Loading...
2000-11-01 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: ❑A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 11/01/2000 Type of Meeting: PUBLIC HEARING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION November 1, 2000 St Mary's School, 50 Buffalo Grove Road—Proposed addition, Amendment to the Special Use and Preliminary Plan, including A building setback variation, and approval of building elevations And materials and landscaping in the R-1 District 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. Chairman Ottenheimer read the Notice of Public Hearing as published in the Buffalo Grove Daily Herald, explained the procedure for the hearing and swore in all persons giving testimony. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Trilling Ms. Dunn Mr. Feldgreber Mr. Panitch Mr. Smith Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. Robert Nickola, Jaeger, Nickols and Associates Mr. Gary Campione, Principal, St Mary's School Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Jeffrey Berman, Village Trustee Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing: Exhibit A: Site Plan Exhibit B: Landscape Plan L1.1 Exhibit C: Lower Level Floor Plan Al.1 Exhibit D: Upper Level Floor Plan A1.2 Exhibit E: Plan showing the drawbacks if the building addition was to be located with a 40-foot setback Exhibit F: Exterior Rendition of Materials and Architecture of the Building; Buffalo Grove Road East Elevation Exhibit G: Exterior colors and materials board Chairman Ottenheimer noted it is unusual that there had not been a previous workshop on this matter, but the purpose of the public hearing is to allow the petitioner to formally present the proposed plan to the Plan Commission and to provide the public its rights to observe and comment concerning this proposal. Mr. Nickola stated they are here seeking an addition to St Mary's school with one variation request for a setback. The proposed addition is a two-story structure that would be attached to the south end of the existing school. Mr. Nickola stated the lower level floor plan shows a corridor coming from the north. The majority of the space in the lower level is one large multi-purpose cafeteria space. The school does not have a cafeteria now. It has a support kitchen in the lower corner, some storage rooms, toilet core at the north end and an entrance lobby. Mr. Nickola stated the existing school is a delta standard double loaded corridor building which means a central corridor going through the buildings with classrooms on the right and on the left. This building aligns itself with the structure to the north. Mr. Nickola discussed the upper level plan that shows the entrance lobby and stair core coming off of the courtyard. The upper level has a continuation of the corridor that connects to the north and goes through the school. Here we have the creation of four classrooms and an exit stair down at the very south of the building. These four classrooms would free up four classrooms in the existing building to allow the pre-school program in the parish to expand. Mr. Nickola reviewed the Buffalo Grove Road elevation, noting the addition of the school continues with the same eave line or overall height of the building that matches the current building to the north. Window lines are taken across and window base facings are matching the existing building. Only as the existing site falls at the very south end of the property are they allowed to take advantage of the full two-story height of the building. Mr. Nickola noted the existing architecture of the building and the continuation of the limestone detailing, exterior metal that is primarily in use for the aluminum cladding of the exterior windows and some downspouts. The "Chicago Common" approach towards the brick masonry shown is intended to match the existing school. Mr. Nickola stated the landscape continues the same theme that currently exists on the property which is a combination of some deciduous trees as a buffer to the south and in front of the windows along the Buffalo Grove Road entrance there will be clusters of evergreens and deciduous bushes and shrubs will be seen as foundation plantings against the building. Mr. Gary Campione, Principal of St. Mary's, stated one of his primary responsibilities is to provide for the well being and safety of the children. He stated they are proposing to expand their program to add four classrooms and a cafeteria. The classrooms will allow them to expand their pre-school program. The current pre-school program contains a 4-year old program and is housed on the first floor. They would like to expand the 4-year old program by moving the second graders up into the four new classrooms. The cafeteria is to be added as the children presently eat lunch in their own classrooms and never really get out except for recess. It would be nice for them to go somewhere to have lunch Mr. Campione stated that if they set the expansion back it would set the hallway that runs through the building off to the side. This would not allow teachers to be able to watch the children visually. It is important to have this visual contact. The proposed classrooms have been designed with bathrooms intact. He stated he is asking to have this area allowed in order to have a clear view of the children at all times. This would also be a good idea for fire drills, etc. If the setback is not granted and the hallway set off, it will impede all of the safety features that have been designed. Mr. Nickola reviewed the criteria for a special use as follows: 1. They are asking that the existing special use for the parochial school be extended to allow them to make improvements to the school and this is not seen as any endangerment to public health, welfare or safety. 2. The addition to the school requires no additional curb cuts, public right-of-ways will be maintained and not affected by the addition at all. The entire lower level space is a cafeteria for the school that currently does not exist and will affect the intensity. The four classrooms will house classrooms and teachers currently in the building. The increase in the pre-school operation will add two more classrooms of pre-schoolers . They will run five half days from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. This will increase the population by 40 in each section. These parents would be coming at the same time that the normal school process is going. The drop off will remain the same as a drop and move system. There would be two extra teachers and an aide hired. 3. They have been careful in terms of putting in an addition that is sympathetic with the original building and there is no intent to diminish the character of the neighborhood. 4. The variation request is only effective on Buffalo Grove Road. The adjacent zoning across the street is all commercial at this time. The setback to 30 feet from 40 feet is still less than the commercial setback across the street at 25 feet. All other setbacks are within Village standards. 5. All utilities will be provided. The only utility that is effected by the addition is the increase in natural gas service. No access roads are being requested and the public right of way and sidewalk will be maintained throughout the course of the construction. Drainage issues have already been reviewed by the Village Engineer to his satisfaction. 6. The overall property contains the parking for the church as the school is not in operation on Saturday and Sunday. The parking that is provided for the operation of the church is well in excess of the requirements for the parking for this school. Commissioner Trilling asked why this was not brought to a workshop meeting. Mr. Pfeil stated the project was fairly far along when the Village identified some issues about the site planning and the zoning variation that needed to be resolved. It was a misunderstanding of the process that needed to be remedied and this public hearing relates to the schedule for the project and the urgency for trying to get the proper approvals and start the construction program this fall. Commissioner Trilling asked if a building permit has been issued for this project. Mr. Pfeil stated no. This is part of the issue, but the ordinance for the special use is necessary before the building permit can be properly issued. Commissioner Trilling asked how stormwater will be handled. Mr. Nickola stated stormsewers collect the stormwater and it is sent out off site. The new addition size does not require an increase in drainage or effect the overall site context storm issues. There are roof drains along the perimeter of the building which are collected internally and ejected out into a system that ties into the existing stormsewers in place in the existing paved area. Mr. Kuenkler stated they looked at this as a replacement building. It is slightly larger but essentially the same size. Commissioner Trilling asked if they had considered a design by which the setback would not meet the current code, however, at least meet the current building to the north. Mr. Nickola stated the notion of the 1940's building and the 20-foot classroom, along with the desire to extend the current corridor and site lines is what spurred this design. It was considered to mirror this building. Commissioner Trilling asked if they would consider turning the orientation on the classrooms and having the students face east/west, thereby reducing the east/west dimensions. Mr. Nickola stated that would have extended the building farther south and there is a current drive and curb cut there which they would like to maintain. Commissioner Feldgreber asked if there is a parking plan or what numbers are required based on use compared to what is available. Mr. Campaign stated they currently do two parking shifts for pick up and drop-off. They can house about 350 cars parked head to head. When this group is dismissed, the next group comes in and parks head to head. They also park eight school buses within the lot. They take children from District 102 and 96. They leave at 2:20 and 2:35. Faculty parks in the back section and they have roughly 75 faculty parking spots. They also have a football field that accommodates another 45 cars. There is a section in front of the church that can accommodate another 90 cars. Mr. Pfeil commented the Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space per staff member for a school. Mr. Nickola noted there is a full time staff of 50. Commissioner Samuels stated a change to a special use requires the entire property to meet the current standards. It seems this is one of the issues reviewed in detail on the Plaza Verde project. Mr. Pfeil stated the property can meet the parking standard for the school addition. The St. Mary's property is one of the oldest developments in the Village, and it has some unique characteristics. When there are busy times, parking is handled in a manner that is not generally used in the Village. Commissioner Samuels noted he understood that, but questioned why this property should be treated any differently than any other piece when it is asking for an expansion of the use of the property. Mr. Pfeil pointed out that there is a long tradition and history of how the property has been used. The Police Department assists in traffic management for peak use periods such as Sunday church services. Commissioner Samuels stated he does not feel comfortable with the level of analysis or discussion to date. The entire parcel must be dealt with under the circumstances. Commissioner Trilling asked if the school will be used at times when other parts of the facility are also being used. Mr. Campione stated teachers arrive from 6:30 a.m. and the school day starts at 7:30 a.m. About 75-80 percent of the parking lot is free. Parents come and drop of the kids and the parking lot is empty. Church services do coincide with school times as there is daily mass at 8:30 a.m.and parishioners will then usually park by the church. There are extraordinary services about four times a year. There are also funerals occasionally which come in at 10:00 a.m. They park over by the church again and this area is cordoned off as the kids go to recess in the football field. Commissioner Samuels asked if the school, including the proposed addition, is in use on Sundays. Mr. Campione stated yes, although not to the same extent as a full day school program. Commissioner Samuels asked how parking is handled on Sundays, including use of the existing school. Mr. Campione stated they use overflow parking at several off sites. They have an arrangement with the funeral home for off site parking. Commissioner Samuels asked how the additional school area will relate on Sunday's usage. Mr. Campione stated they will probably stay at the same rate for Sunday school. Chairman Ottenheimer stated one of the major concerns deals with the parking issue. He noted one of his concerns is circulation. He asked what happens in an emergency when someone needs to get out from a parking space. Mr. Campione stated there are aisles and zones out in front of the school as well as the courtyard parking. He stated they have emergency lanes for emergency vehicles to get in. If someone needs to get out they try to find the people that are there and try to move those cars to the best of their abilities. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if the police and fire department are aware of the overparked situation at times. Mr. Pfeil stated both the Police and Fire departments are familiar with the patterns and peak uses of this property. There are no surprises that will be caused by this particular addition. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he has heard testimony that Sundays will be no different even with the addition in terms of population and no parking spaces are being taken away by this addition. Mr. Campione stated that was correct. Chairman Ottenheimer asked about the e-mail from the Village Forester regarding the landscaping and his request for the addition of two deciduous trees to the east building elevation and provision of cluster planting beds around the trees. He also asked that the green ash be replaced with an autumn purple ash or skyline honey locust as well as replacement of the Austrian pine with three columnar maples or other columnar species. Mr. Nikola stated he has no problem with any of those requests. There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 11/01/2000 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION November 1, 2000 St Mary's School, 50 Buffalo Grove Road—Proposed addition, Amendment to the Special Use and Preliminary Plan, including A building setback variation and approval of building elevations And materials and landscaping in the R-1 District Forum Properties, Proposed single-family development, northwest Corner of Park Avenue/Main Street (Schrems and Phillips properties) Annexation with residential zoning and approval of a Preliminary Plan Workshop #2 Village of Buffalo Grove,Arboretum Golf Course, Proposed Clubhouse, maintenance facility and site improvements, 401 Half Day Road,Amendment of a Special Use and Preliminary Plan in the R-8 District ---Workshop #2 Praedium Development commercial building, 25-55 Buffalo Grove Road, proposed change in exterior building elevation —Discussion Of amendment to the Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 8:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Trilling Ms. Dunn Mr. Feldgreber Mr. Panitch Mr. Smith Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. Robert Nickola, Jaeger, Nickola and Associates Mr. Gary Campione, Principal, St. Mary's School Mr. Lawrence Freedman, Ash, Anos, Freedman& Logan Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Inc. Mr. Richard Vane, Groundwork, Inc. Mr. Sam Grill, Forum Properties Mr. Mark Harrison, Landscape Architect Ms. Mary Abelmann, Sente & Rubel Mr. Carmen Molinaro, Buffalo Grove Golf Course Mr. William Brimm, CFO, Village of Buffalo Grove Mr. Marc Schwartz, Marc Schwartz & Associates Mr. George Markopoulos, Praedium Development Mr. Jeffrey Berman, Village Trustee Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Dunn to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 4, 2000. Chairman Ottenheimer noted a grammatical error on page 2, paragraph 5. He further noted several typographical errors on page 3. He also noted a spelling error on page 5, paragraph 5. Page 7, paragraph 4 also required extra wordage. On page 9, paragraph 1 needs re-writing, as there is duplication of sentences. All Commissioners were in favor of the amended motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Feldgreber abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS -None ST. MARY'S SCHOOL, 50 BUFFALO GROVE ROAD—PROPOSED ADDITION, AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIAL USE AND PRELIMINARY PLAN, INCLUDING A BUILDING SEBACK VARIATION, AND APPROVAL OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS AND LANDSCAPING IN THE R-1 DISTRICT Moved by Commissioner Trilling, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval to the Village Board of the petition for approval of an amendment of the Special Use in the R-1 District and approval of a Preliminary Plan with the following variations: ZONING ORDINANCE, Section 17.40.020.B. (to allow a front yard setback of 30 feet 7 inches instead of 40 feet along Buffalo Grove Road), whereby, the petitioner proposes to construct an addition of approximately 16,000 square feet to the existing school building, subject to the testimony and comments presented. Commissioner Samuels stated he does not feel comfortable with the way this matter was presented. It is a rare plan that comes before the Commission exactly the same as it leaves. Going through the workshop process has resulted in changes to almost every plan they see. He does not feel comfortable with rubber stamping this plan. He does not know if there is anything wrong with the plan, however, he is uncomfortable with the process and does not feel it should have proceeded as it has and he does not like the precedent it sets. He would really like this matter to be tabled or sent back for a further workshop. Commissioner Feldgreber noted nothing has been mentioned about handicapped parking. Are there any handicapped parking spots and does the addition allow for any more if there is a need for same. Mr. Campione noted the presently have 15 such spaces. Commissioner Feldgreber noted that if this matter does go to a workshop he would like to see some kind of parking plan. Commissioner Panitch stated he agrees with Commissioner Samuels and does not like the process used here. He asked what the course of action is here. Mr. Pfeil stated it might be appropriate to ask the petitioner what their desires are as far as process. Mr. Nickola the primary concern is the notion of timing as it relates to starting construction and occupying the building that relates to school programs. The more important issue is the funding of the program and the possibility that such funding may be withdrawn if the process is delayed. If there are issues of parking that could be looked at and mediated in the process that could go forward simultaneously with the operation of starting a foundation, they would be glad to do so. He further noted that due to the location of the subject property and the adjacency of the school, the proposed addition is the best use for this property opposed to a parking lot. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he does not think there is any concern amongst the Plan Commission regarding the proposed use. He noted the Commission is bound by statute and ordinance to follow a certain process in order to approve or make an ultimate recommendation to the Village Board. He noted it is ultimately the petitioner's decision as to how they wish to proceed Commissioner Trilling noted he started out questioning what happened to the workshop process. However, St. Mary's is a very integral part of the community and Buffalo Grove and he is sympathetic to the timing issue. He noted his concerns have been addressed in that the school will be utilized during peak demand periods, but there will be no greater demand created by these classrooms. Also, he noted that the building that was torn down actually sat closer to the existing right-of-way than the proposed building. Therefore, this building may not be the best situation, but it is better than what was previously constructed. Therefore, he is inclined now to move along in the direction of approving this project. Commissioner Panitch asked how the petitioner wished to proceed. Mr. Nickola stated the building owner would like to proceed tonight. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the motion was as follows: AYES: Trilling, Dunn, Panitch, Smith, Ottenheimer NAPES: Samuels, Feldgreber ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 5 to 2. FORUM PROPERTIES, PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARK AVENUE/MAIN STREET(SCHREMS AND PHILLIPS PROPERTIES), ANNEXATION WITH RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN—WORKSHOP#2 Mr. John Green noted there were three items noted at the last workshop meeting that needed to be addressed. These items were density, driveways and garages and engineering. Mr. Green reviewed the 11 lot plan noting they could get 10 of the 11 lots working in a fashion that would allow them to create enough side distance on the lots to allow them to bring the garage off of the side. Mr. Green stated they continued to work on the plan, coming up with a 10-lot plan and creating pairings of units so that all of the driveways can come to the side and all of the garages come to the side. They are showing a 40 x 50-foot box area. The lots are set up at 75 feet so that on the 40 foot wide footprint at the front there is enough room for the sideyard, maintaining the 14-foot separation and pairing of the units together. Mr. Green stated preliminary engineering has been done and it works well. It will be dry detention. The tree survey has also been done and it notes that most of the trees are in fair to poor condition and are not desirable species. He further noted there will be a sidewalk going up Main Street. However, there are some nice trees along that lot line area. They are asking to be able to maneuver the walkway there so that they can save the trees. Commissioner Feldgreber asked where the driveways are being brought in. Mr. Green stated he proposes to the drive will come out to the side and down to Park on lots 10 and 2. On lots 9 and 1 the driveways will be done directly off the side. On lots 4 and 3 they will also be off the side and on lots 6 and 7 they would also be off the side and down to the front. It is only lots 9 and 1 which would go directly to the side and not come forward. Commissioner Feldgreber asked how many curb cuts onto the Park have been approved. Mr. Green stated they can certainly do three curb cuts and noted there are four across the street. Commissioner Feldgreber asked if dry detention is allowed now, as he thought it had been changed to wet retention. Mr. Vane stated they can do dry detention but they must put wetland plantings on the bottom. It would not be wet like a pond, but it probably will be soggy. Commissioner Trilling asked about building elevations. Mr. Green stated they are now moving away from specific facades. They understand the desire to keep them more historical but their suggestion is rather than develop specific buildings, they can now develop a list of specific styles and homes can be designed as long as they are within those styles. He noted he has not, as yet, developed that list of styles. Commissioner Trilling suggested he would like to see those styles. Commissioner Smith asked if it is still a goal to make this affordable housing. Mr. Green stated they do not believe they have impacted the development cost with going to side garages. The marketing report is still recommending costs of about $300,000 to $325,000. Commissioner Samuels stated he is concerned because they seem to have moved away from a PUD type of development toward a more straight single-family concept. There is now less of a reason to allow increased density when you have R-2 and R-3 surrounding the adjoining properties. If there is not going to be an isolated feel to this development then it becomes regular single family zoning. He noted that the side garages will require much more pavement than front loading garages. Mr. Green stated it needs to be wider at the side of the house, but does not have to be wide all the way down. Commissioner Samuels noted that this may not be a good gain and loss in terms of what that does for the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Commissioner Samuels asked if the developer is still planning on a homeowner's association type of arrangement or just straight R-5 zoning. Mr. Freedman stated they do not think they need a homeowner's association any more. Commissioner Samuels stated that if it going to be just straight residential zoning, he is more inclined to make it conform closer to the densities around the area. Mr. Freedman asked exactly what is being lost by not doing a PUD here. He noted they are willing to put certain restrictions on which would not be present in a straight single-family development. Commissioner Samuels stated in a PUD you can control many things and it is typically associated with higher density. Mr. Freedman noted it is associated with higher density, which is a tradeoff to the developer for bargaining away restrictions on his site. He stated they are willing to put restrictions on the site anyway. He stated this is an annexation and will have an annexation agreement enabling them to put any number of restrictions on that the Commission wishes. Any kind of restrictions can be put in the annexation agreement and covenants and you can achieve the benefits you are looking for. Commissioner Samuels noted the more it looks like straight R-5 zoning, the more he is inclined to say it should be R-4 or R-3 to go with the character of the rest of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Freedman stated they can give it a specific characteristic and control the changes that would affect that characteristic. Commissioner Samuels stated he is reserving his opinion until he sees more of the product and the amenities. Mr. Green stated one of the things they have been talking about is development of a landscape streetscape package that ties everything together that you would expect to see in a PUD. Commissioner Samuels noted that he is looking for amenities and a reason for increasing density. Commissioner Dunn agreed with Commissioner Samuels and noted that a straight R-5 does not fit in with the character of the surrounding area. She asked that the development be given some character, otherwise a different zoning approach may be necessary. She asked where the garages will be located. Mr. Green stated the garages will be within the buildings. In order to be able to do this, a 75-foot lot width is necessary. Commissioner Dunn requested that examples of building elevations and garage locations be available for the next workshop. Commissioner Feldgreber asked what the Village has this parcel slated for as far as zoning. Mr. Green stated the Comprehensive Plan does not give a specific type of zoning. It just says there will be single family, multi-family, commercial, etc. However, within the Comprehensive Plan it does identify this area as the Prairie View district. It does not make specific recommendations as to what to do in the Prairie View district but it does say an historic character and flavor should be maintained consistent with the concept of Prairie View. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if the petitioner has any problems with the Village Forester's report. Mr. Green stated he was rather surprised that the report pretty much favored taking all the trees down. He stated they are still working to preserve some trees along the side of the site. Mr. Pfeil noted the concerns about the concept of this development is a basic issue, and if it is intended to be a planned unit development, then the requirements and design guidelines in the Zoning Ordinance should be specifically addressed. Chairman Ottenheimer noted there is general consensus to show the styles of the homes and what will make this development unique. Mr. Green stated the following elements require addressing at the next workshop: 1. Style types 2. Streetscape development 3. List of restrictions within the annexation agreement Mr. Robert Daniel, 75 Park Avenue, stated he and his neighbors are essentially pro-development. They would indeed welcome proper development that is worthwhile to the Buffalo Grove community. He stated they are asking only that the property be developed similar to what is in the area. They would like the size of the homes and the size of the lots to be comparable to what is there. He further stated he does not feel this development is comparable to the rest of the area in density. Many homes are relatively large and sit on very large lots. He noted that all the other homes in the area have garages that face the front of the street and he does not see why this development should be any different. He asked that the trees stay and noted they would like to have the above ground electrical lines buried as it would improve the overall view of the community. He further noted he would like the Commission to consider adding street lights as it is a very dark area. Mr. Chris Seidl, 2839 Whispering Oaks, noted density is not consistent with the area. Secondly, he noted part of the neighborhood is having the trees and hopes to keep them. Mr. Chris Walsh, 55 Park Avenue, stated he agrees with his neighbors. He noted page 17 of the zoning ordinance under P.U.D. calls for something that is at least 4 acres in area and that is not what is present here. VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ARBORETUM GOLF COURSE, PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE, MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS, 401 HALF DAY ROAD, AMENDMENT OF A SPECIAL USE AND PRELIMINARY PLAN IN THE R-8 DISTRICT—WORKSHOP#2 Mr. Brimm stated it is the Village's desire to continue the project along in an expeditious manner so that they can make their presentation to the Village Board on December 18th. He stated they now have an enhanced landscaping plan along with a preliminary tree preservation and removal plan. Mr. Molinaro is present and prepared to address issues regarding cart movement. He will also address his staff `s planning efforts relative to the proposed practice greens and how screening will be provided for safety. They have submitted some conceptual photometrics that have been overlayed on the site plan. They also have now submitted a conceptual traffic pattern that has been reviewed by Benes and Associates. Food service issues have been reviewed and can be addressed tonight. The Police Department has reviewed the preliminary plans and has reported no comments. The fire department has conducted its preliminary review and their only comment to date is that the building needs to have a sprinkler system. Mr. Lindberg stated the revised site plan has defined and refined some of the concerns noted at the last workshop meeting. Mr. Harrison stated every effort was made to keep as many trees around the perimeter as possible. Obviously some of the trees in the center will have to be cut down. One of the significant specimens in the parking lot will be kept, with the lot designed around it. There will be about 38 trees removed of which 17 will be transplanted in various locations around the perimeter. The landscape plan for the east portion of the site includes some existing oak trees that will be supplemented with burr oaks and red oaks. They are also planting many low evergreen shrubs to hide the parked cars in that area. Mr. Harrison noted additional evergreens where a new putting green is being suggested. Along Route 22 there will be seven Scotch pines and lots of color from both perennials and annuals at the entrance and at the planters flanking the main entrance and the canopy. There will be perennials and annuals planned throughout in various locations to bring color in. There are parking lot trees to provide shade for the cars and to break up the mass of cars. Mr. Harrison noted the maintenance building has moved a little further to the north and there is a nice existing canopy of Douglas fir, white pine and blue spruce that will be supplemented with additional hemlock, white pine and yew shrub plantings. Ms. Abelmann noted they are still staying with a Prairie style look for the clubhouse. She noted they are looking at a light beige brick, a brownish-green roof and gray tinted glass. The window trim and finish will be close to the brick in color. The brick pavers will go onto the patio and the main drop off area. Ms. Abelmann stated the lights on fixtures will have an antique look in a green finish. Ms. Abelmann reviewed the bollards that will control traffic during peak times. These will be removable blocks so they can be taken down when not necessary. Ms. Abelmann stated they are also looking for a color for the canopy that would be similar to the Prairie stone band. Mr. Molinaro stated car cirulation and golf cart circulation issues have been addressed. The phone service from the ninth tee to the clubhouse is Plan B. Plan A would be to get global positioning systems inside the golf carts, which will allow you to order the food right through the golf cart. This is the plan they will be working on initially. The other benefit would be to give weather warnings and for the golf staff to be able to track where every golf cart is on the entire property. Mr. Molinaro stated the putting green will actually be sized down than what is shown on the plan and placed in a safe area. He noted they will probably take out the very back portion of the first tee so that the first tee will actually be somewhat shorter than it is now and will be no detriment to play or the golf course. He noted they like the concept of two putting greens, which will help when there are large outings. Commissioner Smith asked how traffic problems would be handled by staff. Mr. Molinaro stated it will be a matter of coordination between the golf department and the restaurant. Operationally, there will probably never be golf event by itself that will give them any traffic problems. The situation that will need direction is if they have a golf outing during the day or some kind of party in the evening. That will require some good coordination between the restaurant department and golf department. Normally the golfers will be leaving by the time the parties are going to be starting so it should not be a big issue. Commissioner Smith asked if it will be a requirement for all people coming into the facility to take an immediate right and go west. Mr. Molinaro stated you will have to go that way on days when they have peak activity, That is when the bollards will be up and there will be staff outside directing traffic. Commissioner Smith how many parking spaces there are now at the golf course. Mr. Molinaro stated it is somewhat less than 200. Commissioner Smith asked if there may be a situation where the lot across the street will be needed for parking. Mr. Molinaro stated he does not think the general public would have to be involved with that. The interior staffs of the gold department and restaurant department might do that on occasion. There might be some need for valet parking in certain situations. That would, however, be handled on site where you might be double stacking cars in a certain portion of the lot. But this would happen very rarely. Commissioner Smith asked if there will be staff out handling bag drops at all times. Mr. Molinaro stated staff will be out permanently 10 hours per day for bag drops. Commissioner Panitch asked if the GPS system is also a hole by hole tracking system. Mr. Molinaro stated yes. Commissioner Panitch asked if it was a real fireplace in the clubhouse. Ms. Abelmann stated it is a gas fire log-burning fireplace. Commissioner Panitch asked what the likelihood would be for survival of transplanted trees. Mr. Harrison stated the survival is excellent, as the trees are 8 inches or less. Commissioner Samuels stated he still has some concerns with all the potential traffic movements for vehicles coming into the site. Mr. Brimm responded by noting the traffic consultant has said it will require a management commitment at peak times to make the circulation work. Mr. Molinaro stated he anticipates the bollard system will be used with movable signage. Commissioner Samuels asked if there will be valet parking for banquet use. Mr. Molinaro stated the restaurant vendor is open to either system. Generally valet parking does not work all that well with banquets as people come at different times. However, this is something that will be up to the restaurant people. Commissioner Samuels stated it might be advisable to go heavier on landscaping just opposite the dumpster enclosure. Commissioner Trilling asked if there was any way to be able to drop your clubs off at the cart ramp, moving along then to park your car. Mr. Molinaro stated they will probably have two such areas; one at the cart ramp and one on the west side of the building with a curb cut. So there will be opportunity to do this if you do not want to go through the bag drop. Commissioner Trilling asked what percentage increase will be brought by the new cart system. Mr. Molinaro stated he has just started preliminary meetings with some cart companies to discuss that issue. There probably will not be a specific cart fee but it will be one fee, which includes your cart, bag tag and everything else. The fee will certainly be higher than it is but certainly less than some of the premium courses in the area. Commissioner Trilling stated that the clubhouse itself should not be a reason that local residents will have to pay much higher fees for golf. Mr. Brimm stated he will be preparing a fiscal plan for this facility and this plan needs to be presented to the Board concurrently with the planning issues. He noted his objective is to attract more rounds which means volume before rate escalation. He noted there will, of course, be some rate escalation but he does not believe anyone on the Board is looking to gouge the residents. He stated they believe that having the building and having the property facilities will generate the number of rounds needed. Commissioner Feldgreber asked if the golfers have been tracked as to what percentages are residents and non-residents. Mr. Molinaro stated they have tracked same. Mr. Brimm stated it is in excess of 60 percent are non-residents and the reciprocal are residents. There is a discount for residents. Commissioner Feldgreber asked if cart rental is mandatory. Mr. Brimm stated it is now mandatory already on the weekends and holidays and will continue to be so. It was the general consensus that this matter is ready for public hearing. PRAEDIUM DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 25-55 BUFFALO GROVE ROAD, PROPOSED CHANGE IN EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATION—DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNITED DEVELOPMENT(P.U.D) Mr. Marc Schwartz stated they here pursuant to a referral back to the Plan Commission from the Village Board. The plan that was presented and approved by the P.U.D. provided for the construction of a building which would have four separate retail sites. In the midst of construction and the leasing project, it was determined that the large user that was going to utilize three of the storefronts as one, was unable to move forward and sign the lease and therefore the developer sought the approval of the Village to utilize the site as six retail stores rather than four. This was presented to the Village Board with the idea that the P.U.D. ordinance which had previously been adopted provided that the Village Manager had the right to make minor changes to the ordinance. He noted they have not asked to amend the size of the building, which is 7,386 square feet, nor to amend or vary from the parking ratios. They ask only to reconfigure the site from four individual storefronts to six individual storefronts and make a minor modification to the canopy. Mr. Schwartz stated the canopy modification is not even important to the developer, they merely feel it will be more aesthetically pleasing, but if the Board or Plan Commission feels it is not relevant or not in the best interest of the Village, they are certainly would abandon any such modification. He noted the shell has already been 60-70 percent constructed. There are tenants who are waiting to sign leases and they are in an extraordinarily compromised position because they have stopped construction. Therefore, they are asking for the Commission's direction as to whether or not this is a minor change or one that needs to be reviewed by the Plan Commission. Mr. Pfeil stated the Board left the decision up to the Plan Commission as to whether this is a major or minor modification and the appropriate process for review. Chairman Ottenheimer asked what prompted the change and why was the change made without the information going to the Board level and done after the fact. Mr. Schwartz stated the change was prompted because a tenant who was going to be the "anchor tenant" was unable to reach agreement with Mr. Markopoulos as to lease terms because the signage they were seeking could not be obtained. This did not come to the Board earlier because Mr. Markopoulos did not realize that it was necessary to seek approval of the Board since he was not seeking a change in the structure or in the parking, but merely adding a demising wall. He noted they understand the parking restrictions of the P.U.D. and they are therefore not seeking to find tenants that going to vary those parking restrictions. Mr. Markopoulos stated in response to Mr. Schwartz's question that the proposed P.U.D. will not be significantly or materially detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety or general welfare of the community. Mr. Markopoulos noted that within that consideration he is also considering the impact of the development upon the physical space, tax base and economic well being of the Village. Mr. Markopoulos stated he did not believe the proposed P.U.D. would be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediately vicinity of the purposes already permitted and did not believe it will diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Mr. Markopoulos stated he did not believe the proposed P.U.D. will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property. He further stated he believed that the P.U.D. and the modification he is seeking has adequate sewer, water, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities available. Mr. Markopoulos stated he believes he has demonstrated adequate means of ingress and egress designed to handle the traffic contemplated are present and will be provided. He further stated he believes the P.U.D. meets all the regulations of the ordinance. Mr. Schwartz they are asking only to change a demising wall within the confines of the building. They are willing to abandon the request for a change in the canopy if the Plan Commission deems it necessary. Commissioner Samuels stated that if everything is the same, and it looks the same, it can be built. Commissioner Panitch noted the new plan has different glass openings. He asked if the developer will keep the original look. Mr. Schwartz stated they wish to utilize the elevations submitted in the packet dated July 24, 2000, revision. Commissioner Panitch stated that does make a substantial difference. Mr. Schwartz stated they are willing to retain the canopy but they need to change the openings on the storefronts. Commissioner Trilling noted that the first plan had four glass openings and three single glass openings. The question then, is has the base size changed. Commissioner Schwartz noted the tenant was obviously lost before the building was started. Mr. Markopoulos stated structurally there are no changes to the building. He stated they took the 4,000 square foot space on the south end and demised same to accommodate three tenants. The canopy, which was one uniform piece and at a higher elevation and divided it into three. The Commission stated there are changes. Commissioner Panitch noted the four units were larger than the three and now there are six even pieces. Commissioner Samuels noted there were seven glass areas with five panes each and there are now six glass areas with six panes. Mr. Schwartz asked what can be done to remedy the situation now. Commissioner Samuels stated it must be made to look better. Commissioner Trilling noted that it must be given some character. Commissioner Panitch noted that if the canopy is created as it was presented originally; as one full piece over the last three tenants. Commissioner Samuels noted that he would like to see some more sketches and alternatives. Chairman Ottenheimer suggested a polling to see if the Commission considers this a minor change or whether the Commission's position is to require the petitioner to come back with alternative sketches. Mr. Schwartz noted construction is halted and there are tenants waiting to sign leases. They are planning for six spaces. If the Commission does not object to six storefronts but they do not like the canopy and want some architectural enhancement of the canopy, they will accept that acknowledgement. However, if they have to come back to the Commission again, they will lose the season and they are therefore asking for some direction from the Commission as to what kind of architectural rendering they are looking for and let is go from there with some Village staff input and approval. The only thing being discussed is some kind of decorative canopy. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the petitioner is requesting approval, subject to approval by staff. Mr. Schwartz stated he is seeking a recommendation from the Plan Commission for six units, subject to the Plan Commission's further review of the canopy facade but the recommendation that the petitioner be able to move forward with construction but not be able to complete the structure until such time as the canopy facade has been approved. Moved by Commission Samuels, seconded by Chairman Ottenheimer that the Plan Commission does not have a problem with six spaces and that review of the facade be brought back for review to the Plan Commission. The votes was as follows: AYES: Samuels, Trilling, Feldgreber Panitch, Smith, Ottenheimer NAPES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 7 to 0. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman Ottenheimer stated he has met two new proposed Plan Commission members who need to be approved by the board. FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next meeting will be held on November 15, 2000. Mr. Markopoulos asked for a motion to reconsider. Moved by Commissioner Samuels to reconsider the motion. There was no second and the motion failed. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Feldgreber and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 11:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair