Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 01/15/1997 - NERGE/DEVON REZONE v � ELK GROVE VILLAGE Plan Commission Minutes January 15, 1997 Council Chambers 8:00 P.M. Present: F. Geinosky, Chairman C. Prochno, Secretary P. Ayers C. Henrici D. Paliganoff D. Sokolowski K. Zizzo Absent: R. Guzzardi J. Meyers Staff: S. Niehaus, Administrative Assistant S. Trudan, Building Inspector Supervisor M. Pye, Assistant Village Engineer Petitioners: J. Petri, Elk Grove Village JPZ Committee L. Leneghan, Dearborn Construction Co. Ltd. A. Bonovolanta, Dearborn Construction Co. Ltd. J. Perlman, American Housing Partners P. Moeller, American Housing Partners B. Loftus, Space Co Engineering Co. V. Basich, Architect Item A: Nerge/Devon Rezoning Chairman Geinosky opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Commissioner Prochno swore in the petitioners. Niehaus stated that he would be presenting the petition on behalf of the Elk Grove Village Judiciary, Planning and Zoning Committee(JPZ) and Dearborn Construction Co. Ltd. Niehaus stated that the petition before the Plan Commission was for the consideration of rezoning certain property on Devon Avenue, west of I-290, from B-2 General Business District to B-3 Automotive Oriented Business District, for the purpose of accommodating various 3-3 type uses. Niehaus explained that this issue was previously discussed by the Plan Commission on October 9, 1995. At that time, it was the consensus of the Plan Commission to recommend rezoning of the vacant parcel between the Monarch Car Wash and the Exel Inn from B-2 to B-3, to allow the construction of a drive-thru restaurant. When the issue was discussed by the Village Board, it was their decision to remand it back to the Plan Commission to consider rezoning the entire area. It was also the consensus of the Village Board that the JPZ Committee act as co-petitioners with Dearborn Construction. Niehaus stated that the decision of the Village Board to remand the petition back to the Plan Commission was based on various underlying zoning concerns regarding the entire Devon Avenue property. The specific concerns raised by the Village Board were the improper zoning classifications of the neighboring properties (Exec Inn and Monarch Car Wash) and the conglomeration of 3-3 type uses in a 3-2 zoned area. Niehaus explained that under the original annexation agreement for the property which was passed in 1975, the area on Devon Avenue between Nerge Road and I-290 was zoned B-2, but was granted permission to contain limited B-3 type uses under an annexation agreement. Those uses included: automobile service stations, drive-thru banks, garden stores, gift shops, and undertaking establishments. Since the execution of the annexation agreement, some of the properties, such as the Monarch Car Wash and Exel Inn, were permitted to exist as a result of different interpretations of the annexation agreement. While these B-3 uses were allowed, and continue to exist, the property was never officially rezoned to accommodate them. As a result, the entire Nerge/Devon area now contains B-3 uses, including a hotel, car wash and car repair facility. Therefore, the Village Board asked that consideration be given to rezoning the entire area in order to clear up the underlying zoning concerns. Niehaus stated that the JPZ Committee had discussed the revised petition at their meeting on November 19, 1996 and recommended that the petition only include the vacant parcel and those parcels which have B-3 uses currently existing on the property (Monarch Car Wash, Exel Inn, and TACCS Auto) . Niehaus stated that this would allow the Village to review any future requests for B-3 uses on the other two properties. A map of the subject area is attached as Exhibit A. Commissioner Henrici expressed a concern over the rezoning petition and the parcels which were omitted (Nerge Shopping Center and Dental Office) . Commissioner Henrici stated that the entire property should be rezoned in order to maintain a consistent zoning of the entire area and to avoid "spot" zoning which is poor planning procedure. Commissioner Sokolowski questioned as to what restaurant would be located on the site and how the drive-thru would work. Leneghan stated that they did not have a specific restaurant under contract. However, the rezoning was necessary in order to allow them to market the property. Leneghan also explained that the drive-thru would go in a circular pattern around the building. Niehaus stated that staff would be responsible for reviewing all building plans for code compliance prior to issuing permits. Commissioner Zizzo questioned as to when Wendy's was interested in the site. Leneghan stated that Wendy' s was going to locate on the site in 1981 but chose not to, since then they have located on Rohlwing Road in Itasca. Commissioner Ayers questioned if the vacant parcel would have a shared ingress/egress with Exel Inn. Leneghan stated that a joint access would be provided for the motel as well as an access off of Bonaventure Drive. Commissioner Ayers also expressed a concern over how the drive-thru would function without negatively impacting the other businesses in the strip center. Trudan stated that staff would work with the petitioners to develop a functional site plan. Chairman Geinosky opened the public hearing to comments from the audience. There were no comments. Considerable discussion took place regarding which parcels should be rezoned from B-2 to B-3. It was the consensus of the Plan Commission that the entire area should be rezoned in order to follow good planning practices and avoid the use of spot zoning. It was the further consensus of the Plan Commission that their motions be made in a manner which would allow the Village Board to act on the parcels published in the petition and the additional parcels if they concurred with the Plan Commission recommendation. Niehaus stated that he would contact the Village Attorney to see if another public hearing was necessary. Upon further discussion, Commissioner Henrici moved and Commissioner Ayers seconded a motion, to recommend that the Village Board rezone the parcels included in the JPZ Committee/Dearborn petition (Lots 2, 9, 5 and 6) from B-2 General Business to B-3 Automotive. Upon voting, (F. Geinosky, C. Prochno, C. Henrici, D. Paliganoff, K. Zizzo, D. Sokolowski AYES, J. Meyers, R. Guzzardi ABSENT) the motion carried. Commissioner Henrici moved and Commissioner Ayers seconded a motion to recommend that the Village Board rezone the remaining parcels (Lots 1 & 3) from B-2 General Business to 3-3 Automotive Oriented Business District. Upon voting, (F. Geinosky, C. Prochno, C. Henrici, D. Paliganoff, P. Ayers, K. Zizzo, D. Sokolowski AYES, J. Meyers, R. Guzzardi ABSENT) motion carried. Commissioner Ayers moved and Commissioner Zizzo seconded a motion to recommend that the Village Board approval of the text amendment as submitted which would add "Devon Avenue west of I-290" as a commercial arterial street which would permit a hotel/motel use in a B-3 zoned district. Upon voting, (F. Geinosky, C. Prochno, C. Henrici, D. Paliganoff, K. Zizzo, D. Sokolowski AYES, J. Meyers, R. Guzzardi ABSENT) motion carried. Chairman Geinosky closed the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. Item B: American Housing Partners Annexation and Special Use Permit Chairman Geinosky opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Secretary Prochno swore in the petitioners. James Perlman stated that his company, American Housing Partners, was proposing the development of a 140 unit, independent senior housing facility at 751 Meacham Road, a 9 .81 acre parcel, north of the El Bethel Christian Center. Perlman stated that the proposed development would be called Carriage Park. Perlman stated that the proposed site currently lies in unincorporated Cook County and that American Housing Partners is seeking to annex the property as an A-2 Multi-family District development and obtain a special use permit for the operation of an independent senior housing facility upon annexation. Perlman stated that American Housing Partners was an experienced developer and operator of senior housing in the Chicagoland area. As of 1997, they have constructed over 1, 000 units in the area with the assistance of Robin Construction Co. who has over 75 years of construction management experience. Perlman stated that the Carriage Park Development would be a 24 hour on-site managed complex which would include the following amenities: communal dining, social and recreational activities, grocery and pharmacy delivery, security, laundry, library, outdoor sitting areas, TV lounge, roof/sundeck, and elevators. The complex would include a mix of 89 one bedroom and 51 two bedroom units ranging in rent from $450 to $650/month. Each room would range in size from 615 to 900 square feet and would be equipped with emergency pullcords, kitchen area, and smoke detectors with a direct linked to the Elk Grove Fire Department. Perlman stated that he was also seeking two variations from the zoning ordinance. One for the construction of a 4 story building (3 stories permitted) and one for the number of parking spaces required. The requirement for parking spaces was a minimum of one per unit (140) . American Housing Partners was proposing 0.75 spaces per unit (105) on the basis that standard parking at senior citizen facilities was not necessary due to a lack of car owners. Perlman explained the site plan to the Plan Commission including the flow of the traffic around the site. Perlman stated that all vehicles would enter the site from an ingress/egress driveway on Meacham Road. Two-way directional traffic would exist to the north of the building and go to a parking lot on the east side of the facility. An emergency access drive will be located on the south side of the property. Perlman stated that the building would be approximately 134, 000 square feet in size and be constructed with a steel frame and asphalt composite roof. The exterior of the building would be a combination of brick, vinyl and stucco. The architect, Vladimir Basich, explained the building layout. Basich stated that the building was long and narrow due to the configuration of the lot. The central core of the building would contain the management office, meeting room, and public restrooms. The second and third floors will contain apartment units and recreational rooms . The fourth floor will contain apartments and a sundeck. Each wing of the building will be self-sufficient and equipped with elevator, garbage chute and laundry. Each floor will be 9 feet 8 inches floor to floor with 8 foot ceilings. The entire building will be in compliance with ADA requirements. Bill Loftus, of Space Co Engineering, explained the engineering of the site. Loftus stated that the topography of the site sloped downward from west to east, thereby dictating the site' s layout. Loftus stated that he had met with Village staff on several occasions and made revisions based on their comments. Water service will be connected to existing Village water by agaring underneath Meacham Road. Sanitary and storm sewer will be connected on the east side of the property. Storm water detention (1.5 acres) will be provided on the east side of the property and extended north to Biesterfield Road. Commissioner Henrici questioned as to why the building was placed so far to the west side of the property and stated that he would prefer to see it setback further from the roadway. Perlman stated that the property sloped downward on the east side thereby making it difficult to develop in that area. Commissioner Henrici questioned if the building would be completely sprinkled. Perlman confirmed that it would be sprinkled for safety reasons. Commissioner Henrici expressed a general concern over the aesthetics and architectural design of the building citing the mixture of building materials and exterior placement of air conditioners as negatives to the site. Perlman stated that the air conditioning units would be installed flush with the building so as not to protrude from the structure. Perlman also volunteered to provide photos of similarly installed units. The Plan Commission requested those photos prior to the next meeting if possible. Commissioner Prochno expressed a general concern over the site' s inability to meet the minimum parking requirement on the basis that the site was an independent senior housing facility which would include active seniors. Perlman stated that other communities have much less restrictive parking requirements for senior housing including Morton Grove ( .5 spaces/unit) and Des Plaines (1 space/per three units) . Perlman stated that he would provide additional parking information on independent senior housing prior to the next meeting. Commissioner Prochno stated that the lack of parking would also be a concern because it would take away from the available number of handicapped spaces. Commissioner Zizzo questioned if the provided parking included spaces for employees. Perlman stated that it did provide enough spaces for employee parking. Commissioner Sokolowski questioned if there were enough spaces to accommodate visitors on evenings and weekends. Perlman stated that he felt there was adequate parking for such occasions. Commissioner Sokolowski questioned if there would be assigned parking spaces. Perlman stated that the western 27 spaces would be reserved on a first come, first serve basis. The remaining spaces will be open parking. Commissioner Ayers stated that he felt the amount of parking may be adequate on a daily basis due to the fact that income guidelines may preclude car ownership by the residents. However, Ayers did express concern that parking would not be adequate for holidays, weekends, and open house activities. Commissioner Ayers questioned why the site plan did not provide a 29 foot wide access lane on the south side of the property. Perlman stated that the south side would be for exit and emergency access only and that widening it would limit the overall amount of landscaping on the site. Commissioner Ayers expressed a concern with the overall site plan including landscaping and building materials. Of specific concern was the mixture of building materials and the remote parking on the east side of the building. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned as to what type of financing would be used and if there were any timelines which needed to be met. Perlman stated that American Housing Partners was seeking grants from the Illinois Housing Development Authority(IHDA) and that they were in the process of filing their application by February 11, 1997 . Commissioner Paliganoff questioned as to whether or not American Housing Partners would proceed without funding. Perlman stated that they would not build without receiving assistance. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned if not having the fourth story would prohibit then from building. Perlman stated that four stories was absolutely necessary to make the plan work. Chairman Geinosky reiterated the concern made by other Plan Commissioners regarding available parking spaces and expressed a need for the site to be flexible in terms of parking in case the building has a more active tenant mix. Chairman Geinosky also expressed concerns over the need for 29 foot access around the entire building and for substantial landscaping of the site. Chairman Geinosky questioned if autos would be able to go left and right on Meacham Road when exiting. Perlman stated that the entrance/exit would be multi-directional. The Cook County Highway Department will determine if a left turn lane is necessary. Chairman Geinosky questioned as to what percentage of the lot was greenspace. Perlman stated that he did not have that information but would provide it to the Plan Commission prior to the next meeting. Chairman Geinosky opened up the meeting to the audience. The following individuals were present and made statements to the Plan Commission in opposition of the proposal: James Freedman, 773 Indiana Lane - Mr. Freedman presented the Plan Commission Chairperson with a letter stating his objections to the proposed development (attached) . Specific concerns raised by Mr. Freedman were the height and size of the building, the proximity of the development to single family homes, additional traffic which would be introduced to the area, safety of the residents, and the construction of the building. Tom Schreiner, 675 Meacham Road - Mr. Schreiner stated that he is the owner of the 18 acres of property which are currently vacant at the southeast corner of Meacham and Biesterfield. Schreiner stated that he was opposed to the development due to the negative impact that it would have on surrounding property owners due to its size and height. Mike Gates, 1992 Circle Court - Mr. Gates stated that he was present on behalf of the congregation which he serves at the E1 Bethel Christian Center just south of the proposed development. Gates stated that he had concerns over the proposed development based on his knowledge of traffic on Meacham Road, specifically left hand turns into the southbound lanes. Gates also stated that he would like the petitioners to consider additional landscaping to provide screening of their building and if possible, turning the building around so that it would have a shared access with the church property. Donna Shear, 1016 W. Glen Trail - Mrs. Shear stated that she is a homeowner who lives on the east side of the proposed development. Shear stated that her concerns with the property focused on privacy, flooding, and safety. Chairman Geinosky thanked the residents for their comments and closed the public hearing at 10:58 p.m. Upon further discussion it was the consensus of the Plan Commission to continue discussion of the proposed annexation and rezoning at the February 5, 1997 Plan Commission meeting. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Res ctfully submitted, Z z Scott R. Niehaus Administrative Assistant SRN/el C: Chairman and Members of Plan Commission, President and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Director of Engineering/Community Development, Director Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief(2) , Assistant Fire Chief, Village Attorney, Chairman and Members of ZBA 11 merge Shopping Center 4 8-3 T.A. C. C. S. Auto Repair 3 . Dental Office 4 . Monarch Car Wash 5. Vacant Parcel (proposed drive-thru restaurant) 6. Exel Inn /00 —041 t„ o- - ozs � 9 - o2z � a a q q —041 2 —042 N V 491 - - zoo oa.♦r 80NAVENTURE R 0 260 T, o o 1 u 5 - o Gd' Q :a � - 6120 3 Z5 e » zce V ti N �i4 N ♦ r, q � v ,88 N { A1 z=i4.w —060 Sc�.ze 957' _-M '0 0 0 p0 Q y M O/1(` My name is James L. Freedman My wife , Anita and I own a home at 773 Indiana Lane Elk Grove Village which is across to the West of the proposed construction of the Senior housing project. We have resided in Elk Grove Village for 35 years. Thank you for allowing us to share our opinions regarding the proposed annexation, re- zoning and building plans. If we had a choice and an annexation to Elk Grove Village was made, we wouldrn efer that the Single Family zoning would remain. I realize that this is County property and we do not have the controls if not annexed into Elk Grove Village A second choice of a controlled Senior housing apartment project would be in order provided that the building or buildings would correspond to all the other structures around it. This would be the two story type of buildings similar to the houses. apartments.Mallard Crossing WalMart/Eagle chopping area and the Super KMart. We are at the highest elevation of Elk Grove Village at approximately 30ft higher than the center of the village. A four story structure as proposed would be an intrusion on the siehtline and aesthetic values of this area. The approval of re-zoning to A-2 would be a precedent setting plan that could produce future structures to be built on the adjacent acreage (that is presently not annexed). I believe that Elk Grove Village has a 65 ft. maximum elevation limitation on the height of buildings. The future of that type of building and the safety factors would present an enormous problem for this area. Police and security surveillance would have to be increased for the protection of all the citizens, and especially the elderly. (Not counting the fact that the homes directly across Meacham Rd. may not see the rising Sun until I0:00am.) An additional concern to a Senior Housing project of 140 units on 4.81 acres of land is the safety of the traffic pattern that would be produced to enter and exit Meacham Rd I have spoken to a few people who say that there would hardly be any traffic because Seniors don't drive. I am a Senior and I drive. I am a lot older than those 55 year old youngsters who would be in the complex. Some of the 75 year olds are still working and drive everywhere. The Seniors in this type of complex would have to drive to locations in the center of the village, The village hall, currency exchange-post office, the new. mall. We may even have a Senior baseball league according to the Park District and they would have to drive to the Athletic fields and to the Golf Course. Some of you are laughing, Just because of the Senior label it doesn't mean we are hermits. At one time I used to think that 40 was OLD. The traffic at Meacham Rd in both the morningnd�evening hours is a challenge for =yQne driving into or out of Dakota St. It is a serious manueverability task to cross to the East, sit on the median(illegally) and wait fora clear opening to get into a lane. At present it is v dangerous with oncoming vehicles at 45 mph and the sight ine comu]g down the hill makes it even more dangerous It is almost guess work to see the oncoming cars and lane changing vehicles. Once in the lane you need to maneuver immediately to the right lady you plan on turning East on Biesterfield It is a very short distance to the light from Dakota Winter or wet weather and darkness double the safety factors of being able to get into the traffic flow. To accomodate the 140 additonal vehicles in and out of the housing complex, would another light have to be erected at Dakota? That would be another burden for motorists on Meacham Rd. We already have a KMART light, Biesterfield, Mallard Crossing and Nerge in a 45 mph zone that produces "anxious" motorists. The Police units are very busy attempting to control the speeds in this area. The right in and right out signage at the Mallard Crossing North entrance is not controlled because of it's private property status. Trucks and autos are crossing over the median at all times and violating the no left turn signs posted. This is only a couple of hundred feet from the proposed entrance to the pending complex. El Bethel Church entrance would only be 100 feet away. Crossing over the median from the complex to head Southward would present an additional safety hazard for both oncoming traffic and those entering the lanes I would also like to consider the safety of the people who would prefer to walk to the shopping araes. For those wishing to shop at Mallard Crossing it presents very little problem. A sidewalk begins on the El Bethel frontage to the Mall. A connecting walkway would have to be provided and maintained from the exit of the complex, across the front of the W&W Real Estate home /business office.(Incidentally, was there a change in zoning to allow that home to become a commercial building?) In winter this area is snow and ice covered and would result in persons having to walk onto Meacham Rd in oncoming traffic. There are NO street lights on the East side of Meacham Rd in this area Would street lighting have to be provided and by whom? Now for those people who wish to shop at the corner stores on Biesterfield Rd and Meacham Rd. a walk will consist of NO sidewalk provided for a distance of two football fields on the East side of Meacham. If the Seniors wish to cross the street t immediately to the West side of Meacham Rd they would be in danger of traffic from North, South and turning traffic from Dakota St. In winter snows the sidewalks to the rear of our homes are not maintained by county or village and often cause difficulty in walling and the dangerous venture of walking on Meacham RD, We have a very beautiful park on Dakota that meanders to Biesterfield on the North and Michigan on the West. An ideal and restful location for all the area citizens.... and others who like to use the Frisby Golf facility. It is almost inaccessible in the winter snows and is not cleared for walking. I don't believe the Park district would like another maintenance expense to clear the walks. Either way, the residents of the Senior housing complex would endanger themselves in ALL seasons if they attempted to cross over Meacham at Dakota!!! Aside from the safety of the residents and motorists How will the Senior housing rules be controlled? Does the 55 year age also refer to relatives of the residents? What parking areas will be set aside for guests? What control is there that the Senior Housing rules wouldn't be changed if the complex could not rill with 55 yr and older residents. We are seeing a trend at the other Senior complex with the fill rate reduction and the sighting of"younger" tenants? By the re-zoning to Multiple family what protection is there that this will not turn into a problem area such as we previously had at Nerge9 Is this a Federal funded loan? Will the complex be opened to Elk Grove Village residents first? The amenities of Elk Grove Village are the results of hard work and management by our board members and proud citizens taxes. It is wonderful that we can now share these accomplishments with another 300 or so new residents and the owners of a 4.81 acreage of unincorporated land who did nothing to enrich the village. If I sound selfish, I guess I am. My family grew up in the village, went to schools here and we are proud of our community. There is very little property available for additional homes to be built. Let's keep the community standards the way we have known it for these forty years. I don't believe that a Senior housingproject of this density and obtrusive height elevation is characteristic of our Village. I do agree that a Senior housing project is far better than the usage of the land for additional commercial projects. I would much prefer to see this land as Single family residentialTonly. As I said in the beginning that a controlled Senior housing project of no more than two stories would be a welcome alternative if Single family units could not be built. The adjacent land of 12.6 acres could be a better choice and would provide for a lower facility with ample room for the requirements of the Senior residents... without the cramped living quarters and many floors to maneuver. An easier access to the street and shopping facilities would be safer and more ideal. Thanks again for listening and am confident that you will take into consideration all of the concerns of the Elk Grove Village residents. X01/^.3/97- 08:17 $347 437 0695 WEILER ENG Q001/001 FAX: 847357.4044 731 Bismark Court Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 January 23, 1997 Membeirs of the Planning Commission Village of Elk Grove 901 Wellington Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 RE: RE-ZONING PROPERTY LOCATED EAST SIDE OF MEACHAM BETWEEN BIESTERFIELD AND NERGE ROAD from Single Family to Multiple family for a Senior Housing Complex Dear Planning Board Members. My husband and I are expressing our concern over re-zoning the property across the street from our home in Elk Grove Village. We have been a resident of Elk Grove since 1975 and would be very unhappy to see this change. But if we cannot stop this re-zoning from single family to multiple family residence, at least, we would like to express our wishes to you so you can prevent the construction of four-story buildings being erected on the captioned property. There are many builders and options available so the land and surrounding environment can maintain its integrity. We understand the need for additional Senior Housing but NOT 4-story buildings. Two-story structures with adequate parking for residents and guests along with landscaping to enhance the area would be benefidal to ALL residents of Elk Grove. Another issue of great concern is, Indeed, the traffic situation. During rush-hour(especially 5 -7 pm) it is bumper-to-bumper. If someone wants to exit Dakota Drive to drive North, it is impossible. For one thing, the hurried drivers do NOT want to give an inch to let someone pull out and when given the opportunity, one must sit on the median before entering Northbound traffic. Plus if one is driving North and wants to tum left onto Dakota, one must wait 5 to 10 minutes before getting a break. There is more and more traffic, with more and more traffic lights being installed. Each time this is done, the traffic gets more congested. Maybe it would be better to have this new complex enter and exit from Beisterfield instead of Meacham. This would eliminate the need for another Stop/Go light. We have so many nowlllll PLEASE RECONSIDER AND GIVE THIS REZONING CHANGE MORE THOUGHT WE DO NOT�NEED ANYMORE STRIP STORES/N THIS AREA. Mr. &Mrs. Edward E. Ho)nacki /abh:0122abh