Loading...
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