2001-10-17 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission
Document Type: 0 A e
g nda 0 Minutes
Meeting ate: 10/17/2001
Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
October 17, 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—
Workshop #2
Avis Investments —Workshop #1
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.
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. Bernard Citron, Schain, Burney, Ross & Citron, Ltd.
Mr. Michael Fitzgerald, Otis Koglin Wilson, Architects
Mr. Mark Avis, Avis Investments, Inc.
Mr. Jeff Braiman, Village Trustee
Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner
Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Trilling to approve the minutes
of the regular meeting of September 19, 2001. Commissioner Trilling noted a typographical in
paragraph 8 on page 5. He noted a correction necessary to paragraph 6 on page 6.
Commissioner Bocek stated she was recommending that the elevation have a brick wainscoting
instead of the metal siding going to the ground in paragraph 11 of page 5. All commissioners
were in favor of the amended motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner
Dunn abstaining.
COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS
Commissioner Bocek attended the Village Board meeting on October 15, 2001 wherein the
Village referred the Riverwalk North multi-use development to the Plan Commission. She also
noted that public hearings concerning the extension of Route 53 would be held in Lake County
on October 23rd and October 25th.
Commissioner Trilling stated he attended the October 1, 2001 Village Board meeting where
nothing was discussed pertaining to the Plan Commission.
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—WORKSHOP 92
Mr. Boysen stated they have provided some excerpts from the architectural space needs study as
requested by the Plan Commission. They have also developed diagrams of some alternate
scenarios for the site improvements. In general, the conclusion was that the alternates were not
an effective way to implement the project objectives. Therefore, they are requesting that the
Plan Commission consider allowing the project to move ahead as presented with additional
plantings.
Mr. Rigsby stated the original scheme is providing the expansion placed on the existing screen
wall. The alternate scheme #1 moves the addition in line with the existing building. That puts
the building over the most northerly overhead door, which is the access at the present for
mechanic space. By doing this, they have had to place an overhead door in the addition. That
would be about 16 feet wide and 16 feet high to allow for heavy equipment to move through.
That creates a problem in moving some of the larger equipment into the area and trying to move
through the addition. Arial ladders from the Fire Department and snow equipment could not
make the turn to get into the drive aisle.
Mr. Rigsby noted that because of the clean fuel free program and the VPAC program which must
be complied with, and the new vehicles which use both ethanol and gasoline, the fuel placement
will need to be an above ground storage facility in a concrete containment area. Because of
building requirements, a corner of the building will need to be used for this purpose. In addition,
they are considering an automatic salt loading system for the salt storage dome. These two
improvements are not shown on the site plan and should be kept in mind when discussing these
alternative plans.
Mr. Rigsby stated scheme #2 moves the addition to the east, which will cut into the salt storage
area where placement of the new salt loading system would need to go. It also requires closing
off the existing entrance to the rear yard and create another entrance which actually would come
across the pit area being considered for the salt storage loading system. This addition would also
take up quite a bit of the rear yard area around the salt storage dome where they need to move
semis in and out to be able to load. The movement of 2-3 semis in this rear yard area gets
confining and congested. This will also add more of the building line out.
Mr. Rigsby reviewed scheme #3, which is an L shaped building. Movement inside the building
would be very difficult in terms of getting to storage, especially moving plows in. They would
need to create aisles just to get into the back area. They are also adding more building closer to
the road than already exists. It does free up some of the rear yard area and they can make the
turning movements into the northerly overhead door, but the movement inside an L shaped
addition is not conducive to the type of equipment that needs to go in.
Mr. Rigsby stated this brings them back to getting the structure on top of the existing wall. They
have added to the existing landscaping with additional trees between the sidewalk and the brick
wall. They can probably put some columnar type of plant material. They will also add 2-3 more
deciduous trees; 2 on the outside of the screen wall and 1 on the inside.
Commissioner Bocek asked if the building line on the original scheme could be cut where the
setback line is and added to the return side of the building. The entryway would still have to be
moved over but it seems as if it would work.
Mr. Rigsby stated it is a possibility. However, his only concern would be for the movement of
heavy equipment around the pit area. The pit area is long range, but it is something to be
considered.
Commissioner Panitch asked about the future development of the entire Public Works
Department and what would happen to the fuel tanks on the south side.
Mr. Rigsby noted the packet contained some of the options prepared by Liggett Architects that
show long range plans up to 2010. Option Al shows the original concept prepared in 1989.
Liggett suggested another scheme on Al that shows the building to be out front off to the south.
That was for future parking. From that they developed Option A with a building off the front
south entrance into the existing parking lot area and moving the parking south. The fuel tank
system stays in the same place with a small turnaround at the fuel island to move heavy
equipment in and out. It also shows parking on the north side of the Public Service Center. In
all the options the one thing that stays consistent is the expansion which is being sought now.
Commissioner Panitch asked which is the preferred future plan.
Mr. Rigsby stated they do not have a preferred future plan at the present moment. It appears that
everything will have to be on the south side of the building because there is no other room. Most
of the proposals do discuss moving the fuel storage tanks to either a bit south of their present
location or north of the public service center.
Commissioner Panitch asked what the time frame is for the new configuration of the salt pit.
Mr. Rigsby stated it has been in planning for the last five years. One of the problems they had
was a hang up on the design of the loading system because they have a unique salt storage dome.
It is a low profile dome, which creates an engineering problem in getting the conveyor through
the building up to the peak of the dome and being able to drop the salt in and still not lose
capacity. Several vendors now seem to have figured out a way to accomplish this and they may
be moving forward with the plan in the next five years.
Commissioner Samuels stated the suggestion by Commissioner Bocek is something he also
discussed last time and he had hoped to see it as one of the alternatives. If there is any
compromise to be had, that seems to be the only one that might be workable. He noted there is
about 15-17 feet past the setback line, which could be eliminated and made to widen the building
to the east, leaving the south entrance where it is. That would require only a small shift in the
driveway, still leaving room for all necessities. He noted he understands there is more cost
involved in this design but feels it is worth it.
Mr. Rigsby stated that design is doable, just takes up more of the drive area, which he had hoped
to take up at the salt storage area because of the traffic movement. The farther he can keep semis
from the salt storage area and the pit, the more comfortable he would feel.
Commissioner Trilling asked how often salt is delivered.
Mr. Rigsby stated they start taking deliveries at the end of October and go through March or
April. They try to schedule deliveries to take in about 250 tons at a time. This means about
10-12 trucks running through the yard in a 2-day period.
Commissioner Trilling stated he tends to agree with Commissioners Bocek and Samuels about
the idea of adding square footage on the east side and then reducing it along the front.
Chairman Ottenheimer suggested and the Commission agreed to send this project to public
hearing.
Mr. Rigsby reminded the Commission that there are two variances for the roof structure of the
material storage building and the 8-foot high fence.
AVIS INVESTMENTS—WORKSHOP 91
PROPOSED CONDOMINIUMS, EAST SIDE OF BUFFALO GROVE ROAD ACROSS
FROM CHURCH ROAD, REZONING TO B-5 DISTRICT FOR PARCELS CURRENTLY
ZONED R-E AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN IN THE B-5 DISTRICT
Mr. Bernard Citron stated he represents Avis Investments. The proposal is for 96 condominium
units in two buildings. The project was substantially reduced in scope and size. It has a
substantial number of parking spaces. It is an assemblage of property both from a number of
private individuals and from St. Mary's Church and from BP Auto. He noted Mr. Avis had
initially looked at this site as either a commercial project or a commercial and residential project.
But he does not believe the type of commercial use would not be something the Village would
like to see, the site being very irregular gives very little depth off of Buffalo Grove Road and the
type of development that would occur would probably be some sort of strip center. Any other
type of commercial development, they feel would have much more negative traffic impact than
what is being proposed and they would not have been able to reach an agreement with the
Archdiocese for a commercial development.
Mr. Citron stated they do have contracts on all of the properties but two. They have been
working with BP Auto to try and incorporate them into this development. They do have a
contract signed and executed by the Archdiocese of Chicago, who is the owner of the rectory
property. They believe they have come to an agreement with the Village on the acquisition of
the Village parcel, which is on the north side of the site.
Mr. Citron stated they have been trying to address a number of issues and have met with some of
the surrounding neighbors. They have met with Arthur Goldner who is the owner of the Town
Center project. He has looked at both the prior developments and the development proposal and
seems to be happy with it. They have met with Deerfield Bakery and the funeral home to try to
see that they address, if any, of their concerns and have heard no additional concerns from them.
The project as a residential development will add to the Town Center and that whole feel. They
believe this will be more of an empty nester development with 1 or 2 bedrooms and therefore
there is sufficient parking for the type of project that is here. Studies of various similar projects
suggest that this will not generate a large population of school age children, if any, where, it will
generate substantial real estate tax dollars.
Mr. Michael Fitzgerald stated some of the major issues that came up during the process, both in
house with the design team, as well as with the Village Board, was regarding use, density,
parking and access in and around the site, the acquisition and use of BP Auto site. Another area
of concern to the Village was how this site could be integrated in with the current Town Center
as well as a potential future new Town Center, as it may be rebuilt over time in future years.
Mr. Fitzgerald noted the project is 96 units. Rather than having one building sitting in the center
of the site with parking and green space around, they have looked at addressing Buffalo Grove
Road with this residential project. The thought was by pulling the buildings a bit away from
Buffalo Grove Road, they are looking to opening up the entrance with green space and a water
feature onto Buffalo Grove Road. This gives a center of public space to the development similar
to the residential development on the north end of the Town Center. It also opens the proposed
development up to the public. It is not confined just to the residents in the development. It
responds more sympathetically to the residential nature across the street and to the Church. Mr.
Fitzgerald noted there is a nice tree line on the eastern edge of the site which they would like to
maintain and they want to be sure there is enough buffer between the east portion of this project
and the eastern boundary to take advantage of that tree line.
With regard to integrating the BP Auto site, Mr. Fitzgerald stated they looked at reducing the
footprint of the building which brought density down and it reduced the parking load that is
needed for this project. It also opened up the property just south of the building to try to get
some of the parking closer to the building. That is how they are looking at utilizing the BP Auto
site. The parking originally shown on the northeast corner of the site was a concern as being too
remote from the condominium building. They have also reconfigured the parking in the central
open space area to accommodate more parking as well.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that in acquiring and using the BP Auto property, the thought was to
relocate that use. They suggest relocating at the north end of the property. The reason for this is
that it gets tucked between two existing detention areas; one to the east of the funeral home and
another detention area to the east of the bakery and then a new proposed detention area for this
project. It is therefore remote from the residential use. The other reason is that they have access
from this road on the south part of the funeral home and this access becomes the access for the
relocated BP Auto.
Mr. Fitzgerald noted many concerns centered on how this project can be integrated in with the
Town Center. If this gets redeveloped, the eastern facade of that building is really a front facade
of a potential new Village Green. What you are doing is mixing the uses and the Village Green.
You could have retail on the ground floor in the new components and residential above. At the
head of the new Village Green you could possibly have a residential component. You would get
pedestrians walking around your Village Green. Access to and integration into this Village
Green is not just with the buildings, but the roads and sidewalks as well.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated they have relocated the access from the site to the east. It used to be
located up on the northeast corner. What they were looking to locate it down on the southeast
corner. But taking into account what conditions are today and will be for quite some time, they
needed to find ways to be able to get out to Lake Cook Road or Buffalo Grove Road. The road
on the south end is easier access either to Lake Cook Road from the south or even to Route 83.
Originally they showed a full intersection at the main entrance and you could turn either way
onto Buffalo Grove Road. They are now showing a right out only from the development. To
access Buffalo Grove Road and head south, one would come out the southeast corner and get
onto Lake Cook Road there. Access into the site can come from Buffalo Grove Road,
northbound or southbound.
Mr. Citron they have basically presented the condominium development portion of the plan.
They would like to proceed on this part of the project first and get some comments and concerns
out before they move to other sides of the street.
Mr. Citron stated this project would meet with or is less than the ultimate development potentials
here. The project as shown today is about 21 units per acre, which is below what this district
would allow. The floor area ratio is below the 1.0 that this district would allow. The site
coverage is also less than what this district would allow. They are not trying to use every square
inch of this property. However, they are asking for the variation to allow the residential
development on 4.39 acres instead of 5 acres. They do not believe this negatively effects their
proposal because they are not going above that. The only other variances they are asking for are
justified based on what they are trying to do with this site and will have little impact.
Mr. Mark Avis stated this process started with two homeowners who wanted to sell piecemeal
and asked if Avis would want to build eight townhouses. The Village replied that they were
tired of building piecemeal in the Town Center and that if they were to approve anything in the
Town Center they would like to see things incorporated and they should talk to the
representative owners of the surrounding properties to see where they could get things together
for a master plan. They spent time speaking to Arthur Goldner, the owner of the Town Center
who supports this development and thinks it will be good for his viability and economic
standpoint. There have been numbers meetings with the Archbishop of Chicago and St. Mary's
parish in terms, not only of incorporating their parcel and rectory, but in terms of getting their
ideas for project designs so that it will be aesthetically pleasing to Buffalo Grove Road and the
parish on the other side.
Mr. Avis stated he feels he and the owner of BP Auto have come up with an amicable solution
for his business which works well and incorporates the site plan and opens it up well. Mr.
Goldner is also excited with the access on the south end of the Town Center. If they are now
truly on the south side of the Town Center, it is safer and more conducive to retail shopping.
Chairman Ottenheimer asked the commission if they all agree with the basic land use concept of
condominium development. He noted the Commissioners should consider that in light of the
Comprehensive Plan that had designated this area as commercial development.
Commissioner Trilling stated the assemblage of parcels is a great idea and the only way it would
work. As far as the use is concerned he noted he has no problem with residential use here. This
is an example of a development that will be for older people with few children and he would
definitely support this kind of a project.
Commissioner Dunn stated she also feels that residential development would work for this
parcel. Town Center already has a problem renting retail space and there is already retail space
at the Praedium Development, which was approved on Buffalo Grove Road. As far as future
planning for Buffalo Grove, a condominium development would be an appropriate use.
Commissioner Feldgreber agreed with Commissioner Trilling. He stated he has no problem with
residential use. There are many issues to be discussed, but the concept of residential is no
problem.
Commissioner Samuels stated he, too, has no problem with residential. However, he would like
to see more of a combined use explored. This assemblage is good but it still looks
uncoordinated.
Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated she agrees with Commissioner Samuels. This plan seems to
presuppose that the Town Center is going to be leveled and developed into some sort of Village
Green and she does not really see that happening. Until the viability of the Town Center is
resolved, she does not know if the Village should commit to a hodgepodge of buildings that are
fit into a site.
Commissioner Smith stated he initially had a problem with a plan, which would remove more
commercial space. However, looking at the plan he can see it working and he will go into the
development with an open mind. He would, however, like to see some type of mixed use here.
Commissioner Bocek stated she has no problem with the residential use. There are some
logistical problems within the plan.
Commissioner Panitch stated he did not like the concept at first. He is still not happy with a
great deal of the proposed residences overlooking the back end of Town Center and another
portion overlooking the parking lot of the funeral home.
Chairman Ottenheimer stated he shares the concerns of Commissioners Smith and Panitch. This
parcel is zoned commercial and an opportunity may or may not come along. Therefore, he tends
to agree with the comments that a mixed-use development linked into the Town Center is very
important. He stated this project must have some significant tie in to the Town Center in order
for him to support it. He noted it might also take the cooperation of the owner of the Town
Center, who may do nothing, although he is in favor of this project. He hopes there can be more
of a commitment on his part to be more actively involved in the process and perhaps make some
changes that need to be made.
Chairman Ottenheimer noted his calculations show the density at 22.5 units per acre.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated the notes show that 30 units per acre are what are allowed. They are
looking at 4.39 acres, not 4.28. So the allowable number of units is 131 and the proposed is 96
which is 73 percent of the allowable.
Chairman Ottenheimer asked if BP Auto is being taken into account.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated BP Auto is being taken into account in the gross site area. In the table that
shows FAR maximum lot coverage building units, they forgot to take into account the BP Auto
site. They are really looking at 4.39 acres times 30 units which should equal 131 units
allowable.
Commissioner Samuels inquired about the lot area to be used for calculation of the proposed
residential density.
Mr. Pfeil stated the site area for the new BP Auto building should not be included in the lot area
for calculation of residential density. He said that the proposed density is approximately 22.4
units per acre based on the residential lot minus the lot area for BP Auto.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated the other variances are at two locations, the setback for a parking lot and
the drives to be less than 25 feet.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated there is a requirement for a 25 foot yard setback for parking and the
variance ask for relief of this setback in the northeast portion of the site. The parking is within
that 25-foot setback on the east and the south end. The drive is also within that 25 foot yard
setback on the east end. Any type of road that would go back there would only be permitted if a
variance were granted. The other area is on the south side of the property where the parking
south of the building does encroach upon the 25-foot setback both on the south and eastern
portion. They are looking to provide a balance of green space between the building and parking
as well as the parking and parcel to the south. He stated they would move the parking closer to
the building and not infringe upon the south 25-foot setback. They would still be over on the
East Side, but they are looking to try to balance that landscape.
Chairman Ottenheimer asked about shifting the south condominium building to the south to
enhance a possible future linkage to the Town Center. The parking on the south of the building
would then be moved to a location between the two condo buildings where it would be useful for
residents and visitors in both buildings.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that was something they had looked into and noted a couple of concerns
with that. Because the eastern property line is not parallel to Buffalo Grove Road, it starts to
infringe upon the 35 foot building setback on Buffalo Grove and they feel it is important to
maintain that setback. They are really not able to move it to the south. They are looking at a
number of options however. One is to eliminate the tail of that building which starts to infringe
upon the setback. Perhaps a rectangular building that steps back could be used which would
allow the building to be moved and they would be able to take parking from the south and start
to incorporate it closer to the building. They are finding that the geometry of the central space is
really triangular, not rectangular, the amount of parking that they are able to add is only a few
spaces. They cannot really park in the triangular green space. He stated they also looked at
reorienting the building on the site so that it is really fronting Buffalo Grove Road. That does
allow for a larger parking field on the eastern part of the property. One of the things to consider,
however, is the impact of the building on Buffalo Grove Road. One of the initial design
considerations was to try to respond to Buffalo Grove Road and as the buildings opened up, they
created a more open feeling to Buffalo Grove Road.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked what the best entrance to the south building would be coming
from the north.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated you could make a left hand turn into the site along Buffalo Grove Road
coming from the north. This entrance is inbound from Buffalo Grove Road from the north, the
south and across Church. Right turns only to northbound Buffalo Grove Road is proposed for
exiting the site.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked how he would go south from the site.
Mr. Fitzgerald commented that drivers could use the east driveway from the site to the Town
Center shopping center to access the signalized intersections at Checker Road or Route 83.
Motorists could also access the Walgreens driveway to Buffalo Grove Road via the rear of Town
Center.
Mr. Avis stated that St. Mary officials have a strong concern with anyone trying to make a left
turn on this busy street which is why they reconfigured the new site plan to have a right out only
to Buffalo Grove Road.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked if it was all right with the Town Center to cut through to get to
the stoplight.
Mr. Avis stated they felt that the new way out works better by tying in to the easement on the
south side than impacting their center.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked if St. Mary officials would support a through movement for
vehicles across Buffalo Grove Road to Church Road.
Mr. Avis stated the plan does not allow this movement, but it could be provided if the traffic
reports indicate that it would be acceptable in terms of traffic impact and safety.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked how pedestrians would walk over to the Town Center.
Mr. Avis stated he must still talk to the owner of Town Center. However, his thought is to make
this development a more walking friendly shopping center. He stated he was looking into doing
an off site walkway that runs along the Town Center on the south side that would give access to
the development as well as a walkway from the Town Center over to Walgreens.
Commissioner Bocek stated the parking field, adjacent to BP Auto is not effective, and she
doubts there will be many people who would park there and walk all the way to either entrance.
Mr. Citron noted that parking would be strictly guest parking. They now have just over one
space per unit under the buildings. The remaining parking for the units themselves if people
have more than one car will also be inside the building. There will be some internal parking on
the site around the water feature. A substantial number of people will have only one car.
Commissioner Bocek stated she does not like the idea of cutting through the Town Center
parking lot as a form of egress for this development.
Commissioner Samuels asked if the developer was planning on using the easement immediately
to the north of the proposed BP Auto relocation area between Deerfield Bakery and the
detention.
Mr. Avis stated yes.
Commissioner Samuels noted that seems to be the natural way to come down by coming through
that easement and around back of the Town Center.
Mr. Avis stated it is definitely something they will look at.
Commissioner Trilling stated he always felt the access would be best on the northeast side of the
site because people who want to go southbound, either on Buffalo Grove Road or Route 83, will
try to get out by Walgreens which is already horrendous. By putting the access on the south end
it encourages people to use the south portion. Putting the access on the north end will encourage
people to use that access which leads to a signalized intersection where they can go southbound
on Buffalo Grove Road or you can exit and get onto Route 83 by going east between the two
buildings in the Town Center.
Mr. Citron noted that these are not cost issues, rather an attempt to respond to many issues.
Commissioner Trilling further noted it would be nice to bring the Town Center along and create
an opening in the building to provide some flow into the center.
Mr. Avis noted the Town Center really couldn't be developed until 2006 when the bonds can be
retire. Also the tenants are doing well and locked into long-term leases. Mr. Goldner is at
present two years ahead of his financial projections. His first priority now is to make it a more
viable option and continue with his original thought of a shopping center. As he continues with
his progression and this development proceeds, there is the potential to be incorporated later on
and Mr. Goldner is open to that later.
RELOCATION OF BP AUTO FACILITY, SPECIAL USE FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR
USE IN THE B-5 DISTRICT
Commissioner Samuels asked where BP Auto fits into the synergy of the Town Center and this
development.
Mr. Citron stated he couldn't answer that on a pure planning standpoint. It fits in because from a
financial standpoint it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for this project to go ahead with
just buying BP Auto out totally. Therefore they have tried to incorporate them in a way that
would allow their business to continue in a viable way. This becomes the major stumbling block
on this project. They have committed to incorporating BP Auto into this plan.
Commissioner Samuels asked what kind of restrictions would there be on BP Auto.
Mr. Citron stated they have to sell these units and they are not inexpensive and they would have
to develop, with staff, the language for the type of activity and screening and restrictions there
would be on this property.
Commissioner Samuels asked how such an ordinance would be enforced.
Mr. Citron stated there are two issues here. One is public enforcement and the Village would
have to take care of that.
Commissioner Samuels noted it is inconsistent with the operation of his business.
Mr. Citron stated he disagrees. It is perhaps inconsistent with the operation of a business today,
but businesses can be improved. He stated they have incorporated very disparate uses in a lot of
projects and it can be successful. He further noted there is also private enforcement through
covenants, restrictions and declarations. There would also be 96 homeowners who would also
be enforcing that use.
Commissioner Samuels stated he would never expect individual homeowners to enforce a
covenant.
Mr. Citron stated he agrees on that, but he emphasized there are 96 homeowners and an
association which carry a lot of weight and they have the budgets to do that.
Mr. Pfeil commented that with the premise that the current location has to be incorporated into
the condo site and therefore the business has to be moved to the northeast, he believes a special
use type of approach is the best zoning tool. Site planning to mitigate and avoid as many
problems as possible would be part of the special use review process.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked if BP would own the parcel or would do a land lease.
Mr. Avis stated they met with Village staff and Village attorney and told the owner of BP Auto
to work with the Village on a contract as to how best make this an option. At that point they
could get into restrictions on land use, etc. At this point, BP Auto would own the land. The
Village attorney has mentioned that if he ever decided to sell, the Village might want a right of
first refusal and other items.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked if this would then be a special use within a residential district.
Any grandfathering that was previously allowed would now be gone.
Mr. Pfeil said that the approach would be to change the commercial sub-district of the B-5
District to allow automotive repair as a special use. The current non-conforming BP Auto
facility would be eliminated when the property is incorporated into the residential site.
Commissioner Panitch asked what the area directly east of the funeral home is.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that area is used as parking.
Mr. Avis stated the public access area is an easement that is not presently being used.
Commissioner Panitch stated he feels using access to the north is a better idea than the south
access. He suggested it would be a good idea to incorporate a straight access to Church Road
across Buffalo Grove Road. He stressed lowering the density somewhat, which may add some
green space and make a more viable access point happen.
Mr. Avis noted they are hoping to have easement signage on the other side of the entranceway
into BP Auto. In terms of landscaping, they have tried to incorporate the landscaping all the way
around BP Auto. They will have a sketch of this sight for the next meeting for review. Some of
the concerns by BP Auto are for security, landscaping and buffering. Some of the trustee's
concerns are with the design of the building and perhaps trying to incorporate it into the
Deerfield Bakery design.
ST MARY PARISH RECTORY, AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE FACILITY NORTH OF LAKE COOK ROAD
ADJACENT TO FOOTBALL FIELD IN THE R-1 DISTRICT
Mr. Citron stated they are under contract to buy all the parcels and they are contingent contracts.
He stated the Archdiocese came to them after a certain amount of time. They knew there was a
desire on the part of the Archdiocese to incorporate the existing rectory/office building onto their
parcel on the west side of the street. There is a proposal to actually build them the new rectory
and office space and that is what they are doing as compensation. Although the building on the
east side is older, it is not historically significant in and of itself. At one point the new rectory
was going to take up part of the football field. There was a concern not to do that. There were
issues concerns regarding traffic issues. There was another concern having to do with parking
overall. They have prepared a sketch plan showing that if the rectory building was put on the
corner on the Huehl property, there would actually be a loss of parking in the future and it would
be very difficult to build the type of building the church actually wants, especially when you
figure ultimately some of that land is going to be taken by either Lake County for turn lanes on
Buffalo Grove Road or by the state for Lake Cook Road.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked what currently occupies the land, which is proposed for the
rectory.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated the football field is about another 50 feet to the east, which is where the
rectory is proposed. There is a playground at the eastern edge of the proposed parking field.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked what would happen to the football field.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated the dimensions of the football field would not change, although the striping
gets moved to the west to clear the footprint of the proposed rectory and parking and still fits
within the property.
Commissioner Feldgreber stated using the Huehl lot for the rectory would give the developer
more space for parking, as there is an extreme shortage of parking for the church.
Mr. Avis stated the church does not own the Huehl property. A study was done for the corner
piece as to what was the most appropriate use. It was determined this corner piece could attain
about 92 parking spaces even after taking the 25 foot setback for the Lake Cook Road expansion.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked the size of the proposed rectory.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated the rectory is roughly 6,000 square feet, two-story building. Office is on
the eastern portion and the western half is for residential use. One of the issues that came up was
that this would be a residence and it may be more appropriate to pull what is a residence away
from a busy intersection at Lake Cook Road and Buffalo Grove Road.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked how big the current rectory building is.
Mr. Avis stated the usage is approximately the same, although what they are using is probably is
less than 6,000 square feet. However, the church goal was to fully replace and upgrade the
rectory and accommodate the needs of the parish. The building and site plan was actually
designed by the church together with the architects and corresponds to their desires.
Commissioner Feldgreber asked if the developer had looked at any way to keep the building on
the east side of the street.
Mr. Avis stated the long term plans of the church were to locate the rectory on the same side of
the street, which is the master plan of their campus. He noted they never would have gotten this
far without the desire of the church to relocate on the other side of the street.
Mr. Citron stated they started out with this development as a much smaller piece and as they
proceeded forward there seemed to be a synergy there to incorporate all of the church's property
on one side of the street.
Mr. Avis stated they originally spoke to the church asking if they would support a development
at all. At that point they stated it was their long-term plan to relocate on the other side of the
street and asked if the developer would consider incorporating the rectory site into the
development.
Commissioner Trilling noted he would like to have a clarification as to the current parking needs
of the church. He noted he would like to make sure that if the current needs indicate additional
parking is needed now, a building is not put where that future parking may be needed. Also, he
asked what kind of parking needs the proposed rectory would have and how much more will be
provided. He asked if there is a way to push the proposed rectory building further to the east,
eliminating the access aisle that is in front of the building on the east side. If this is not possible
he asked to consider flipping the building so that the rectory is further away from Lake Cook
Road and putting the garage spaces closer to Lake Cook and also closer to the parking spaces.
Commissioner Samuels asked if the developer had explored acquiring the 2-3 houses that are
businesses that lie to the north of Church Road along Buffalo Grove Road for the rectory.
Mr. Avis stated the church's goal is to utilize the land that they own at this time.
Commissioner Samuels noted he assumes the present rectory is capable of being physically
moved.
Mr. Avis stated noted the structure is not ADA compliant nor is it air-conditioned. Therefore,
physically moving the rectory would not fit the needs of the church.
Commissioner Samuels noted that if money were not the object, the building could be moved
and rehabbed. He asked if there is any reasonable prospect of that happening at all.
Mr. Avis stated their agreement with the archdiocese was to replace the building with a modern
building on the church side of the street.
Commissioner Samuels stated it is really a matter of the dollars that would be needed to expend
on such a project.
Mr. Avis stated the archdiocese indicated they wanted a new building whether they work with
Avis investments or not. They indicated their desire was for a new rectory on their property at
some time in the future. It just so happened that this random assemblage for a redevelopment
came about and it worked out for all. He stated the church is getting a very special new building.
Commissioner Samuels stated he asks only if any reasonable alternatives have been explored.
Commissioner Samuels asked what standing the petitioner has to present the issues that are
involved in the church's property.
Mr. Pfeil stated that a representative of the Archdiocese signed the petition for Concept and
Preliminary Plan Review as a co-petitioner.
Commissioner Panitch noted since there is a school on the property, it must be dealt with and
there is a playground issue. He noted the playground has been relocated into the courtyard area,
which is presently used for a variety of purposes. He asked if those functions would be placed
elsewhere.
Mr. Citron stated those questions need to be asked of the church representatives. They
determined it would be a viable location for the playground. They seem to feel it may be
somewhat safer now because buildings and no parking lots surround the playground and no
driveways will need to be crossed to get to the playground.
Commissioner Panitch noted there will now be a building and parking lot to cross to get to the
football field and parking is and always will be a problem.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that whether the rectory or parking should be on the Huehl property is
something the church will have to answer.
Commissioner Panitch stated he agrees with the other commissioners that the actual rectory
building should be placed further west and north and have the garage closer to Lake Cook Road.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated the architects and the church felt that the direction for the building was to
be more from the architecture of the church by picking up the materials and even some of the
forms.
Mr. Robert Pioch, owner of BP Auto, stated there are many issues surrounding the offer made by
Avis Investments. There are many things he does not know the answers to as yet. He noted he
needs more parking than he presently has now. He noted he uses the rectory parking lot for
access. Noting knowing what he will be getting makes him very skeptical for now. He stated he
is open to ideas although he needs to make an improvement for himself. He needs to know that
he will be able to stay once he moves out. He noted that he would need to know what he could
do with the building once he does decide to leave. He stated he fears that his new location will
make his business seem like a parking garage amongst the new buildings. He stated that no sign
out front would be a disaster for him. He stated he is concerned with the fact that the new site
makes it difficult for him to be seen. He noted that he also actually needs more space than what
he has now as he is used to more space with the use of the rectory parking lot. He further noted
he also has access between the front and back of the building
Debbie Salvesen, 337 Armstrong Drive, stated adding another 20-car parking lot between the
school and the playing field is an increased danger to the safety of their children and to any
disabled parishioners. Currently the school blocks traffic from entering the parish property
during both section A and B recess periods. If the rectory is built where it is currently proposed,
the traffic will not be able to be stopped because rectory and administrative business must
continue without interruption. The result will be that children will have to cross an area of
continual traffic to get to the playing field. She further noted that basketball hoops will
apparently be taken down and do not seem to be replaced. If the corner lot is purchased and a
new parking lot is placed there, it would be less dangerous for everyone to have the rectory built
immediately west of that area. The school space is being taken up for parish storage, charities
and meetings. The principal has told the parents that the school is a parish building and the
needs of the parish must come first. Then a basement should be added for storage and meeting
space. The school is in need of all of its space for its own use. She stated the rectory should be
built where teachers now park because of the corner lot being possible future parking space. The
priests' living quarters should also be downsized. A full basement should be built to meet the
needs of parish meeting and storage space. An elevator should be in the building so it would
truly be accessible to anyone who is disabled. The rectory parking lot should be directly off the
parishioner entranceway and not off the priest's private door. The parish guests should not have
to walk around to the side of the building to get into it, especially if any of them are disabled or
have problems walking. The rectory should not be built where it affects the football field or
playground area at all. The developer should be required to build an additional secondary
playground in the courtyard area to be used only after school is over for the day so as to
minimize any disruption to the students who face the courtyard. She stated she is asking that
only changes that preserve the safety of children and the ability for them to learn be allowed.
Grady Buttliere, 38 Crestview Terrace, Buffalo Grove, stated he is a firemen in Buffalo Grove.
He has noted they have enough traffic in this area already. He noted the proposed road for BP
Automotive is very narrow and there would be no turnaround for emergency vehicles. Even tow
truck access for BP Auto would be difficult. He noted it appears there would be no greener in
the back of Town Center with the proposed development. Most importantly, the fire department
for this development would come from Dundee Road. If they get another call, it would require
them to go around to Route 83 in order to get back to any other calls. He further noted that
having the playground in the courtyard would interfere with the other kids still in class.
Chairman Ottenheimer noted the following items need to be addressed at the next meeting:
1. Ingress and egress issues
2. Linkage issues to Town Center
3. The possibility of adding the Eul property to the St. Mary campus and determining if the
best use of this property is for parking or for the rectory
4. BP Automotive issues
5. Rectory site planning and location issues
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None
FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE
Mr. Pfeil stated the next regular meeting would be November 7, 2001.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None
STAFF REPORT—None
NEW BUSINESS—None
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Trilling, seconded by Commission Kenski-Sroka and carried
unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 10:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair