Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 02/24/1997 - GROVE MALL VQ, V - ELK GROVE VILLAGE Plan Commission Minutes Council Chambers February 24, 1997 7:00 p.m. Present: F. Geinosky, Chairman C. Prochno, Secretary P. Ayers R. Guzzardi J. Meyers D. Paliganoff D. Sokolowski K. Zizzo Absent: C. Henrici Staff: G. Parrin, Village Manager S. Niehaus, Administrative Assistant A. Boffice, Director Engr. /CD G. Knickerbocker, Village Attorney Petitioners: D. Gallitano, Village President T. Berlinghoff, Hamilton Partners J. Sheridan, Hamilton Partners J. K. Bufton, Hamilton Partners (Attorney) S. Uhlarik, Hiffman, Shaffer & Associates Item A: Grove Mall Text Amendment & Rezoning Chairman Geinosky opened the public hearing at 7: 00 p.m. Commissioner Prochno swore in the petitioners. The Village Attorney, George Knickerbocker, explained that the Village Board and Hamilton Partners were co-petitioning for a text amendment to the zoning ordinance which would establish a new business classification entitled the 1 -B-5 Town Center Shopping District' ' . The purpose of the new classification was to assist in the redevelopment of the Grove Mall property. Knickerbocker also stated that both parties were seeking to rezone the Grove Mall property to B-5 subject to the approval of the text amendment. Knickerbocker stated that the Village Board considered redeveloping the Grove Mall property under the existing B-1, B-2, B-3 and Planned Unit Development Zoning Districts. However, it was the consensus of the Village Board and Hamilton Partners that the project would be a unique development which would ultimately require numerous variations throughout the site if developed in an existing zoning district. In addition, Knickerbocker explained that the Planned Unit Development district was primarily used for developments consisting of a residential and commercial mix, which the Grove Mall project did not have. Knickerbocker stated that the proposed B-5 district was different from other zoning districts in terms of its conditional uses which included: auto related uses, drive-thru facilities, and indoor theaters. Knickerbocker explained that each of the conditional uses must be reviewed by the appropriate Department Heads and formally approved by the Village Board. This is different from existing conditional uses which are permitted simply by compliance with predetermined conditions as set forth by the zoning ordinance. Knickerbocker reviewed the text amendment language with the Plan Commission in detail. Knickerbocker stated that the majority of the uses permitted were similar to those allowed in the B-1 district and that no new uses had been added in the B-5 district. In addition, the only government office allowed was a post office branch. Knickerbocker also requested that the terms "parking" and "stacking spaces " be included as considerations of conditional uses in Section 7-B-5-2c of the text amendment. Knickerbocker explained that this language would supersede parking and stacking requirements for the conditional uses as required elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. This flexibility was necessary due to unique nature of the development and to avoid the need for multiple zoning variations in the future. It was the consensus of the Plan Commission to include the additional text as requested by the Village Attorney. Knickerbocker explained that the B-S parking requirements were different than B-1 in that they required 5 spaces per 1, 000 square feet of floor area as opposed to 4 square feet of parking per 1 square foot of floor area. Boffice explained that this was the same parking which is currently in use at Mallard Square Shopping Center and that the existing B-1 requirements were outdated and very difficult to meet by developers. Knickerbocker stated that the landscape requirements for the B-5 zoning district were more restrictive due to the fact that they required the Village Board to approve a detailed landscape plan. This would enable the Village Board to ensure that landscaping reflective of a town squareatmospherewould be supplied. Knickerbocker stated that the final four paragraphs of the proposed text amendment (7B-5-5 through 7B-5-8) were different from the other zoning districts due to the unique nature of the development. The primary difference of these paragraphs is that the Village Board is provided with review capabilities over preliminary, and final site plans and signage. In addition, Section 713-5-7 provides for outdoor uses subject to receiving a permit from the Village Board. Commissioner Meyers questioned as to why drive-thru restaurants were permitted as a conditional use when they were specifically excluded as a permitted use. Knickerbocker explained that drive-thru restaurants were excluded as a permitted use because of their nature as traffic generators and odor, garbage and noise producers. By making restaurants a conditional use, the Village ensures that any proposed drive-thrus will meet certain conditions which will make the business more conducive to the success of the overall site and, in general, a better neighbor. Commissioner Meyers questioned whether any discussion was given to making antennas/satellite dishes a prohibited or conditional use for aesthetic reasons. Upon further discussion by the petitioners and the Plan Commission, it was the consensus of the Plan Commission to have antennas and satellite dishes included as item "d" under section 7B-5- 2c of the proposed text amendment. Commissioner Ayers questioned as to why the B-5 district had such a large decrease in the amount of required parking spaces per square foot of floor area. Boffice explained that the existing B-1 parking requirements were outdated and in many cases difficult to meet. In addition, it has been the experience of the Village that parking spaces required by use, as in the B-2 and B-3 districts, was more efficient. Knickerbocker also added that no petitions for B-1 zoning have been filed in recent years because of the difficulty of its parking requirements. Commissioner Guzzardi questioned the language in Section 7B-5-3D regarding bulk requirements. Specifically, Guzzardi questioned why a 50 foot setback was only required adjacent to single family residences and not adjacent to multi-family homes such as the Village Grove Apartments. Boffice stated that language referring to multi-family homes was excluded because the theater building was already within 50 feet of the multi-family building at Village Grove, therefore, a variation from the ordinance would be necessary. Knickerbocker also requested that additional language be added to Section 7B-3-5D which would allow reciprocal easement agreements to negate the minimum lot width at front yard line to accommodate the possibility of the theater property being purchased and subdivided. It was the consensus of the Plan Commission to have the requested language included. Commissioner Prochno questioned as to why video stores were not permitted in B-5 when they were included in the redevelopment agreement. Knickerbocker stated that the omission of video stores was an oversight and that they should be included in the text amendment. The consensus of the Plan Commission was to include video stores as a permitted use in the B-5 district. Chairman Geinosky opened up the meeting to comments from the audience. There were no comments. Prior to further discussion by the Plan Commission, Knickerbocker clarified that the requested rezoning to B-5 did not include the Citgo or Burger King properties. Upon further discussion, Commissioner Meyers moved, and Commissioner Guzzardi seconded a motion, to recommend that the Village Board approve the proposed text amendment creating the B-5 Town Center Shopping District subject to the changes as discussed by the Plan Commission. Upon voting, (F. Geinosky, C. Prochno, P. Ayers, J. Meyers, D. Paliganoff, D. Sokolowski, K. Zizzo, AYES, C. Henrici ABSENT) the motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Meyers moved, and Commissioner Prochno seconded a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve the rezoning of the Grove Mall property from B-1 Business District to B-5 Town Center Shopping District. Upon voting, (F. Geinosky, C. Prochno, P. Ayers, J. Meyers, D. Paliganoff, D. Sokolowski, K. Zizzo, AYES, C. Henrici ABSENT) the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Geinosky closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Chairman Geinosky stated that the text amendment and rezoning would be considered by the Village Board at their meeting on February 25, 1997. chairman Geinosky then asked if any Plan Commissioners had questions regarding the preliminary site plan. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned as to why there was so much parking in the center of the development. Berlinghoff stated that the parking was necessary to accommodate the needs of the Dominick's Food Store. Berlinghoff stated that the parking lot will be aesthetically improved through abundant planting of landscaping throughout the parking lot. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned how pedestrian traffic would flow through the site. Berlinghoff stated that pedestrians would be able to walk from Dominick's to any other portion of the site on sidewalk areas. Minimal traffic lanes would need to be crossed to do so. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned if traffic congestion would occur at the proposed traffic light at Lonsdale. Berlinghoff stated that a traffic study was currently being completed to determine the project's impact on traffic in the area. Commissioner Zizzo questioned what kind of businesses would be interested in Retail Store ' 'A" . Berlinghoff stated that those stores would be impulse shopping by nature which catered to automotive customers who would stop on impulse to purchase products. Typical impulse stores include Baskin Robbins and Starbucks. Commissioner Zizzo questioned what major changes had taken place since Hamilton Partner's original plan was submitted in October 1996. Berlinghoff stated that the theater had stayed put in its current location as opposed to being included in the center of the project In addition, the parking garage had been removed. Commissioner Sokolowski questioned as to what kind of stores would be in Retail Stores "B" and "C" . Berlinghoff stated that store B would be an 6, 000 square foot sit down Italian Restaurant. Store C would include a 4, 000 square foot breakfast and lunch restaurant with additional stores. Commissioner Prochno questioned as to how many handicapped parking spaces would be included on the site. Berlinghoff stated that he would know the exact amount of handicapped spaces when the final site plan is completed. Commissioner Prochno questioned if sidewalk access would be provided to the Village Grove Apartments. Berlinghoff stated that a sidewalk would be included but that the exact location had not been determined. Commissioner Prochno questioned if Citgo would have direct access to the site. Knickerbocker stated that the plans do not show access to the Citgo due to the fact that Citgo is in the process of remodeling their facilities. If remodeled to be consistent with the new development, access to Citgo could be provided. Commissioner Prochno questioned as to what would happen to the Village's Community Events Sign. Parrin stated that the sign would be moved to another Village property on Biesterfield Road, possibly a well site or the Fire Department property(Station #7) . Commissioner Meyers stated that he was not satisfied with the preliminary site plan because it did not meet his expectations for what a town center was supposed to be. Chairman Geinosky opened the meeting to comments from the audience. Steve Sobieski, owner of Burger King, expressed concern over the line of sight for his store as well as the limited access to it. Commissioner Meyers moved, and Commissioner Guzzardi, seconded a motion to recommend that the Village Board not approve the preliminary site plan for the Grove Mall Redevelopment Project. President Gallitano explained that the site plan currently before the Plan Commission for review was the result of the hard work and effort of the Village Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Plan Commission, Village staff and Hamilton Partners. President Gallitano further explained that those involved in the development process considered several different ways to align the property and felt that the proposed plan successfully accomplished the goals of the Village Board to create a town square which would be a benefit to Elk Grove. President Gallitano then requested that the Plan Commission withhold their vote on the motion to deny in order to allow them the opportunity to review some of the more detailed plans including colorized renderings and landscape plans. Upon further discussion, the consensus of the Plan Commission was to review additional site plan information at the following dates and times prior to discussion of the final site plan on March 5, 1997 at 7: 00 p.m. : - At 5:30 p.m. on February 25, 1997, prior to the 6 :00 p.m. Committee of the Whole meeting; - At 6:00 p.m. on March 5, 1997, prior to the 7: 00 p.m. joint Village Board/Plan Commission meeting; and/or - through direct discussion with Hamilton Partners if necessary. Upon further discussion Commissioner Meyers and Commissioner Guzzardi withdrew their motions to recommend that the Village Board deny the preliminary site plan. Chairman Geinosky closed discussion on the preliminary site plan and continued the meeting to March 5, 1997 at 7: 00 p.m. Chairman Geinosky called for a 10 minute recess at 9:50 p.m. Chairman Geinosky reconvened the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Item B: Pratt-Nicholas Subdivision Steve Uhlarik, of Hiffman Shaffer and Associates, (HSA) stated that he was seeking to subdivide a parcel of property located at the northwest corner of Pratt Avenue and Nicholas Boulevard. Uhlarik stated that the existing site was currently co-occupied by American Can and Gordon Foods for warehousing and distribution purposes. Uhlarik further stated that the southeast corner of the subject property was vacant and being used for truck parking purposes. Uhlarik stated that Hiffman Shaffer and Associates wanted to improve the unused portion of the property and build an office/warehouse facility or sell the property. This would be accomplished by subdividing the existing 12.5 acre parcel into two smaller parcels of 11.0 and 1.5 acres respectively. Commissioner Ayers questioned if Hiffman Shaffer and Associates had been contacted by any potential buyers. Uhlarik stated that Hiffman Shaffer and Associates had not been contacted. Chairman Geinosky reviewed staff comments submitted by Alan Boffice dated January 30, 1997 and asked if the petitioner had responded to them. Uhlarik stated that all staff comments had been responded to with the exception of the easement provision language. Niehaus confirmed the status of staff 's comments. Niehaus also explained that staff will only accept Elk Grove's standard easement provisions and that Hiffman, Shaffer and Associates attorney will be contacting the Director of Engineering and Community Development so that he may respond to any concerns they have with Elk Grove's standard easement language. Upon further discussion, Commissioner Ayers moved and Commissioner Paliganoff seconded a motion, to recommend that the Village Board approve the Pratt-Nicholas Subdivision subject to the easement provisions meeting staff approval. Upon voting (F. Geinosky, C. Prochno, P. Ayers, R. Guzzardi, J. Meyers, D. Paliganoff, D. Sokolowski, K. Zizzo AYES, C. Henrici ABSENT) , the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Geinosky closed the meeting at 10: 10 p.m. Respe tfully submitted, 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 of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief (2) , Assistant Fire Chief, Village Attorney, Chairman and Members of ZBA