Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 09/16/1998 - EGCV ANNEX ELK GROVE VILLAGE Plan Commission Minutes September 16, 1998 8:00 P.M. Present: J. Glass, Chairman F.Geinosky, Secretary P. Ayers C. Henrici J. Meyers D. Paliganoff D. Sokolowski K. Zizzo Absent: T. Thompson Staff: S. Niehaus, Assistant to the Village Manager Petitioners: T. Conrarty, Prudential Realty C. Smith,Arete 3 Architects L. Aubell, Attorney R. Morrisey,White Hen Pantry Item A: EGCV Annexation, Rezoning and Variation Chairman Glass Called the public hearing to order at 8:05 p.m. and briefly summarized the petition being presented to the Plan Commission. Chairman Glass stated that Elk Grove Commercial Venture (EGCV) had petitioned the Village for the annexation and residential zoning of 1.8 acres of property located at the northwest comer of Devon and Ridge Avenues. In addition, the petitioners are seeking to rezone the property from Cook County R-3 to a B-2 Business district to allow the construction and operation of a commercial shopping center. The petitioners are also seeking a variance to allow the proposed building to encroach into the required 75-foot sideyard on the western boundary of the property. Secretary Geinosky swore in the petitioners. Charles Smith introduced himself as the architect for EGCV and provided a brief outline of the proposed development. Smith stated that the 1.8-acre property is currently occupied by one(l)single- family residence, which is vacant. The property would be subdivided into two (2)separate lots measuring 1.1 (Lot#1)and 0.7(Lot#2)acres respectively. EGCV plans on demolishing the existing residential structure and replacing it with an 8,500 S.F. commercial building on Lot#1.White Hen Pantry would occupy approximately 2,500 S.F.of the commercial building. The remaining space would be designed for six(6) separate 1,000 S.F.units. No use has been identified for Lot#2 which is located on the northern portion of the subject property. Smith stated that the commercial development was an ideal use for the subject parcel due to its location on Devon Road,which is a four-lane county highway. In addition,Smith stated that it would be consistent with the commercial properties to the east and the south of the proposed development. The northern boundary of the property is adjacent to the Commonweaith Edison right-of-way. Primary ingress and egress to the property is available from a right-in/right-out entrance on Devon Avenue located in the southwest comer of the lot. A full-service entrance is also provided on Ridge Avenue that would be used to serve both Lots 1 and 2. A cross easement agreement would be used to ensure access to both lots. As designed,Lot#1 requires 48 parking spaces. A total of 57 stalls are provided. A dry detention area is provided on the western portion of the property that will provide sufficient area for drainage of both lots. Smith explained that EGCV was seeking a variation from the Village's required 75-foot sideyard for the western boundary of the subject property that is adjacent to an unincorporated residential parcel. The proposed commercial building on Lot#1 would be located 12.5 feet from the property line. Smith stated that the proposed setback exceeds the 10-foot requirement for structures adjacent to commercially zoned properties. Smith pointed out that the 10-foot requirement would be applied in the event that the adjacent parcel was rezoned to commercial district in the future. In regards to Lot#2, Smith explained that EGCV had not identified a use for the property and was willing to appear before the Village at such time that a potential use is identified. This would permit input from staff, the Plan Commission and Village Board. Smith also stated that a likely use for Lot#2 would be a professional/office building as opposed to commercial due to the its distance from the Devon Avenue frontage. Chairman Glass opened the public hearing to questions from the Plan Commission at 8:25 p.m. Commissioner Sokolowski questioned if there would be any deliveries through the front doors of the building on Lot#l. Smith stated that deliveries would be made in the front and rear doors depending on the individual tenant. Commissioner Sokolowski questioned if there would be any lights on the building. Smith stated that emergency/security lights would be installed on the rear of the building. In addition, lights would be placed on the front of the building for the safety of customers and motorists. The fixtures would be designed to keep all light on the site in order to limit impact on neighboring properties. Commissioner Sokolowski concurred with the Director of Engineering &Community Development's comments related to screening and requested that some consideration be given to landscaping on the western property line. Smith stated that a berm was not possible but that trees and shrubs could be installed if requested. Commissioner Sokolowski questioned how Lot#2 would be maintained until it was developed. Smith stated that the lot would be cleared and seeded with a low maintenance type of grass. A landscaping company would then be utilized to cut the grass on a periodic basis in accordance with Village requirements. Commissioner Ayers informed the Plan Commission that he would not be voting on the petition due to the fact that he represented a potential tenant of the proposed building. Commissioner Ayers concurred with Commissioner Sokolowski's concern for screening of the western property line. Commissioner Ayers also stated that he had no objections to the setback variation due to the fact that Devon Avenue would likely be developed commercially in the future. Commissioner Ayers questioned if the rear loading area had sufficient space for both cars and trucks at the same time. Smith stated that trucks and cars could both access the area at the same time. However, it would be difficult for cars to exit their parking spaces. Commissioner Ayers questioned if the garbage/loading area to the north of the building would be screened. Smith stated that the garbage/loading area would be screened from the north. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned if there would be designated employee parking. Smith stated that no employee parking had been identified on the site plan. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned if there were any White Hen representatives present who could explain the operation of their facility. Randy Morrissey introduced himself to the Plan Commission as the area real estate manager for White Hen. Morrissey stated that the proposed facility would be one of 265 stores in the Chicagoland area. Typical White Hens attract 67%of their business from within a half-mile radius of their location. The remaining business conies from automobile traffic and local business employees. The market study for the Ridge and Devon site indicated that there are over 2,400 dwelling units in the area. Sufficient employment also exists in close proximity to the site that will enable the store to be successful. The store will be open 24 hours a day and will feature a selection of beverages, snacks, deli sandwiches and produce foods. No alcohol will be sold on the premises. The store will be franchise owned and will employ 3 to 4 employees at time. In addition, the proposed store will include seating for approximately 12 people. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned as to what types of businesses could locate in the remaining retail units. Conrarty stated that potential tenants included a video store,dry cleaners and pizza place. Commissioner Zizzo questioned as to the number of lights that will be used on the site. Smith stated that the actual number of lights would be determined after the completion of a photometric study. The number of poles installed on the site will be as minimal as possible. Commissioner Zizzo questioned as to the specific types of business that could locate on Lot#2. Conrarty stated that the lot could be used for a day care facility, veterinarian office or medical office. Commissioner Meyers questioned if White Hen was related to the County Pantry convenience store chain. Morrissey stated that White Hen was not affiliated with Country Pantry or any other convenience stores. Commissioner Henrici questioned if a sidewalk would be installed to connect with the existing public sidewalk at Walnut and Ridge Avenue. Smith stated that a sidewalk would be installed. Commissioner Henrici questioned if street lighting would be installed adjacent to the street in accordance with Village Code. Niehaus stated that he would review the issue with staff. Commissioner Hentici questioned as to the size of the delivery trucks that would be servicing the site. Smith stated that the majority of deliveries would be made by panel trucks. Commissioner Geinosky questioned as to the area of the property to be annexed. Smith stated that the parcel was 81,629 square feet in size. Commissioner Geinosky questioned as to the relationship between White Hen and the franchise owner. Morrissey stated that White Hen is responsible for signing the lease and the franchise owner leases a license from White Hen to operate the store. Commissioner Geinosky questioned when construction would start if the annexation were approved. Smith stated that construction would start immediately with an anticipated completion date of July 1999. Commissioner Geinosky questioned as to the economic impact of the proposed development. Morrissey stated that the proposed White Hen would do approximately$1,000,000 in sales a year that would amount to $10,000 in sales tax to the Village. In addition, White Hen would probably pay $12,000 to $15,000 in property taxes. This estimate did not include potential sales and property taxes from the remaining retail units. Chairman Glass called for a recess at 9:25 p.m. The public hearing resumed at 9:35 p.m. with comments from the audience. D. Sorey, 299 Walnut,stated his objection of the proposed development due to concerns over garbage/refuse, the proposed commercial use and potential traffic conflicts. Specifically, Sorey stated that cars exiting the site on Ridge in the northbound direction would have difficulty making the left tum out of the driveway. P. Van Doren, 1307 W. Cumberland Circle, expressed his concern over the proposed stores due to the fact that Devon Avenue already had a number of vacant stores that should be occupied before approving another commercial property. H. Danker, 271 Walnut,stated that he concurred with the comments previously made by Mr. Sorey. T. Rodgers, 314 Wellington Avenue,expressed concerns over the proposed development including the weight limit for trucks on Ridge Avenue,vacancy of adjacent commercial properties and past flooding history of the subject area. K. Vega,279 Walnut,expressed his concerns regarding parking on the site and the potential impact of the proposed development on nearby property values. S. Kuthie, 281 Walnut,expressed a concern that the proposed development would create a safety hazard for the existing bus stop at Ridge and Walnut. Chairman Glass closed the public hearing at 10:20 p.m. Chairman Glass questioned as to the type of trees that would be installed on the western property line. Smith stated that the landscaping would include canopy trees and dense bushes in order to provide adequate screening. Chairman Glass questioned as to the distance between the proposed building and the existing residence to the west. Smith stated that the buildings would be approximately 30 feet apart. Chairman Glass questioned as to the need to install sidewalk on the Devon Avenue frontage. Smith stated that EGCV would prefer to not install sidewalk until it is necessary to connect to neighboring properties that have been developed. Chairman Glass"asked the Plan Commission if they had any objection to accepting a Statement of Commitment requiring the developer to install a sidewalk when the adjacent property is annexed. The Plan Commission had no objections. Chairman Glass closed the public hearing at 10:30 p.m. The Plan Commission discussed EGCV's petition and request for commercial zoning in detail. It was the general consensus of the Plan Commission that the intersection of Devon and Ridge was best suited for commercial use due to its location on a four lane County roadway as well as its proximity to the nearby commercial/industrial uses along Devon Avenue. In addition, it was also felt that the remaining properties to the west of the subject location would also be developed for commercial use in the future. Chairman Glass also stated that Village Board had discussed the future use of Devon Avenue in the past and decided to install sanitary sewer main on the Devon frontage in anticipation of commercial development. For these reasons the Plan Commission felt that the B-2 zoning and setback variation were acceptable. Upon further discussion, Commissioner Meyers moved, and Commissioner Henrici seconded a motion, to recommend approval of EGCV's request for the annexation and B-2 zoning of 1.8 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Devon and Ridge Avenues, and to approve a variation from the 75 foot sideyard requirement, subject to the following: • Plan Commission review of a screening plan for the western property line to ensure that the adjacent residential property is adequately shielded from the commercial building; • Plan Commission review of the site plan for Lot#2 when a future use iE identified by whoever owns the property; • Installation of sidewalk to connect to the existing public sidewalk at Ridge and Walnut; and • Provision of a Statement of Commitment to install sidewalk on the Devon frontage when the property to the west is annexed to the Village. Upon voting(Glass,Geinosky, Henrici, Meyers, Paliganoff, Sokolowski, Zizzo AYES, Thompson, ABSENT) the motion Carried. Commissioner Ayers did not vote for reasons previously stated. Commissioner Zizzo moved, and Commissioner Ayers seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. Upon voting, the motion Carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Resp fully submitted, 7 -96 colt R.NiehausGlp Assistant to the Village Manager c: Chairman and Members, Plan Commission, President& Board of Trustees, Village Clerk,Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager,Assistant to the Village Manager,Administrative Intem, Dir.of Engineering&Community Development, Dir. of Public Works, Fire Chief,Deputy Fire Chief(2),Assistant Fire Chief,Village Attorney,Chairman and Members,ZBA