2004-03-03 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission
Document Type: ❑A e
g nda 0 Minutes
Meeting ate: 03/03/2004
Type of Meeting:
PUBLIC HEARING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
March 3, 2004
Alcott Center
530 Bernard Drive
Preliminary Plan for a parking
lot expansion in the R-5 District
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. Smith
Ms. Bocek
Ms. Kenski-Sroka
Mr. Khan
Mr. Teplinsky
Mr. Stark
Mr. Cohn
Commissioners absent: None
Also present: Mr. Marc Schwartz, Schwartz, Wolf& Bernstein
Mr. Michael Rylko, Executive Director
Buffalo Grove Park District
Mr. John Green, Groundwork Architects
Ms. Martha Weiss, President Buffalo Grove Park District
Ms. DeAnn Glover, Village Trustee
Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney
Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer
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: Topographic Survey dated September 27, 2002
Exhibit 2: Overall Site Plan dated February 12, 2004
Exhibit 3: Partial Site Plan dated February 12, 2004
Exhibit 4: Civil Engineering Plan dated February 12, 2004
Exhibit 5: Landscape Plan dated February 12, 2004
Exhibit 6: Stream Bank Stabilization Assessment for Buffalo Creek White Pine Ditch dated
July 21, 2003
Exhibit 7: Petition from 200 seniors
Exhibit 8: Petition of 80 people living in the area
Exhibit 9: Three pictures of the closed JCC facility and letter from Paul Myers
Exhibit 10: Letter from Rosemarie Balbi, 218 Lincoln Terrace
Exhibit 11: Two photographs of Borenstein back yard during 100-year flood
Exhibit 12: White Pine Ditch
Exhibit 13: Photograph of Lincoln Terrace area
Exhibit 14: Photographs of Stream Bank Stabilization Analysis and house at Cottonwood and
267
Exhibit 15: Same as above
Exhibit 16: Village of Buffalo Grove public open spaces map
Exhibit 17: Photograph of closed Dominicks and photograph of front of Alcott Center
Exhibit 18: Petition from pre-school and early childhood parents with 226 names in support
of parking lot expansion
Exhibit 19: Photographs of White Pine ditch and flooding in the area during severe storms
Exhibit 20 Buffalo Grove Alcott Center Parking Chart prepared by Eleanor Hesse
Exhibit 21: Memo to the Plan Commission from Mr. Robert Pfeil dated February 27, 2004
Mr. Marc Schwartz stated they are here tonight pursuant to the Village Development Ordinance,
Title 16 of the Buffalo Grove Municipal Code. He stated that the petition is limited to approval
of a Preliminary Plan to expand the existing parking lot, with two variations of the Development
Ordinance.
Mr. Green stated the Alcott Center is an existing facility on an existing site. Its presence on that
site dates back to prior to 1960. By 1964 almost all of the items that are present on the site were
there. In the late 1990's a small addition was added to the plan. In 1986 the site became a Park
District facility and was approved for use as such by the Village of Buffalo Grove under an
ordinance. Parking has become a growing problem on the site in recent years. The Park District
began their review of the parking needs on this site a couple of years ago and began to focus on
that in the fall of 2003.
Mr. Green stated the purposes of the proposed parking expansion on this site are:
1. To promote the public welfare and safety of an existing site
2. To meet the need for existing uses at the existing site
3. To assist in meeting the growth trends within those areas and existing uses
4. To respond to an identified concern from the facility users, the staff and even focus group
input
5. To meet the needs and services demanded and requested by the constituents of the Park
District within the facility, recognizing the limits that those constituents have placed upon the
Park District for facility development through various referendum responses
6. To provide the needed parking in accordance with the Development Ordinance
parameters, standards, goals and objectives
7. To respond to requests to maximize detention and minimize impacts by seeking a
Development Ordinance variation to permit a structure less than 1 foot above the detention high
water elevation and thus hold the parking as low as possible in its construction
8. To waive the underdrainage in the detention area because there are no flat areas in this
detention area and it is not designed to be intended to be promoted for recreational uses
Mr. Green stated Buffalo Grove Ordinance 86-15 created the Special Use for this site and
permits the uses and the undertakings that occur on this site. The Park District and its elected
officials have the duty and responsibility to do as permitted and provided for on the land they
have in which to work. Programs within the Alcott Center within the last four years in uses have
increased 18 percent. The senior registration alone for activities within the facility have
increased 21 percent in the same time period from 369 registered members to 448. Accessory
parking for the existing uses is a permitted right on the site. All work as proposed meets and
exceeds all zoning ordinance standards. The Development Ordinance deals in utility service
standards not bulk spacing placement location. Inadequate parking is already a significant and
unsafe burden on the site and the goal is to help eliminate that burden and improve that safety.
Mr. Green noted the program is to create a net total gain of 45 spaces, which is a 39 percent
increase from the 113 spaces currently on the site to 158 spaces. To do this a combination of
existing southwest parking lot reconfiguration and efficiency improvement is being proposed. A
reconfiguration for the aisle width on the east side of the building as requested and
recommended by the Buffalo Grove Police Department to develop a minimum 22 foot wide
passing width at the tightest point on the existing paving is being developed and the development
of an additional new parking use in an unused field area. The program is to provide the parking
in the location and in accordance with the greatest need and respondent to the uses within the
building. It is also under this program to create a stormwater management system, detention,
piping and release restricters, for this area that currently does not exist. There is nothing in this
proposal to do any work at all in any flood regulation area.
Mr. Green noted that when a project similar to this was proposed a few years ago, which
included the development of Safety Town in this area, it was proposed that 16, 650 square feet in
this quadrant would be paved. Now being proposed is 14, 700 square feet in this quadrant,
which is a reduction of that plan of 1, 950 square feet or 12 percent. The reason why this can be
accomplished is that the Safety Town had certain size parameters which when converted ended
up with 35-38 foot wide drive lanes but the Village requirement is 27 feet. With the
development of this solely for the use proposed they were able to minimize the paving and to
meet the standards of all of the ordinances. Mr. Green stated the detention is designed to meet
all of the Buffalo Grove ordinance requirements and to create restriction for the new paved area
where none exists.
Mr. Green stated it is also the goal of the Park District to meet its objectives and provide
effective and considerate screening in whatever they develop and propose. To accomplish this
for this plan the Park District has maintained extensive setbacks, planned to relocate several
existing large evergreens in order to help provide effective screening, provided an additional
layer of evergreens on three of the sides of the proposed parking area, proposed to hold the
elevation of the parking as low as possible to minimize adjacent impacts and develop berming
and better grade transitions. The Park District has always sought to ensure it is not doing
minimal landscaping so the relocation of existing trees was important. Where the Village
standard requires 5-6 foot evergreens, the Park District proposes 8 feet.
Mr. Schwartz stated the two variation requests are based upon the unique nature of this site. The
site has already been developed with a building and parking lot and is in close proximity to the
White Pine ditch and therefore the first variation concerning the height of the structure is merely
for the purpose of minimizing the impact and maximizing the detention on the site keeping in
mind the surrounding properties. The request for variation concerning the underdrain is again
because of the unique nature of the detention they are placing on the property. There is no need
for recreational use in the detention basin and therefore they do not need an underdrain. It is
important to note that the request here does not in any way involve any development in, on or at
a floodway. They are not working within a floodway or on the floodway nor are they altering
the floodway in any way, shape or form. To their knowledge they meet or exceed the Village
requirements for the engineering of this parking lot and the detention facility, which is going to
be constructed with the increased parking lot size.
Commissioner Bocek asked what the square footage of the existing building is.
Mr. Green stated it is approximately 38,000-40,000 square feet.
Commissioner Bocek asked what are peak times.
Mr. Green stated it is a multiple peak due to the variety of programs that exist.
Commissioner Bocek asked what the maximum number of people in the building at one time,
including Park District employees, students, senior citizens and volunteers.
Mr. Green stated he does not have a definitive answer but the newest addition was designed to
handle up to 100 people. Just between the staff and the senior activities you can have 130-150
people in the building and that does not count the other wing with children's programs. You can
easily exceed 200-250 people in the building.
Commissioner Bocek asked to what potential growth can occur in the building. She stated she is
trying to figure out the requirement for the need. She noted she realizes that because it is used
for several different purposes it does not fall into any one specific parking standard. She stated
she would like to get a rough idea of how many parking spaces really should be there and what is
the future need to decide what a responsible decision here would be.
Mr. Green stated usually when they are dealing with programs they are dealing in those where
they are looking at projected load and projected parking need. In this particular case they are
dealing with an existing facility with existing uses. He noted that what is found here is that
regularly you will find during the day there are 6-10 cars parked illegally in the parking lot
because they have no other options. Today the need is for about 25-30 additional parking spaces
and they are proposing 45 parking spaces and they believe that will meet the need for the next
couple to several years.
Commissioner Bocek asked based on growth does this mean it is possible more spaces will be
needed in the near future.
Mr. Green stated that was possible but the programming options and counts they have done
indicate a need now for 25-30 spaces.
Commissioner Khan noted receipt of a parking count chart.
Chairman Ottenheimer noted the document is a chart entitled Buffalo Grove Alcott Center
Parking 2004 Space Documentation February 19 to March 2, 2004, prepared by Eleanor Hesse,
787 Beechwood Road, Buffalo Grove. He stated it pertains from February 19 to March 3 at
various times the number of empty spaces in the lot at particular times.
Commissioner Khan asked what section of the parking lot does not meet the 1-foot elevation.
Mr. Green stated that is the very north corner. The structure there is proposed to be a couple of
inches above the high water line of the detention facility as opposed to 1 foot. They are lowering
the parking so that it can be as low as possible in relation to the water line.
Commissioner Khan noted the ordinance also states it should be 25 feet away from the high
water level and he asked if the petitioner is meeting that requirement.
Mr. Kuenkler stated the ordinance refers to habitable structures so it would not apply to the
parking lot.
Commissioner Khan asked why the petitioner is asking for an underdrain variation.
Mr. Green stated the section of the ordinance they are referring to indicates that underdrainage is
required in order to promote the recreational use of large detention basins with flat bottoms. He
stated they are neither a large detention basin nor do they have a flat bottom and because of that
they have sufficient drainage opportunity within the detention pond in order for it to drain itself
and they are not promoting recreational use of a large flat area.
Commissioner Teplinsky asked why the configuration proposed is the least intrusive alternative
to increasing parking. Why is it that no other type of configuration will work?
Mr. Green stated that any type of configuration would work. If you are looking to minimize the
area of parking you look to double load parking off of a minimal aisle. The Village of Buffalo
Grove standards is a 27-foot backup opportunity; parking spaces have to be 18 '/z feet long. The
Village of Buffalo Grove ordinance allows for a 2-foot overhang, which allows you to reduce
your paving further because of the overhang. You would then seek to have double loaded
parking on a minimal aisle with maximum overhang so that you maximize the amount of paving
area. You would seek to do that in a safe fashion which allow for a circular drive motion thus
maximizing the amount of parking to the square footage of the area. This parking lot does that.
Commissioner Teplinsky asked why that would not work in the front.
Mr. Green stated that is because the front is not as efficient a space to utilize. The front has other
considerations, which are also referenced in the ordinance because the Development ordinance
indicates that parking, and other structures should be designed so that they do not interfere with
existing geographical conditions particularly trees and such things. Also the front is already an
inefficient layout because of its size. The building is angled toward the front and grading works
much better in the back than in the front.
Commissioner Teplinsky asked if that means the alternative in the front was explored by the
Park District and rejected.
Mr. Green stated yes.
Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked how high and how many lighting fixtures are there going to
be.
Mr. Green stated the light fixtures are designed to match the fixtures that exist in the parking lot
now. Light poles are 15 feet high and are usually set on concrete piers that
2 '/2 feet high. They are Village standard cut off style fixtures. The rest of the lighting is just
perimeter lighting around the new lot.
Commissioner Kenski-Sroka asked what the cutoff time is for the lights.
Mr., Green stated that is 10:30 p.m. but there are some security lights that remain on until
midnight.
Commissioner Cohn asked if that area is not anticipated to be used for sports.
Mr. Green stated it is an area that is not scheduled for use by the Park District.
Commissioner Cohn asked what programming is taking place at the time the lot is full.
Mr. Green stated the programs are widely varied. But the senior programs are great during the
day and there are over 450 seniors registered for the programs and in addition there are those
who are not members who do attend some programs.
Commissioner Cohn asked why provide these programs only at the Alcott Center as opposed to
providing the programs at other facilities that could be rented or found with more parking.
Mr. Green stated school opportunities are not present during the day when school is in session.
The Park District does have numerous arrangements with other places and locations so that they
can utilize other spaces for programs whenever and wherever possible.
Commissioner Cohn asked if the Park District has done any sort of utilization study to determine
if there are other alternative facilities that can accommodate some of these programs instead of
expanding parking.
Mr. Green stated they are constantly working on opportunities for other programming needs.
Chairman Ottenheimer stated he needs to hear some numbers and answers to Commission
Bocek's questions. At peak times what is the most popular program and how many cars are
there. How much is the Park District underparked by for various programs and various days?
He asked if any thought has been given to reconfiguring the front to add more spaces so that
when more is needed in the back it will not be as tremendous a burden on the back.
Mr. Green noted there is an increased need for drop off opportunity because this is also a site
that deals with a number of children's services. That service is one that is proposed to be needed
in the front. That service itself would take up about 35-40 feet of the existing front yard. It
appears an independent drop off lane could be created to run between the existing trees that are
there.
Chairman Ottenheimer asked if the Park District puts on programs in the evenings in summer.
Mr. Green stated yes.
Commissioner Smith asked how the Park District determined the need for more parking.
Mr. Rylko stated he is there every day. He noted peak time is the drop off in the morning for
pre-school at 9:30 a.m. and pick up between 11:30-12:00 and then again at 12:30-1:00 p.m. and
3:30 p.m. At the same time the seniors come around 10:00 a.m. and they stay straight through to
3:30-4:00 p.m. During all these times the seniors come, can't find a space and park illegally.
