Loading...
2003-02-19 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 02/19/2003 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION February 19, 2003 Groundwork,Ltd. —Proposed office building on Lot 3 (part) of Covington Office Plaza,Amendment of a Planned Unit Development In the B-3 District—Workshop #1 Village Appearance Plan—Review of draft of the comprehensive Revision—Workshop Review of Plan Commission Annual Report, January—December 2002 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. Samuels Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Billiter Mr. Stark Commissioners absent: Teplinsky Also present: Mr. Richard Vane, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. David Wytmar, Groundwork, Ltd. Ms. Ghida Neukirch, Assistant Village Manager Ms. Laurie Marston Ms. DeAnn Glover, Village Trustee Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES—None COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Khan attended the Village Board meeting on February 18, 2003 where there was nothing to refer to the Plan Commission. Rezoning for the mixed use at Riverwalk North was approved. GROUNDWORK, LTD. — PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING ON Lot 3 (PART) OF COVINGTON OFFICE PLAZA, AMENDMENT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE B-3 DISTRICT—WORKSHOP 91 Mr. Vane stated they are interested in building an office building in Buffalo Grove. He stated last summer Fifth Third Bank came in along with Insignia Homes at the site on Dundee Road where they are presently constructing a bank and townhomes. At that time they were looking at options to give the Village additional square footage of commercial on that site which was originally planned for a 28,000 square foot 2-story office building on Lot 3. At that time they showed a plan with the possibility of an additional building on that site. He stated they do a great deal of work in Buffalo Grove and it would be nice to have an office here. He stated they have a stake in Buffalo Grove both commercially and personally. Where you can get additional tax revenue benefits with a building that would not create undue burden on the property would be a great possibility. Mr. Vane stated they are proposing a building of 4,250 square feet with 17 parking spaces. They propose to comply with any needs to adjust the handicapped ramp placement as noted in a staff memo. There were also comments about the 2-foot distance from a small portion of the entry. There have been discussions with the building department who feels that is not really an issue, as there is adequate access to the building on the north side. Also there was a question about the sidewalk clearance and he noted they would be maintaining 36-inch clear width of sidewalk in front of any of the parking spaces so that it will comply with ADA requirements. Mr. Vane noted that this site has already been programmed so that there is water, sanitary and stormsewer adjacent to this lot. The potential for the area of that lot in imperviousness was programmed into the MWRD calculations for detention volume so that the volume that was designed when the bank and townhomes were built is already programmed in. Therefore, all the engineering that was needed for that site was already done. Mr. Wytmar stated they have designed the elevations to be complimentary to the residential character of the area. There are pitched roofs and the building is mostly brick with a bit of dryvit accents and shingle roof. The height in comparison to the bank next door has the top of the parapet at 15 feet. The tops of the peak of the roofs are 22-23 feet and the peak of the element is 26-27 feet. In comparison the bank next door has its peak roof at 26 feet. For the interior they have incorporated brick, caststone, limestone and dryit. Interiors have 10-foot high ceilings, which lets them to do some interesting things with the windows such as transom windows. Mr. Vane stated they contacted the Covington Homeowner's President, the Coves Homeowner's President and the Kingswood Methodist Church. They were all sent packets of information regarding the building. He further noted they are seeking two variations to accomplish the proj ect: 1. Variation to the west property line: Currently the existing office building has a variation for a 40-foot setback and they are looking for a 35-foot setback. They can have the parking up to the lot line, but there are large mature trees along the property line that they are trying to stay away from. Being a best neighbor to the church would be to keep the building and parking away from them. Rather than moving the building to comply with an increased setback and having to put the parking there, would not be a benefit to the church. This siting would be the most appropriate and puts the building in the midst of the parking. 2. Variation for a solid screen of some sort along the west property line as this is zoned residential. However, this is zoned residential but it is being used as a church. There is a very large parking lot present. It is about 100 feet from the edge of the church to the end of the property line. The proposed building will be about 120-130 feet away from the church. Most of the intervening land is used as a parking lot there. He noted there is no fence along the larger existing office building and it seems somewhat incongruous to put a fence up for this project. He stated they would be happy to look at the landscaping here. They have provided some additional trees, evergreens and ornamental trees, along where they have a larger shade tree buffer and feel this would be an appropriate method to keep the screening attractive. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka noted that as a member of the church she does not feel there would be any objection to the landscaping instead of screening. She asked about sidewalks on the side parking so that people in the far westernmost parking spot can get to the side. Mr. Vane stated they did not extend the sidewalk over, as they did not feel it was necessary and they would prefer to landscape more there. Commissioner Bocek asked if the south and west elevations will be similar in design to the other elevations as they will be facing the townhomes and the west will be very highly visible. Mr. Vane stated yes. Commissioner Bocek asked if it would be possible to get the entire layout, including the bank, townhouses and office building, so that the entire flow can be seen. Commissioner Bocek asked where the primary parking location would be for employees. Mr. Vane stated they would be able to use either door on the south or the east. He noted he thinks most employees will be entering on the south, leaving the front open for visitors. Commissioner Bocek noted concern with some impact from bank traffic. Mr. Vane stated they would look at that, although they have very few visitors in a week. Commissioner Bocek asked why the building could not just be reduced by 5 feet to meet the setback requirement of 40 feet. Mr. Vane stated they could do that. However, if they take the 5 feet out, they end up with more of a box and they were trying to get the building to move a bit. By doing some jogging back and forth they were able to create more visual interest and make the building nicer. Chairman Ottenheimer asked when construction would begin. Mr. Vane stated it would hopefully be around June or July. The Plan Commission felt one more workshop would be needed at which time the following items were needed: 1. Landscaping detail 2. Samples of building materials 3. Layout of property as a whole 4. Address the handicapped space 5. Exterior lighting VILLAGE APPEARANCE PLAN — REVIEW OF DRAFT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE REVISION—WORKSHOP Ms. Neukirch gave an overview of the background in reviewing the appearance plan. She noted the first appearance plan was adopted in 1972. The Village had about 11,000 people and was a very different community. In 1999 the Appearance Commission was dissolved in effort to streamline the process and make it a bit more pro-business and more efficient in its operation. The appearance issues were then handled by either the Plan Commission or the ZBA. In 2001 they started the comprehensive review of the proposed document. She stated they compiled a staff team as well as getting continuous feedback from other staff personnel including Ray Rigsby, Dick Kuenkler, and Bill Raysa. She noted they had obtained Rules of Procedures, appearance guides and appearance plans from neighboring municipalities, discovered what the most up to date information was being used by other municipalities and took the best from all those plans to put together this proposed plan. In addition they researched different professional guides which were used as references for this process. She further noted they had Mr. Raysa, the Village Attorney provide them with a comprehensive review to make sure the document was meeting the expectations and all legal issues were being addressed. They also worked with Laurie Marston as a consultant on this project. Meetings then began in June, 2002 which included meeting minutes, which were compiled and sent to the Village Board. When the plan was put together it was then supplied to the Chamber of Commerce, local government committee and economic development committee that the Chamber has as well as to the executive director and Board of Directors. She stated they received a letter from an individual who is a resident and architect who serves on the board. He was very clear that his opinion letter was as a resident and architect. A copy of that letter will be provided at the next workshop. Ms. Neukirch stated they wanted to establish a comprehensive guide that can be used by property owners, developers, staff and officials on the Plan Commission and ZBA. They want to promote creativity, encourage development of attractive architectural and site design elements and at the same time maintain a high standard of development that the Village expects and the community demands. The plan is administered in conjunction with other Village regulations so there are references to the sign code, zoning ordinance, development ordinance and they have taken pieces of those regulations as they relate to appearance and incorporated them into the plan. They also had a great deal of the pictures incorporated into the document. They felt it was good to give users of the plan an idea of what is recommended and what should be avoided. In order to avoid embarrassment to anyone, all pictures that are negative are not located in Buffalo Grove and they have tried to eliminate the names wherever possible. Another issue brought up in the letter they received was a concern that this process was too punitive. They have established an appearance review team. The team will consist of the Assistant Village Manager, Village Planner, the Associate Planner and one representative of the Plan Commission or the ZBA. The chairperson of that respective group would designate one individual from the Commission to serve on each project. They would extend an invitation to the trustee liaison to participate in this review and they would include other staff as appropriate. The meetings would be scheduled to be convenient with the petitioner as well as with whoever is serving in the appearance review team. She noted they would work with the petitioners on a case by case basis. The appearance review team will be working at the same time the workshops are being held. Every meeting the review team has will be documented by minutes to be shared with the full Plan Commission. Then the project is ready for public hearing; the appearance review team would have to have a final report and recommendation that would be presented to ZBA or the Plan Commission. Ms. Neukirch highlighted four issues from the letter received from the resident/architect: 1. Architectural detailing —It was noted that a lack of detail often makes the design significant. We recognize that sometimes a lack of detail is needed. 2. Recommend changing the word"shall" to "should" in Article V, B 17. This issue should not be so much a directive as much as a recommendation of the Village. This is to encourage creativity. 3. Monotony Code—It was recommended to change from every third property to every fourth property. The concern was that with infill development it is often costly and more time consuming for a developer and owner to require them to have every fourth house be substantially similar. We want to set high standards and strive to have everyone meet those standards. 4. Building materials —It was suggested in the letter that the building materials be left off. However, they have detailed in the appearance plan that certain materials are encouraged. They have established under this section also that no more than 25% of a building can be constructed with EIFIS to encourage a mixture of materials. Chairman Ottenheimer noted his thanks to all those who were part of this process. He asked if this matter is ready for public hearing and the Commission agreed. He noted the hearing should be scheduled well in advance to provide enough time to solicit the input to the plan and the Plan Commission has enough time to review them. Commissioner Samuels noted that page 5, Article 4B states "architectural details shall be considered for new developments." He stated that "shall be considered" should be changed to "should", as that would be more consistent with the tone of the sentence. REVIEW OF PLAN COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT, JANUARY—DECEMBER 2002 Chairman Ottenheimer stated the report really puts into perspective what the Commission has done this past year. It is a wonderful guide to look back on. He noted it seems the appearance issues will now be brought to the Plan Commission through recommendations from a sub-committee and asked if that is something to be added to this report. Commissioner Billiter stated the entire team is to be commended. The organization, presentation, the packets are well documented and very professional. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next scheduled meeting would be held on March 5, 2003. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS -None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Stark, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair