Loading...
2001-09-19 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: Plan Commission Document Type: Minutes Meeting Date: 09/19/2001 Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION September 19, 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 #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 Mr. Feldgreber Mr. Panitch Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Commissioners absent: Ms. Dunn Also present: Mr. Greg Boysen, Director of Public Works Mr. Ray Rigsby, Village of Buffalo Grove Public Works Mr. Scott Rubel, Sente& Rubel Mr. Bruce Kahn, Village Trustee Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES —None COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Panitch attended the September 10, 2001 Village Board meeting where they discussed the Dominick's fuel center on Lake Cook Road. This prof ect was remanded back to the Plan Commission for review. The instructions from the Board and the Village Attorney were to be more specific in comments so that the basis for the Plan Commission's recommendation is fully documented. The Village Attorney advised the Board that the Plan Commission should refer to the Special Use/Planned Unit Development criteria in the Zoning Ordinance when a recommendation is formulated.Mr.Hene, of Dominick's has stated there have been modifications to the plan that he would like to present to the Plan Commission before the Village Board makes a final decision. Commissioner Feldgreber noted that Chase Plaza has been sold. Everything but the Dominick's store and the outlot proposed for the fuel center is under new ownership. Commissioner Samuels asked if the Board wanted only clarification of the reasons for the vote, which could be done in writing or did they actually remand the project back for a workshop or a public hearing. Does this require a new vote and new findings as opposed to those already submitted in the initial vote? Mr. Pfeil stated the Board did stipulate a workshop and public hearing based on Mr. Hene's request to present new information to the Plan Commission. The Board wants the Commission to refer to the PUD criteria within the Special Use section of the Zoning Ordinance when a recommendation is made on the modified proposal. Commissioner Samuels inquired if the Board was saying there was something wrong with the previous procedure and therefore there was no validity to what was done, or is there something substantially new and different that is supposed to come before the Plan Commission. Trustee Kahn noted that Dominick's came before the Board before the meeting and wanted to present additional information which the Board did not feel was appropriate for them to review. Based upon that the Board did not review the information they wanted to show. Dominick's felt the changes were significantly different and they wanted to have another workshop. The Board therefore felt it was appropriate to handle the matter at the Plan Commission level. Commissioner Panitch noted a letter he received which states Mr. Raysa's concern, "that the justification for the denial is less than complete in the Plan Commission public record." Because of this Mr. Raysa suggested the Board members state their reasons for denial based on the Special Use and PUD standards in the zoning ordinance. VILLAGE PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER, 51 RAUPP BOULEVARD, PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS, AMENDMENT OF A SPECIAL USE AND PRELIMINARY PLAN IN THE 4-8 DISTRICT —WORKSHOP #1 Mr. Greg Boysen stated there have been studies of space needs for various Village Departments dating back to the mid-1980's with updates concerning the Public Works Department needs within the last several years. The current proposal for a building addition and other site improvements for the Public Service Center is consistent with recommendations from these studies. Mr. Rigsby stated they wanted to set priorities to the project for any future expansion. They looked at the needs up to the year 2020. The expansion for the public works building would either be to the south of the building or coming out in a southeasterly direction and across the front. Based on that information they needed to look for space for their new addition for equipment storage. They are proposing the addition strictly for equipment storage for such things as rack storage, document storage, and future supply storage. One of the things this expansion will accomplish is to get the seasonal equipment under cover. They are proposing a 4,900 square foot addition with a single overhead door entry coming in off the south. They are now looking at building on top of the existing wall. This exposure, whether from the west, north or northeast, is covered by many mature trees which will break up the monotony of the proposed addition. They are proposing the same type of material as is on the existing building. Mr. Rigsby stated they would then like to locate their material storage bunkers on the easterly boundary bordering St. Mary's cemetery. This would allow them to get their material under cover. They are proposing a concrete wall poured in place, a structure for material storage such as gravel, black dirt and asphalt. Mr. Rigsby stated the next priority is the replacement of the existing floor in the public service center. He noted they are having some problem with the concrete floor there, which is spalling, which is probably due to the initial construction of the floor with the reinforcing rod being too close to the surface. Over the years, and with the salt trucks coming in here, the reinforcing rod has begun corroding and the concrete has now popped. Mr.Rigsby noted the next priority is covering the material storage bin. It is difficult in the winter working on water main breaks when the gravel for back fill has frozen in big lumps. Mr. Rigsby stated the next priority is the gate operator for the south entrance. The existing large swinging gate does not provide much security for the yard, let alone keeping anyone out. Mr. Rigsby stated the next priority is a board on board fence. At the present time there are existing upright junipers that have been in place for 8-10 years and have basically outlasted their lifespan. They are dying back now and should be replaced. They also need to be able to get some security into this rear yard and be able to hide the material storage in that rear area. The board on board fence proposal is for an 8-foot fence. They will need a variance for that fence. Mr. Rigsby stated their last priority is a proposal for excavation in the rear yard area to bring it down to the same elevation as the rest of the yard and to pave the area. That becomes additional parking for new cars to be checked out and new equipment to be changed over. They are requesting too variances. Once is for the roof structure at the material storage bin. That roof structure will be approximately 20 feet 7 inches at the front and about 18 feet at the rear elevation. The board on board fence will, of course be 8 feet. The roof structure and the siding around the material storage bin have plans calling for a louver type siding. This is not, however, definite and he would like to see something similar to what is on the existing building and the proposed building to try to keep everything uniform in the rear yard area. Chairman Ottenheimer asked about any changes in the landscaping. Mr. Rigsby stated the only changes would be the removal of a large ash tree and Austrian pine tree in the area for the new addition. They cannot be relocated and will need to be removed. They have looked into the possibility of adding another tree in the parkway, but will have to check the line of site from the rear yard. Commissioner Samuels asked why Church Road is not platted as right-of-way. Mr. Pfeil stated it was conveyed to the Village by Cook County at some point and was conveyed not as right-of-way. Basically there is a plat of several real estate parcels, including what looks like a former right-of-way for Church Road. However, it is no longer right-of-way, so it appears that technically a front yard setback is not required along Church Road. The Village campus is platted as one lot, and zoned as a Special Use with multiple buildings. Mr. Boysen stated the parcel from Cook County ran through the golf course. Commissioner Samuels asked if there is any advantage or disadvantage to the Village declaring the portion paved and used as a street as right-of-way. Mr. Pfeil stated he cannot think of anything. There are no tax implications and practically it functions as a street. Commissioner Samuels asked if the existing masonry fence is safe or whether it should be corrected since there will be changes made to the area or will the changes make things even worse. Commissioner Samuels asked about drainage and detention as this area continues to be developed. Mr. Boysen stated drainage is no problem and sufficient as is. Commissioner Samuels asked why it is necessary to pull the new addition all the way up to the fence line as opposed to making it even with the front of the existing building. Mr. Boysen stated it would not be an efficient space or a cost-effective project if the addition has to be setback to line up with the existing building. Mr.Rigsby noted they will have an overhead door so they cannot pull the expansion any farther to the south. Commissioner Samuels suggested shifting the whole addition south. A new entry in the addition would allow access to replace the existing opening in the building. Mr. Rigsby stated that such a shift in the location of the addition would create a large aisle right at the access to get into the building and thereby lose storage. Commissioner Samuels stated that what used to be the access to the building is now storage. Mr. Rigsby noted you still have to maintain a 14-foot aisle to be able to get into the building. So storage would have to be put on either side of the aisle and you would be losing about 800 square feet of storage. Commissioner Trilling stated Church Street must be looked at, for all practical purposes, as a right-of-way as it would in any private development. There is a requirement for building setback and typically that would be 1 foot for each foot in height of the building. Since the building is 14 feet from the sidewalk, that would give you a 14-foot high building, if that scenario is followed. Mr.Pfeil stated that 25 feet is the minimum front yard setback in the least restrictive zoning district. The proposed addition is a unique situation since Church Road is not right-of-way. Commissioner Trilling stated a 24-foot high building with only a 14-foot setback does not do much for aesthetics along Church Road, which is an attractive road to drive on. Mr. Rigsby noted that coming west on Church Road you do not see the wall or the building. From the east, again you see the wall from the service center, which is what you will see with the expansion. The only difference is that the rear of the building will be a little closer to Church Road. Commissioner Trilling noted that you can still see some blue sky above the 8-foot fence and the new building will be three times that height with an impervious surface. Commissioner Bocek asked if the concrete bulk storage areas had to be open to view. Mr. Rigsby stated they could have doors covering them, but they are working within a budget and that is something they could add later. Commissioner Bocek asked if wainscoting could be used rather than extending the metal siding all the way to the ground. She suggested that this alternate treatment would be more visually attractive. Chairman Ottenheimer asked what type of fencing materials would be used. Mr. Rigsby stated it will be a cedar board on board, natural. Commissioner Samuels asked about turning the addition 90 degrees and moving the driveway. Mr. Rigsby stated there is no room there as the semi's would not be able to get in or out for salt deliveries. Commissioner Samuels noted that variations are hard to come by for private developers. When the request is coming from a public agency he feels it must be given the same scrutiny and analysis as is given to the private sector. All alternatives must be explored before agreeing to a variation. Mr. Rigsby stated they are trying to locate an addition to the building that will give them the best and most usable space on the site while still allowing them to add or expand in the future. Commissioner Samuels stated it may be necessary to look at the proposed long- range expansion to see if that is the need that drives this proposal. Mr. Boysen stated the two variations are for the height of the storage area because they cannot function in a safe and effective way utilizing an end loader if there is not a high enough clearance for it. The second variation is the height of the fence, which would be safer. The road is not a variation because it is property that the Village owns. The only reason the road is there today is because there was no driving need to tear out what was there. Eventually, there will be a need for that and it will be changed. At the time there was no need to spend money to tear out the road and it was the most economical way to go. Commissioner Trilling commented that although Church Road is perhaps not right- of-way in the legal sense, he does not agree that this means the building addition should be designed differently than other developments in the Village in terms of the setback from the street. He asked for clarification concerning Mr. Boysen's comment that Church Road will not look the same in 20 years compared to the existing situation. Mr. Boysen stated that as the Village grows and the golf course and police department activities increase, they will require more parking. The needs of the facilities are going to require the optimal use of the property over a period of time. It would just be the Village creating a restriction on itself that does not really exist. Commissioner Trilling asked if he was speaking about the location of the proposed building as being a restriction or is it the roadway as it is today is somehow going to be reconfigured to allow for additional parking beyond what exists today. Mr. Boysen stated there are parking needs that are becoming more intense from year to year. The Village has the property so why negate its value for some access purpose that functionally is not needed and would reduce the value of the property and require a great deal of money to replace. Commissioner Samuels asked if Church Street would somehow be blocked off so that there would no longer be access off of Buffalo Grove Road. He noted that he could not image the police department not wanting or insisting that they be able to get to Buffalo Grove Road from Church. Mr. Rigsby stated that some of the plans they have looked at did include a scenario to relocate the gas pumps out from their present location to Church. They did not really want the gas pumps out in the middle of Church Road. There have been other scenarios brought along the way. Commissioner Samuels noted that the design of the police station seems to have respected some sort of setback. They were not required to do so legally but they did it anyway. He stated he would just like to explore alternatives that may allow some greater setbacks. Chairman Ottenheimer stated it might be a good idea to come up with some sort of setback number. Commissioner Samuels stated he would be comfortable with whatever it is the police department has. Mr. Rigsby noted that coming down Church Road from the east you see the masonry wall with the existing building. With the expansion you will see exactly the same thing. Commissioner Samuels stated that because of the perspective there, as you bring the building forward it will get larger and larger. Mr. Rigsby stated you try to break up that emphasis with landscaping. Commissioner Panitch asked how many square feet are really necessary for the proposed addition as you have noted there will be future expansion. He asked if 3900 square feet would be sufficient. Mr. Rigsby stated no. When they initially identified their space needs they were looking at 6,000 square feet and they will just be able to get by with 4,900 square feet they are proposing. Commissioner Feldgreber asked what would be stored in the proposed addition. Mr. Rigsby stated seasonal equipment would be stored there. Commissioner Feldgreber noted the proposed extension is 40 x 52 which is coming out past the existing building. He asked if that could be cut in half and brought in front on the north elevation, which would make a perfect rectangle. Mr. Rigsby stated that with the new tree preservation ordinance this would not work, as there are some nice oaks that should be preserved. Trustee Kahn noted that when the Board looked at the plan it seemed to make sense, given the fact that there already was a large wall off the setback. Understanding the concerns of Commissioners Samuels and Trilling, he does not share those concerns. He feels that since there is already a masonry wall there it does not concern him. He noted he has been in the public works facility and seen how they must climb over different pieces of equipment to get in, this seems to be the most cost effective and prudent way to spend the Village's money and not negatively impact the situation. Mr. Pfeil asked if there is any architectural treatment or "stepped back" building design at the roof area that would of interest to the Commissioners who are concerned with the building bulk as currently proposed. He suggested that the aesthetics of the building addition and streetscape need to be balanced with the need for a functional and cost-effective design. Commissioner Trilling noted that because the addition is only 52 feet along the street, it may be more obvious and be very noticeable as an element of the streetscape. Commissioner Samuels noted that this is still part of the campus and it does effect the overall presentation of the campus. Eventually the Village might think of relocating public works elsewhere, as other areas of the campus require more space. He noted the suggestions by the Plan Commission is just to look for other alternatives which seems to be the reason the Board has sent this to the Plan Commission in the first place. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the following items, which needed to be addressed at the next workshop: 1. Need to see some workable alternatives 2. Look at alternatives in light of possible future expansion, which might bring some justification to what is being proposed now 3. Sample materials intended to be used Commissioner Trilling reiterated the requirements noted above by Chairman Ottenheimer. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next regular meeting will be October 3, 2001. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS —None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS —None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair