2001-11-07 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission
Document Type: ❑A e
g nda 0 Minutes
Meeting ate: 11/07/2001
Type of Meeting:
PUBLIC HEARING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
November 7, 2001
Village public service center, 51 Raupp Boulevard, proposed
Building addition and site improvements, amendment of a
Special Use and Preliminary Plan in the R-8 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 to be followed for the public hearing, and swore in all persons who
wished to give testimony.
Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer
Mr. Samuels
Mr. Trilling
Ms. Dunn
Mr. Feldgreber
Mr. Panitch
Mr. Smith
Ms. Bocek
Ms. Kenski-Sroka
Commissioners absent: None
Also present: Mr. Greg Boysen, Director of Public Works
Mr. Ray Rigsby, Superintendent of Public Works
Mr. Scott Rubel, Sente & Rubel
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: Preliminary site plan dated October 22, 2001
Exhibit 2: Preliminary site plan, revised dated October 22, 2001
Exhibit 3: Salt storage area plan dated October 22, 2001
Mr. Greg Boysen, Director of Public Works, noted the planning for the Village Public Works
facility expansion has been underway for a long time and has been planned over many years. In
the mid 80's this resulted in the construction of the police and golf facilities and the expansion at
that time of the public works building had identified significant expansions were likely to occur
in the future. They have had additional space needs analyses reviews which reaffirms the
original projections and needs. At this time they are not proposing to implement all the
identified needs for the ultimate future build out of the Village to serve the eventually mature
Village of Buffalo Grove. They have focused now only on the highest priority and most cost
effective elements of the identified space needs for the public works department. The proposed
plan is consistent with all of the various potentials and future developments that might occur
related to ultimate space needs projections.
Mr. Boysen stated they are asking for two variations relating to the height of the accessory
building and the height of the fence. The fence height is needed to make the yard safer and the
height of the accessory building is required for the functional operation of required equipment.
Mr. Ray Rigsby, Superintendent of Public Works noted the first workshop presented the original
preliminary plan with a new addition being built on top of the brick wall. The Commissioners
requested alternative plans that could be built at a setback on the site. The second workshop
presented different alternatives, at which time the Commissioners requested another plan
showing an addition not built on the wall, but set back and widened in the rear lot area. He noted
they have looked at such a plan and found they would be losing approximately 270 square feet of
building space. They would also lose 1,020 square feet of usable rear yard area. He stated the
rear yard is very tight already and one of the reasons they proposed the original plan was to be
able to use as much of the rear yard area for the addition as well as usable space to be gained in
the rear yard for traffic movement into the yard.
Mr. Rigsby noted that in the revised plan the concrete wall will have to be extended, removed on
one side and the garage must be widened. They lose approximately 10 feet which will start
cutting into the area needed for the salt loading pit. Traffic movement will remain the same on
both plans. He stated it is his department's preference is to use the most available space in the
most cost efficient manner. There is approximately a $30,000 difference between plan 1 and
plan 2.
Mr. Rigsby further noted the variances are for the roof height on the material storage structure
from 15 feet to 20 feet. The material storage structure is located along the east property line.
The variance for 8-foot board on board fence is needed to screen the front yard view from Lake
Cook Road.
Commissioner Samuels asked if the existing masonry fence in plan 2 could be made to work
with a perpendicular extension of the masonry wall from the new addition towards Church Road
so that the existing wall could be removed from being in front of the new addition.
Mr. Rigsby stated they would be losing very usable yard space if that were done. He stated he is
reluctant to change something that exists now. Under plan 1 they would be able to gain and
maintain that space for needed storage. They would lose about 1,020 square feet of usable rear
yard storage.
Commissioner Samuels stated the packet memo spoke of a loss of 115 square, whereas 270
square feet has been mentioned now and asked which was correct.
Mr. Pfeil stated the computations in the memo were made by Mr. Summers and himself by
scaling the site plan drawing which is a very inaccurate way to calculate precise building areas.
Mr. Scott Rubel of Sente & Rubel stated the addition would be about 63 feet by 78 feet and
could be manipulated and closed by the same area as the original scheme.
Commissioner Panitch asked what the cost would be for this project.
Mr. Rigsby stated plan 2 would run about $1,000,000 and plan 1 would run about $980,000 to
$990,000.
Commissioner Trilling asked what the space between the new addition and the brick wall would
be used for.
Mr. Rigsby stated the area is about 17 x 60 feet and there are always things in the public works
department that could be stored in an area such as that.
Commissioner Trilling asked what the face is above the 6-foot high concrete retaining wall.
Mr. Rubel stated the material above the concrete wall would be a sort of rust eater to match the
board on board fence and would be slatted to allow for air circulation through it to keep the
materials well ventilated. The wood will be unstained cedar.
Commissioner Trilling asked what was on top of the galvanized metal deck of the roof structure.
Mr. Rubel stated it would just be a pre-finished galvanized metal deck.
Commissioner Trilling asked what color it would be.
Mr. Rubel stated it would match the siding of the building.
Commissioner Trilling asked about the trees on the east side of the bulk storage building.
Mr. Rigsby stated there are 12 crab trees on the east side. He stated they are proposing to
remove those trees and replant them in other locations around the Village, especially along the
Route 83 overpass.
Commissioner Trilling asked if it was possible to envision any of the St. Mary's proposals
having any impact on the arborvitae being removed or altered in any way.
Mr. Rigsby stated he does not know of anything being done in the cemetery area that would
disturb the arborvitae hedge.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked if there has been engineering done to assure support of the
weight of the proposed building in plan 1.
Mr. Rubel stated the building built above the fence would be supported with steel structure and
column footings below.
Mr. Robert Sherman, 778 Stonebridge Lane, stated the public works department is exemplary in
snow removal and street improvements and he feels they are an outstanding government agency.
If they feel that one plan is superior for their purposes over another, he strongly supports that
plan and encourages the commission to support that proposal also.
Chairman Ottenheimer asked for a review of the Special Use criteria.
Mr. Rigsby noted the following criteria:
1. The public service center has been in this location since 1976. During the expansion in
1989 they addressed the concerns relating to the public health, safety and welfare of the
community. It is part of the campus facility and will not endanger the public health, safety and
welfare of anything in this locale. They have complied with Lake County Stormwater
Management criteria for this site and have not had any problems.
2. The nature and intensity of the operation involved are conducted in connection with said
Special Use.
3. Access to the site is available on Church Road, Lake Cook Road and Raupp Boulevard.
Have not had any problems with traffic at this site.
4. They have been neighbors with St. Mary's cemetery and they get along very well
environmentally.
5. The proposed facility will match the existing facility. One of the things they have been
careful to avoid is any obstruction of St. Mary's steeple as you come down Lake Cook Road in
an easterly direction.
6. Adequate utilities and access to drainage is already on site.
7. There is adequate parking for the public service center and the only problem happens
during golf outings.
There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Ottenheimer
closed the public hearing at 8:10 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: 11/07/2001
Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
November 7, 2001
Village Public Service Center, 51 Raupp Boulevard, Proposed
Building addition and site improvements, amendment of a
Special Use and Preliminary Plan in the R-8 District
Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 8:10 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
Ms. Bocek
Ms. Kenski-Sroka
Commissioners absent: None
Also present: Mr. Greg Boysen, Director of Public Works
Mr. Ray Rigsby, Superintendent of Public Works
Mr. Scott Rubel, Sente & Rubel
Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney
Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer
Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner
Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Feldgreber, seconded by Commissioner Dunn to approve the minutes
of the regular meeting of October 3, 2001. Commissioner Trilling noted a word needed to be
added to paragraph 2 on page 5. Also on page 7, the last paragraph needed the addition of a
word. All Commissioners were in favor of the amended motion and the motion passed
unanimously.
COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS
Commissioner Feldgreber attended the Village Board meeting on October 29, 2001 where a
proposed strip center and Kinder Care facility on the southeast corner of Route 22 and Prairie
was not referred to the Plan Commission. The Board was very strong on its feelings about
another strip center in the area and stated they were looking for something different.
VILLAGE PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER, 51 RAUPP BOULEVARD, PROPOSED BUILDING
ADDITION AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS, AMENDMENT OF A SPECIAL USE AND
PRELIMINARY PLAN IN THE R-8 DISTRICT
Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Trilling to recommend approval
to the Village Board of the petition for amendment of a Special Use and Preliminary Plan in the
R-8 District with the following variations: ZONING ORDINANCE — Section 17.32-030.A. (to
allow an accessory structure of approximately 21 feet in height instead of 15 feet and FENCE
CODE — Section 15.20.040. (to allow an 8-foot high board-on-board wood fence, instead of 6
feet in height) so that the Village may construction a building addition at the northeast corner of
the Public Works building in the current location thereof and to construct a materials storage
structure on the east side of the Public Works operations yard and to construct a wood screen
fence along the west side of the operations yard in the front yard adjacent to Lake Cook Road,
pursuant to the application of the petitioner and the testimony and documents produced at the
public hearing.
Chairman Ottenheimer asked if Commissioner Samuels was moving to approve one of the two
plans.
Commissioner Samuels stated he would like that discussed. He noted his preference would be
for a favorable recommendation with regard to Plan 2.
Chairman Ottenheimer stated they need to act on a motion first.
Commissioner Samuels stated he would prefer to recommend Plan 2, as depicted on Exhibit 2 for
the motion
Commissioner Samuels stated that he agrees with Mr. Sherman about the performance of the
public works department and its staff. He stated the differences in cost between the plans
amount to about 2-3 percent of the budget for this project. Under Plan 2 the Village would retain
some additional green space and buffering along Church Road and that would be doing the right
thing. It is a very small price to pay to keep a 24-foot structure set back further from the road
and sidewalk on the Village campus.
Commissioner Panitch also agreed with Commissioner Samuels and Mr. Sherman regarding the
public works department. He stated he feels both plans are a wash monetarily and in square
footage. Since public works has demonstrated that there are future plans for this site and if these
future plans are to be adhered to, he would recommend going with Plan 1
Commissioner Dunn stated these plans are very simple. The original plan, Plan 1 meets all the
criteria for a Special Use, the variations requested are simple and have been explained and she
would prefer to go with Plan 1.
Commissioner Trilling stated that after hearing testimony by Mr. Rigsby as to his needs, he
would defer to his wisdom and go with another motion and Plan 1.
Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows:
AYES: Samuels, Bocek
NAPES: Trilling, Dunn, Feldgreber, Panitch, Smith, Kenski-Sroka, Ottenheimer
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion failed 7 to 2.
Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Smith and incorporated by
reference his previous motion using Plan 1, pursuant to the scheme as depicted on Exhibit 1.
Mr. Raysa stated that for the record, Exhibit 1 is entitled Village of Buffalo Grove, additional
addition to Public Works Facility, Sheet A-1 A and is labeled original scheme, which has also
been referred to as Plan 1 and Plan A. Exhibit 2 is Sheet A-1 B, labeled alternative scheme,
which has also been referred to as Plan B and Plan 2.
Chairman Ottenheimer noted the record is to reflect that Plan 2 was defeated 7 to 2.
Commissioner Bocek stated her concern is more precedent setting. The setback guidelines are
established to maintain a minimum quality standard and that is why she supported Plan 2.
Commissioner Trilling stated there is an existing brick wall and just like the St. Mary's addition
which was tearing down an existing structure, to rebuild, this project should be given that
leeway.
Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows:
AYES: Samuels, Trilling, Dunn, Feldgreber, Panitch, Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka,
Ottenheimer
NAPES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion passed 9 to 0.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
With respect to the Avis Development, BP Auto is now somewhat reluctant to move their
building.
FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE
Mr. Pfeil stated the next meeting would be a special meeting on November 14, 2001.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None
STAFF REPORT—None
NEW BUSINESS—None
ADJOURNEMENT
Moved by Commissioner Dunn, seconded by Commissioner Smith and carried unanimously to
adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair