Loading...
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