco building,
but added that the No. 2 Scheme would probably NOT be built. It could end up to be
a White Elephant. This would damage Buffalo Grove. However. the 1st plan would be
more workable. Their stand is based upon marketability. The No. 2 site is tight,
retention questionable, and leasing would be difficult. If the Plan Commission goes
with Plan No. 2 — it may have to look for another developer. One reason for that
decision is that the property they must acquire is very expensive and they have to
be certain that it is economically feasible. For instance, a restaurant would not
want to be at the end, it would prefer exposure closer to the Jewel/Osco.
The Jewel representative stated their position remains the same as it was initially.
They were asked:. where they would like to locate a store and their answer was to
face Lake/Cook Road where the traffic is. But when told that location would block
the rest of the Center. They agreed to face Rt. 83. If they must turn their backs.
the most unattractive part of a food store, Jewel would probably reject the proposal.
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
April 29. 1981
•
•
•
_ a
- 9 —
Commissioner Shifrin commented that Plan No. 2 set ur three separate shopping centers.
He posed the question of whether the Commission wants to see 3 parcels and 3 centers
or modules?
Mr. Brim agreed that this is the issue he brought up. Plan No. 2 is a good plan,: but
not if it is to relate to a Town Center. Comsidering the Church Street approach which
allows the Westerly portion to be developed in large pods, mould be a benefit to
Buffalo Grove. By eliminating the South end of Buffalo Grove entrance, it will allow
development of the corner sites. The appearance of the sides and rear of a food store
must be considered and also the size of the building that close to Rt. 83. Many de—
tails must be considered. but a decision should be made about which way to go.
Commissioner Sheldon directed the Plan Commission to resolve this issue before pre—
ceeding. The purpose of the B 5 Ordinance was that the Town Centel was to provide
for the development of a pedestrian oriented central district. The requirements of
Sec. 731 were read. Do we want large buildings on the end and little buildings in
the middle. Earlier, discussing Steeple View we wanted an open corner concept.
Commissioner Shifrin said the underlying intent of the B 5 Ordinance was to develop
the Town Center as one parcel. As few developers as possible were to be brouit in.
Now. the plan being considered (No. 2) is a nicely planned circle, but it does not
follow the original concept.
The developer noted that together with Mr. Callahan they have a total of over 30
acres which almost surrounds the Village Green. They would try to acquire the pro—
perty on the other side of the Village Gree. They are expecting to expand North of
the Jewel Store on the North. They also hope to acquire property on the Eastern
side of that road (south of the residential) and would have all the commercial con—
centrated nil, along Rt. 83 from the North to the South in Buffalo Grove.
To the West, there is no plan asyet. The developer felt it could be used for a
couple of specialty type commercial uses, or extended office space. Supply and de—
mand would determine the application of the original 1976 Ordinance.
Commissioner Glover proposed a Poll to determine the feelings of the Commission:
Does this revised development plan provide the requirement of the integrated overall
design for development of_the Town Center in accordance with the B 5 Ordinance?
AYES — None ABSTAIN — None
NAYS — Goldspiel, Button, Shifrin, Glover, ABSENT — Shields.
Reid, Kaszubowski Davis
Total: The Commission voted unanimously that the plan does not conform to the B 5 Ord.
The original intent of the B 5 Ordinance was discussed. Is it realistic?. Is it pos—
sible to meet the B 5 Ordinance? If marketing of the retail center is not pr cti—
cal, what is?
Commissioner Glover proposed a second Poll. Mr. Hartstein phrased it:
In spite of the fact that this plan does not meet the B 5 Ordinance, does the Plan
Commission want to proceed with this type of proposal?
AYES — Button and Kaszubowski ABSTAIN — None
NAYS — Goldspiel, Shifrin, Glove, and Reid ABSENT — Shields. Davis
Total: The Commission voted 4 to 2 against proceeding with a plan such as No. 2
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
April 29. 1981
— 10 —
Com. Shifrin asked the question: Does the Plan Commission wish to consider this
plan or any subsequent plans, such as this plan, on its own merits; provided that
it is integrated into the Town Center; or does it wish to proceed in terms of an
entire development? If not, does the Commission proceed under the B 3?
This was discussed for a time and then another Poll was taken:
Are the objectives of the B 5 Ordinance, as constituted Jan. 1980, practical.
