1975-09-03 - Plan Commission - Minutes REGULAR MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
Crossings & Winston Square
September 3, 1975
Chairman Genrich called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m. , September 3,
1975, in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard.
Commissioners Present: Chairman Genrich
Mr. Mendenhall
Mr. Harris
Mr. Keister
Mr. Shields
Mr. Goldspiel
Mr. Jacobs
Also Present: Mr. James Otis, Otis Associates
Mr. Art Gingold, The Richards Group
Mr. James Hemphill, C. A. Hemphill
Mr. David Webber, Centex
Mr. Michael Ives, Michael L. Ives & Assoc.
Mr. M. J. Kandel, Prospective Member
Mr. Richard Lapham, Park District
Mr. John Marienthal, Trustee
Mr. G. William Phillips, Prospective Member
Mr. Arnold Seaberg, Village Engineer
Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Shields moved to approve the minutes from the Public
Hearing of July 16, 1975, and Commissioner Jacobs seconded. The
motion carried that the minutes be approved subject to the following
changes: Page 3, paragraph 5, delete the last sentence. Page 3,
paragraph 6, line 1, change "affect of" to "effect on". Page 4,
paragraph 1, line 3, change "a sailfish" to "small sailboating".
Commissioner Shields moved to approve the minutes from the Regular
Meeting of July 16, 1975, and Commissioner Goldspiel seconded. The
motion carried that the minutes be approved subject to the following
change: Page 2, paragraph 1, line 1, change "reminder" to "reminded" .
Commissioner Shields moved to approved the minutes of August 20, 1975,
and Commissioner Keister seconded the motion. Upon vote the motion
carried.
Committee and Liaison Reports
Chairman Genrich asked for a report from Commissioners Shields and
Jacobs on their respective committees at the next meeting of the
Plan Commission.
Plan Commission
Page 2 September 3, 1975
Commissioner Goldspiel reported that at the Board of Trustees
Meeting of Tuesday, September 2, it was decided that there would
be a Public Hearing before the Board of Trustees regarding the
zoning extension for the Arrowhead Development at a later date.
Commissioner Goldspiel added that they also discussed the annexation
agreement for the Goldin Property on the southeast corner of Buffalo
Grove and Dundee Roads. No terms for the length of the agreement
had been stated and the possibility of tying it in with the same
restrictions of the adjoining Simpson Property was discussed. Upon
the advice of Mr. Raysa it was decided to make it a five-year term.
There was a poll taken at the Board Meeting as to whether a replacement
for Mr. Balling would be hired. They voted to hire a replacement
but this would not take place before mid-November.
On Wednesday, August 27, the Plan Commission met in a Workshop
Session with the Wheeling Plan Commission. Commissioners Shields
and Goldspielstated that theythink we can look forward to good
cooperation on the planning level in the future.
Crossings
Mr. Otis stated that they now had a partner in developing the Crossings.
There will be two builders and the other firm will be C. A. Hemphill
of Northfield. Mr. James Hemphill was present at the meeting with
Mr. Miller, his engineer.
Mr. Otis stated that they have talked with residents of the Crossings
and feel that they could improve the development and continue the
same basic feeling by decreasing the density and increasing the
land area coverage. They are before the Commission tonight to
present a new plan doing this. The following things have been done
in the revised plan which is referred to as revised plan A;
1. There are additional single family units (87) and a new
townhouse project which would be a different design than
presently and larger.
2. They changed the basic contour of the Park District area.
It is now deeper and more rectangular in shape. The
basic acreage is the same.
3. They have redesigned the commercial area to a point where
they can start talking to prospective tenants.
They have not changed the concept of the bike paths or open area and
there will be just two basic types of single family units.
On the plan distributed to the Plan Commission dated August 28, 1975,
(revised plan A) , apartment units were shown. Mr. Otis explained
that his firm did not feel that these were an asset to the Crossings
and made the decision to revise this plan and put in townhouse units
instead. This decreases the density substantially. He distributed
Revised and Corrected 10/15/75
Plan Commission
Page 3 September 3, 1975
the revised plan B dated September 3 , 1975, to the commissioners.
He added they were trying to create as much dissimilarity as
possible yet have the architecture compatible. There is also a
change in valuation of the units. The single family homes would
be in the high 60' s and 70' s and the townhouses in the 60' s.
They will start developing with the single family homes and would
like a completion date of three years.
Mr. Otis went on to explain that if the single family homes were
acceptable, they may require additional changes from townhouses
to single family units. He showed two overlays showing the alternatives
if this should happen. These are referred to as plan C and plan D.
Plan C would be a change in the lower left hand corner of the plan
and the plan D change would be in the center near the lake. He
presented the following data comparing the plans:
Density
Original plan - 748 units or 5.8 units per acre
Revised plan B - 566 units or 4.4 units per acre
Plan C - 4.1 units per acre
Plan D - 3.9 units per acre
Building Coverage
Original plan - 11.9%
Revised plan B - 9.7%
Valuation Figures
(Based Primarily on Sales Valuation)
Original plan - $31,087,000
Revised plan B - $31,046,000
Mr. Otis distributed detailed figures on a sales valuation comparison
of all four plans.
Mr. Otis explained the plan for the commercial property. He stated
they would like to think of it as a specialty shopping center. There
will be some major stores,however. Jewel Tea owns some property near
the Crossings but it is not large enough for them to develop on and
is for sale. It is possible they will be the major tenants in this
center. Another major tenant will be the Grove Bank and Trust Company.
At present they own the four acres on corner and they would want to
bring the four acres into Buffalo Grove. The shopping center will
take on the same architectural look as the residential area and will
be completed at the same time as the balance of the development.
Commissioner Keister asked if the lots are still 60x100 as presented
in the previous plan. Mr. Otis stated that they are and they would
like to come close to a 6500 square foot lot.
Commissioner Keister questioned Mr. Otis about the length of the cul-
de-sac street in the area of envelopes 160-176. He stated that cul-
de-sacs were not usually that long. Mr. Otis replied that he would
like to talk with Mr. Seaberg about it. They do not want to open
the street to Fremont Way because there would be a congestion
Plan Commission
Page 4 September 3, 1975
problem. Mr. Seaberg stated that the street was less than 500 feet
long and 550 was allowed for a cul-de-sac. He did not feel it would
be a problem for fire and safety vehicles because the Fire Department
has said they would back up their trucks, if necessary.
In reply to a question concerning the stream connecting the two lakes,
Mr. Otis stated that the stream was taken out of the plan because
they found that the water level of the top lake is within a foot of
the level of the bottom lake but there is a hump in the center and
in order to maintain a stream and prevent it from collecting a lot
of algae they would have to provide a pump to keep it going and this
would not be practical. The lake in the lower right hand corner will
serve as a retention area for the surrounding property.
Commissioner Harris asked if they expected an increase in children
with the increase in single family units. Mr. Otis stated that it
is possible. They have an agreement with the school district to
pay their assessed share for the number of children. This should
cover the tax impact in the beginning years.
Commissioner Harris questioned the lack of tot areas in the development.
Mr. Otis said they had plenty of land to work with and if it was a
requirement they would put onein. Mr. Hemphill stated he felt the
single family homeowners want the open space in their own yard.
Commissioner Goldspiel questioned the location of the single family
homes near one of the main entrances and the townhouses further into
the development. Mr. Gingold replied that they are not sure whether
they would be leaving the townhouses and this is what resulted based
upon the stages the plan was in when it was revised.
Commissioner Mendenhall stated that he felt there should be access
to the open area in the northwest corner of the single family homes
in envelopes 130-149. Mr. Otis said he felt this was a good suggestion.
Mr. Otis stated he wanted to send a copy of this plan to the Park
District and have a formal hearing with them before the Public Hearing.
Mr. Lapham stated he felt there would be two requests to be complied
with:
1. They would be most interested in a formal presentation
before final approval.
2. They are still awaiting a response to a letter to Mr. Gingold
asking about the condition of the property at the time it
is conveyed to the Park District and also asking to be
assured the property is free of any liens, liabilities,
back taxes, etc. , at the time it is transfered.
Mr. Gingold stated that after the engineering is completed he will
send a reply to the Park District. A meeting was set up for
September 25 with the Park District.
Plan Commission
Page 5 September 3, 1975
Mr. Seaberg stated that he would like to make a few points:
1. He would like to have a copy of the master drainage
and retention plan for the entire project rather than
the separate phases that they have been working with.
This would be based on the coverage of revised plan B.
2. Typical sidewalks along the streets probably will be
required, especially on Fremont.
3. The point raised about the access to the park can be
worked out.
4. In the Hemphill section, the southeast corner of single
family homes, Fremont Way was planned to be a two lane
circulation street without parking and now they are
putting 14 or 15 single family homes on that street at
one of the main entrances. It will probably be one of
the busiest intersections in the project. Rather than
fronting the homes along Fremont Way, he would like to
see cul-de-sacs there and if this is not possible , he
would like to see the street widened.
5. There may be a construction timing problem with two
developers working on the same project. Construction
traffic should be specifically controlled. This can
be worked out with the developer. In response to this
point, Mr. Otis stated that they have worked this out
and would like to talk with Mr. Seaberg regarding this.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if it would be feasible for the Plan
Commission to wait in scheduling the Public Hearing until the
developer decided which plan he wanted to use. Mr. Gingold replied
that they would work to the Plan Commission' s schedule and will
decide by the time of the Public Hearing.
Chairman Genrich stated the following should be done and when this
information is ready we will schedule the Public Hearing;
1. Decide which plan will be used.
2. Have a meeting with the Park District as early as possible
3. Present a data sheet showing the contrasting school and
village economic impact figures of the original plan and
whatever plan is used and also the contrasting school
population.
4. Provide a summary showing open space and paved area in
contrast of the two plans (and all additional data) .
5. Make contact with the Appearance Commission
6. Meet with Mr. Seaberg and discuss with him the master
drainage and retention plan and give him Public Hearing
information and resolve what the best alternatives are in
terms of sidewalks, paths, school and park access and street widths.
Plan Commission
Page 6 September 3 , 1975
Winston Square
Mr. David Webber from Centex was before the Plan Commission to
again review their revised plan as requested by the Commission at
the August 20 meeting. They are revising the layout of their
zero lot line homes and feel it would be better to develop the
entire area at once.
Mr. Webber informed the Commission that he has spoken with Mr. Crosland
of the Park District and they have tentatively been scheduled for
the September 25 agenda. Mr. Lapham stated that the things they
would be specifically asked to comment on would be their population
projections and the disposition of the school site acreage.
Commissioner Goldspiel questioned the difference between the
5600 square foot lots shown on the data sheet provided by Centex
and the 4700 square foot lots stated in the August 20 minutes.
Mr. Ives stated that the figures had not been computed exactly at
the time of the last meeting. Commissioner Goldspiel stated that
he felt the lots were unusually small and this was unacceptable.
Mr. Webber replied that with what they are proposing the concept
works. They have a 60 foot frontage. Mr. Ives added that they
have to provide a side yard, rear yard, etc. , so it would not be
possible to put too large a house on the lot. There will be 14 feet
between homes.
In response to a question from Commissioner Goldspiel, Mr. Ives
stated that the total population will not be more than what was
proposed before.
Commissioner Harris stated that when this plan was originally brought
in several years ago, it was a very nice site plan but it seems to
be deteriorating as the years go on. He added he did not know why
these were called zero lot line homes because they were homes with
grass around all sides which to him a zero lot line does not have.
He added that the school site is too narrow and he objects to the
5600 square foot lots.
Commissioner Mendenhall stated that he sensed there were many on
the Commission who are not happy with the plan and that now is the
time to work out something that will be different and something that
will utilize the planned unit development concept. The plan presented
is just a typical rectangular type of development. Chairman Genrich
asked that some specific suggestions be made instead of just generalities.
Commissioner Harris stated he felt the major problems with the plan
was lot size , placement of buildings and straight streets.
In response to a request from Chairman Genrich, Commissioner Mendenhall
listed the desirable things on the original plan:
1. Location of the school site
2. Most streets tended to curve to some degree
3. Children could walk to school and cross a minimum of streets
4. There were variations on buildings.
Plan Commission
Page 7 September 3, 1975
Commissioner Jacobs stated that he felt one of the problems was the
plan covered too large an area to get a proper perspective on it.
He added that he had lost the spirit of what ' s gone on before
regarding this project. He would like the members of the Plan Commission
to get together and discuss what has happened with the Centex project
from the beginning to date and what the position of the Commission
is as far as requesting certain changes and work with Centex to get
a plan that can be approved.
Chairman Genrich asked that each commissioner take the plan they have
and sketch ideas on it on how the school site should be shaped or
streets changed or any other ideas and come back to the next meeting
with two or three specific criticisms that they want to see corrected.
He also asked Mr. Webber and Mr. Ives to come in with slides, renderings
or whatever they could to support what was proposed. The Plan Commission
will meet with Centex again Wednesday, September 17.
Adjournment
Commissioner Shields made a motion to adjourn and the motion was
seconded. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
LLTJ
Linda Isonhar , Recording Secretary
APPROVED:
( :14LC�
Carl Genrich, Chairman