Commissioner Smith asked how many non-members utilize this facility. If non-members were
cut out would there be less of a parking problem.
Mr. Rylko stated programs with limited registration give residents first priority for registration.
He further noted they couldn't discriminate for non-residents.
Commissioner Smith asked what impact this parking addition has on the neighbors flooding
wise.
Mr. Kuenkler stated there would be no change.
Mr. Schwartz pointed out in response to this line of questioning they are here at the direction of
the Village Board for a development ordinance request for modification. This line of
questioning is not relevant to that development ordinance request. He noted they meet the
requirements of the development ordinance and if anything the variations could be challenged by
the Commission or the Village based upon the needs for those variations. The line of questioning
that is moving forward is more in the form of a zoning hearing. Secondly, this proposed parking
lot expansion has a cost of approximately $140, 0004150,000 on today's date and the Park
District would not undertake the cost, expense and all the rest of it if there was no need to service
the residents of the community and Park District.
Commissioner Samuels asked why a variance for underdraining is necessary if the detention
does not meet the requirements that cause the need for underdraining.
Mr. Green stated the ordinance says the underdrainage is to be provided to promote the
utilization of detention areas for recreational purposes.
Commissioner Samuels asked if water would stay in the area in the absence of underdraining.
Mr. Green stated no. The underdrainage is intended to dry the surface when there is ongoing
moisture in there in order to permit the recreational use time to be as long as possible. But here
the water will tend to run down anyway because they do not have a large flat area.
Commissioner Samuels noted the fact that people are parking in illegal spots is not necessarily
because there are no spots available.
Mr. Green noted it is a combination of no spots available and for convenience.
Commissioner Samuels asked if the illegal parking is strictly a function of a full lot or is it a
problem throughout the day whether there are spaces open or not.
Mr. Rylko stated they really don't park illegally until they cannot find a spot.
Commissioner Khan stated if it is not a significant cost why add the underdrain.
Mr. Green stated the main reason they feel it is a reasonable request is because it actually pulls
moisture out of the soil. The underdrain has to be set in gravel, which tends to dry out the grass
area particularly in summer and you have brown spots along the grass. No underdrain will
actually help improve the maintenance of the detention area by letting it all happen in a natural
state instead of having dry spots.
Mr. Al Stavros, 433 N. Milwaukee Avenue, Wheeling, stated he represents the Borenstein
family.
Mr. Schwartz stated he wants to understand the ground rules. He stated he understands this is
not a zoning hearing rather a public hearing and he is unfamiliar with the basis for there being
cross-examination of our representative.
Chairman Ottenheimer stated he is not calling it cross-examination. He noted anyone who
represents a group of people could ask questions and make comments. He stated the
Commission is not operating under the Klaren rules because of the nature of the proceeding.
Mr. Schwartz stated he asks that the questions be posed to the development team rather than
have Mr. Green parry back and forth with counsel as if he is on a witness stand.
Chairman Ottenheimer stated Mr. Stavros meant to say more generally the petitioner but
probably Mr. Green will answer the questions.
Mr. Stavros agreed.
Mr. Raysa stated that what we are trying to do by means of this public hearing is basically a
fairness doctrine. Klaren has been battered around tonight and prior to tonight and it is his
opinion as the Village Attorney for Buffalo Grove that this is not a zoning hearing; this is a
public hearing for variations and that the dictates of the Illinois Supreme Court in Klaren do not
apply to this hearing. That being said, this is a public hearing. One of the numerous purposes of
a public hearing is to obtain input of the public by means of comments and questions. Those
questions are dictated by means of a fairness document. Whether this is cross-examination or
questions is probably a very fine line. Counsel has stated the questions will only take five
minutes or so and that is within a fairness doctrine and hopefully we can all put aside the tone of
voice.
Mr. Stavros read the section of the Village code for preliminary plan approval states, "no
preliminary plan will be approved for the development of land which is subject to periodic
flooding or which contains extreme poor drainage characteristics which could not be improved
to provide property drainage of the land. However, if the developer agrees to make the needed
improvements which would make the areas of development safe for human occupancy and
demonstrates that the proposed drainage is in conformance with the title and all other Village
ordinances, then the preliminary plan may be considered for approval."
Mr. Green stated he is now familiar with that section.
Mr. Stavros noted the Streambank Stabilization Assessment of the White Pine ditch, which had
been presented to the Village Board on July 21, 2003 and asked if the petitioner was aware of
this.
Mr. Green stated he is generally aware of that.
Mr. Stavros noted there is a cost assessment in that report of what it would cost to improve the
drainage ditch, which amounts to $730,000.
Mr. Stavros asked if the site was plotted for a 100-year flood elevation.
Mr. Green stated yes.
Mr. Stavros asked if the proposed pond fills up it would overflow the brim of the detention pond
and flow into the ditch.
Mr. Green stated that when there is a 100-year storm as is intended and designed for the
detention, the additional water would then overflow as is permitted.
Mr. Stavros asked if it would be possible to divert the on site stormwater runoff to a stormsewer
to intersect the Buffalo Grove ditch as opposed to the White Pine ditch.
Mr. Green stated they explored that option although the elevations probably would not permit
that. He noted that the overall topography of the entire site you will find that the back of the site
is several feet lower than the front of the site which would not permit a sewer connection into a
sewer off of Bernard Drive. Also the sewer ultimately enters into the White Pine ditch.
Mr. Stavros asked if the petitioner explored a connection to an on site detention ditch in the front
of the facility with connecting stormsewer to intersect the drain south of the Buffalo Grove
Creek intersection with the drainage ditch.
Mr. Green stated it is not possible to do that type of drainage on this parking lot. The additional
paving where proposed needs to be detained. The elevation of that parking lot is an average of
about 682. That elevation is lower than the average on the front of the lot and therefore the
detention has to be located than the elevation of that parking lot.
Mr. Stavros asked if the front was considered for a parking lot.
Mr. Green stated they looked at the front parking lot with the Park District as a possible location
for parking. As indicated it is not a location that is appropriate nor would it provide for the need
that exists. As such the detention needs to be off of the parking lot that is being proposed.
Mr. Sid Mitchell, 2272 Avalon Drive, stated he represents the seniors at Alcott Center. He noted
that as the center has grown, the parking lot has not. The property has an abundance of open
space that can be adapted for parking. To deny this development is to deny growth. He
presented a petition from 200 seniors noting that many of the seniors are handicapped and the
handicapped spots are not adequate for the number of seniors needing them. The seniors park
illegally because they cannot walk from the regular spaces. He also noted there are big days in
the senior center and there could be as many as 110-120 seniors and that does not include the
children in the other wing. He noted there are always special activities going on and senior day
brings in 150 people easily. In addition the membership luncheons throughout the year are
limited to 200 people and are very popular.
Mr. David Borenstein, 259 Cottonwood Road, stated none of the people living in this area are
opposed to senior programs. They are talking about the destruction of a small Eco-system,
which was not intended for this kind of development. He noted the White Pine ditch is located
within a 100-year flood plain. He reviewed the results of the report and what would be
necessary to improve the ditch. He also noted the various items in the eco-system that would
suffer from this development. Mr. Borenstein noted the community has outgrown the Alcott
Center. He noted there seems to be plenty of open area in Lake County for such a facility. He
also mentioned the old closed Dominicks that is now empty and could be used.
Mr. Borenstein stated the Park District would eventually get rid of all the fields. He noted they
have lots of unutilized space in Lake County but choose to come to this site to ruin it.
Mr. Borenstein noted this is not a zoning hearing but it probably should be. He stated building
this lot puts all the people of Lincoln Terrace, Bernard and Cottonwood in jeopardy.
Mr. Bludorn, 228 Lincoln Terrace noted last year this parcel was proposed as a site for Safety
Town so he presumes the Park District had other contingency plans in place at that time to
accommodate the expected increase in program participation.
Mr. Allen LeBlanc, 295 Cottonwood Road, asked how seniors who are unable to walk will get to
the building from the new parking spaces which will be just as far away as the existing spaces
which they claim are too far for them.
Mr. Jim Briskin, 515 St. Mary's Parkway, stated he sees the need for expansion but he stated this
area needs to remain open for reasons of flooding. If Alcott needs more parking then check out
the front of the building. He noted the flooding issue has to be addressed before they want to see
any more proposals for any development and if it means $730,000 to redo the area before
expansion can happen then that is what needs to be done.
Ms. Andrea Naughton, 718 Old Post Road stated she has a petition in support of the parking lot
expansion. She stated dropping off and picking up at the Park District has become a hazard.
The cars are constantly double-parked and they are filling up the streets as well.
Mr. Frank Slove, 296 Lincoln Terrace, noted signage should be put up reserving close parking
spaces for seniors only during programs for seniors. He further asked the Plan Commission to
consider the people in the neighborhood with regard to the flooding.
Ms. Nancy Borenstein, 259 Cottonwood Road, suggested staggering senior programs. She
further noted this development does not seem like good planning.
Ms. Eleanor Hesse, 787 Beechwood Road, noted the White Pine ditch runs into Lyons Park and
presented pictures of the flooding in that area during heavy storms. She noted she is the person
who walked around the parking lot at different times for about two weeks and never saw the
parking lot filled. She suggested someone help direct traffic in the early mornings and should
also promote carpooling. She stated she does not think it is fair to subtract park space from the
neighborhood.
Ms. Jan Mahoney, 1023 Whitehall Drive, stated she is the 4-year old director of the Park School
pre-school program for the past 28 years. She stated they have over 100 children in the 4-year
program and the same in the 3-year program. She stated they have 48 children coming in
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. the 4-year old pre-school. With the growing senior
programs and other programs within the building she is concerned for the safety of the children.
They have attempted to stagger the starting and pickup times in order to facilitate and move the
parking along. In addition they moved their staff meetings from Wednesday which is a heavy
senior program day to Mondays. In the afternoon there are 36 children coming into the school.
She stated they have tried to do whatever they could to make it easier for the parents to come in
but they need more parking desperately.
Ms. Martha Westerberg, Recreation Supervisor of Buffalo Grove Park District, stated the
tracking of the parking by one of the residents is not representative of the usual schedule. Three
of the days there had been no pre-school due to holidays. The Park District has approximately
30 full time staff and another 30 part time people parked in the lot every day. She stated that she
has also seen parents having to park on the street and coming in with infants and strollers
because there is no parking available. The parking is dangerous and frustrating and the safety of
the pre-schoolers is paramount.
Mr. Rob Sherman, Mill Creek subdivision, noted Buffalo Grove ordinance 85-56 provides that
only the Jewish Federation of Chicago and their member organizations can use the parking lot at
the Jacob Duman JCC and any change to that would require action by the Board. He asked what
would happen if the Plan Commission and the Board were to say no to the variances that are
being requested. He asked if the parking lot would then still be built. He stated that if the issue
is only the variance and the lot is going to be built either way, he does not know if the drain tile
would add value to the community and he is not sure that the matter of being one inch instead of
twelve inches above the flood line would negatively impact the community. Therefore, if the
parking lot is going in either way, he does not see why the two variances requested should not be
granted. However, he is very concerned that the Park District has exceeded capacity due to the
growth of the Village and he would encourage the Park District to reconsider whether or not the
best way to proceed is by putting in a parking lot at this location. Perhaps the district would be
better off to begin now to look for other locations to place programs.
Ms. Alyssia Pavalon, 241 Cottonwood Drive, stated the proposed new 45 spaces in the new lot
would appear to already be taken up and insufficient according to all the testimony. Therefore,
why ruin the eco-system just for that. She also noted the Park District does provide programs for
the surrounding suburbs and does not think that is right.
Mr. Schwartz stated he would like to focus on the purpose of their attendance at this hearing.
The attendance is to hold a public hearing to elicit factual information to allow the Plan
Commission to make an informed decision. Factual information has been presented this evening
by the petitioner stating that the engineering creates no impact on the neighboring properties
either by water, light or any other fashion. Factual information has also been presented by the
Village Engineer is that the engineering presented for the development of this parking lot
satisfies all the requirements of the Village of Buffalo Grove and causes no impact on the
surrounding or adjoining property owners. The rest of the information heard from the people
who have questioned and testified at the podium is that their property floods, that the White Pine
ditch floods, and that there was a $730,000 study commissioned that says the White Pine ditch
needs to be modified in one way or another. He noted they are not dealing with the White Pine
ditch. They are not impacting the White Pine ditch nor are they involved with the White Pine
ditch. There is no testimony from any party that indicates the Park District will have any impact
on the White Pine ditch or, in fact, impact on any property owners adjoining the property.
Mr. Schwartz stated the Alcott school opened approximately 1960. At that time the school was
surrounded by nothing. The flood plain is clearly visible on the engineering plan. The homes
that these people are living in or have testified about exist in the floodway. Inherent with the
purchase of a home in a floodway is a water problem. He noted he could only speak to their
petition, which they have testified will not impact the ditch or the neighbors and the Village
Engineer agrees. The purpose of a public hearing is to elicit factual information to allow the
Commission to make an informed decision. The rest of the information heard tonight might be
opinion but it is not factual.
Mr. Green stated the Park District has worked to be responsible by having six scheduled hearings
at the Park District where this was a topic for discussion and the attendance was none.
Mr. Green noted the White Pine ditch study was a Village and community study, not a Park
District study. The proposal presented has no impact on at or in the White Pine ditch or
floodway. The proposal is based upon the need to provide the appropriate detention and utility
responsibilities for the parking lot that is proposed and the paving and it does do that.
Mr. Green stated there was a question regarding the presentation of Safety Town a couple of
years ago. At that time the Park District did note that it was a temporary location for Safety
Town and it was indeed intended that it would be there 2-3 years until a permanent location
could be found for it. It is now the second year since that was proposed and the timetable they
discussed then has not altered and the program has not altered. However, because it is a specific
use design now, they have been able to reduce the impervious surface that would have been
provided by 1,950 square feet. However, had they not reduced it by that amount of area they
would have had to provide the detention for the total area.
Mr. Green stated the impact that this might have is that an area that is currently unrestricted in its
flow, paved or unpaved, will now be restricted in its flow. The flow will not be channeled
directly into the White Pine ditch. The berm is on the south side of the parking area and the
grading is channeled around that to the detention area. The channeling will be to the controlled
flow that is part and required by the ordinance.
Mr. Green noted the Park District intended to construct the lot with or without the variations. In
order to maximize the opportunity and minimize the impact of the development. In order to do
that the Park District is requesting two development ordinance variations. One of those
variations would be to allow the parking lot level to be held lower in its construction than would
otherwise be required. That is a benefit to the adjacent community because if you can pull down
the construction level by 6-9 inches, you have a greater opportunity for people not to see it as
visibly. The Park District has no intention to promote the detention for recreational use.
However, they want it to look good all of the time and so the variation to eliminate the
underdrainage would permit it to look better all of the time because it will not create dry spots
and dry areas within the detention.
Mr. Green stated this is not a zoning case because there is already a Special Use in effect for this
proposal. This is not a question of zoning elements as they meet all of the zoning standards
completely.
Mr. Green noted the Park District is a party to the White Pine ditch study and has some shared
obligation in it but it is a different question. There is no impact from the development ordinance
proposal that is before us today. However, there is no doubt that the concerns of the adjacent
neighbors and the impact that the White Pine ditch drainage has on them is real, but this is not a
contributor.
Mr. Green stated in answer to Mr. Briskin's question as to whether this study means a darn thing
that it is not applicable to them in this petition. Mr. Briskin also asked what the length, height
and width of the berm is and Mr. Green noted he has indicated the berm is on the south side of
the parking lot. The berm will be somewhere between 3-7 feet high. The size of the berm will
be determined by the amount of good soil that can be retrieved from the parking lot excavation.
Chairman Ottenheimer asked if the Alcott center is under a Special Use.
Mr. Green stated yes, under ordinance 86-15.
Mr. Kuenkler noted the White Pine ditch study did not cost $730,000, rather it is one of the
improvements that would cost that much.
There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer
closed the public hearing at 9:50 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: 03/03/2004
Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
March 3, 2004
Alcott Center, 530 Bernard Drive, Preliminary Plan for a parking
lot expansion in the R-5 District
Village Zoning Map—Annual Review
Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 9:50 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers,
Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois.
Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer
Mr. Samuels
Mr. Smith
Ms. Bocek
Ms. Kenski-Sroka
Mr. Khan
Mr. Teplinsky
Mr. Stark
Mr. Cohn
Commissioners absent: None
Also present: Mr. Marc Schwartz
Mr. Michael Rylko, Executive Direct, Park District
Mr. John Green, Groundwork
Ms. Martha Weiss
Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner
Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commission Cohn to approve the minutes
of the regular meeting of January 21, 2004. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and
the motion passed unanimously.
COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS
Commissioner Khan attended the Village Board meeting on February 23, 2004 noting that
Trustee Berman had some concerns about the influx of banks coming to Buffalo Grove. He
asked that staff prepare a moratorium on banks. However, it was clear that this issue would not
affect the two banks that are before the Plan Commission. There was also a Plan Commission
referral for Joy of the Game who was asking for a public hearing directly without any workshop
meetings.
Commissioner Teplinsky stated he attended the March 1, 2004 Village Board meeting where the
draft ordinance for the moratorium was discussed. Some members of the Board felt that it was
over broad and that it included not only banks but all non-tax generating businesses. It is going
back for re-drafting and should be presented at the March 15, 2004 board meeting.
ALCOTT CENTER, 530 BERNARD DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR A PARKING LOT
EXPANSION IN THE R-5 DISTRICT
Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval to
the Village Board of the petition for approval of a Preliminary Plan pursuant to Title 16 —
Village Development Ordinance, with the following variations: Section 16.50.040.D. (to allow a
point in the parking lot to be less than one (1) foot above the high water line); Section
16.50.040.C.3. (to waive the requirement for underdrains in the proposed stormwater detention
area) so that the applicant can build its planned expansion of the parking area in the north portion
of the property, pursuant to the exhibits and testimony produced at the public hearing and all of
the exhibits and testimony submitted by the residents also.
Chairman Ottenheimer noted that the only reason there is a public hearing on this issue is
because of the variances being requested. If the Park District were not asking for variances there
would not be a public, although there would be a workshop.
Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated she has some concerns that the Park District has outgrown
the building. However, the fact of the matter is that the Park District is not responsible for the
White Pine ditch and the issues therein and the decision of individuals to purchase homes in the
flood plain is not the responsibility of the Park District and they bear no responsibility for the
actions that occur therefrom. She stated she also has to take into consideration the fact that the
Village Engineer has stated that in his professional opinion the addition of this parking lot
surface will not impact the water situation as it presently exists. Therefore she will give the
petition a positive recommendation.
Commissioner Teplinsky stated he had not been aware of the closing of the JCC center in
Buffalo Grove and the only relevance to this issue is that it might add to the strain of the Park
District. He stated he cannot imagine that the Park District would propose to tear up the fall
fields and pave over it while they are spending $150,000 unless they believed there was a need to
do so. He noted he is also relying on the opinion of the Village Engineer that the addition of the
parking lot facility will not add to an already difficult problem for the residents there. There is a
need in the community for additional parking in order to take full advantage of the Park District
facilities and he will be supporting the proposal.
Commissioner Bocek stated that many of the programs the Park District offers are very
beneficial and she has no objection for programs for senior citizens. However, she is not
comfortable with not having a complete understanding of the maximum capacity for the building
and the total number of parking spaces required now and in the future and she is not in favor of
the proposal.
Commissioner Khan stated the Park District does have the responsibility to provide core
services. He also stated he remembers the Park District trying to get a referendum to build
another place, which failed. If senior citizens cannot find parking here they are either going to
stay home or move out of the area. This proposal has zero impact on the residents as far as the
flooding is concerned. They are not increasing the size of the land and, in fact, if the land is left
as is there could be a situation where the water can reach the creek much faster than when the
parking lot is built. The parking lot is helping the situation of the flooding if there is any. In
addition, they are not impacting any trees, as they will be moved. Therefore, he will be
supporting this proposal.
Commissioner Stark stated he always hates to see green space being paved over. However, the
Park District is asking only for some minor variances. The Village Engineer and Mr. Green have
stated there will be no additional flooding to the ditch. Taking everything into consideration he
will support the proposal.
Commissioner Cohn stated the senior citizens in the community certainly deserve to be served.
There is a need for senior services in this community but this facility is overburdened and there
needs to be an alternative. He stated he is not convinced at this time that there is a need for this
parking lot because he does not believe that every alternative has been exhausted and he will not
support the proposal.
Commissioner Samuels stated what troubled him the most was the question about Safety Town
and the fact that several years ago the Park District was asking to put Safety Town on the
property and there was no parking issue. The answer was that it was a temporary request. He
noted it also bothers him that the Park District has done nothing to address the situation in the
front of the building. However, the variances are not serious and in general a landowner has the
right to do what they want with their property and he will therefore support this proposal.
Chairman Ottenheimer stated the community appreciates the Park District as is evidenced by its
growth. He stated it is his belief that there was no competent testimony or evidence that building
this parking lot will, in fact, cause more flooding. However, he has not heard any competent
evidence from the Park District in terms of numbers. We have heard a lot of conclusions that
parking is needed but there are no numbers in terms of seniors, what days are big days, and how
many people are expected on various days and events. We have heard testimony regarding more
parking but we do not know if it will be any closer for seniors to get to the door in the far
parking lot than it would from the street. The bottom line is that he cannot support this proposal
because he does not feel it is the best under the circumstances. He stated he feels this is a band
aid approach only and in a couple of years the Park District will probably need more parking
elsewhere or even a different facility as they grow.
Commissioner Smith stated the Park District is an integral part of the community. He stated he
does not see this as a conspiracy of the Park District to ruin the land of the homeowners. In
addition the Village Engineer says there will be no problem and he will therefore support the
Park District.
Chairman Ottenheimer stated that while he realizes we are not here to grant or deny a Special
Use, his understanding is that the property on which the Park District currently sits is so. The
criteria that is needed in order to approve a special use consists of one which states, parking
areas shall be of adequate size for the particular Special Use, etc. He noted he is still not
convinced that even with the addition of these spaces that it will solve the problem.
Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows:
AYES: Samuels, Smith, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark
NAPES: Bocek, Cohn, Ottenheimer
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion passed 6 to 3.
VILLAGE ZONING MAP—ANNUAL REVIEW
Mr. Pfeil noted Greg Summers maintains the zoning map as far as editing and revising as
needed. This year has not been a big year for actual changes to the map. In his memo of
February 26, 2004 he identifies the areas that have changed and the map is ready for Plan
Commission consideration will go on to the Village Board for approval.
Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to recommend
approval to the Village Board of the Village Zoning Map.
Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows:
AYES: Samuels, Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Cohn,
Ottenheimer
NAPES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion passed 9 to 0.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None
FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE
Mr. Pfeil stated the next meeting would be March 17, 2004.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS -None
STAFF REPORT—None
NEW BUSINESS—None
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Cohn and carried
unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 10:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair