1980-07-02 - Plan Commission - Minutes REGULAR MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Citrust/Hilltown Property
July 2, 1980
Chairman Shields called the Regular Meeting to order in the Municipal Building,
50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove at 7:30 P.M.
Commissioners Present: Chairman Shields
Mr. Goldspiel
Mrs. Sheldon
Mr. Button
Mr. Shifrin
Mr. Glover
Mrs. Reid
Mrs. Kaszubowski
Commissioners Absent: Mr. Davis
Also Present: Mr. R. Friedman, Developer, Citrust/Hilltown
Mr. J. Mikes, Attorney, Citrust/Hilltown
Mr. R. Stern, Economic Impact Analyst, Citrust/Hilltown
Mr. J. Kinley, Land Planner, Citrust/Hilltown
Mr. J. Marienthal, Village Trustee
Mr. W. Sommer, Assistant Village Manager
COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Shields - Today I received a letter regarding Mr. Truesdell's son from
Mr. Balling. I also received a letter from Mr. Balling Dated June 27, 1980
titled Condominium Conversion Ordinance regarding a request for the Village
Board to reconsider its posture towards creating legislation regulating the
condominiums and condominium conversions. An informal poll by the board
indicated there is not legislative support at this time.
I also received a letter from Mr. Lawrence Schneider dated June 12, 1980
requesting the Commission impose strict architectural and landscaping require-
ments upon the developer of the Buffalo Grove Industrial Park. Chairman Shields
then directed the secretary to draft a letter to Mr. Schneider informing him the
Commission has reviewed his letter and passed it on to the Appearance Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Goldspiel moved approval of the June 4, 1980 Continuation of
Citrust/Hilltown Public Hearing minutes subject to, correction. Commissioner
Button seconded the motion. Page 1, paragraph 3 change Mr. Glover to Mr. Davis;
Page 6 after paragraph 4, add Commissioner Shifrin - Did you submit the DeMucci
property to VAGA for approval. Mr. Coffin - No because it was not located in
Vernon Township. Approval vas unanimous.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
July 2, 1980
- 2 -
The minutes of the May 28, 1980 Citrust/Hilltown Public Hearing were deferred.
Commissioner Goldspiel moved approval of the June 4, 1980 Public Hearing,
Buffalo Grove Industrial Park subject to correction. Commissioner Glover
seconded the motion. Page 1, paragraph 3, change Mr. Glover to Mr. Davis;
Page 8, paragraph 13, change now to not; Page 9, paragraph 2, change
$13,000,000,000 to $13,000,000. Approval was unanimous
Commissioner Goldspiel moved that the minutes of the June 4, 1980 Regular
Meeting be approved subject to correction. Commissioner Glover seconded the
motion. Page 1, paragraph 3, change Mr. Glover to Mr. Davis; Page 2, paragraph
7, change sentence to read Jim, do the streets come up to the standards for
MFT funds? Page 2, paragraph 14, add Commissioner Kaszubowski under Abstain.
Approval was unanimous.
Commissioner Glover moved the minutes of the Special Regular Meeting of June 11,
1980 be approved subject to correction. Commissioner Goldspiel seconded the
motion. Page 3, paragraph 3, change port to pork; Page 3, paragraph 7, change
manir to manor; Page 5, paragraph 5, change detailes to details; Page 6 top
change FIORE to CITRUST/HIL MOWN PROPERTY; Page 9, paragraph 9, change
population to dwelling units, Page 14, paragraph 8, change mute to moot.
Approval was unanimous.
Commissioner Goldspiel moved the minutes of the June 18, 1980 Regular Meeting
be approved subject to correction. Commissioner Button seconded the motion.
Page 1, paragraph 1, Page 4, paragraph 4, Page 6, paragraph 6, Page 7, paragraph
4, Page 11, paragraphs 1 and 3, change Chairperson to Chairman; Page 1, paragraph
5, change descenting to dissenting; Page 6, paragraph 9, change north to west;
Page 8, paragraph 4, change tendency to tendency; Page 10, paragraph 4, change
mute to moot.
AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Sheldon, Button, Glover, Reid, Kaszubowski
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Shifrin
COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS
There were no reports.
Commissioner Sheldon voiced her objection to the new Uptown Federal Savings
building's non conformance with the rest of the shopping center it is located
in. It was suggested that the Commission view the building before the next
meeting.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
July 2, 1980
- 3 -
Commissioner Sheldon moved that the Plan Commission reconsider their vote on
the Citrust/Hilltown Property Preliminary Plan. Commissioner Kaszubowski
seconded the motion.
AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Sheldon, Button, Glover, Reid,
Kaszubowski
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Shifrin
The motion passed 6 - 0 with 1 abstention
Commissioner Davis was absent.
CITRJST/HILLTOWN
Chairman Shields - The floor is open for discussion of the Citrust/Hilltown
property. We have received copies of letters from the individual Commissioners.
Mr. Mikes have you received copies of these letters?
Mr. Mikes stated that they had received a copy of Mr. Glover's and Mr. Shields'
letter this evening and had reviewed them.
Commissioner Goldspiel - This is the second time on this subject that Mr. Mikes
did not have the material that we are discussing because he did not get a
packet. It seems to me that it would facilitate their having the documents.
They should get the minutes and any reports. How can they come and discuss
this if they do not have the material?
Chairman Shields - Regarding letters we felt we were communicating among ourselves.
Commissioner Button - Why don't we ask the contributing Commissioners to out-
line their communications for Mr. Mikes?
Commissioner Goldspiel read Mr. Davis' letter to the Commission dated June 20, 1980
in his absence.
Mr. Goldspiel then briefly summarized his Minority Report.
Commissioner Glover briefly summarized his memo to the Commission dated
June 30, 1980 titled Citrust/Hilltown Property.
Chairman Shields briefly summarized his memo to the Commission dated July 1, 1980
titled Citrust/Hilltown Property.
Commissioner Kaszubowski briefly summarized her memo to the Commission and the
Village Staff titled Concerns to be addressed on Citrust/Hilltown Plan.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Feting
July 2, 1980
1
- 4 -
Commissioner Reid briefly outlined her memo dated June 17, 1980 to the Plan
Commission and Village Staff titled Concerns to be addressed on the Hilltown/
Citrust conceptual master plan dated April 11, 1980.
Commissioner Button - I agree that Prarie View should be buffered. I have
strong feelings about Steve's and Gary's comments. I would like to see
some sort of neighborhood transition. I think this could be made in the
form of a recommendation and included in the board's discussion. Regarding
utilities, I am confident that we have adequate water and sewage for a project
of this magnitude. I believe the total number of houses relate somewhat. I
would be happy with something approaching 2,000 homes. I feel that building
permits should be limited to the availability of water. I feel the density
could be reduced in the northern five units per acre pod but reduced by
blending of housing types. I think Buffalo Grove Road should be located
along the section line. I understand there is a problem with that, but it
still makes good sense. I think phasing should be established to insure
protection of the taxing districts by underwriting certain expenses during
development stages in the sense that you would phase the industrial growth
for your protection as well as ours. Overall I like the plan but with these
caveats.
Commissioner Goldspiel suggested following the outline the Commission drew
up contained in a memo to the Commission from Mr. Truesdell dated May 2, 1980
titled Citrust/Hilltown Property-Discussion Outline.
Commissioner Sheldon asked Mr. Mikes if the Village Board had 11ag given them any
direction concerning the moving of Buffalo Grove Road over to the section line.
Mr. Mikes - There were certain trustees that commented but there was no
direction given to us.
Commissioner Goldspiel - What is the effect that we are trying to accomplish
here? Are we adopting a comprehensive plan, a preliminary plan for annexation
or are we giving direction for things to be dealt with in an annexation agreement. If
we are talking about things to be dealt with in an annexation agreement, we need
to think about that. These items have three very different consequences and
I sense some confusion about what we are doing here. My understanding is that
we are voting to adopt a preliminary plan. This would basically be setting up
zoning for the area. If we are talking about things that have to be dealt
with in an annexation agreement, we need to consider the fact that the most,
under Illinois law as I understand it, for an annexation agreement's length
is ten years. As I see it, this project will probably take twenty years to
build.
Mr. Mikes - The Illinois statutes limiting the authority to ten years really
relates to non-home rule. We have agreed that the term of any annexation
agreement will run for twenty years.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
July 2, 1980
- 5 -
Commissioner Goldspiel - I think we need to focus on what we mean by our approval.
Commissioner Sheldon - I thought it was our responsibility to review the plan
that is in front of us and make recommendations on it. Some of your remarks
tonight are very specific. The individual pods will all come back to us.
Commissioner Glover - We want larger set backs than what would be called for
in the agreement.
Commissioner Goldspiel - If we are adopting a plan as a preliminary plan for
this area, it is our obligation to adopt a plan we want. What you are basically
doing here is zoning the area. Having taken the testimony you are free to
alter the plan. There is some point at which the plan becomes so different that
you might run into difficulty. None of the suggestions that we have had here
are so major that it would mean that we could not deviate from this plan. We
are free to alter or change as long as the overall nature of the plan is
the same. As to the buffering issue, I was not talking about a ten foot,
twenty foot or a hundred foot strip. I went over to Prarie View. That is the
most beautiful community in this entire metropolitan area. I feel we should
highlight that. Prarie View is the historic cultural center of Buffalo Grove
and the surrounding area.
Commissioner Sheldon - Whether we do anything or not, because of the type of
land or the types of structures there, they are in disrepair.
Commissioner Goldspiel - What you surround the area with determines its future.
There is a lack of community in this area and a lack of historic feeling.
Commissioner Glover - We drew up a list and I would like to follow that outline
tonight. If we do it in an expedient manner we could cover a lot of ground.
Chairman Shields called a recess at 9:00 P.M. The meeting resumed at 9:08 P.M.
Commissioner Shifrin - The reason that I didn't submit written modifications
is because I did not have the time. I would like to state as far as the overall
plan is, the way it is set up in terms of land use, from the lower density pods
as they phase into the higher density development I think that we have to con-
sider the desire of the Commission to intermix the types of housing. I think
this plan evolved from recommendations of the Village Board and we have to either
send the Village Board a message or continue along the same vein. To get con-
cerned with numbers is an exercise in rhetoric. We are basically zoning this.
These pods will come back to us and we will be able to adjust that density.
The same with the 25% open space issue. Driving along Route 83 from Route 22
north there is great natural foliage. I think we have to preserve that area
in tact if we want this to be a quality plan. Those are the types of objectives
to pursue as well as utilizing the various types of open space to make up the
types of differences that we do not have in the Village. On that same note we
have to cast another eye on the Park District's recommendation and consider
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
July 2, 1980
- 6 -
the need for a capital development. It would be sinful to have all this open
space and park area and not be able to develop it the way it should be. My
philosophy was to create things in Buffalo Grove that we do not already have.
We should incorporate some type of capital development for the Park District.
I am in agreement with the experts with regard to water. The only thing that
I am concerned about is if all the development is intensified in one particular
area we will need some type of commitment from the developer to drilling
other necessary wells wherever consensus grants them in order to make sure there
is not an over use in one area where other areas are underused. Why the concern
over the extension of Buffalo Grove Road running along the section line? It
is sound planning but I do not see the requirement that that necessarily be
the case. I take issue with COmmiasioner -Goldspiel on Prarie View or be
convinced otherwise. I know it is an old area, perhaps historical, but without
private restoration and repair I do not see where it is that picturesque.
Again I think the developer has articulated his commitment to have a positive
fiscal impact on all taxing bodies as well as underwriting all legal costs for
any type of legal defense with respect to this project. I think that should
be part of the recommendation.
Commissioner Sheldon - I would agree that we should buffer Prarie View. Most
of the buildings up there are not economically feasible to restore. None of
them are one hundred years old including the church. I am not anxious to alter
the plan to preserve something that really is not of historical significance.
I would agree that we need to take issue with the open space. I would advocate
some thought should be given by the Park District to the use of this land. I
would like to see a percentage of the open space to be used as active open
space. As far as the density goes, our original motion said a five percent
reduction would be adequate. I feel this would be adequate. I think with
proper planning you would have a project that would be conducive to Buffalo
Grove. I think cluster housing is important and should be shown to the Plan
Commission. We could do it successfully here. The realignment of Buffalo Grove
Road might be the best thing. From an economic point of view it is a hardship
on the developer. I see no problem in leaving it as is. We have to remember
that we are reviewing the plan as it stands now. The phasing is a major concern.
The utilities are adequately covered. I have to take issue with the Commissioners
that feel there should be some special consideration given to various taxing
bodies regarding donations. This is going to be built over a long period of
time. The developer will adhere to make this development a .positive
impact on the Village of Buffalo Grove.
Commissioner Goldspiel - What is it that we are doing here?
Commissioner Shifrin - These things can be varied by zoning. We can change
later on. My point is that in zoning you are giving the owner the legal right
to build whatever they may build under the ordinances that are there. You have
to assume that it is going to be built to the maximum allowable under your
ordinances. We cannot withhold something that meets the ordinances. The point
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
July 2, 1980
- 7 -
differentis you are taking a figure of 2,177 with 37 pods. To reduce it
to 1,900 has been suggested. What effect does it have overall? It is very
arbitrary. You have to look at it individually. If it is planned well then
the numbers are irrelevant.
Commissioner Goldspiel - I agree.
Chairman Shields then directed the Commission to the outline the first topic
being:
LAND USE
Density
Commissioner Button - My notion would be reducing the density approximately 50
to 10% which would be somewhere around 2,000 units plus or minus. I would
like that reduction. I would like to see some transitional area between the
estate, single family attached and the heavy density as you move from the west
to east in this plan.
Commissioner Glover - If Buffalo Grove does not choose to annex this, it would
be developed in the future and at that time it would be developed at a far
less density. I do not buy the concept that when we start reducing the density
we reduce the viability of the plan. We are not charged with keeping this
builder solvent. As far as density reduction, I think we should reduce the
density more than ten percent. The highways around here are now more than
crowded. Traffic will have to get to and from this development. The lover
the density we get, the better the situation. We are also lessening the demand
on our water. By lowering the density we keep the rural area we want to
preserve.
Commissioner Button - Regarding the rural nature, looking at Long Grove, you do
not see it. It is very similar to a development you see in any other town.
Commissioner Sheldon - Barrington has achieved it.
Commissioner Shifrin - With regard to economic viability and the future deve-
lopment of this Gary and I are in agreement. Other communities do not impose
the requirements that we impose. The other thing to consider is the fact that
there is a municipality to the north of us that could annex this and increase
the density.
Commissioner Shifrin to Mr. Kinley - Initially when your plan was first
presented was there not a more integrated mix of pods?
Mr. Kinley - From the October 9, 1979 plan through many sub plans there was
a great deal of talk which caused this plan to evolve the way it is.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
July 2, 1980
- 8 -
The Commission was polled as to whether they preferred 5% to 10% density
decrease, no change in the plan or more than 10% density decrease.
5% to 10% decrease
AYES: Commissioners Sheldon, Button, Reid, Kaszubowski
`./ No change in the plan
AYES: None
More than 10% decrease in density
AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Glover
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioner Shifrin
Housing Mix
Commissioner Goldspiel - I think that there is entirely too much single family
attached unrelieved. I think we should break it down to different types and
that basically we need a greater mixture of types within neighborhoods.
Commissioner Reid - We have reduced the single family attached from the previous
plan.
Commissioner Goldspiel - I am trying to bring a variation of types of housing
in each phase.
Commissioner Sheldon - Can't we do that with the annexation agreement?
Commissioner Reid - If you move from south to north looking at the bottom
section you do have each type of housing represented.
Commissioner Glover - I think Steve and I are saying the same thing regarding
the size of the pods. If you look at our zoning the way it is now, we do not
have any zoning parcels of any magnitude compared to these. You will get the
mass produced effect. You will not get the visual effect that we want.
Mr. Sommer - We have always felt that each one of these pods is its own
planned unit development. It has to come back to the Plan Commission for a
plan review. I think Steve's concerns are well taken but if we use our PUD
planning the pods have to come back. At that time when you work with the
developer, that is when you make sure that it is not a minority.
Commissioner Button - Are we satisfied with the relative balance or propor-
tions of housing types of this plan?
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
July 2, 1980
- 9 -
Commissioner Glover - I feel we should have more than the one dwelling unit
per acre in these pods. I think we need more singe family one dwelling unit
per acre in the central corridor. I would like to make two changes. I would
like to change the 24 acre parcel 2.2 dwelling units per acre to one dwelling
unit per acre and the 14.9 dwelling units per acre to one dwelling unit per
acre. This would provide single family one dwelling unit per acre in the central
corridor and it also boosts the fiscal impact in District 96.
Mr. Friedman - You are talking about a 260,000 house. Elk Hills development
in Long Grove is back at the bank.
Commissioner Sheldon - We are looking at housing similar to what we live in.
That is a thing of the past.
Commissioner Goldspiel - My problem is with the fact that the people who live
there are not going to feel that they are part of the core of Buffalo Grove.
They will feel like they are the fringes of Long Grove.
The Commission was then polled as to whether they wanted to leave the housing
mix as is.
AYES: Commissioners Sheldon, Button, Shifrin, Reid, Kaszubowski
NAYBS: Commissioners Goldspiel
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Glover
The poll positive 5 - 1 with l abstention
Compatibility
Commissioner Button - We want to insure compatibility internally and externally.
Mr. Kinley - When you try to insure compatibility with your neighbors you tie
yourself down. Then there is not much left of the plan from an internal basis.
Commissioner Goldspiel - We would like to change the plan from providing a buffer
for Long Grove to one of an internal plan for Buffalo Grove.
The Commission was polled as to whether to change the plan or not along the
western edge.
AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Shifrin
NAYES: Commissioners Sheldon, Button, Reid, Glover
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Kaszubowski
The poll was negative 4 - 2 with 1 abstention
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
July 2, 1980
- 10 -
The Commission was polled regarding changing SFAS and SFD 10 to better integrat-
ion.
AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Button, Shifrin, Glover, Reid, Kaszubowski
NAYES: Commissioner Sheldon
The poll was positive 6 - 1
Commissioner Glover - I feel MF2 should be relocated. It is not near transporta-
tion or commercial.
Chairman Shields - Should we poll to change or not change MF2 to lower density,
shifting it down on Route 22 on the east side of Buffalo Grove Road on Route 22.
Mr. Mikes - There is no way to move that industrial north of Route 22. It is
not economically feasible.
Mr. Kinley - We started out thinking in terms of a different product for that
piece. We were thinking about apartments. We are now talking about townhouses.
It is only ten to the acre directly across from the Vernon Park Area.
The Commission was polled as whether to change or not change the location of
MF2.
AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Glover
NAYES: Commissioners Sheldon, Button, Shifrin, Reid, Kaszubowski
The poll was negative 5 - 2.
Social Needs
Commissioner Glover - I think we should consider low income housing. If we are
going to do it I would like to make the northern portion near the Vernon Park
area low income housing on the right side or east side of Buffalo Grove Road
south of Port Clinton Road.
Chairman Shields - Should we poll to determine if a portion of the land east
of Buffalo Grove Road, south of Port Clinton Road be made low income housing.
Mr. Mikes - I do not think you should designate any portion or pod of this
plan for low income housing. They pick it out.
The Commission was polled as to whether thee should be some low income and
moderate housing east of Buffalo Grove Road and north of Route 22 south of
Port Clinton Road.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
July 2, 1980
- 11 -
AYES: Commissioner Goldspiel
NAPES: Commissioners Sheldon, Button, Glover, Reid, Kaszubowski
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Shifrin
The poll was negative 5 - 1 with 1 abstention.
Compatibility
Commissioner Goldspiel - I propose that a special architectural zoning be created
adjacent to Prarie View so that whether industrial is built there or if the plan
is changed and becomes residential there it will be architecturally compatible
with Prarie View. Also attention should be given to shading density, increas-
ing densities away from the areas immediately adjacent to Prarie View.
The Commission was polled to determine if architectural zoning should be
created to protect Prarie View.
AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Shifrin, Glover
NAPES: Commissioners Sheldon, Button, Reid, Shields
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Kaszubowski
The poll was negative 4 - 3 with 1 abstention.
Public Service Facility Locations
Commissioner Reid - Is the commercial located at Aptakisic Road and Buffalo
Grove Road necessary?
Mr. Sommer - Yes.
Commissioner Glover - Why can't we move the pumping station further north?
Mr. Sommer - Why does every intersection have to have commercial? That is the
site for the well and reservoir. The creek runs right through there.
Mr. Mikes - How much land do you need for that site?
Mr. Sommer - It has not been designed yet. It will not need all of that land.
Mr. Friedman - That piece is about sixteen acres in total.
Mr. Sommer - We are thinking about the possibility of a public use site in
the IOR.
Mr. Mikes - At some point you are going to have to annex the Pegelow property
and they are going to have to give you something.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
July 2, 1980
- 12 -
The Commission was polled on whether there is a need to identify a parcel for
five acres of public use.
AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Shifrin, Glover, Kaszubowski
NAYES: Commissioners Button, Reid
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Sheldon
The poll was positive 4 - 2 with 1 abstention.
Open Space
Commissioner Goldspiel - The Park District says they want 25% of the residential
area as compared to our regular ordinance.
Mr. Friedman - Would you agree that if we could show that we would be provid-
ing 25% standard open space we could eliminate some of the open space?
The Commissioners unanimously replied no.
Mr. Sommer - The idea is to use the 5.5 per hundredth. There has to be at
least 37 point.scmetbrl rig.of active open space.
Mr. Kinley - We have that in this plan. We have more than 25% active open
space.
The Commission was polled as to whether a dedicated open space should be
wider than 300 feet.
AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Glover
NAYES: Commissioners Sheldon, Button, Shifrin, Reid, Kaszubowski
The poll was negative 5 - 2.
The Commission was polled as to whether a conservancy district approach where
an easement is created along the here-to-for described water ways which would
remain on the plats of the individual homes would not be conveyed to a public
body.
AYES: Commissioners Sheldon, Button, Shifrin, Glover, Reid
NAYES: Commissioners Goldspiel
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Kaszubowski
The poll was positive 5 - 1 with 1 abstention.
TRANSPORTATION
Buffalo Grove Road Alignment
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
July 2, 1980
- 13 -
Comissioner Button - It is desirable that this road be aligned along the
section line. Do we say that it is mandatory?
Commissioner Goldspiel - The concern that I have is the fact that a major por-
tion of that road which is necessary to connect this project would be out of
our control and our boundaries and never be built if all our friends and
the surrounding communities gang up on us. I would phrase the question
whether Buffalo Grove Road should be entirely within this project.
The Commission was polled that if at all possible, Buffalo Grove Road should
be located on the section line. The minimum acceptable design is to have
Buffalo Grove Road south of Port Clinton built with a transitional curve to
align it with the section line at Port Clinton. The road north of Port Clinton
should be on the section line with the two northbound lanes to be developed
at a later date.
AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Sheldon, Button, Shifrin, Glover, Reid
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Kaszubowski
The poll was positive 6 - 0 with 1 abstention.
Network Improvements
Mr. Sommer - Our position regarding Buffalo Grove Road was that it should be
four lanes from Aptakisic Road to Route 4+5. Port Clinton Road should be
closed. The collector system was advocated. We feel Route 22 is more of the
state's responsibility than the developers. The exception being the necessary
intersection improvements at Buffalo Grove Road and Route 22.
The Commission was polled to see if they accepted the Harland Bartholomew Report
regarding network improvements with the exception being the necessary inter-
section improvements at Buffalo Grove Road and Route 22, less the widening of
Route 22.
AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Sheldon, Button, Shifrin, Glover, Reid,
Kaszubowski
NAYES: None
The poll was positive 7 - 0.
Commissioner Glover - I would like to see , scenic easements all the way along
Route 22.
Li
The Commission was polled as to whether there should be scenic easements provided
along Route 22 in a manner consistent with the adjacent communities.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
July 2, 1980
- 14+ -
AYES: Commissioners Glover, Reid, Kaszubowski
NOES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Shifrin
ABSTAIN: Commissioners Sheldon, Button
The poll was positive 3 - 2 with 2 abstentions
Soo Line
Commissioner Goldspiel - What is the status of the Soo Line regarding this
property.
Mr. Mikes - It will be consunnated only after an annexation agreement is signed.
It is in the process of negotiation.
Commissioner Goldspiel - Do we need to have a crossing on Buffalo Grove Road
with the spur?
Commissioner Glover - That is not appropriate to talk about until we have it.
In answer to a question from Mr. Sommer Commissioner Glover stated that along
Buffalo Grove Road you go through a lot of IOR, commercial, multi-family and
open space. I have less desire to see scenic buffering along it.
UTILITIES
Commissioner Goldspiel - We agree that water and the sewer is adequate. The
storm water management is the issue.
Mr. Sommer - Unless I looked at the wrong creek yesterday it was not the cleanest
stream in northern Tiljnois. I do not think there is going to be a problem.
FISCAL IMPACT
Schools
Commissioner Shifrin - I think the developer is committed.
Commissioner Glover The realigbment of school districts should be pursued. The
land owner has a lot to do with the school district. he wants to be in and he
has an effect as well as the school district.
Mr. Sommer - The Village met last week and directed us to officially ask Long
Grove for approval on this plan and the sewer rights. My personal prospective
is that at the VAGA meeting President Coffin voices many objections but when
he really starts looking at the plan there are some areas that we can agree on.
We are going to ask the county for their commitment to assist us with the
aquisition of Buffalo Grove Road. We were directed to review Ordinance 79-63
regarding large school sites. We have been directed to come up with some sort
Buf.'fa].o Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
July 2, 1980
- 15 -
of contingency plan if the school boundaries cannot be aligned.
Commissioner Shifrin - In order for there to be a boundary change do you not
require legal action between the school districts.
Mr. Mikes - It would either be agreed on petition by the owner of the property
which can be rejected to or joined with the school districts.
Mr. Sommer - District 103 has stated that the only boundary change would have
to be minor.
The Commission was polled as to whether the realignment of the school district
property should be pursued.
AYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Sheldon, Button, Shifrin, Goldspiel,
Reid, Kaszubowski
NAYES: None
The poll was positive 7 - 0.
Village
Commissioner Shifrin - We are going to tinnily get some good quality Park Dis-
trict land and I do not want to see it sit empty. The developer could commit
some type of cash contribution for capital development.
Commissioner Kaszubowski - The developer could be encouraged to make contribu-
tions to the Park District for capital development.
Commissioner Glover - I do not think we want to raise our taxes and our neighbors
taxes to improve that area.
Mr. Sommer - The Lake County tax rate for the Buffalo Grove Park District is
39.2 cents.
Mr. Stern - The capacity of the Park District to sell bonds is proportunate
to its assessed value. As I understand it now, the Park District reached its
assessed maximum and now has to resort to a referendum when they do not want
to do that. This development is going to help that because it is going to
double the assessed valuation. Those residents are going to be paying off
present facilities.
The Commission was polled whether there should be additional capital improve-
ments for this development.
AYES: Commissioner Shifrin
NAYES: Commissioners Goldspiel, Sheldon, Button, Reid, Kaszubowski
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Glover
The poll was negative 5 - 1 with 1 abstention.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
July 2, 1980
- 16 -
Marketability of Planned Uses
Commissioner Goldspiel - One of the things that our consultant told us was that
the projection of IOR may be over optomnistic. Is there any additional infor-
mation that the developer has to give us?
Commissioner Reid - I think we have been assured by the developer on several
occasions.
Mr. Friedman - The economics do not make any difference.
Mr. Mikes - I have two clients that are ready to spend a lot of money plus the
improvement costs. They have made the determination that it is viable. I
have never had a development where I have had more people filing me directly.
Commissioner Goldspiel - Is it your clients position that this IOR will be
marketable, built out within the twenty year period?
Mr. Mikes - Yes
Phasing
Commissioner Button - Do you have at this point a notion of how this would be
phased so to protect yourself in terms of marketability and to serve the
interests of the Village?
Mr. Mikes - This project covers a period of years and the amount involved is
subject to phasing like the Kapp Farm. We have had some discussions with staff
on how to phase this development. I think from the Village standpoint we
want to have as few restrictions as to what should take place as possible.
We want the ability to develop as the market demands. It is going to take
place in a south to north progression. The utilities and road network are
going to have to be there. The Village should be concerned about police
protection, fire protection and snow plowing being there. We will work out
some thing with the Village. The tax positive impact is there.
Commissioner Goldspiel - I think we have to protect ourselves if some portion
comes under a different owner at the extreme west corner and if they say I am
in this Village, I am paying taxes, I have a right to services. We should
have some restrictions in the annexation agreement to cover that.
Mr. Mikes - Those three restrictions will be in the annexation agreements.
Mr. Goldspiel - Should we vote on whether this should be subject to a satisfact-
ory phasing plan and it be included in the annexation agreement?
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
July 2, 1980