AYES — Glover and Reid
NAYS — Goldspiel. Button, Kaszubowski
ABSTAIN — Shifrin
ABSENT — Shields and. Davis
Totals — Ayes: 2 NAYS: 3 ABSTAIN: 1 (The abstension goes with the majority — No)
Commissioner Button presented the question of how is the B 5 not practical; and
what would be practical?
Commissioner Goldspiel commented that his objections are the same whether the section
is B 5, B 1, B 2 or B 3. The Commission has the same obligations not to land lock.
The same obligation to develope:_the property.......
Commissioner Sheldon asked: Is this type of concept practical and viable today?
Or is an integrated plan viable today?
Mr. Brim stated that when the B 5 Ordinance was conceptm1 i zed as a walk—in;_ftintQwn;
Village type of Mall on the 80 acres. This is not really practical in the real world
today, in terms of getting 80 acres of any kind of development serviced in one package.
What is important is to retain the best of the B 5 Ordinance's features. A focal
point, a green space, a way to walk between buildings from the Center without driv—
ing out of the confines of the Center. To relate the Village Green to all the modules
in a meaningful way. One fact that seems certain is that the Use Change must occur
and automobiles must be considered. Right now, it is highly unlikely that one de—
veloper is going to be able to develope the concept of the Master Plan. It is likely
that the modular concept will work out, but the concept of walking between the pods
should be viable and would help the area become a mall type of center. He agreed the
B 5 concept should be re—reviewed.
Commissioner Sheldon called for a Poll to see if the Plan Commissioners were in
agreement with Mr. Brim; And would they consider the concept he presented. This to
be done at a future Workshop meeting. Voice Vote was unanimous. approval.
Commissioner Goldspiel felt that Plan No. 1 could work. He said it is not fair to
any developer to come in, and not give them some kind, of definite direction con—
cerning their proposal. We should move it along or bury it, or something — tonight.
Commissioner Shifrin asked if the Commission could vote on the conceptual approval of
the Town Center subject to specific modifications for planning purposes; or do we say
it is conceptually incompatible send them on their way?
Commissioner Kaszubowski made this statement: Her original problem with the plan as
presented, was not in entirety the ingress and egress on Buffalo Grove Road, as such.
The problem she was was coming in the back door. She could not see integrating the
houses to the West in the Town Center at all. This modification has closed that en—
trance which didn't make a difference one way or the other, except it has given her
an insight into the fact, that by moving the building with the driveway all the way
around gives the opportunity to integrate those areas to the West should they decide
to sell their property. The opportunity is now open to get through there. Originally
it was blocked off all together. She said she feel progress has been made toward
integrating those houses to the West. Some minor changes must be done, but we have
agreed that a food store is needed and all food stores have three sides. We must look
at this from the marketing viewpoint, not just the planning standpoint, because of
today's economy. BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
April 29, 1981
r
Commissioner Glover said he would like to review the minutes from this meeting,
then with a fresh start having the Town Center first on the Agenda. Each time it
has been discussed, other business has been conducted first and the hour gets late.
He suggests a review of what has been presented with the B 5 Ordinance in relation-
ship to the plan. He has prepared a list, using the B 5 Ordinance as a guide for
discussing uses. layout, criteria of appearance, etc.
Commissioner Sheldon said a decision is to be made as to whether to pursue this
plan or not.
Commissioner Reid stated her agreement with Commissioner Glover that the Plan Com-
mission meet with the Staff and the minutes at .a Workshop. Since everyone has
volumninous notes on the Town Center.......
Commissioner Goldspiel said he felt this plan is an improvement. He finds the
Commission's conceptual disc ssianan improvement. He cannot, at this time, 'buy'
it under any Ordinance - B 1,2,3,4,.5 or any other. How would it be, if we said the
problem is with the village green and we moved it to a different location?
Commissioner Sheldon asked for a Poll on the basic question, "Do we want to pursue
this plan further at another time?'"
AYES - Button, Reid, Kaszubowski
NAYS - Goldspiel and Shifrin
ABSTAIN - Glover
ABSENT - Shields and Davis
Totals: AYE - 3; NAY - 2 and ABSTAIN 1.
Commissioner Kaszubowski moved to adjourn at 12:30 A.M. and Commissioner Button
seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimous approval. The meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley s. Secretary (Substitute)
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
sb April 29. 1981
PUBLIC HEARING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Steeple View Plaza
April 29. 1981
Commissioner Button called the Public Hearing to order in the Municipal Building.
50 Raupp Blvd., Buffalo Grove at 8:10 P.M.
Commissioners Present: Mr. Goldspiel
Mr. Glover
Mrs. Reid
Mrs. Kaszubowski
Mr. Button
Mr. Shifrin
Mrs. Sheldon
Commissioners Absent: Mr. Shields
Mr. Davis
Also Present: Mr. A. T. Henderson. Developer. Steeple View Plaza
Mr. D. B. Miller, Traffic Analyst. Steeple View Plaza
Mr. W. L. Meinholz, Engineer, Steeple View Plaza
Mr. R. L. Anastasio, Architect, Steeple View Plaza
Mr. A. R. Putrenieks. Investor, Steeple View Plaza
Mr. J. R. Sloan, Attorney, Steeple View Plaza
Mr. Harms, Owner of Adjacent Parcel, Seidel Nursery
Mr. J. Marienthal, Trustee
Mr. W. Raysa. Village Attorney
Mr. R. Kuenkler, Village Engineer
Mr. J. Truesdell, Village Planner
Commissioner Button read the Public Hearing notice as published in the local news—
paper. He then swore in Messrs. Henderson, Miller, Meinholz, Anastacio, Putrenieks.
and Sloan.
Mr. Henderson gave Commissioner Button the returned receipts ofthe notices that were
mailed to the residents living within 2501 of this site.
Mr. Henderson presented the site plan with landscaping; and described how the develop—
ment will enhance and relate to Steeple View. He described the office building and
thb.two out buildings which are designated as a restaurant and banking facility.
He also presented a chart which identified the entrance to the Town Center as it re—
lates the proposed Steeple View Plaza. The chart designated the nursery property
which is being sought as part of the development along with the Gerschefske Estate.
With this ownership factor being considered, the two entrances shown on the site plan
are felt to appropriate, and central to the overall planning.
Mr. Anastasio presented the three—story office building. Each floor will be 17,500
square feet, for a total of 52,000 square feet. An 8 foot bike path has been added;
and a sidewalk along Rt. 83 has been added. Parking spaces for 202 cars will be pro—
vided which is 10% more than B.G. requirements. There will be 1 Handicap space for
each 25 stalls. Dumpsters will be fenced in with brick to match the building.
First Floor: faces South; rear North; dumpsters on the East with the service entrance.
a racquet ball court for the tenants only.
Basement: Sauna, showers for men and women. Exercise room. Meeting rooms and
the rest mechanical equipment and storage.
2nd and 3rd Floors: Typical offices with exits at each end of the building.
M1
4
_ V
2 ..
Elevations were presented: Brick with plastered facia board. Samples were presented.
Bronze glass. Height of the building: 35 feet from the
roof line to the sidewalk. All requirements will be met.
Mr. Meinholz described the preliminary retentions plans which have been reviewed by
the Engineering Dept. Also included was site lighting. sanitation. sewed and water.
The retention area was developed to be part of the Steeple View Condominiums and has
the capacity to handle the additional property. Any property to the North will not
be able to be brought over to Lake/Cook and Weidner. There are two different drainage
basins. No. 1 goes over to Weiland Road and No. 2 goes to Rt. 83. Part of the Rt.
83 area has been diverted to Weiland with the permission of the County Highway Dept.
Additional plans will have to be submitted to the Cook County Highway Dept. for the
Northern piece of property. There is an existing underground pipe which can be con—
nected to feed lines.
During heavy rains, water collects in the ditch on Rt. 83. The Cook County Highway
Dept. has a storm sewer which will be extended in the future as Rt. 83 develops.
Mr. Henderson stated that if the final computations require additional acre feet of
4eteuti.oT., he has agreed Vith the Engineering Dept. on a corner location.
Mr. Meinholz continued:describdng the sanitary sewer, which connects to the Lake
County Interceptor. There 12 inch water mains along the West and South property
lines and a 10 inch water main will be installed to the North edge of the: property.
This 10 inch line will eventually connect with the 12 inch line.
Exterior Lighting surrounds the property as required. Interior Lighting is being
proposed for all the parking areas.
The Grades are designed to handle the 10 year storm by means of the storm sewer.
The Grades are set up to handle the 100 year storm by bringing the water overland
to the detention area.
Mr. Miller reported on the findings of the review of traffic during the peak hours.
The traffic study revealed a need for three (3) access drives. Two drives off of
Lake/Cook Rd. and One off of Rt. 83. The Eastern most drive on Lake/Cook will be
a full access drive with both Left and Right Turns in and out of the drive. The
Western most drive on Lake/Cook will be limited to Right Turns in and out; and will
be properly designed with a raised island to prohibit Left Turns in and out.
The Eastern drive will not align with the Medical Center drive because of light
traffic into that facility. Traffic signals will probably never be warranted at
at this location. On Rt. 83 — one access drive is proposed. It will be a Bill
access drive, located at a point 720 ft. to 750 ft. West of Lake/Cook Rd. and aligned
with the major access drive at the proposed Town Center. Mr. Miller concluded by
stating they have provided safe and efficient access to the proposed development.
Commissioner Button asked for any questions regarding the presentation from the
Public. There were none. Commissioners Kaszubowski, Glover and Reid has no questions.
Commissioner Goldspiel asked Mr. Harms what plans he has for his property?
Mr. Harms: It takes time to phase out a landscaping-business. He has agreed to
to co—operate with Mr. Henderson and they have proposed a joint operation. No
specific development is planned, but he noted his land is zoned commercial. He does
not object to the proposed plan to line up an access drive with the Town Center.
There are no cross easements.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Public Hearing
April 29, 1981
35.
• • ,
a
•
P
n
c
•
a
n
s
•
w -
111111,
c
• r - -
Out Lots B and C were discussed at length. Previously Lot C was agreed to be shown
without a particular building. It has been changed.
Mr. Henderson stated they hoped to develop Lot C as stated in the annexation agree-
ment. They do not have a Savings & Loan or a Bank for Lot C. Nor do they have a
Restaurant for Lot B. In order to comply with the Village Board request, they have
placed the proposed businesses on the Site Plan. He said it would be easier to live
without having to designate lots, but added they would have to be inserted later.
This Commissioners discussed the other possible uses of Lots B and C, as well as the
possibility of the desire of some developer to combine them.
Mr. Raysa explained that Lots B and C are being considered for Re-zoning. He noted
the North part of A would be annexed.
Commissioner Sheldon was concerned about what possible businesses could be placed on
Lot B if is zoned B 3. It was noted that any planned development would have to be
approved.
The Commission was polled to determine the use of Lot C. Yes = Locked Financial
No = Open to B 3
AYES - None
NAYS - Reid, Glover, Kaszubowski, Goldspiel, Shifrin, Sheldon
ABSTAIN - None
ABSENT - Shields and Davis
The Poll indicated that Lot C shall not be locked as a financial institution.
Engineering - Commissioner asked Mr. Kuenkler if the proposed method of handling 10
year storms and 100 year storms is the usual procedure.
Mr. Kuenkler answered that it is the normal way of doing this. A 100 year storm is
handled over ground.
Lighting - The Appearance Commission reviews Architecture and Lighting. However, the
lighting should blend in with the other lighting in the area. Mr. Truesdell commented
that there is a standard level of lighting requirements which must be met.
Traffic - Discussion of the location of the alignment of the driveway on Lake/Cook
Road with the Town Center driveway followed. There is a range proposed so that the
exact location can be determined at a later date.
Town Center Representative: Stated that they would not want the driveway any closer
than 660 feet from the center line of the intersection.
Mr. Truesdall stated that the drive should be as far away as possible from Lake/Cook
Road and no closer than 660 feet. He said that the critical point is that the two
driveways must be aligned. This would be a requirement.
Mr. Marienthal agreed that the Village Board would requirlignment not closer than
660 feet from Lake/Cook Road. This is necessary to co-ordinate the traffic signals.
Messrs. Henderson and Harms both felt there would be a problem if a driveway goes
through the center of Mr. Harms property.
Several alternatives were discussed.
Com. Goldspiel moved that the Public Hearing be adjourned. Commissioner Glover
seconded the motion. Upon Unanimous Approval Commissioner Button closed the
Public Hearing at 9:30 P. M.
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Public Hearing
April 29, 1981
r ` A
�flO1