Loading...
2002-03-06 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 03/06/2002 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION March 6, 2002 Proposed condominiums, east side of Buffalo Grove Road across From Church Road, rezoning to B-5 District for parcels currently Zoned R-E and approval of a Preliminary Plan in the B-5 District And appearance review concerning building elevations and materials Avis Investments, St. Mary Parish Rectory, Rezoning to the R-1 District and approval of a Special Use for construction of a new Rectory/administrative facility and appearance review concerning Building elevations and materials on the Eul property, northwest Corner of Buffalo Grove Road/Lake Cook Road Proposed Cosmic Zone family entertainment center, Buffalo Grove Town Center, (former Cub Foods building),Amendment of the Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) in the B-5 Town Center District—Workshop #2 Village Zoning Map—Annual Review Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 10:15 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Trilling Ms. Dunn Mr. Panitch Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Commissioners absent: Mr. Feldgreber Also present: Mr. Bernard Citron, Schain, Burney, Ross & Citron Mr. Mark Avis Avis Investments Mr. Michael G. Fitzgerald, Otis Koglin Wilson Mr. Michael Werthmann, Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara Aboona Mr. Ronald Adams, Pearson, Brown & Associates Ms. Pat Young, Garrison Partners Consulting Mr. Bill Feldgreber, Amlex Developers Ms. Debi Kamick, Amlex Developers Mr. Williams Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Bruce Kahn, Village Trustee Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to approve the minutes of the Public Hearing minutes of February 6, 2002. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 6, 2002. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Kenski-Sroka attended the Village Board meeting on March 4, 2002 and stated there was nothing pertaining to the Plan Commission. PROPOSED CONDOMINIUMS, EAST SIDE OF BUFFALO GROVE ROAD ACROSS FROM CHURCH ROAD, REZONING TO B-5 DISTRICT FOR PARCELS CURRENTLY ZONED R-E AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN IN THE B-5 DISTRICT AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CONCERNING BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, to recommend approval to the Village Board of the petition for approval of rezoning from the Residential Estate (RE) District (for the properties at 105, 115, 125, 135 Buffalo Grove Road and the vacant parcel (PIN 15-33-300-016) north of 105 Buffalo Grove Road)to the B-5 Town Center Planned District (Residential sub-district) with a Residential Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and approval of a Preliminary Plan for the area legally described below with the following variations: ZONING ORDINANCE — Section 17.44.060.D.1.b. (to allow a lot area of 4.1 acres instead of 5 acres); Section 17.44.060.D.11. (to allow a buffer strip of less than 25 feet for a parking area and paved access aisle on the east side of the site;) as depicted on the Preliminary Plan submitted for the public hearing); DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE— Section 16.50.080A.1. (to allow the existing sidewalk along the east side of Buffalo Grove Road to remain instead of relocating the sidewalk to within one foot of the right-of-way to be dedicated along the east side of Buffalo Grove Road for the portion of the sidewalk north of the required right-turn deceleration lane); Section 16.50.040.C.4. (to allow side slopes of 3:1, to allow elimination of the 12-foot, 2% area adjacent to the top of slope and reduction of the minimum pond depth to 4 feet for the stormwater storage facilities) in order that the petitioner may remove the existing structures on the site and construct 100 residential condominium units in two buildings with a height of 66 feet (4 stories over parking, pursuant to documents submitted in support of the petition and testimony given on behalf of the petitioner, subject to: 1. Village staff and building department approval of the landscape and lighting plans. Commissioner Bocek suggested removal of the color bands on the base of the building. Commissioner Trilling asked if the petitioner would consider something more in harmony with the stone. He stated the stripe was too pronounced. Mr. Fitzgerald stated they are open to revising the brick band to a stone band of a rough-cut texture. Commissioner Bocek moved to amend the motion to include changing the brick band at the base of the building to a stone that is less contrasting than the existing brick. Commissioner Samuels seconded the motion. All commissioners were in favor of amending the motion and the motion was amended. Commissioner Samuels stated that overall this project is important to the Village and to the Town Center, although he does not believe this plan is properly parked. This project will provide some of the density needed to support the Town Center. He wishes that something could have been done with BP Auto, but given the good faith effort made to do so, the developer should not be punished for something beyond his control. Therefore, he will support the motion. Commissioner Panitch commended the team for their efforts and in communicating with all of the neighbors. This will be a fine addition to the Village and he will support the motion. Commissioner Dunn stated the developer has done a good job, and this project will benefit the Village and the people of Buffalo Grove. She said that she hopes the development will improve Town Center, and she is in favor of the project. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he echoes the sentiments of all the commissioners in commending the developer. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Samuels, Trilling, Dunn, Panitch, Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Ottenheimer NAPES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Feldgreber The motion passed 8 to 0. AVIS INVESTMENTS, ST MARY PARISH RECTORY, REZONING TO THE R-1 DISTRICT AND APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RECTORY/ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITY AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CONCERNING BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS ON THE EUL PROPERTY, NORTHWEST CORNER OF BUFFALO GROVE ROAD/LAKE COOK ROAD Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Panitch to recommend approval to the Village Board for the petition for approval of rezoning from the Residential Estate (RE) to the R-1 One-family Dwelling District with a Special Use for a rectory and approval of a Preliminary Plan with the following variations: ZONING ORDINANCE— Section 17.40.020.B. (to allow a north side yard of less than 10% of the lot width); DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE— Section 16.50.070.D.2. (to allow a right-of-way of 50 feet instead of 54 feet from the centerline of Buffalo Grove Road); Section 16.50.100.C. (to waive the requirement for street lighting along Lake Cook Road), so that the petitioner can remove the existing structures on the site and construct a two-story rectory building with administrative offices, pursuant to testimony produced at the public hearing and the documents and exhibits introduced in evidence in support thereof, subject to further discussion regarding appearance. Commissioner Samuels stated he feels there are still appearance issues regarding this building that should be addressed. However, he does feel that the use is proper, the zoning change should be made and the preliminary plan is a good one. There are certain elements of the appearance that he feels are important but are not part of the Plan Commission's charge. Chairman Ottenheimer asked what Commissioner Samuel's concerns are regarding the appearance issues. Commissioner Samuels stated he still has a problem with the roof. Trustee Kahn stated the Board is aware of the problem for the Plan Commission relating to appearance review and they are discussing ways to restructure the process. Commissioner Trilling stated he would support the motion as it stands. He feels this is a great site that has been acquired. He would not have been as positive toward this development without this property. Chairman Ottenheimer asked how this subject to further appearance review would work. Mr. Citron stated it is their wish to move forward with some certainty as to what they are building here. The building meets the programmatic issues that it should. It clearly does not stand out negatively at this site. It is their preference to approve the appearance as it stands. In terms of the roof material, they must reiterate that any request for a slate roof cannot be met financially. Therefore, they request that this be settled this evening so they can move forward with some certainty as this all factors into the economic viability of the entire project. Commissioner Trilling stated he supports the idea of the zoning. He stated that the proposed asphalt shingle is an attractive shingle and this building will be so high that it will not always be visible. He stated he would personally prefer to move forward entirely on the project. Commissioner Samuels asked what is the weight of the proposed asphalt shingle. Mr. Fitzgerald stated they do not have that specification available at this time. Commissioner Samuels stated he would like to see something in the nature of a 450-pound shingle. Mr. Avis stated he will have Mr. Fitzgerald submit the specifics of the proposed shingle and whatever the specifics of the shingle are, that is what they are proposing. Commissioner Samuels asked if they would consider going to a heavier weight shingle. Mr. Avis stated no. Commissioner Bocek stated the north and south elevation appear to have lost something when the shed dormer was abandoned. Mr. Fitzgerald noted there is an eave overhang from the roof. That overhang sits above the stone lintel of the window. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka moved to call the question. The motion was seconded by Commission Trilling. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the motion was to approve the motion subject to further appearance review. The vote was as follows: AYES: Samuels, Bocek NAPES: Trilling, Dunn, Panitch, Smith, Kenski-Sroka, Ottenheimer ABSENT: Feldgreber ABSTAIN: None The motion was defeated 6 to 2. Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Dunn for a favorable recommendation of the project as it stands. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Trilling, Dunn, Panitch, Smith, Kenski-Sroka, Ottenheimer NAPES: Samuels, Bocek ABSENT: Feldgreber ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 6 to 2. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the proposed Cosmic Zone family entertainment center project was deferred to March 20, 2002. VILLAGE ZONING MAP—ANNUAL REVIEW Moved by Commissioner Trilling, seconded by Commissioner Dunn to recommend approval of the Village Zoning Map. Commissioner Samuels asked what 485 Dundee Road was all about. Mr. Pfeil stated that was a forced annexation at the east edge of the Village. It was an unincorporated parcel and the Village Board force annexed the one parcel on the south side of Dundee road. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Samuels, Trilling, Dunn, Panitch, Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Ottenheimer NAPES: None ABSTAIN: Samuels ABSENT: Feldgreber The motion passed 8 to 0. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated there would be a meeting on March 20, 2002. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Smith and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 03/06/2002 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION March 6, 2002 Avis Investments, St Mary Parish Rectory, Rezoning to the R-I District and approval of a Special Use for construction of a new Rectory/administrative facility and appearance review concerning building elevations and materials on the Eul property, northwest corner of Buffalo Grove Road/Lake Cook Road Chairman Ottenheimer called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Chairman Ottenheimer read the Notice of Public Hearing as published in the Buffalo Grove Daily Herald, explained the procedure to be followed for the public hearing and swore in all persons who wished to give testimony. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Trilling Ms. Dunn Mr. Panitch Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Commissioners absent: Mr. Feldgreber Also present: Mr. Mark Avis, Avis Investments Mr. Bernard Citron, Schain, Burney, Ross & Citron Mr. Michael Fitzgerald, Otis Koglin Wilson Mr. Michael Werthmann, Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara Aboona Mr. Ronald Adams, Pearson, Brown & Associates Ms. Pat Young, Garrison Partners Consulting Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Bruce Kahn, Village Trustee Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit 1: Site Survey dated February 15, 2002 Exhibit 2: Campus Plan dated March 6, 2002 Exhibit 3: Preliminary Site Plan dated March 6, 2002 Exhibit 4: Landscape Plan dated March 6, 2002 Exhibit 5: Building elevations dated February 15, 2002 Exhibit 6: Tree Survey dated February 28, 2002 Exhibit 7: Materials List dated February 15, 2002 Exhibit 8: Preliminary Engineering Plan dated February 12, 2002 Exhibit 9: Building plans of Rectory dated February 15, 2002 Exhibit 10: Photometric Plan dated February 15, 2002 Mr. Citron stated they are seeking approval of the rezoning to R-1 of the property located at the northwest corner of Buffalo Grove Road and Lake Cook Road and a Special Use for church uses. In addition they are requesting a small variation to allow a north side yard of less than 10 percent of lot width and to allow a somewhat smaller right-of-way from Lake Cook Road. This is because they are proposing to build a new rectory and church office building at the northwest corner. Mr. Fitzgerald stated this project has two components, a residence for the three staff priests, which includes three private apartments plus one guest suite. This portion of the building also includes common living and dining space, kitchen and 3-car garage. The second element is the parish offices. The building is composed of a 2-story structure with an attached garage and is located in the eastern portion of the site. Considerable topography as well as considerable vegetation characterizes the site. The building is pulled to the eastern portion and northern portion of the site and is adhering to the 40-foot setback along Buffalo Grove Road. It is exceeding the 40-foot building setback along Lake Cook Road. They are asking for a variance for the sideyard setback on the northern property line. That setback is required to be 13 '/z feet. The building is about 10 feet from that property line with a porch that extends even further into the setback to about 6 feet. Mr. Fitzgerald stated the reason for the location of the building in this corner is because they wanted to hold the corner of the campus as well as hold the corner of this important intersection within the city. Yet the building is buffered and screened from the intersection by being set back considerably from the intersection. In addition it is screened by the considerable vegetation, especially along Buffalo Grove Road. The parking is located to the west of the structure, spanning a zone between the proposed structure and the existing parking. The entry into the parking area is pulled towards the middle or western part of that northern boundary line. This allows for a considerable amount of stacking in the morning off of Buffalo Grove Road to enter into the project before one needs to turn into this parking area. It also allows for this considerable stacking to exit out onto Buffalo Grove Road when leaving this parking area. Other reasons include the topography. There is a considerable grade change in the northern and eastern portion of the site. Mr. Fitzgerald stated there are two entrances to the building; one on the north side which is the entrance to the residential portion and an entrance on the west side which is the entrance to the more public office portion directly off the parking. The zoning requires that this building provide 13 spaces of parking including one handicapped space. They are showing a total of 20 outdoor spaces in addition to the three indoor spaces in the garage. There are two handicapped parking spaces being provided. The reason for parking in excess of what is required is because they are meeting the parking that currently exists at the rectory on the east side of Buffalo Grove Road. Therefore there will be no net loss in parking when they relocate to this side. Mr. Fitzgerald noted pedestrian access to this site is in two locations; one is a walkway leading from the property to the north to the existing walkway system of the school. This existing walkway of the school then ties into the public walkway along Buffalo Grove road. A second link to the public walkway is proposed along the south portion of the site linking in with the Lake Cook Road public walkway. Mr. Fitzgerald reviewed the landscape plan noting the idea is to enhance existing vegetation as well as the prepared planning scheme using a combination of deciduous and evergreen plantings. They are looking to enforce the private nature of the residential component of this building with adequate screening. There is a considerable amount of existing vegetation along the north and eastern portion that will be maintained. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that with the position of the building and the parking, the building sits where the existing residence is and really has a minimal impact on the existing vegetation. The trees that would need to be removed for construction of the rectory and the parking are poor or dead and would have to be removed anyway. He further noted detention would be provided along the western portion of the site. Mr. Fitzgerald stated their goal was to provide a building that was compatible with the campus as well as one that responds to the nature of the building. This building is residential in character and its architecture expresses that as well. It is an expression of its two functions composed of two intersecting gable elements with separate entry porches attached to the front of each gable. A third single story gable element reflects the garage wing with the apartment that sits above that garage wing. They have adorned the end of each of the gable and the porches with a cross. This helps to signify that this building is not one of a secular nature but of a religious nature. Mr. Fitzgerald stated they feel they are proposing a building that is rich in its composition and detail. The building consists primarily of brick facade with punched window openings. The windows show a brick detail around the jambs that is projected out to provide some additional depth to the facade as well as adorned with a stone lintel and stone sills. They feel the building is composed with respect to its context, specifically the church. It is detailed with respect to the church and its place in town yet it is mindful of the virtues of simplicity, humility and efficiency without being plain or excessive. The proposed materials are consistent with the enduring quality of the materials used on campus. Mr. Fitzgerald stated they are proposing an architectural asphalt shingle for roofing, which is consistent with the materials seen throughout the church, especially on the church's nave. This asphalt has considerable depth and variety to provide some interest to the roofline. Window mullions would be clad in either vinyl or aluminum in dark bronze. Any wood trip typically around the entry porches or the sides or the dormer elements of the garage will be painted a warm beige. Mr. Ron Adams of Pearson Brown & Associates stated the property has a fair amount of topography on it. They have noted existing utilities within the campus itself and it is their intent to connect to those existing utilities and extend them to service the proposed building. The storm drainage system will pick up the two downspouts at the vicinity of the garage as well as picking up some of the drainage around the east and south sides of the building entering into a catch basin running across the parking lot, picking up the parking lot and discharging into a dry detention facility which would then outlet into the existing storm system. The jurisdiction of this facility is the Village as well as the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District. He noted they intend to follow the most stringent of either the Village or Metropolitan District requirements as far as the release rates and detention volumes. Mr. Michael Werthmann stated the proposed rectory would generate a minimal volume of traffic. He stated they did counts at the existing facility as part of their traffic study and only a handful of vehicles was generated in any one hour. The internal circulation within the parking lot is more than sufficient to accommodate any peak hour. The most important thing is the location of the access drive into this parking facility. It is offset from Buffalo Grove Road and lines up with the other existing drive and provides sufficient stacking to safely and efficiently accommodate the traffic both to the rectory and exiting the existing campus. Commissioner Trilling stated this revised plan has crosses at most gables and asked why this was changed from the original plan with only two crosses. Mr. Fitzgerald stated there was a lot of discussion about the appearance of this facade along Buffalo Grove Road and Lake Cook Road. As a response to the appearance of these facades onto the road, they are proposing crosses to adorn the additional gable tops. Commissioner Trilling stated he personally does not see a need for it unless requested from the proposed residents or parishioners. Commissioner Panitch asked how high the wall was to the east patio. Mr. Fitzgerald stated it was a six-foot high masonry wall. Commissioner Panitch asked if it is necessary that it be solid. Mr. Fitzgerald stated it is proposed to be solid to provide maximum privacy to the residents using the patio. Commissioner Panitch noted there is a downspout there and asked how the water will be treated. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that particular downspout will be treated by going below grade to tie into the stormsewer or drain tile. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if that wall is in the nature of a fence or is it actually part of the structure. Mr. Fitzgerald stated the wall is part of the building. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if there has been any consideration given to trying to alleviate the general parking problem. Mr. Citron stated not as part of this project. He stated he believes the church ultimately has long term plans to address some of those issues on their site. Commissioner Samuels asked to have the variation for the street lighting along Lake Cook Road addressed because he would not particularly be in favor of that. Mr. Citron stated they did not really even know they were asking for that until the public notice came out. Mr. Kuenkler stated there is an arterial street lighting requirement and lights do not currently exist on Lake Cook Road. He noted two lights would be required. Mr. Citron noted these would be the only streetlights at this location. Mr. Citron stated it would be fine with them if required by the Plan Commission. Mr. Citron noted the public hearing notice indicates they have asked for a 50-foot right-of-way as opposed to a 54-foot right-of-way. Staff memo does point out the existing right of way along the road is 50 feet, which is what they are meeting. They are asking for a reduced sideyard along the north property line which is so they can maintain as much of a buffer between the new rectory building and Lake Cook Road. They do not believe there is any negative impact because the only people it would impact at all is the existing church campus and there is actually a very substantial green area just off their property line and they are trying to maintain the existing trees there so they feel it is justifiable. Mr. Citron noted they are asking for R-1 zoning for this property which would otherwise not be consistent at this intersection except for the fact that the existing church campus that this is serving is also zoned R-1 so they believe it is appropriate for this piece to be zoned R-1 also. Mr. Citron reviewed the Special Use criteria noting: 1. He noted they believe they actually do address public convenience. Currently anyone seeking to go to the current building on church business must cross the street from the existing church campus. Now they are incorporating the actual church offices on the same side as their campus. This is a very low impact use and the traffic is very low impact. It is a small building and it is a type of use that in and of itself should not have any negative impact. It is mainly residential with some office which is very appropriate at this location and therefore there will be nothing here that will be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety and morals 2. They believe they meet the standards for the location and size of the special use. It is appropriate for this size parcel and they are only asking for a small variation on the north property line which is justified based on trying to keep as much buffer from Lake Cook Road as possible. There is even now a sidewalk that leads to the outside world from this property, which is located along Lake Cook Road. It is more appropriate to have this use at this location than the location where it currently exists across Buffalo Grove Road. 3. The proposed building is absolutely part of the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. It will not diminish or impair property valuations immediately surrounding it. Now the east side of Buffalo Grove will be more consistent and it will not have the institutional use. 4. Since the rectory was moved from its prior location to this location they feel they have addressed the issue of the nature, location and size of the building will not impede or hinder the development and use of adjacent land and buildings. It works from a traffic pattern nor does it take up any parking that does exist as part of the other development and allows the most freedom for St. Mary's in the future to deal with the remainder of their campus. 5. There are adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities. 6. He noted that on this particular site all they can address is this particular site. They have provided more parking than the actual use requires under the ordinance. They are replacing the parking that currently exists on the other side of the street. By putting this use on this property, they have negated any impact on existing parking on the church area itself. Traffic circulation within, based on the small amount of traffic generated is sufficient and there is nothing that will harm the exterior traffic circulation. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if all would be ADA compliant. Mr. Fitzgerald all ADA access and parking spaces have been addressed in the latest site plan. Mr. Summers noted that both the business and residential doors are headed by a stone lintel as well as the windows. However, the two doors leading onto the rear porch are still showing brick soldier courses. He asked if that was correct or just part of the previous version. Mr. Fitzgerald stated it is correct as submitted. Ms. Debbie Salverson, 337 Armstrong Drive, stated she is very concerned as to the location of the entrance/exit into the new complex from the campus driveway because it is directly across from where children play for recess. Unless this entrance is moved a few feet further east, cones preventing traffic from entering the parking complex at large will no longer be able to protect the children at recess time. Secondly, she noted she feels the rectory/administrative building requires an elevator to comply with the ADA act. The new structure is both an administrative center and a place where only three priests live. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that any building that is built in this Village must comply with ADA. In terms of the interior of the building, the Village does not regulate that. Ms. Salverson noted the administrative building is a two story building with a partial basement and access to all three levels should be available to guests, parishioners and everyone using the administrative part of the building. It is a misrepresentation to say that this is a house only. Commissioner Samuels noted this is a federal law that must be complied with. The architects are well versed in that responsibility. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that if the petitioner represents that they would meet all ADA guidelines and meets the code, then that is all that could be expected of them. If something is built contrary to the testimony and evidence presented, it will either come back to the Plan Commission or Village staff will deal with it in the appropriate manner. Mr. Dana Marzillo, 125 Buffalo Grove road, stated he thinks the rectory and condominiums are both an improvement for the Buffalo Grove Road corridor. Mr. Gary Campione, principal of St. Marys School, stated it is his responsibility for the safety of the children and they will have a plan that will address the issue of the relocation of the rectory. They do not think the rectory relocation onto the campus will impinge upon the children's' safety for recess and they will make sure they are diligent. Ms. Maureen Howard, 601 Farrington Ct., asked if the trees and shrubs and landscaping will remain on the grade as is at the north end. Mr. Fitzgerald stated yes. Ms. Howard stated this is very good for St. Mary's and hopefully for the Town Center. Ms. Lisa Brown, 741 Essington Ln., stated change and improvement is needed to keep the parish viable and growing and this is moving in the right direction. Commissioner Trilling asked if the landscaping and lighting plans are to be improved tonight. Chairman Ottenheimer noted there is no testimony or evidence before the Commission and they can opt to make the motion subject to Village approval of those issues. Mr. Citron noted they are preliminary and expect that could be dealt with in the final approval. Commissioner Panitch asked if this would be treated as a single entity or part of the whole campus. He noted he understands this is being treated as an individual development. Mr. Raysa stated that is correct. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 03/06/2002 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION March 6, 2002 Avis Investments, proposed condominiums, east side of Buffalo Grove Road across from Church Road, rezoning to B-5 District for parcels currently Zoned R-E and approval of a Preliminary Plan in the B-5 District And appearance review concerning building elevations and materials Chairman Ottenheimer called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Chairman Ottenheimer read the Notice of Public Hearing as Published in the Buffalo Grove Daily Herald, explained the procedure to be followed for the public hearing, and swore in all persons who wished to give testimony. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Trilling Ms. Dunn Mr. Panitch Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Commissioner absent: Mr. Feldgreber Also present: Mr. Mark Avis, Avis Investments Mr. Bernard Citron, Schain, Burney, Ross & Citron Mr. Michael Fitzgerald, Otis Koglin Wilson Mr. Michael Werthmann, Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, Aboona Mr. Ronald Adams, Pearson, Brown & Associates Ms. Pat Young, Garrison Partners Consulting Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Bruce Kahn, Village Trustee Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit 1: Preliminary Site Plan dated March 6, 2002 Exhibit 2: Landscape Plan dated March 6, 2002 Exhibit 3: Building elevations dated March 6, 2002 Exhibit 4: Building elevations dated March 6, 2002 Exhibit 5: Materials List dated March 6, 2002 Exhibit 6: Photos of Church and balloon test dated March 6, 2002 Exhibit 7: Boundary Plan dated March 6, 2002 Exhibit 8: Artist's rendering of condominiums dated March 6, 2002 Exhibit 9: Preliminary Engineering Plan, Revised dated March 6, 2002 Exhibit 10: Traffic Study revised dated February 5, 2002 Exhibit 11: Market Study, dated October 26, 2001 Exhibit 12: Site Survey dated February 13, 2002 Exhibit 13: Typical Building Plan of the North Building dated February 13, 2002 Exhibit 14: Parking Level Plan of the North Building dated February 13, 2002 Exhibit 15: Typical Building Plan of the South Building dated February 13, 2002 Exhibit 16: Photometric Plan dated February 13, 2002 Mr. Bernard Citron introduced the development team. He noted there is one variation request they had formerly made that they no longer need. Therefore they are no longer requesting the 20-foot barrier along Buffalo Grove Road. In terms of the variation to allow a lot area of 4.1 acres, it is a standard usually put in place in zoning ordinances to prevent spot zoning. Technically this project is only 4.1 acres but it is immediately contiguous to the Town Center District and that in and of itself should allow for the variation for this project to be zoned in the B-5 District. In terms of the rezoning of the rectory site, the rezoning they are asking for, R-1, is consistent with the zoning with the remainder of the church campus. Mr. Mike Fitzgerald stated the goal for the condominium project was to create a viable and living project which enhances the community functionally, socially and aesthetically while responding to the importance of the Buffalo Grove Road corridor and also respecting the impact and importance of the church across the street. Mr. Fitzgerald stated in keeping with the desire to create new homes for not only residents currently living in Buffalo Grove to stay in Buffalo Grove and for new residents, they were looking at a residential project for this piece of property. The zoning permits 123 units with an FAR of 1, lot coverage of 35 percent, parking ratio of 1.7 spaces per unit. The proposal consists of two buildings. Each building is four levels of units above one level of parking. The buildings will be fully sprinklered and comprise a total of 100 units. The north building proposes 13 units per level for a total of 52 units. The parking level provides 51 indoor parking spaces. The south building proposes 12 units per level for a total of 48 units and 48 indoor parking spaces. Mr. Fitzgerald stated the configuration of the buildings is in response to the site. The plan opens the site to Buffalo Grove Road with a landscaped entry court and a water detention feature. The plan respects the church across the street by placing the narrow facade of the building along Buffalo Grove Road, respecting the 35-foot setback along Buffalo Grove Road. Mr. Fitzgerald stated the plan of the buildings on the site follow the lines of the property, adhering to the 25-foot setback along the north, east and south ends. There is a main access along Buffalo Grove Road in line with Church Road. This will include a deceleration lane into the property on northbound Buffalo Grove Road. It also includes a left turn lane on southbound Buffalo Grove Road. The second access is to the north which connects into the Checker Road road system that connects through the Town Center which eventually leads up to the lighted intersection. Pedestrian access to the site is along several points. Along Buffalo Grove Road they are proposing connecting sidewalks that lead from the existing sidewalk along Buffalo Grove Road into the buildings. The second point of pedestrian access is also to the north. They are proposing a sidewalk that runs through the north and northeast corner of the property that would eventually tie into the pedestrian walkway that links the Town Center. The traffic now within the site circulates around the entry court. They have proposed a double loaded parking aisle to try to maximize the amount of parking in that entry court. 55 spaces are proposed for this entry court. An additional 22 spaces are proposed just to the northeast of the north building. It is at this point that they are asking for a variance, given where the location of this parking is. It is this parking that is proposed to encroach upon the 25-foot sideyard setback. The access to the on grade parking garage is in the center of the site and hidden from public view, entering the north building from the east and entering the south building from the north. Mr. Fitzgerald stated the design for the landscape plan was to enhance the planning scheme using a variety of deciduous and evergreen plantings, and also utilizing the existing vegetation that occurs on the east side of the property. He noted they were looking to create an enhanced and welcoming appearance on Buffalo Grove Road that can also be taken advantage from the residents who view into this courtyard. Finally they wanted to create adequate screening between the proposed parcel and the adjacent parcels, including extensive landscaping in the northeast portion of the site. Mr. Fitzgerald stated they are showing two areas for detention. The first area is located in the entry court in a water feature. The second part of the detention to the site is a dry detention area located in the northeast corner. Mr. Fitzgerald stated the buildings are composed in a traditional tripartite composition, the three parts being a clearly defined base, middle and top of the building. The horizontal distinction is defined by masonry banding in the base and in the middle portion of the building and also at the roof overhang at the top of the building. This banding is a contextual response to the neighbor to the east, the Town Center, which is significantly horizontally banded. They felt that being a close neighbor they should respond in a like manner. They have further articulated the facades through vertical rhythm of bays and projections in the plan. These projections are typically capped off with a gabled element. This helps break down the mass of the building. The buildings are residential in character and are similar to a single family home. Mr. Fitzgerald stated the building materials have enduring quality and are consistent with materials found throughout the town. The building is primarily face brick, modular size. In addition there is a cast stone product which comprises most of the base material and window sills and other details in the gable elements. At the top of the gables that appear over the porches they are proposing a synthetic stucco product in warm tones. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that in order to ensure they are adhering to their goal of respecting the visual impact of the church, they propose to illuminate the church's existing steeple from the rooftop of the south condo building. The second thing they did was to commission an architectural historian to conduct a balloon test. This determines the impact that the proposed condo may have on the site lines and vistas throughout the town. The balloon was raised to a height of 70 feet and it showed that the proposed condo would be hidden by existing vegetation throughout town. Also it showed that when the balloon was visible and that would be when the building was visible, it would not obstruct the steeple. Specifically the balloon was flown from the corners of the building closest to the church steeple and photos were taken from the north as well as from the east. The report shows on obstruction of the church steeple. He noted the client has gone to great measures to ensure that this project will not have a negative impact and will be a success. Mr. Fitzgerald stated he believes this land use is an appropriate use. He further noted that in order for town centers to survive, they need people. This project will bring people to the downtown area that can support and take advantage of the amenities of the downtown area. It is consistent with some of the other development in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Ronald Adams reviewed the preliminary engineering plan stating there are many utilities in and around the subject property, particularly along the easterly edge within the Town Center which has a sanitary sewer main. There is an existing water main also and a stormsewer system. There are also some utilities on Buffalo Grove Road, including stormsewer and water main. He pointed out the two sanitary services to the building, which would come off the end of the building and tie into the sanitary sewer within the rear portion of the Town Center. The water main from the Town Center would come through the property and loop through to a water main on the east side of Buffalo Grove Road. Off of that main they will bring individual services to each condo as well as fire hydrants. The third component of utilities includes the stormwater management and storm sewer system. They are proposing that the project be linked together with stormsewer into two different detention facilities. Once is part of the center feature as you enter opposite Church Road and the second is at the northeast corner of the property. All of the drainage from the site is linked to these two basins. Due to the existing topography of the property they will be releasing in two different locations from the site. Mr. Adams noted they have submitted these drawings to the Lake County Department of Transportation who has the jurisdiction of Buffalo Grove Road and they had several comments, which they propose to adhere to. One is the right turn lane, second is a 60-foot right-of-way, and third is to relocate the utility poles to the new right-of-way line. In addition they require a new southbound left turn lane. The plan does, in fact, show these requirements. Mr. Michael Werthmann stated they looked at the existing conditions and conducted morning and evening peak hour traffic counts. The counts were conducted at Buffalo Grove Road at Church Road and Checker Road as well as Checker Road with the internal intersection within the Town Center and the access drive to the eastern portion of the parking facility to the bakery. In addition they also determined the volume of traffic that would be generated by the condos based on the ITE trip generation manual. It is projected the condos will generate approximately 50 trips in the morning peak hour and approximately 60 trips in the evening peak hour. Based on this number they assigned the traffic to the existing roadway system. In addition they added 4 percent background growth to the volume and they come up with total traffic volumes to be generated by the development. Based on this growth they evaluate how the roadway system and site access drives will operate. Mr. Werthmann noted the primary access would be provided via Buffalo Grove Road with a full access drive opposite Church Road. They are proposing one inbound lane and two outbound lanes. The outbound lane will be a separate left turn and the second one will be a shared through right turn lane. Secondary access to the development will be through the existing eastern parking lot to the bakery up through the circulation system to Buffalo Grove Road. This will provide both secondary and emergency access. It will also allow access through the signal at Checker and Buffalo Grove Roads. Having the two access points helps to distribute the traffic and helps reduce the impact at any one location. Based on the access system and looking at the total volumes, all of the intersections looked at and all of the access drives will continue to operate safely and efficiently and the impact from the condos will be minor compared to the existing traffic volumes. Ms. Pat Young stated they looked closely at the floor plans that the current market tends to need. They wanted primarily outside breakfast rooms, which is very important to the market place. There are 13 units per floor and 9 of them have outside breakfast rooms. Also the balconies have dual access from a bedroom or kitchen as well as the living room. The fourth floor of the living units would have cathedral ceilings. The north building has four 1 bedroom units, all the rest are 2 bedroom, 2 or 2 '/z baths. The south building has all 2 bedroom, 2 '/z baths and 2 bedroom den units. It is their belief that the largest growing demographic in the north shore and Buffalo Grove is the empty nester. Many people raised their families here in Buffalo Grove and they want to stay in town. This is the perfect building for that group. They have determined the square footage from 1,000 square feet to 2,100 square feet with these floor plans and amenities definitely meets the needs of the current market place. There is a high demand by the empty nester market. There are no 3-bedroom units in the two buildings and therefore they would not anticipate having any children in the area. The average number of cars per unit is 1.6. They obviously meet that need also. Mr. Citron stated they feel they have proven there is a market for this type of project. They have asked the architect to design a project, which he has stated not only meets the programmatic needs of the developer but also meets the needs of the community and also fits in with the community. The civil engineer has designed the project so that it will have no impacts on the surrounding area and the traffic engineer has testified this project will not have a negative impact. Therefore, they believe: 1. The site can be served with utilities without having negative impact. There is sufficient water and sewer capacity. From a traffic impact, the roadway network is sufficient to handle the traffic from this project without causing a detriment. From a fiscal standpoint and a tax base, this property will generate far more positive taxes than what was being generated before. The fact is there will not be a large population of children at this location and the impact on the school system will be very positive. There will not be any significant or detrimental impact to the general health, welfare or safety of the Village and will be a positive influence on the community. Having looked at this site, it was determined early on that they could not do a commercial development on this property. Based on that this project is the next best thing for the economic wellbeing of the Village. It puts some property to use that was not generating much in terms of a tax base to the Village. It does add a sizeable population that will utilize the Town Center. 2. There will be no negative impact from traffic. This project is a residential use in a mixed area. It is residential, commercial and institutional and the use fits in. These are well-priced condos and it will probably raise the property values in this area. There will be no negative impacts from a visual standpoint from this project. 3. They do not believe there will be any negative impact to the surrounding property. They feel this will have a positive impact on the Town Center. 4. They believe they can serve this property with water, sewer, and roadway network and stormwater drainage. All the other utilities are present. This project can be served and in such a way that there will be no negative impact. 5. Unlike most sites of this type, there is more than once access point. Traffic can get in and out from two different directions, almost independent of one another. Based on those studies there should be no impact on the roadway network. 6. Other than a few minor variations being asked for, they believe this project conforms to the regulations. Other than the setback for the parking lot in the northeast corner of the property which is up against the rear drive aisle of the Town Center and some small changes requested for the stormwater drainage to make it more efficient, they conform to all regulations. Commissioner Samuels asked if there was any way to integrate BP Automotive into this plan. Mr. Citron stated Mr. Avis made a valiant attempt to physically and economically incorporate BP Automotive into this project. However, the site does not really physically incorporate into the condo site, and secondly BP Automotive would not sell their property to Avis Investments at any type of cost they could bear in terms of the overall economics of the condo project. There was an exhibit prepared by Mr. Fitzgerald, which spoke to how, and what the best use of the property would be if BP Automotive somehow went away. The detention does not even flow into their property at all. He stated they cannot force a private property owner to sell their property. The Village made a legal decision that they cannot do so either and therefore they are asking the Plan Commission and will be asking the Board whether or not any development on this property should be denied just because you cannot incorporate BP Auto. Commissioner Samuels asked if there would have been a way of connecting the roadway or easement systems that would have reached all the way to the corner of Lake Cook and Buffalo Grove Road if BP Auto had been able to be incorporated. Mr. Citron stated he did not believe that was dependent on BP Auto at all. There was at one point a presentation showing a southern access for this project through the roadway network to the south. Mr. Goldner of Town Center had at one point indicated that he would permit that because there are some public easements there. It was during the workshops that they eliminated that idea because it seemed the better access was to the north through the Checker Road access. He further stated that if they incorporated BP Auto, it would not raise the site to 5 acres and it would probably be only some green space. Commissioner Samuels stated the only other major concern he has about this development as presented is the adequacy of parking. The plan provides 176 spaces, with 170 spaces being the minimum requirement. However, 22 of the proposed spaces are really remote parking and are not very desirable. It seems more and more empty nesters still have two cars in the family and they have guests and children returning from school with cars. Mr. Citron stated the zoning ordinances set out what is adequate parking according to the standards of the Village and they do exceed that. Secondly, the study by Pat Young of Garrison Partners indicates this parking will be quite sufficient based on a study of nine other developments in surrounding areas. Commissioner Samuels noted that what was found was what the existing parking is and not whether it is adequate or not. There was no survey as to whether or not the residents of those units were polled as to whether or not they were satisfied with the adequacy of the parking in their development. Mr. Citron stated that what he said is they meet or exceed the standard in the zoning ordinance but they took it a step farther to test exactly what was just presented. They did an actual, factual survey. The survey was to see how many people had more than one car in the nine area developments. They found at least 30 percent of the units have no more than one car. If you now factor that in, the parking is not just adequate by the zoning ordinance, it is also adequate by actual survey counts. Commissioner Samuels asked about guest parking. Mr. Citron stated they believe they meet the standards and also meet the needs intuitively and based on their study. Commissioner Samuels asked how traffic would be controlled. Mr. Citron stated normally the control on the exterior relationship is done by striping and signage if necessary. Since this is preliminary approval they are receiving it as their intent to work closely with the Village Engineer and traffic consultant to look and see if there are any issues. Commissioner Samuels asked if some of the terraces on the top floor have trellises above them. Mr. Fitzgerald stated yes. There are a couple of locations where the balconies do have trellises. The balconies will be constructed of steel and concrete that is tied to the foundation and the structure of the building. The finished material of the balconies will be finished off with a stained or painted cedar. Mr. Citron stated that what the study showed was that 30 percent of the homeowners are single in these developments. Therefore we assume those 30 would have only one car. Out of the remainder 70 units they also found 35 have only one car and the remaining 35 units would have two cars. Adding that up there are 30 cars from the single owners, 35 cars from the two person households with only one car and 35 units with two cars, which is 70 cars. That would total 135 cars for 176 spaces. Therefore 176 parking spaces is more than satisfactory accounting for guests. Commissioner Bocek asked where the idea for the addition of the banding at the base of the buildings came from. Mr. Fitzgerald stated they were looking to further articulating this particular portion of the building and to provide some visual relief to it rather than it being a full level of one material. By bringing this material into the base, it further articulates that base. It breaks down the mass of that base and harkens back to the horizontal banding that is seen considerably throughout the Town Center retail project. Commissioner Bocek stated she feels the banding is so much of a contrast that it actually distracts from the rest of the architectural elements. She asked about changing the colors of the balconies so that it might be a little more muted. Mr. Fitzgerald stated they did discuss that and they determined that in order to help emphasize the depth of the facade that this building has, a lighter color balcony structure and its railing will help emphasize that depth. Those elements, which are in the foreground being lighter, will visually appear in the foreground. What is in the background typically is in shadow and is typically dark. If the balconies were of a much darker tone for the rails that structure would visually fade or go away and the result would be a flatter, less articulated design. Commissioner Bocek stated her concern is that they are so bright that they almost take over the elevation. She stated she was proposing more of a beige color so that they are a prominent feature but are not so prominent that they are actually more dominant than the brick itself. Mr. Fitzgerald stated they did look at other colors and were comfortable and sure that the lighter color was an appropriate gesture. Commissioner Trilling noted the Garrison Partners report had no date, author or signature on it and he could not give it the normal credence. Commissioner Trilling asked if the bays on the second and third floors are actual bays. Mr. Fitzgerald stated those are box bays and project out perhaps 12-18 inches. Commissioner Trilling asked how many downspouts would be on a long elevation and where they would be located. Mr. Fitzgerald stated he would anticipate having at least one downspout, if not two, at every inside corner to drain not only the roof directly above it, but also the roofs of the gables to the side. Commissioner Trilling asked if the railing material would be aluminum. Mr. Fitzgerald stated it would be some sort of a metal. Commissioner Trilling suggested he would prefer a pre-finished aluminum. Commissioner Trilling asked if the windows are aluminum clad. Mr. Fitzgerald stated the windows will be clad, but the material has not been chosen as yet. Commissioner Trilling asked the pricing of the units. Ms. Young stated the 1 bedroom den with 1 '/2 bath are currently planned to start at around $180,000. The 2 bedroom, 2 '/2 bath on the fourth floor with cathedral ceilings would start at around $410,000. These would be in the north building. Pricing in the second building, which are all 2 bedroom and pricing would obviously be somewhat higher. The average square feet now is about 1,580 square feet and the average pricing is approximately $285,000. Commissioner Panitch noted the north access drive seems to be queued to the right into the parking of the bakery and he asked if there was a particular reason for this. Mr. Fitzgerald stated the north access drive is to align with the access easement that appears in the parking zone north of the site. Commissioner Panitch asked if there were any reports from the Fire Department regarding the access. Mr. Pfeil indicated Mr. Shannon has stated his previous reports are still pertinent and he believes the Fire Department does have adequate access to serve the property. He stated the Fire Department would approach the property primarily from Buffalo Grove Road but he believes the access from both the north and Buffalo Grove Road are adequate to get equipment into the site. Commissioner Panitch asked about the indoor parking. Mr. Pfeil noted Mr. Shannon did not say anything negative. He stated that if everything is built to code the property will be adequately protected. Commissioner Panitch asked if the church was satisfied through the balloon photos that the steeple would still be visible from all areas. Mr. Fitzgerald stated yes. Commissioner Panitch asked about the site lines on the east side of Buffalo Grove Road. Mr. Citron stated he does not believe there was any study done that specifically shows how this property would look southbound other than how it relates to the steeple as that seemed to be the major issue. Commissioner Panitch asked if the site lines northbound are hiding the businesses because of the 66-foot structure. Mr. Citron noted the northern property line as it exists today is heavily wooded. Therefore until you come around the curb it is difficult to see the funeral parlor. This was an issue that was directly addressed with the funeral home when they met with the funeral home. Mr. Avis noted there is a letter from the funeral home supporting the project. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if both buildings are identical. Mr. Fitzgerald stated they are not identical. Exterior wise they are identical in their materials and parts. The elements are the same but the locations may be slightly different. Commissioner Smith stated he has one concern with parking. Mr. Citron stated the original submission of the report done by Garrison Partners was identified as Garrison Partners dated October 26, 2001. Unfortunately the cover page which would have indicated everything looked for was missed when it was copied for the subsequent packet for submission to the board. That study showed that in general 30 percent of the units have a single occupant. They are assuming that single occupant will have one car. That is 30 cars. The remainder of 70 units total will have half of those with only one car and the remaining 35 units will have two cars. That is 135 cars out of 176, which leaves 40 additional spaces. The ITE manuals generally note about 1.5 cars in these types of developments. Commissioner Smith asked who was surveyed. Ms. Young stated they approached the study by contacting the directors of sales for each of the communities. They helped to determine how many cars each buyer had and that is how they determined the percentage of cars for the nine different communities in the area. Commissioner Smith asked what would be considered a reasonable amount of guest parking. Ms. Young stated that from a marketing standpoint the north parking lot was excellent for guest parking. Mr. Werthmann stated ITE notes anywhere between 1.25 and 1.50 per unit is usually the highest. This plan is providing 1.7. Typically they like to provide 10-20 percent extra parking for visitors. Typically on a Friday night when there are visitors, other units are gone visiting elsewhere. On holidays you may have families coming in but others are gone. Commissioner Smith asked if 26 extra spaces would be sufficient for guest parking. Mr. Werthmann stated yes. Commissioner Dunn noted there are 100 units but are showing only 99 indoor spaces. Mr. Fitzgerald stated the plans are still being developed and they conservatively estimated that underneath the north building there were 51 spaces. As they further develop the plans and the structural system and where structural columns will be in the parking structure, if they can get the 52nd space, they will do that. Commissioner Dunn asked if the indoor parking spaces are restricted to tenants only. Mr. Fitzgerald stated yes. Ms. Debbie Salveson, 337 Armstrong Drive, noted her concern with the people leaving the complex from the main access area. The risk of accidents is greater at this time because condo residents have to cross 3-4 busy lanes of traffic to go south on buffalo Grove Road. They also need to anticipate dodging cars traveling in the southbound lane closest to the school that may suddenly want to switch into the other southbound lane. Also, there is additional traffic of approximately 150 plus cars exiting onto Buffalo Grove Road from Church Road and St. Mary's parking lot. These cars do not just turn right. The majority of the drivers turn left to go northbound on Buffalo Grove Road to get back to their homes. She recommends that all traffic exiting the complex during these weekday morning hours be directed to the light at Deerfield. It is imperative that an electronic or manual gate blocks the entire exit during these hours. Ms. Sarah Logan, 108 Circle Drive, stated she would like to make sure that construction traffic is directed in such a way that it will not interfere with coming off Church Road. Also, she noted it is already difficult to make a left turn at Church Road to go northbound and asked if access could be restricted southbound out of the condominium and have them go up to Checker. Mr. Robert Pioch, 65 Buffalo Grove Road, noted his concern with the property lines, which are showing about 5 feet on top of his only access to his back lot. He stated he does have cement pavement approaching the rectory property and he had a verbal agreement to do that. He stated he needs to know if he has an easement right so that he can get to the back of his lot. Mr. Citron stated there are no recorded easements between the existing property owners and BP Auto. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that this is something that needs to be addressed between Mr. Pioch and the developer. Mr. Citron stated in terms of the restricted access, they do not believe it is necessary and it would be an inconvenience to the residents. He further stated they do not believe the traffic level will be that heavy. If that is something staff looks at in the future, they will, of course, look at that. Chairman Ottenheimer asked when construction would start and when the first phase may be completed. Mr. Avis stated they hope to start around July 31st and be finished with the first building by fall of 2003. Chairman Ottenheimer asked where construction traffic would be coming in. Mr. Citron stated they have not as yet decided that. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair