Loading...
2008-12-03 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 12/03/2008 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION December 3, 2008 Village Public Works Service Center, 51 Raupp Boulevard— Amendment of special use in the R-8 District concerning Building addition for fleet services and equipment maintenance Facility—Workshop #1 Village Appearance Plan—Review of proposed revisions Discussion of Village Comprehensive Plan Update Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Mr. Khan Mr. Stark Ms. Myer Mr. Weinstein Commissioners absent: Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Cohn Also present: Mr. Brian Wright, SRBL Architects Ms. Jamie Sweders, SRBL Architects Mr. William Brimm, Village Manager Mr. Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Manager Mr. Gregory Boysen, Village Director of Public Works Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES—None COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Weinstein attended the Village Board meeting on December 1, 2008 and stated there were no matters for the Plan Commission. VILLAGE PUBLIC WORKS SERVICE CENTER, 51 RAUPP BOULEVARD — AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL USE IN THE R-8 DISTRICT CONCERNING BUILDING ADDITION FOR FLEET SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FACILITY — WORKSHOP 91 Ms. Neukirch stated public works is the largest operating department of the Village. It is the fleet division that is responsible for ensuring the safe operation of police cars, fire trucks, ambulances, public works vehicles, building vehicles and other Village vehicles. She introduced the leaders of the department as well as other members of the staff team that have been working on the proposed expansion to the public services building. Ms. Neukirch stated overall the department has 65 full and part time employees and there are 95 vehicles stored on site. The existing building was constructed in 1976 and since that time it has undergone two building additions as well as several renovations to the interior space to make it more functional. Ms. Neukirch stated they have done a space needs analysis which identified that the appropriate and most efficient size facility for a department such as this is close to 66,000 square feet and this center is less than 50,000 square feet. She stated they are proposing an approximate 14,000 square foot building addition for the fleet services. They asked the necessary questions such as is this building addition really needed. She noted they have been looking at different options for about ten years now. In 1998 they undertook a study to take a look at operational efficiencies and different renovations they could conduct to the building just to make it more efficient for the overall operation of the department. In addition, they also looked at options of either leasing or purchasing property off of the municipal complex and weighed the advantages and disadvantages of all options. The proposal tonight is the best of all options. Ms. Neukirch stated it does provide much needed space for the department and the primary motivation is really from a safety perspective. It also allows them to keep all of the operations of the public services department on site. This addition not only provides for additional space for the fleet services department but also provides much needed floor repair, the replacement of nitrous oxide detection and exhaust system, replacement of the fire alarm system, new lighting in the vehicle storage area, repairs to the sanitary sewer ejector pit and providing a damper on the flue for the garage pressure washer system. Ms. Neukirch stated the Village Board did approve an architectural services agreement with SRBL Architects and they have been working with the architect team. They have completed the first phase which is schematic design. At this time they have just started the second phase of the plan. They want to present the proposed plans to the Plan Commission at this time to get feedback. She noted they will be providing regular status reports to the Village Board and formal presentations to the Board after every phase of the project. Mr. Brian Wright walked through the plan. He stated they tried to maximize as much space as they could for the fleet services. Therefore, they are trying to work with the topography of the site and the existing building as much as possible. One of the goals was to see how quickly they could get vehicles in a safe way and also return them back to the street via Church or Raupp in a safe way. On the west side of the site they have enlarged the drive apron and allow for trucks to pull into the large apparatus bay and then pull back out onto Raupp as safely as possible. The proposed scheme has four service bays along Church Street and then it has two large apparatus work stations on the west side of the site. Some other considerations they have tried to work into the plan is the incorporation of some green elements to provide some landscape buffer on the north side. Mr. Wright noted the service bays on the north side along Church Street. They have taken a good look at many of the turning radii to make sure that traffic flow wise will work. Ms. Sweders spoke on the elevations. She walked through the plans for the expanded building. She noted the overhead doors on Church street are screened when you are going east on Church street and there is a green screen on the west end of the building that covers up the brick and makes it a little bit greener space. There are also clear story windows with the screen above the windows and the coping matches the building along with the masonry. Ms. Sweders stated the side facing Raupp which has a green screening and the portion of the existing building will have matching coping and existing brick. Ms. Sweders spoke of Option B which has a planter wall on the west end of the building instead of the green screen. The green screen goes up a little bit further and covers a little more of the building. Ms. Sweders introduced Option C which has a few shrubs up against the building but trees have also been added. Ms. Sweders further noted another option in response to one of the trustee's comments showing a pilaster element to break up the elevation. In order to do something a bit different with the elevation so that it did not look like the existing building, they could use a different coping piece on top of the building. Ms. Sweders showed an example of the green screen which does hide a good majority of the building when it is in bloom and also blocks out a lot of the sunlight in summer. Ms. Sweders spoke of the sustainable highlights. She stated there are five features in LEED and their credits. One of the credits is a previously developed site which we have here. She stated they can also use native landscaping which is also a positive because these plants have a greater availability and they will grow better in the conditions in this area. She noted they can also use night sky protection which is simply lighting that aims down. It is not aiming out to adjacent properties and it is not being wasted as it is being filtered on the site. Under water efficiency she noted they can choose not to use potable water for landscaping. If possible if they are using native landscaping they can do away with some potable water so they will not have to irrigate with drinking water. They can use low flow fixtures to reduce water in urinals and they can use faucet sensors to reduce water output. They are working with their mechanical consultants to talk about high efficient HVAC units which are pretty standard now. High performance lighting is done pretty often now. Just by using different fixtures that are still aesthetically pleasing they can do away with a lot of wasted energy on lighting. As far as materials and resources she noted we are re-using the building and that is a credit. They will be using all of the exterior walls and a majority of the existing concrete slabs. She stated they have a choice to not waste construction debris. It can be diverted from landfills and specify that it needs to be recycled and they can also specify recycle content and products. They can also use locally manufactured materials which would be within a 500 mile radius. That has a couple of benefits specifically with the economy as it is now. If materials are used which are nearby delivery time is cut down and also the carbon footprint. For the indoor environmental quality they often specify low emitting materials. In day lighting they are providing that with their clear story window throughout the bay. It also has a benefit to the users in this bay and you are using less indoor light and therefore less energy. Commissioner Stark noted the space needs analysis requires more room than is being asked for so why not make the building bigger. Ms. Neukirch stated that would be ideal but unfortunately with the space constraints there is not an opportunity to go larger. They are really maximizing the available land and the opportunities that are there right now. Mr. Boysen stated the work plan developed will be extremely functional for them and they would be delighted if they can get this into place and it will address a number of safety issues for them. Commissioner Stark asked if the crawling vines would be only on the west side. Mr. Wright stated yes that is their intention as they are really trying to address the west side of the site which faces Raupp. Commissioner Stark noted it was mentioned that it would be a good cooling tool and asked if it would be better than the trees. Mr. Wright stated if they could have a combination there it would be ideal. Commissioner Khan asked what the expansion is really for. Mr. Wright stated the expansion goal is to meet the needs of the maintenance of the vehicles and so each of the bays would have a lift. On the left side is where the largest vehicles could be maintained. The benefit of the addition is that it will then free up space in the existing vehicle storage area so there will be some extra room in there for a more efficient layout. Commissioner Khan asked if they have looked into having a contract with an outside garage for these kinds of services rather than doing this expansion. Mr. Boysen stated they have and they are quite confident that they would lose the efficiency. They have looked at contracting of various small elements but just the transportation of vehicles would be very burdensome. This is by far the most cost effective way to address vehicle maintenance. Commissioner Khan asked if we have looked at leasing a place elsewhere because some of the equipment is seasonal. Mr. Boysen stated they had looked at several different alternate sites for this component offsite siting and it is surprising how expensive it really is. Then you get into the logistical requirements for parking of garage equipment. Mr. Brimm stated they had looked into offsite use and one of the major drawbacks was there was no space you could drive into. Any space that was available was at a loading dock which was inefficient. Frankly, the space was priced at a level that paying rent was at a level that was greater than the cost of borrowing money to have a permanent improvement. Commissioner Khan asked how much this addition will cost. Mr. Wright stated they have broken the budget down into several items. There is the addition itself that is really the largest portion of the estimate but there are also some modifications to the existing building that would be included. One of the most significant ones is that a large portion of the vehicle storage area has deteriorated concrete and they have a consultant doing a study to replace the concrete inside the building. There are also some replacements of fire alarm system, working out a new generator and sprinkler. The total cost of construction for the higher priority items is that the addition itself is somewhere around 3.2 million and then some of the mechanical, electrical and plumbing work which brings the total construction estimate to around 3.9 million. Commissioner Khan asked what kind of service cuts would be likely if this expansion does not proceed. Ms. Neukirch stated the first thing that is of greatest importance is safety. Right now with 95 vehicles stored on site there are significant safety concerns they deal with on a daily basis. The other issue is time management and the efficiency of the department. With the vehicles both inside and outside and the space constraints they are wasting time getting organized in the morning and at the end of the day. There would be a lot of efficiency gained with a designated space for fleet services division as well as additional space to the north. Commissioner Bocek asked if vehicles pull into the bays or pull up to it and how a fire truck is serviced. Mr. Wright stated the vehicles would come in off of Church Street from the north side and pull into the four bays. On the left side with the larger spaces is where the larger pieces of equipment would come in. Because they are so large the entrance drive has been widened off of Raupp so that they can come with a nice turning radius. Ms. Bocek stated she is not a fan of making the elevations as different as has been shown. She stated she feels it is important that it ties together at the same point creating interest. She feels Option C is the best solution. Commissioner Weinstein asked if there is a long term projection as to the number of vehicles that will be needed for the Village. Is there a certain point where we will be full again? Ms. Neukirch stated the community is pretty much built out right now. The equipment they can see for the future is equipment that would aid the department as the infrastructure ages. It is anticipated that they would need more support on the water mains and the sewer mains with reconstruction, etc. She stated they do not anticipate much more additional vehicles being added to the fleet but the vehicles will just change to allow us to better serve the public. Commissioner Weinstein asked if the traffic flow on Church Street is likely to change considerably as a result of this expansion. Mr. Brimm commented that the traffic due to the Public Works operation is fairly steady throughout the day on Church Road and Raupp Boulevard, and the pattern and volume is not expected to change after the building expansion. Commissioner Weinstein asked if there will be any delineation as to where Church street ends and the driveways begin. Mr. Wright stated there will be a little bit of a curb there that will be built in but they are trying to work with the grades that out there as much as possible. There would be some differentiation in that respect. However, it would be right up against the curb line. Ms. Neukirch stated that unless you are golfing or going for Village business, the traffic that does go through here is pretty much cut through traffic. The rendering in the packet creates a new"back entrance" to the municipal campus. The sidewalk is on the west side of the street and if there are any pedestrians that are traveling down that sidewalk they would direct them to the side where the police station is and they would have some time of either stamping of the pavement or some type of delineation which would create a new entrance to the community. Mr. Weinstein asked if there is any rendering to show what the green screening looks like out of season when it is bare. Mr. Wright stated a lot of the plants are ivy based and when they are dormant for the winter season you would still see the vines but the leaves would fall off. Commissioner Khan asked if the expansion meets the zoning setback requirement from the Church street right-of-way. Mr. Wright stated it is his understanding they do meet the requirements. Mr. Boysen noted that at the time the Village built the police station and the golf clubhouse there was a resubdivision of the property. It is basically a large one lot subdivision called the Village Campus subdivision. The police station has the Raupp address and there is no right—of—way north of Lake Cook Road in the Village Campus subdivision. Commissioner Smith asked if there are any residents that need to be notified. Mr. Pfeil indicated that some residents in the Manchester Greens subdivision would be close enough to the site to receive a mail notice concerning the hearing. Commissioner Smith asked if there will be any effect on these people. Mr. Brimm said that the proposed addition will not affect properties adjacent to the Village campus. VILLAGE APPEARANCE PLAN—REVIEW OF PROPOSED REVISIONS Ms. Neukirch stated the staff has been working on updating the Village's Appearance Plan Commission which was last updated in April, 2003. It is a document that regulates all properties within the Village. She noted they have looked at the appearance plan and different opportunities to make the plan more efficient, more business friendly, and more resident friendly. As part of their initial research they conducted a great deal of other community plans and compared ours to theirs. Ms. Neukirch stated the plan currently consists of two review processes both major and minor. They are recommending a five step approach. Included in the description is the administrative deviation of sign criteria with variation of the sign code minor and major. Under the major process, Berenesa Plaza, Land and Lakes are two of the biggest projects which are currently under way in the Village and they are major development. They would fall under the major process which would involve a presentation to the Village Board and referral to the Plan Commission if the Board saw fit. It would follow similar procedures we have done whereby we are working with the petitioner on the appearance elements of that specific project. Eventually the full Commission would see a report and recommendation from the Appearance Review team and that would be a document the Plan Commission could further comment on. Then eventually it would go to the Village Board for final consideration. The minor process that is being proposed is to work with a property owner to make sure there is good compatibility with a change in one or more of the commercial entities in a mall, such as the Dominick's development on Dundee and Buffalo Grove Road. Under the minor process the painting of the shopping center that is a significant change in the appearance of the building and that is something that we would want to include Plan Commission representation in that review process for feedback. Then it would be a recommendation that would go to the Village Board for final consideration. Ms. Neukirch stated there are 22 shopping centers in Buffalo Grove and each shopping center owner has an opportunity to establish special sign criteria that regulates that shopping center in addition to the standards of the Village Sign Code. If a business proposes new signage which meets the Sign Code but deviates from the approved sign package for the development, the Zoning Board of Appeals would review the request. Ms. Neukirch stated that Taco Bell was a recent project where staff worked with the petitioner. They underwent a significant improvement to that restaurant. That involved variations to the sign code because they wanted directional signs and more signs than that development would allow per the sign code. We would work with representatives of the zoning board and put together a report and recommendation that would go back to the Village Board. Ms. Neukirch stated the administrative review would be anything else that does not fall under that. It would be projects that would not require an ordinance for board consideration. An example is a resident who wanted to modify about 60 percent of their roof and change it from the existing roof to a greenhouse, all glass roof. It had a number of environmental benefits and the building commissioner supported the plan. That was reviewed under an administrative nature. That is something that we would work as the appearance review team on a staff level. Ms. Neukirch stated when they had the meeting with the representatives of the Plan Commission and the Zoning Board it was recommended that we include some type of language in the appearance plan which related to environmental or green initiatives so they have included under the purpose and jurisdiction environmentally responsible design and construction recommendations. Chairman Ottenheimer stated when he and Commissioner Myer attended the meeting they were very impressed with all the work that had been done already. It made it easy for them to make a few comments and tweaks only. Commissioner Bocek stated the general outline is great and works probably 95 percent of the time. The only one tweak she would like to have is the monotony code. She wants to make sure that a color change is truly a different hue and not just a name change. Commissioner Stark asked how the Village can encourage environmentally responsible design and LEED initiatives. Ms. Neukirch stated they do not feel at this time that they can really require anything. But they can supply several examples and recommendations to petitioners, depending on the project they are working on. Overall they have been doing that but what they hear often is how expensive it makes construction. We would ask people to look into and prove to us that they have done their research on it. Commissioner Weinstein asked what the thought was behind the deletion at the end of Article III. Mr. Pfeil commented that the text was moved to page 3. DISCUSSION OF VILLAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Mr. Pfeil said a revised future land use map of the Aptakisic Road corridor with some mixed uses and other concepts for the Didier property will be presented at the December 17, 2008 meeting. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTCHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil said the next meeting is scheduled for December 17, 2008. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONSPUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Weinstein and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair