Loading...
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