Laserfiche WebLink
PC Minutes - 2 - :March 6, 1985 <br /> Docket 85-2 (continued) <br /> to discuss further with the Engineering Department. They are: detention; <br /> location of loading docks, and the number of access drives on Biesterfield <br /> Road. <br /> Dave Paliganoff asked Chuck Byrum to respond to the items of <br /> concern that Stanley ,Mitchell had summarized. Chuck Byrum responded <br /> that Centex had informed residents immediately adjacent to the property <br /> on the North and ,West sides that the property would be developed <br /> commercially and additionally Centex's advertising indicates the area <br /> as commercial; this will be a quality shopping center with upscale <br /> shops; traffic congestion will not be a problem after the scheduled <br /> Meacham Road and Biesterfield Road improvements have been made; the <br /> topography of Meacham Road has already been determined by Cook County; <br /> the design of lighting and signs have already been worked on and that <br /> drainage will meet all requirements. Dave Paliganoff asked if closing <br /> statements signed by residents could be brought in by Chuck Byrum as <br /> proof of knowledge of Centex's development plans. Chuck Byrum indicated <br /> that he will try to locate the letters. <br /> Cliff DiLorenzo reported that a lighting/energy firm has been <br /> retained. He stated that no light pole will be taller than thirty feet. <br /> He explained that glare is the usual problem with lights in older <br /> shopping centers due to exposed bulbs. Signs will meet the Village <br /> sign ordinance requirements. Signs will be on the buildings and made <br /> up of individually lit letters rather than lit boxes. Robin Weaver <br /> queried whether or not the petitioner intends to have a sign or signs <br /> identifying the shopping center. Cliff DiLorenzo stated that none is <br /> being requested and a future request would be unlikely. <br /> i <br /> When questioned by Dave Paliganoff about the effect of this <br /> development on residential property values, Chuck Byrum responded that <br /> having a viable commercial area does help values overall; any negative <br /> impact on adjacent property would be diminished due to the landscaped <br /> berm; and that properties across Meacham Road would probably not be <br /> affected as a four-lane highway would already decrease their property <br /> value. He also noted that the Village requires landscaping on the <br /> East and South sides of the development. <br /> George Mullen stated he felt that the residents' concerns were <br /> general, not specific. He argued that because residents didn't know <br /> about the proposed commercial use is no basis for objection. <br /> A resident at 72 Arizona challenged the fiscal impact figures by <br /> suggesting the business in this development would be business lost <br /> from other Elk Grove Village businesses. Orrin Stangeland acknowledged j <br /> that the figures could be debated but noted the village has no right to <br /> restrict the number of any type of business. <br /> John Glass confirmed that Centex has shown the area as commercial <br /> in the advertising, in sales offices, and on official plats since at <br /> least 1977. <br /> Orrin Stangeland requested that a comparison of lighting to local <br /> shopping centers be provided. He also asked if the petitioner would <br /> consider any restrictions on B-3 uses. Cliff DiLorenzo replied <br /> he preferred no restrictions but further explained that the economics <br /> of a shopping center depends a great deal on the "out lots" and for <br />