Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 04/24/2017 - Plan Commission 1001 Leicester Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Minutes April 24, 2017 Present: J. Glass S. Carlson F. Geinosky P. Rettberg G. Schumm T. Thompson J. Morrill Absent: P. Ayers K. Weiner Staff: M. Jablonski, Assistant Village Manager R. Raphael, Engineering Supervisor R. Olson, Landscape Planner, Gary Weber Associates Petitioner: A. Fessler, CCSD59 Superintendent T. Luedloff, CCSD59 Associate Superintendent V. Trinh, Arcon Associates S. DiGilio, RTM Associates R. Cozzi, Arcon Associates J. Huck, Arcon Associates Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Item 1: February 13, 2016 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Geinosky moved to approve the minutes of the February 13,2016 meeting minutes. Commissioner Thompson seconded the motion. Upon voting (Carlson, Geinosky, Rettberg, Schumm, Thompson, Morrill, AYES and Glass, ABSTAIN), the motion passed. Item 2: Informational Meeting on the Special Use Petition for Construction of an Administration Building at 1001 Leicester—CCSD59 Chairman Glass stated that this meeting was being held for informational purposes, and that a public hearing on the Petition will be scheduled for a future date. Chairman Glass asked the Petitioner to explain the purpose of their Special Use petition and prov. V. Trinh stated that the site at 1101 Leicester belongs to District 59, it was previously the location of a school. District 59 has been looking to its existing holdings in order to build a new administration building. The existing administration building doesn't sufficiently accommodate program needs. This proposed building would be not only the administration center, but also a 1 professional development center for teachers, with simulated classrooms and act as a curriculum improvement center. A. Fessler stated that the existing building is aging and not meeting their needs. District 59 purchased the property adjacent to the current administration center to address parking needs, but the School Board asked for options to address future needs of District 59. The existing building, if renovated, would incur significant costs due to bringing the building up to code on a number of items that have been grandfathered in. The first option was to tear down and re-build on the existing site. The second option was selling property in Arlington Heights and locating the facility on the District 59 property in Elk Grove Village. A. Fessler explained that they have designed a building that will reflect a modern learning and workspace. Professional Development will be held on-site a couple times per week. These would be half-day sessions (morning or afternoon events), and would involve 30-40 additional people coming to the building to attends. There may occasionally be a larger evening event held on-site. Chairman Glass asked if any students would be at the building. A. Fessler replied there would not, unless there is an evening celebration with the Board of Education hey do not anticipate bringing students over during the day. Commissioner Geinosky asked if there would be food preparation and what traffic that would involve. A. Fessler stated that District 59 is looking to build a commissary to address the rising costs of food service. The food service will be located in the existing building adjacent to the Park District Pavilion. A. Fessler noted that District 59 would be able to speak more clearly to traffic impacts of food service at the following meeting, as Tony Rossi has those details and was not able to attend this meeting. Commissioner Geinosky noted that when the Plan Commission has to make a formal recommendation, traffic in and out of this property will be a concern, as will proximity to the residents. 'uestions will include how much traffic, when it will be occurring, and noted that this is major concern from residents, who do not want the quiet/peaceful atmosphere ruined. A. Fessler noted that there was an initial traffic study, which had not yet been shared with the Village. Commissioner Schumm asked if parking would be sufficient. V. Trinh stated that it would, and that it exceeds parking at the current site. Commissioner Morrill asked if homes would be shielded from noise and light and if open, space would be maintained. V. Trinh stated that they are maintaining a field on the site, and that there will be a landscape berm with trees and shrubs to shield the noise and light from the residents to the south. Commissioner Morrill asked if they had a sense of what the footprint of the proposed administration building was in comparison with the old Lively school. J. Huck stated that Lively school came mostly closer to the properties on the south. In the current proposed site, parking is 2 66' away from the homes to the south with a 6' berm to keep headlights from home. The overall footprint of the building is a little smaller than Lively was. Commissioner Morrill asked about the height, and noted that Lively school had been a one-story building. J. Huck stated that there are three sections to the building; the 2-story element will be 28' high, which is lower than the Park District Pavilion. Commissioner Schumm asked if there would be activity at night. A. Fessler stated that Board meetings would be held twice a month at 7pm, and that the biggest crowd is when kids are showcasing their projects or achievements. Usually there are about 15-20 people who attend a Board meeting, and that number can increase to about 60, with parents and kids in attendance for recognition of some sort. Commissioner Morrill asked if there was flood control planned, as there is a history of standing water on that site. R. Cozzi noted that the site will have an underground detention center with capacity for a 100-year storm event to keep fields clear. Chairman Glass asked whether it would hold water in the parking lot. R. Cozzi stated that the entire site will have drainage tiles, which will drain into the underground water storage. Commissioner Carlson asked what would be occurring in the maintenance yard. R> Cozzi stated that there would be 4-6 larger vehicles stored there, small buses, salt storage and parking for maintenance staff. Commissioner Carlson asked what kind of wall would be around the maintenance yard. A.Fessler stated that it was originally proposed as a chain-link fence. Following feedback from the Village, the proposal was changed to a 6' high brick masonry wall. Commissioner Carlson asked where the commissary would be located. J. Huck stated that the commissary will be in the existing building attached to the Park District Pavilion, which is currently used as storage. The building will be remodeled to serve as a food preparation facility. Commissioner Thompson asked how many employees would be at the building on an average day. T. Luedloff stated that about 60-70 employees would be in the facility on different shifts, lam— 330pm; 730am—4pm; and Sam—430pm. Commissioner Thompson asked on any given day, how many visitors would come to the site. T. Luedloff stated that aside from a training session, which would bring 20-25 staff to the building, periodically there could be a vendor or some community members, which might add up to 3-5 visitors per day. He noted that at their current location, which has less parking, they have never had any overflow issues. J. Huck noted that there are 150 parking spaces in the lot and there are 70 spots in the current facility. Commissioner Geinosky asked why so much more parking was needed at the current site. A. Fessler stated that they have exactly as many spots as needed at current facility just for staff,which doesn't allow for other staff to attend professional development. 3 J. Huck noted that they planned parking for a worst-case scenario, to accommodate soccer games, professional development, etc. A. Fessler noted that parking would be a benefit for the Park District as well. Chairman Glass asked if there would be a rear entrance.J. Huck stated that there is a main entrance at the front, but there is also an entrance into a small lobby by the back parking lot. A. Fessler stated that the plan is for workers to park in the back lot on a daily basis. Their workspace is by the back lot. The middle space is for the Boardroom, etc. Commissioner Thompson asked if the property on Arlington Heights Road has been sold and if there would be a Plan B. A. Fessler stated that Plan B would be to buy it back. Chairman Glass asked how far along the petition was in the process with Village staff. A. Fessler stated that they had met with staff a few times and that they are aware they want a few things, such as additional landscaping and a higher wall around the maintenance yard. He noted that the School Board has tried to accommodate most comments from Village staff. Commissioner Schumm asked if the School Board was unanimous in approving the project. A. Fessler stated that it was 6-1 on the selection of this site. Chairman Glass noted that landscaping was mentioned and stated that the Village has a great interest in this and the Village put together a conceptual plan. He asked if the School District has any objections. J. Huck noted that his first comment is that they looked at the Village landscaping ordinance, and feel they have met the landscape ordinance and required number of trees, etc. for the main street. They have met all the tree and island requirements within the parking lot. District 59 had questions about the landscaping plan that came back from the Village, which doubled the required landscaping, with very dense screening, more screening to the parking lot. Chairman Glass stated that because this is a special use, it does give the Village leverage to require additional landscaping.J.Huck asked how what they had proposed didn't meet the Village's needs. Chairman Glass noted that the Plan Commission can't speak to that yet, but that the purpose of this meeting is to note things they have noticed or have questions about. The audience at the public hearing is going to be looking for all sorts of things and these are the needs that have to be met. This land has been open space for a long time. J.Huck stated that he appreciated the opportunity to talk to the Plan Commission and get feedback. He stated they are trying to be respectful of the neighbors. A. Fessler noted that there are District 59 Board members who already feel this is too much landscaping. District 59 considered selling for a commercial use but feel that the administration building is a better use. Chairman Glass noted that the property is not zoned for a commercial use, so that also would have required approval from the Village. Chairman Glass noted that the intent today is to hear from the Petitioner and give a reaction to what is being presented. The Plan Commission will receive the final plans once staff has 4 completed review. Chairman Glass noted that he understood where the school board was coming from, but may not agree with them. R. Olson stated that he has been helping the Village review plans and had worked on a concept plan after seeing the school district's initial landscape plan. This building is becoming part of a campus, and the idea is to have some continuity. In addition, the existing site is a field, and the residents to the south will all play a role in what is going to go forward. There will be a large change to their open space. As they come in with the development there is a lot of investment going into the site, which is great. They have already made some adjustments to the architecture. The landscape plan has been reviewed both in regard to code requirements and visual impacts. R. Olson stated that the Village is asking a few things with regard to landscaping. Heavy screening of the parking lot from residents to the south is important. District 59 has proposed 27 evergreens to the south, scattered across the elevations of the berm. The height of the evergreens was only 5', with spacing 20'-37' apart, which leaves a lot of spaces. In addition, the plan uses only one type of evergreen and two types of shrubs for the entire space. The proposed shrubs are not very good screening shrubs and the evergreens should be of different species to protect from future disease impact. R. Olson stated that currently there are no foundation plantings, which would typically be part of the overall site design. Commissioner Thompson asked where the wall was. Chairman Glass stated it was on the north side of the property. Commissioner Thompson asked what the view would be from the south side of the property. V. Trinh stated that the view will be the berm, the berm and landscaping will be blocking views from neighbors. J. Huck stated that as you go south in the neighbors yards it continues to slope off. Commissioner Geinosky asked if there would be problems with flooding. S. Digilio stated that all water from the berm and entire site will be taken into the underground water drainage system. J. Huck asked if the purpose was to screen the parking lot and lights in the evening or to hide the building. Right now you see the back of the Park District building if you stand in yards. This will be closer, but the building will be nicer. Chairman Glass stated that they know you can't hide the building; however there could be denser landscaping to create a nice screening effect for not only visual,but also for noise and other things. That is why there is a screening ordinance. A. Fessler stated that the school board could agree with beefing up the south landscaping,however the landscaping of the entrances, etc., may be more difficult. The school board does not want to see-plantings-closer to the-building. Chairman Glass stated that they are not looking for screening, but are looking for landscaping when it comes to other parts of the site. He agreed the building would be an upgrade from the existing Park District. 5 R. Olson stated that there is still impact on residents from the east side of the property. Chairman Glass stated that he agreed, but that the further away you are, the less protection is needed. R. Olsen stated that right now, there is no foundation landscaping; it is essentially a rock strip in front of the building. A. Fessler noted that would be an upgrade to the existing building. Chairman Glass stated that they ought to look at something along the foundation,maybe not to the extent proposed, but this is an expensive facility and there is a benefit to well-designed, well- planned landscaping. A. Fessler stated that for the school board some of this might need to happen in phases. Chairman Glass requested that District 59 provide a proposal and a timeline if needed. He noted that the mandatory things are going to be shielding on west side and south side and feathering the transition. He noted that the foundation plantings could be done after construction,but should not be 30 years down the road. J. Huck stated that there are earth mounds in front of the building, instead of grass. The mounds will come up to a certain height, but will be less expensive maintenance. He noted they could certainly add flowering gardens on mounds in the future. Chairman Glass asked if any school gardening clubs might maintain them as a project. A. Fessler stated it would be a challenge to get the kids to the building for maintenance. Commissioner Thompson stated that though he understands the school board wants to save money, but they have to understand the perspective of the people that live there. They bought houses adjacent to a schoolyard, but the assumption always is that it will stay greenspace forever. People buy for that reason. In terms of adding the green and the visual, it may be the price of getting this done to accommodate their visual impact concerns. A. Fessler noted that the Village needs to understand the school board's perspective. They added the wall, which was a few hundred thousand dollar upgrade, they added windows to buildings, it adds up,even if the landscaping cost is not so big,it is part of a significant number of cost increases they are agreeing to for this project. Chairman Glass noted that it is the Plan Commission's responsibility to protect our residents. A. Fessler stated that he would take his school board around to other buildings to show them what the is standard in existing buildings,to show they are not being held to a higher standard. V. Trinh noted that on the east they had designed a slope into the field so it can be used for spectators. He stated that they didn't want trees or bushes to crowd out the view for spectators or create hazards for those using the space. Chairman Glass noted that this use made sense and that he could understand modifying the requests in the concept landscape plan in light of this use. Chairman Glass asked if there were staff comments on the project. M. Jablonski stated that most staff comments had been resolved, and that the remaining staff concerns boiled down primarily to 6 the height of wall around the maintenance yard, which staff recommends to be 8 feet, and the enhancement of the landscape plan, which Rich Olson previously explained. Chairman Glass asked if there would be a gate on maintenance yard, and if it would be locked at all times. V. Trinh stated that it would be a rolling gate which would be kept closed at all times. Commissioner Geinosky asked if the existing parking on north side was for Pirate's Cove. V. Trinh stated that it was, however two of the rows or parking actually belong to District 59 and are currently utilized by the Park District. Commissioner Geinosky asked if the commissary is using existing space. V.Trinh confirmed that yes, the existing storage space will be converted to a commissary Commissioner Geinosky asked if the commissary is intended to prepare meals in a central location and distribute, will that mean trucks coming through a residential area. V. Trinh stated that the trucks that will deliver the food will be box trucks. T. Luedloff noted that the current process is that the trucks go to schools every day. This would not change, and trucks would only be making two trips to the commissary, once to pick up the food and once to return when the food has been delivered. In terms of truck traffic,there is currently a truck that delivers food to Byrd school and that would not change. Commissioner Geinosky asked how many schools the commissary would be serving. A. Fessler stated that there are 15 schools in the district. The starting point is the major difference, but there are still only 15 trucks to load up, otherwise same two trucks will be delivering to the schools in the neighborhood. Commissioner Geinosky asked about the construction cost changes reported in the news. A. Fessler stated that it was increase in construction costs from the previous year. There was a 25% increase in construction costs per square foot. District 59 scaled down to the base, and then got feedback from the Mayor to add some aesthetic features back in. Commissioner Geinosky asked what they had scaled out of. A. Fessler stated they had removed some of the glass and made the building a little smaller. Some of the School Board members had strong opposition to glass. Commissioner Morrill asked what kind of maintenance is done in the maintenance yard.A.Fessler stated that the maintenance equipment is housed there. V. Trinh stated that there are two vehicle bays in the interior within the building. The outside yard is just for storage. A. Fessler stated they would store salt in the yard, and a front-end loader will load salt into the truck. Commissioner Morrill noted that loading up salt trucks at 4am in the morning could be disruptive and asked how they would mitigated the noise. J. Huck stated that immediately to the north of the yard is the Park District maintenance yard with salt bays and exactly the same operations. V.Trinh noted that Village staff recommended putting their maintenance yard next to the Park District maintenance yard to keep that use in the same area. The meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m. 7 Respectfully submitted, Maggie Jablonski Assistant Village Manager C:Chairman and Members of the Plan Commission, Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk 8