1980-06-04 - Plan Commission - Minutes PUBLIC HEARING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Continuation of Citrust/Hilltown
Public Hearing of
May 28, 1980
June 4, 1980
Chairman Shields called the Public Hearing to order in the Municipal Building,
50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove at 9:20 P.M.
Commissioners Present: Chairman Shields
Mr. Goldspiel
Mr. Button
Mrs. Reid
Mr. Shifrin
Mr. Glover
Mrs. Kaszubowski
Commissioners Absent: Mss. Sheldon
Mr. Davis
Also Present: Mr. D. Asher, President, Citrust
Mr. R. Friedman, President, Hilltown
Mr. J. Mikes, Attorney, Citrust/Hilltown
Mrs. B. IaPiana, District 103
Mr. B. Rebechini, President, Riverwoods
Mr. J. Balen, Lake County Board, District 2
Mr. R. Potenz, President, Lincolnshire
Mr. R. Coffin, President, Long Grove
Mr. J. Orloff, Resident, Buffalo Grove
Mr. W. O'Reilly, Park District, Buffalo Grove
Mr. W. Balling, Village Manager, Buffalo Grove
Mr. W. Sommer, Assistant Village Manager
Mr. W. Raysa, Village Attorney
Mr, D, Kuenkler, Village Engineer
J. Truesdell, Village Planner
. J. Marien a , Trustee
CITRUST/HILLTOWN PROPERTIES
Ms. LaPiana read a statement prepared by the Board of Education for School
District 103. The statement referred to the fact that they are opposed to
any disannexation of properties currently under the taxing jurisdiction of
School District 103. District 103 encourages the Planning Commission to
request the developer to present other alternatives on land usage as a means
of establishing a fair and equitable distribution of tax revenues and student
population to the three elementary school districts which will be affected by
the Citrust/Hilltown development.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Public Hearing
June 4, 1980
- 2 -
Mr. Rebochini - Our village is against signing the agreement furnished to us at
the last VAGA meeting because of the density as it exists in this property.
It is not acceptable with those of Riverwoods. We have invited Mr. Sommer
to come to our Plan Commission meeting on June 12, 1980 to discuss the Santucci
Property. The Village of Buffalo Grove is not taking into consideration the
impact statement as provided by the County. I think the densities as shown
by the County are the proper ones for that area.
Mr. Balen read a statement which basically outlined his views. My position is
not to be pro or con for the annexation. County funds will be involved with
this project sooner or later. My purpose is to give you advance notice that
a question not considered by the developer is to provide for minority, lower
income and moderate income housing. I feel it would be difficult as a County
Board Member to support any use of County funding or use of its facilities -
sewerlines, Lake Michigan Water Allocation, road construction and other
amenities as long as this issue is not considered. I had already, before this
issue of annexation arose, brought to the attention of the Attorney General
of the United States, discriminatory housing practices in Lake County by
Cities and Villages of said County. I present a copy of this correspondence
(letter to Mr. B. Civiletti dated October 11, 1979 from Mr. J. Balen). I
have not received any response yet.
Commissioner Goldspiel - How did you arrive at the 8 figure.
Mr. Balen - The total minority population versus the total population in the
County.
Commissioner Goldspiel - Much of the debate we have is on large lot single
family homes and on the other hand a combination of single family homes,
part townhomes, and part multi-family. Do you have any feeling as to what
would be less discriminatory?
Mr. Balen - You are going to have to provide for these people to live here
some place. People are going to work in the industrial property. They are
going to have to drive to work. If they are going to work here they should be
able to enhance their living opportunity by being able to live here.
Commissioner Goldspiel - Would you apply this same proposal when Long Grove,
Riverwoods, or Lincolnshire were developing industrial property?
Mr. Balen - Yes, I would.
Commissioner Button - What is the percentage of minority population in Lake
County?
Mr. Balen - Almost 20;*;
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Public Hearing
June 1., 1980
- 3 -
Commissioner Button - If it were not 20;, would you recommend shutting off all
funding to the County?
Mr. Balen - I have done so in this letter.
Mr. Potenz - My remarks represent the complete unanimity of our board and I
believe I speak for the vast majority of our village. I believe any of us
can get whatever we want to out of a set of figures. I am addressing my
remarks to a different point. I believe the point is one that isn't really
touched by dollars and cents. The basic reason for families moving into this
area is the open space. In Lincolnshire our residents are willing to spend
more money for their open space.
In all the correspondence that I have read in your minutes two points come
across again and again. 1) You want to bring a different type of housing
style to your residents. 2) You want to enhance, to maintain and provide
additional tax basis for your residents. Your community must do what you feel
is best. I have to carry this a step further in determining what is best as
I perceive and our village perceives it. It is evident that it is a fair
assumption to make that what we do as communities impact a great deal more
than our village boundries. The only people who have not spoken are the
people of Buffalo Grove. I think the Fiore project is so far removed from
your residents, at this time, they are not interested. I believe that there
exists within Vernon Township, for Buffalo Grove to develop and provide the
additional type of housing styles you want to build in Fiore. I believe there
is additional land in the township for industrial development. Money is not
going to solve a life style problem. We have created within Vernon Township
VAGA that will allow us to plan within the township. There must be compromise.
There must be a willingness for us to work together. I am pleading with you
to give VAGAa chance. Fiore is either going to make or break VAGA.
Chairman Shields - I would like to respond to one of your comments. Of the
twenty-one people that signed up on the list to speak, nine were Village
residents.
Mr. O'Reilly - As a Park Board Member I would like to state that on May 22, 1980
a preliminary plan was presented by the developer. Seventeen percent of the
total acreage is open space, that is only the residential acreage. There is
actually twelve point eight percent (12. 8,) of the total land area. Many
questions followed this presentation. To provide the developer and the Plan
Commission tonight with some preliminary indication of the Park Board's feeling
toward this development a consensus was asked the Board Members. The choices
were the following two options.
1) To accept the developers donation of land and/or cash on the basis of
:',35,000 budget per park acre
2) To require the developer to provide 100') of the necessary capital
development, relative to land area and facilities per the National
Recreation of Park Association Specifications.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Public Hearing
June 4, 1980
- 4 -
Option one received zero votes, option two received two votes, three members
did not express an opinion but made objections to option one and requested
more details on option two. Thus more discussion is necessary.
As an individual I have some observations to make regarding this development.
Consideration has to be given to the fact that this development separates
this Village by County. This development will further separate us into three
areas. It will establish a large community which has a separate identity.
I feel this development is not in the best interest of Buffalo Grove.
The land area will consist of several water surface areas. Why meet the high
degree of land standards now? This development will take all future possible
acquisitions.
Regarding capital development - full capital development is a must as far
as I am concerned. If it is not done at the time of development it will never
get voter approval. I believe it is within the realm of possibility that if
adequate recreational facilities are not met that the final acquisition for
the land into the Park District may not take place.
What the developer has done to date has been at his own risk. This Village
is under no obligation to proceed with this development. The only solution
is to recommend no further consideration be given to this development as it
is presented.
Commissioner Goldspiel - I do not understand the point about the two alternatives?
Which is the way we do business now?
Mr. O'Reilly - It is done on the basis of 5. 5 acres of active use per 1,000 resi-
dents or $35,000 per active use acreage. The 5.5 acres falls very short of federal
standards. With the development of this entire section there will never be
any more land for active use.
Commissioner Goldspiel - You refer to a policy regarding open water area. I
did not understand the Park District to have a policy opposed to lakes.
Mr. O'Reilly - We do not have a policy for open water. We have experienced an
open opposition to open water space basically because of the cost of mainten-
ance and the general consensus of the Village is opposition of open water for
safety reasons.
Commissioner Goldspiel - When we went over the list of things that should be
addressed, one of them was thequestion of low income housing. I wonder if
a 1 g
anything had become of that? It is something I think we should consider.
Mr. Orlaff - I feel the Fiore issue is one of the most important ones to come
up before the Plan Commission. Most of my neighbors were not concerned
about the issue. I think this apathy is common throughout the Village I feel
Buffalo Grove Industrial Park
Public Hearing
June 4, 1980
- 5 -
this is our Village. It is like a family. I object to a letter sent out
from another Village. They have their right to do so, but the forum is here.
There are many factors which the Plan Commission must consider. Nine percent
(90) of my taxes go to the Village of Buffalo Grove. Fifty-eight (58A of
my taxes go for the two school districts. I would like to hear their input
regarding this development.
In any development there is a tremendous demand for services. The demand
for services comes from day one. The problem is the tax revenues do not come
in for two or three years down the road. One of the biggest problems we are
going to see is water. What is the cost of water going to be? Are we going
to have enough water? Should something of this magnitude be left up to the
Plan Commission? Should the residents be able to vote on it?
I think this plan is ill conceived and it should be dropped.
Commissioner Button - We have heard a lot of comments during the past two
meetings and prior to that in a couple of workshops. The Village is not the
petitioner in this case. The Village is considering a petition. The primary
concern is to the Village wholeness and its vitality. Our primary concern
must be the Village of Buffalo Grove. A lot of confusion has been raised in
my mind. I find the testimony I have heard to be very much at odds. I
and the Commission will continue addressing these issues.
Commissioner Shifrin addressing Mr. Potenz - If this particular parcel were to
be subdivided and presented to the various surrounding villages and presuming
that this parcel's eastern portion, which is located directly within District
103, were to petition for annexation within the village of Lincolnshire,
can you state that you would not consider development of that office research
parcel?
Mr. Potenz - That is correct.
Commissioner Shifrin - I direct the same question to Mr. Coffin. Presuming
that this same hypothetical case were true, and the western portion would
come to the village of Long Grove, are you in a position to answer as to
whether, under current single family on one or two acre lots,that the village
of Long Grove would not consider it?
Mr. Coffin - About two thirds of this property lies within the Long Grove
"sphere of interest". Last August we annexed the western half of the Hilltown
property. That land was annexed to Long Grove on a two acre average basis.
I don't know that I can categorically say that we would not annex that land,
that there are no circumstances under which we might annex the land. We,
probably, left to our own devices before this ever came up, would have gone
on to our southern area boundries. I think, I can say categorically, we in
no way want to entertain this project except through VAGA.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Public Hearing
June 1., 1980
- 6 -
Commissioner Shifrin - However, I would still repeat my question, if the
western boundary were to approach the Village of Long Grove for annexation
would Long Grove annex it?
Mr. Coffin - I think I addressed that and said that I think that I can categoric-
ally say there are no circumstances that we would annex that property.
Commissioner Shifrin Mr. Potenz, would you agree with Mr. Coffin?
Mr. Potenz - Yes
Commissioner Shifrin addressing Mr. Coffin - Did you submit the DeMucci property
to VAGA for approval?
Mr. Coffin - No because that was not located in Vernon Township.
Commissioner Shifrin - On that basis and on the basis of what Mr. Coffin said,
did the Village of Lincolnshire submit the Chicagoland property to VAGA for
consideration?
Mr. Potenz - No, but I submit that the Chicagoland property has been in
Lincolnshire for some twenty years. I might say that any property that is
outside of Lincolnshire would be brought to VAGA.
Commissioner Shifrin - Are you then saying that there is a discrepancy in
that or a distinction between property that is located within Village bound-
aries and that which is coming in for annexation?
Mr. Potenz - I think so.
Commissioner Shifrin - Mr. Rebechini, did I detect that the Village of River-
woods was considering a parcel of the Santucci property at present?
Mr. Rebechini - No Riverwoods has never had an expansion policy. We presented
you with a comprehensive plan of what Riverwoods had in mind for the Santucci
property and we would like to see it developed along those lines. If there
is no other alternative we may have to consider it.
Commissioner Shifrin - Would you base your final determination on VAGA's
findings?
Mr. Rebechini - Yes.
Mr. Kendig - The County's Planning, Building and Zoning Committee has several
resolutions on its agenda for its meeting on Monday. One of these is the
rejection of the proposal which is before you. Regarding President Clayton's
proposal, after a meeting on the 28th, we came to the conclusion that there
does exist an agreeable plan for possible annexation. We recommend that
VAGA is the vehicle to do so. It really is a shame we have reached this
point without VAGA.
Commissioner Goldspiel - It seems to me that we, as a Plan Commission, are
required to review the plan that is in front of us. I do not think that we
- 7 -
are entitled to stop our deliberations on this plan because something may
be developed in the future.
Mr. Kendig - I will agree that you have to proceed. However, until someone
in authority directs the Plan Commission to sit down at the table and have
face to face discussions, the possibility of another agreement will never have
a chance to come about.
Mr. Balling - The Village President and the Village Board gave direct guidance
to the VAGA members about a week prior to the May VAGA meeting. We did
articulate the position of the Village of Buffalo Grove as expressed in
President Clayton's memo.
Chairman Shields closed the Public Hearing at 10:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Vg117_, t) 6-7-2!-V-1
at leen Comer
Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Patrick Shields
Chairman
f
1
i
REGULAR MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Buffalo Grove Industrial Park
Citrust/Hilltown Properties
Crossings Road Dedication Plat
June 4, 1980
Chairman Shields called the Regular Meeting to order in the Municipal Building,
50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove at 10:40 P.M.
Commissioners Present: Chairman Shields
Mr. Goldspiel
Mr. Button
Mrs. Reid
Mr. Shifrin
Mr. Glover
Mrs. Kaszubowski
Commissioners Absent: Mrs. Sheldon
Mr. Davis
Also Present: Mr. W. Sommer, Assistant Village Manager
Mr. Raysa, Village Attorney
Mr. Truesdell, Village Planner
Mr. John Marienthal, Village Trustee
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Reid moved that the minutes of the May 7, 1980 Public Hearing be
approved. Commissioner Kaszubowski seconded the motion.
AYES: Commissioners Button, Reid, Shifrin, Kaszubowski
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners Goldspiel, Glover
Commissioner Kaszubowski moved that the minutes of the May 7, 1980 Regular
Meeting be approved. Commissioner Button seconded the motion.
AYES: Commissioners Button, Reid, Shifrin, Kaszubowski
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners Goldspiel, Glover
COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS
There were no committee or liaison reports.
Commissioner Shifrin moved that the Buffalo Grove Industrial Park be tabled until
the meeting of June 11, 1980. Commissioner Button seconded the motion and the
vote was unanimous.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
June 4, 1980
- 2 -
Commissioner Shifrin moved that the Citrust/Hilltown Properties be tabled until
the meeting of June 11, 1980. Commissioner Button seconded the motion and the
vote was unanimous.
CORSSINGS ROAD DEDICATION PLAT
Commissioner Goldspiel - Fairfax Court and Gelding Court do not look like the
streets that we ordinarily approve. Was part of the agreement to include those
two streets?
Mr. Truesdell - I believe everything on the plat was to be part of the agreement.
Commissioner Button - The setback is the same.
Commissioner Goldspiel - Do those meet--the-planning criteria?
Mr. Truesdell - Dick Kuenkler has signed off the plat and stated that it meets
the Village standards as far as the pavement is concerned.
Commissioner Kaszubowski - Jim, do the Streets come up to the standards for
MFD funds?
Mr. Truesdell - They would be maintained by Village funds. My understanding is
that all of the improvements that the Village required have been made. The
Village Engineer has signed off that they have been taken care of.
Commissioner Goldspiel - Has the plat been checked for accuracy?
Mr. Truesdell - It has been checked by the engineer.
Commissioner Goldspiel - What is the status of the balance of Fremont Way?
Mr. Sommer - Fremont Way is already dedicated by the Village.
Commissioner Button moved that the Plan Commission forward to the Village Board
for approval the Plat for Dedication for Public Streets for the Crossings
Subdividion, Block One, Order Number 80-139. Commissioner Reid seconded the
motion.
AYES: Commissioners Button, Reid, Shifrin, Glover
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Goldspiel, Commissioner Kaszubowski
Li
The motion passed
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
June 4, 1980
- 3 -
Commissioner Button moved that the meeting be closed. Commissioner Kaszubowski
seconded. The vote was unanimous. Chairman Shields closed the meeting at
10:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
hleen Comer
Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Patrick Shields
Chairman
PUBLIC HEARING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Buffalo Grove Industrial Park
June 4, 1980
Chairman. Shields called the Public Hearing to order in the Municipal Building,
50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove .at 7:40 P.M.
Commissioners Present: Chairman Shields
Mr Goldspiel - arrived at 8:15 P.M.
Mr. Button
Mrs. Reid
Mr. Shifrin
Mr. Glover
Mrs. Kaszubowski
Commissioners Absent: Mrs. Sheldon
Mr. Davis
Also Present: Mr. L. Freedmani, Attorney, Buffalo Grove Industrial Park
Mr. P. Bianchini, Developer, Lexington Development Corp.
Mr. J. Nelson, Planner, Buffalo Grove Industrial Park
Mr. H. Roggendorf, Superintendent, District No. 102
Mr. J. Badalamenti, Resident, Prarie View
Mr. T. Costopoulos, Property Owner within 250 feet
Mr. W. Peterson, Resident Buffalo Grove
Mr. W. Stank, Resident Buffalo Grove
Mr. A. 0lsansky, Resident Buffalo Grove
Mr. L. Meyer, Resident Buffalo Grove
Mr. Harris, Resident Buffalo Grove
Mr. Capka, Resident Buffalo Grove
Mr. D. Shea, Resident Buffalo Grove
Mrs. Davisdon, Resident Buffalo Grove
Mr. J. Marienthal, Village Trustee, Buffalo Grove
Mr. W. Balling, Village Manager
Mr. W. Raysa, Village Attorney
Mr. D. Kuenkler, Village Engineer
Mr. G. Boysen, Public Works Director
Mr. J. Truesdell, Village Planner
BUFFALO GROVE INDUSTRIAL PARK
Chairman Shields opened the hearing by reading the notice of the Public Hearing
that was published in the newspapers. He then swore in Messers Freedman,
Bianchini and Nelson.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Public Hearing
June 4, 1980
- 2 -
Mr. Freedman - I would like to file with the secretary copies of the Report
of Notification of mailing and the receipts.
Mr. Nelson explained an exhibit which was an overlay of the proposed property.
The subject property is zoned Ml. It is surrounded by several existing sub-
divisions, on the north is Candlewood Creek zoned R5, north and west is Horatio
Gardens, which is in Lake County, west is Buffalo Grove zoned R8, north one
half of Armstrong Drive is single family plus the south west corner proposed multi-
family under construction. Everything south of Lake Cook Road is in Cook County.
South of Lake Cook Road in Wheeling there are three subdivisions, Cedar Run,
Lexington Commons, south east is Whippletree Farms and east but unimproved is
platted Columbia Gardens.
Mr. Nelson then referred to the preliminary plat. The proposal is to develop
the property and get preliminary approval for this site which is zoned M1 and
being changed, through your ordinance, to I District. The plan has three
points of access that have been predetermined. They are the south west corner
which is an existing road access point-Industrial Drive and will run through to
Pauline Avenue. Additionally in the western point of the property there is
Armstrong Drive which has been anticipated to extend from its terminus at our
west property line into the development, to continue east to service this
development and also a portion of the future development. Originally Armstrong
Drive was to allow access from Northwood Grove and Ridgewood subdivisions
immediately west of subject property to Industrial Drive and out to Lake Cook
Road. The plan has been devised to conform to the new ordinance. The pedestrian
system is basically not required in an industrial park, however, due to the pro-
posed transportation system for the area what we have done is pick up a sidewalk
on one side of all the minor streets as shown. This plan has a slight modifica-
tion as shown and that was to incorporate several changes that your Engineering
Department recommended. One is the entry detail, we changed it to 450" center
line radius. In addition, we have changed the sidewalk to the west side of the
road and picked up the two sidewalks existing along Armstrong Drive which allows
residents to walk without crossing the street down the west side of Industrial
Drive to Lake Cook Road. That sidewalk system extends all the way up to Pauline
Avenue and west to the sidewalk under construction at the north west corner of
our property.
The total area is approximately 49 acres. We are proposing approximately 41 lots
from a minimum of 20,000 square feet to a maximum lot of 7. 5 acres plus the
frontage at Lake Cook Road.
Mr. Truesdell - The Village would like to see the inclusion of the small out
lot adjacent to Pauline Avenue which is behind Lot 28. The sidewalks shown
on the plan are four feet rather than five feet which is required by the sub-
division regulations. In Mr. Kuenkler's memo to me dated May 30, 1980 it is
recommended that the bike path should be relocated within the Lake Cook right-
of-way so that it can connect the bike path which would be provided to the
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Public Hearing
June 4, 1980
- 3 -
Northwood's unit. Recommendation of acceptance of the proposed street width
of 36' back to back, offset within a 60' right-of-way in conjunction with a
no parking provision on all streets. It was recommended to eliminate the
two cul-de-sacs. Extend the streets to the east terminating at the east
property line for future extension.
Chairman Shields - Were there some traffic comments?
Mr. Truesdell - Barton/Ashman did a study regarding total daily trips result-
ing in A.M. , peak hours, inbound of 455 and outbound of 165. Regarding P.M. ,
inbound, peak hours 200 and outbound 550. The basic reason for the connection
of Industrial Drive to Pauline Avenue and Armstrong Drive is as follows.
Armstrong Drive was connected to provide additional access to that entire area.
At one time Horatio Boulevard was planned to be extended southerly from Lake
Cook Road to Armstrong Drive. It was to connect up with a street in Wheeling
which would also connect with Lake Cook Road. That street never was put
through. Therefore, the County would not issue another permit for another
road to be extended from Buffalo Grove. The Village's alternative was to
provide Armstrong Drive connection to Industrial Drive.
The reason that Pauline Avenue was left was because of the necessity of a
secondary route to be available for a fire exit should it become necessary.
Mr. Bianchini - The property you referred to - the outlot adjacent to Pauline
Avenue-is owned by Candelwood Creek. We have made an offer to purchase it.
There has been some negotiations on our offer, it has not been completed.
If we do acquire the land, we would include it as part of our subdivision.
Mr. Truesdell - The second point was the four foot sidewalks.
Mr. Nelson - We will make them conform to the ordinance.
Mr. Truesdell - The next point was the bike path.
Mr. Freedman - We are prepared to move the bike path once the strip within
Wheeling Township is resolved.
Mr. Truesdell - The final major point is the elimination of the cul-de-sacs.
Mr. Bianchini - We did a proposed land use for the property to the east of
our property. On January 9, 1980 I submitted a sketch to the staff for poten-
tial land use which shows why we feel the cul-de-sacs are necessary.
Mr. Nelson - At the workshop sessions this was discussed. Regarding the pro-
posed cul-de-sacs at that stage, the primary concern was in the size of the
turn around and to show that the 50' radius was able to handle truck turn arounds.
Since then I have submitted documentation on recommended turning radius for both
semi trailers and straight bed trucks. I believe the cul-de-sacs are adequate
to accommodate trucks as shown.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Public Hearing
June 4, 1980
- 4 -
There was a comment that asked how might a road system be developed for the
balance of the property east of the subject property which extends to the
Commonwealth Edison right-of-way. Currently, the plan devised for the ex-
tension of Armstrong Drive, there is an existing curb cut for proposed access
off of Lake Cook Road, approximately 200' or so, east of our south east
property line, that generates the second access point. Additionally we are
providing a connection at our north extremity,where the property extends out,
We are providing three access points. We feel it will more than be adequate
to service the property east of us. Not knowing what the anticipated type of
industrial property would be, to extend two additional cul-de-sacs would make
their design capability more difficult. It is not necessary to have additional
access points. We could, in fact, be creating a hardship for future development.
Mr. Bianchini - We have no assurance that the property to the east of us is
going to be developed with in any timetable. From a sales point we would
prefer to have the cul-de-sacs remain in the plan.
1
Mr. Peterson - I wish to voice serious concern about traffic flow through
Horatio Gardens. The people going down Weiland Road will soon learn that
they can come in Pope Boulevard, cut through Florence or William, or one of
the other side streets and down Industrial Drive. When this is developed we
feel it is going to cause a vast increase of traffic into that area. We do
not want a hazardous traffic pattern through the subdivision.
Mr. Roggendorf - We will have many students walking to the school that will
have to cross Pauline and then walk down Horatio Boulevard. We are very
supportive of the development. We are very concerned about the traffic flow.
Mr. Bianchini - We have no objection, from a design standpoint, to eliminate
the connection to Pauline Avenue.
Mr. Truesdell - When this proposal was reviewed by staff, the reason that it
was left in was for a fire access. However, there is no reason it could not
be annexed for emergency access as we have done in other developments.
Chairman Shields - If they are in agreement and we are in agreement why don't
we just simply do it that way.
I �
Mr. Starck - I have been in contact with over 100 residents in the Northwood's
subdivision and Ridgewood subdivisions. I have submitted to Mr. Shields a
written protest to the extension of Armstrong Drive into Industrial Drive.
I have been given written permission to speak by 98 residents and we would
like to see this connection eliminated.
Mr. Truesdell - The reason it was put through was to connect with the develop-
ment per our Official Map. This would provide additional access to the entire
area back there.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
{ Public Hearing
June 4, 198o
- 5 -
Mr. Boysen - The engineering section is interested in the development of
collector street systems. We are not concerned about residential traffic in
the area. From an engineering standpoint in establishing some very stringent
weight restrictions that would not permit truck traffic on residential streets.
Mr. Starck - It is the traffic other than trucks that we are concerned about.
Access on Armstrong Drive will eliminate three stop lights along Lake Cook Road.
It is better than taking Lake Cook Road. Armstrong is going to be an attractive
shortcut that will draw cars into that area.
Commissioner Goldspiel - It would be a much slower route because it will be at
30 miles per hour rather than 4+5 miles per hour.
Mr. Starck - That is one of the problems - people will not go 30 miles per hour.
Commissioner Shifrin - On your initial plan that was modified by the staff, did
you show Armstrong to be developed but not as a through street?
Mr. Bianchini - We showed none.
Mr. Nelson - The road system is not too different from what you have.
Commissioner Button - How long ago was Armstrong Drive platted on the Master Plan?
Mr. Truesdell - It has been on the Official Map for two and a half to three
years. It was not the first choice. Horatio extending down to Lake Cook
Road was the desired choice. Because that was not feasible we had to go to
the second choice and that was Armstrong Drive.
Commissioner Button - What is the feasibility of having a counter rush hour
signing excluding traffic between six and nine.
Mr. Truesdell - I will have to look into that.
Mr. Balling - We do not have any area like that but it could be done.
Commissioner Button - Jim, in your memo to the Commission, the sections
referred to as 2. 5, 2. 6-5, 2. 6-6C and 2.6-7 to be varied.
Mr, Truesdell - Those relate, as you recall in the I Ordinance, it is required
that there be a 40,000 square foot lot around the perimeter with other various
descriptions if it abuts a residential district. In the ordinance there was
a provision put in that if the perimeter of the lot abutted areas that were
shown in our Comprehensive Plan as compatible non-residential land use, those
could be waived. That if the area adjacent to the property, as in this case, is
adjacent to industrial they could be allowed to put smaller perimeter lots, they
would not be required to put in the fencing. However, it is something directly
jBuffalo Grove Plan Commission
Public Hearing
June 6, 1980
- 6 -
related to existing or planned existing residential areas, they would provide
the full setback and buffer requirements.
Commissioner Button - Is it the staff's opinion, with emergency access at
Pauline Avenue only, normal traffic and truck traffic entering and exiting
via Lake Cook Road, that this would provide adequate traffic flow and con-
trol?
Mr. Truesdell - The access at Lake Cook Road would be adequate for industrial
traffic. Armstrong was basically extended for residential purposes.
Commissioner Glover - Are there any existing or proposed bus routes in the
residential area?
Commissioner Goldspiel - Route 234 is shown running along Armstrong Drive and
down Lexington Drive back out to Route 83. There is some discussion whether
it would be Route 234 or a new Route 235.
Commissioner Glover - With the only access to the industrial area from In-
dustrial Drive, would it be possible to put bus service in?
Commissioner Goldspiel - It would not be possible. It would not only service
the industrial area, it would service the Ridgewood area, that whole area, as
a matter of fact all along Armstrong Drive from Weiland Road to the extension
of Lexington Drive.
Mr. Olsansky - Did you say the traffic on Pauline would be restricted to
emergency traffic only?
Mr. Truesdell - Yes.
Commissioner Shifrin - There would be a strip for fire access only, that would
be it.
Mr. Badaimmenti-You have residential property 200 yards from this park.
The water service for all of this housing can be affected by a major chemical
spill. The reason that there are no basements in our area is because of
flooding. You have no water retention in the park. Where is the water going
to go? I advocate that you study it a little deeper. I think you should
consider water, air and environmental quality that would be affected by this
park.
Commissioner Button - We do have the Lake County Soil and Water Conservation
District study. The study contains some caveats but it does not recommend
that it be scrapped.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Public Hearing
June 4, 1980
- 7 -
Mr. Meyer voiced his opposition to the extension of Armstrong Drive.
In response to a question from Mr. Meyer, Mr. Truesdell stated that Industrial
Drive is a two lane road.
Mr. Meyer asked if Industrial Drive could be made into a four lane road and
then closing Armstrong Drive.
Commissioner Kaszubowski - If Armstrong Drive is closed, there is no need to
widen Industrial Drive to four lanes.
Mr. Meyer - What about parking?
Chairman Shields - Each lot will provide for parking. There is no parking
on the streets.
Mr. Meyer - What type of industry is going into the area?
Mr. Bianchini - Within the industrial zoning district there are permitted
uses the Village has established. As a developer we are a multi-facited type
operation. We will have land for sale, buildings for sale and buildings
for lease. At this point it is impossible to be specific but what we build
will be according to what we are allowed to.
Mr. Roggendorf - I feel you will have to close Armstrong Drive also or it
will not stop the traffic through the area.
Mr. Harris - Does the County require a second point of ingress into this park?
Chairman Shields - The requirement was for the fire access.
Mr. Harris - Is there a requirement that more than one point of ingress be
established into the park.
Mr. Truesdell - The only permit needed for access is from Lake Cook Road.
Mr. Harris - The point was made that you want an additional point of ingress
for the proposed multi-family being developed. Could Armstrong Drive be made
a one way street and go along the section line through Northwood Grove to
Lake Cook Road?
Commissioner Goldspiel - You could not get the traffic around the point.
Mr. Truesdell - The point is well taken. I do not know that we can move the
road over to the property line. There is the possibility that there could be
a sign at the property line for one way traffic.
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Public Hearing
June 4, 1980
- 8 -
I
Mr. Meyer - I would also suggest that the fence be 8' , weather-treated and set in cement
The soil is very porous in that area. It is clay with severe ponding. I
suggest that the developer put in an ornamental tree so that we do not have
to look at the building.
Commissioner Goldspiel - Is there much through traffic between Pauline, Armstrong
and Lilac now?
Mr. Meyer - I couldn't really say as I have only lived there three weeks.
Mr. Capca - Why does Armstrong Drive have to be connected to Industrial Drive
at all?
Mr. Truesdell - The actual intent was to provide access from the residential
area to Lake Cook Road. We will take into consideration what you have
requested as far as signing to make the street a one way.
Mr. Shea - Do we have the assurance of the Village that all residential out-
lining the area around the industrial park will be left without any industrial
traffic going into our area.
Chairman Shields - Our intention is to make it as pleasant as possible for you.
After this Public Hearing we will have a meeting and go over the issues with
the staff and make further recommendations. Then the Village Board will have
another public meeting and you will have a chance to express your views.
Mr. Starck - I don't understand why the developer says he doesn't want to put
Armstrong through, the residents do not want to see Armstrong put through and
yet the Village says it has to go through to appease the residents.
Chairman Shields - I think you can believe that we are going to discuss that
issue.
Mrs. Davidson - My husband is with Barton/Ashman. He called Mr. Truesdell
and offered to sit with him on this issue. You are going to create a CO2
hot spot with all of this traffic leaving the development via Industrial
Drive and Lake Cook Road.
Commissioner Shifrin - Could you explain what a CO2 hot spot is?
Mrs. Davidson - A CO2 hot spot is developed when cars have to stop and wait
for a light. The air quality is very bad. I would like to know about the
buffers.
Commissioner Goldspiel - The fact that it has been in the zoning ordinance
since 1973 says that under law this is industrial property. The point that we
are at now is not whether it should be industrial but how that industrial should
Buffalo Grove Plan Commission
Public Hearing
June 4+, 1980
- 9 -
be handled in terms of streets and the other matters that we were discussing.
Mr. Roggendorf - This site will add approximately $13,000,000 of assessed
valuation to School District 102. Our School District will be very appreciative
of that additional revenue.
Chairman Shields - What are the environmental regulations.
Mr. Truesdell - There are EPA regulations that have to be followed.
Mr. Costopoulos - Is the developer going to put in Wheeling Road? Is Wheeling
Road a dedicated strip?
Chairman Shields - It is platted but unimproved and it is not the property
of the developer.
Mr. Nelson - That property does not extend with access to Lake Cook Road.
Chairman Shields closed the Public Hearing at 9:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
.•716-97.eZ
athleen Comer
Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
'..J
Patrick Shields
Chairman