Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 12/01/1999 - CONCORD DEV/REZONE ELK GROVE VILLAGE Plan Commission Minutes December 1, 1999 Present: J. Glass, Chairman F. Geinosky, Secretary C. Henrici J. Meyers D. Paliganoff D. Sokolowski T. Thompson Absent: P. Ayers K. Zizzo Staff: P. Vadopalas, Assistant to the Village Manager M.Pye, Assistant Director of Engineering S. Trudan,Assistant Director of Community Development Petitioners: N.Wynsma,Concord Development Corp. H. Francke, Piper,Marbury,Rudnick&Wolfe J. Nelson, JEN Land Design, Inc. S. Winnike, P.E.,Manbard Consulting Ltd. K. Krogstad, Pugsley&La Haie, Ltd. Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. Chairman Glass stated this meeting is a continuation of a hearing to consider the petition of Concord Development Corporation to rezone approximately 18.5 acres of land northwest of the intersection of Park Boulevard and Devon Avenue from O-T Office-Transitional to A-2 Multi-Family Residential with a Planned Unit Development special use. Chairman Glass asked the peitioner to present their responses to the open issues from the previous meeting. Chairman Glass read three letters in the record(attached). N. Wynsma stated some research on property values had been done in response to resident concerns about the impact of the proposed development on the property values of neighboring homes. Wynsma read a series of sales data for Huntington Chase and Talbot's Mill developments which indicated property values had increased for the period 1997 to 1999. Wynsma stated the median sales prices for the units sold in 1999 were in the range of 150 to the mid-160's, that the proposed units would be priced from 160 to 170 if not higher, and that the new units would not lower property values of surrounding homes. Wynsma stated a traffic study had been completed in response to concerns about traffic impact. According to the study,the Devon/Park intersection currently handles approximately 3,326 vehicles/hour during the morning peak, and 3,204 vehiclesihour during the evening peak. The report indicates the presence of the proposed townhomes would increase the totals to 3,379 and 3,303 respectively. Wynsma stated this would be a negligible increase, and that the report suggested no modifications or retiming of the traffic control signals at this intersection. Wynsma further stated if Village staff would like,the developer would cooperate in studying the issue in the future and resolving any problems once the development is constructed. Wynsma stated some changes to the plan had been made to address concerns about the north property line. Wynsma stated the revised plans include screening along the north property line in the form of a continuous eight-foot tall board-on-board fence and landscaping. The fence would match the fencing installed along the western property line to screen the expressway. J. Nelson addressed the plan revisions and stated the separation between the garages had been increased from 60-feet to 62-feet as staff requested. The drives into the parking areas were increased from 20-feet to 24-feet in width. Nelson noted the drives in Talbot's Mill are 20-feet in width. Nelson stated that additional guest parking has been added at the ends of the motor courts as well as in several other locations. The additional parking is equally distributed in the north and south clusters. Nelson stated a trail has been added along the western boundary of the development to provide a pedestrian link between the two clusters along the conservation area. Nelson stated the northernmost units in the southern cluster have been reconfigured to be located farther south. This reconfiguration increases the size of the conservation area and decreases the distance between these units and on-street parking. Nelson addressed the open space issue and distributed a site data comparison of Talbot's Mill, Huntington Chase, and the proposed development(attached). Nelson stated that different standards had been applied to the three developments and stated the park site was included in the open space calculation for Huntington Chase, and that the building envelope for Talbot's Mill was reduced from 30- feet to 10-feet for their open space calculation. Nelson stated the plan for the proposed development currently provides 49.77% open space. Nelson addressed parking concerns and noted the proposed development provides two-car garages for all units, as opposed to the Huntington Chase and Talbot's Mill developments. The revised plans show an additional .33 guest parking spaces per unit to match what is available at the other two developments. Nelson further noted the reduction of two units from the lower cluster, decreasing the total number of units from 104 to 102. S. Winnike addressed the stormwater management and drainage issues for the subject property. Winnike stated research and a field survey verified the "as built" for water detention. Winnike stated the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit that was approved and issued for the site allowed for 11.5 acres of impervious coverage. The proposed development totals approximately six acres of impervious coverage,making existing detention sufficient. Winnike stated that any minor modifications would be addressed in final engineering. K. Krogstad explained revisions to the landscape plan. Two fences are proposed; one along the western boundary and a second along the northern property line. Both fences would be eight-foot tall board-on- board fences with brick piers along the length every 110 feet. The fences would be in addition to a four- foot berm and landscaping along these boundaries. Krogstad stated four-foot tall fences and brick piers would be added at the ends of the parking bays to screen vehicles and headlights from existing homes at Talbot's Mill. Commissioner Sokolowski noted the proposed fencing would serve as a sight barrier but not a sound barrier. Krogstad stated this is correct. Wynsma stated a fiscal impact analysis had been done to determine the additional revenues the Village would receive as a result of this development. Wynsma stated once all units are sold and occupied, a total of$426,700 dollars annually is estimated in new revenues for all taxing districts. The Village's share of the additional revenue is estimated to total $31,300 annually. Wynsma addressed the questions regarding the overlap at the northern property line. He stated the issue is not a title issue but an easement. He stated the developer's title company will insure them for this portion of the property. Wynsma addressed the concerns about Park Boulevard maintenance. He noted the street is maintained by the Village,but agreed to discuss proportionate or equal cost sharing with the Talbot's Mill Association should any costs be incurred in maintaining the medians. Wynsma addressed questions about soundproofing of the homes. Wynsma stated the developer would commit to install gypsum material to the exterior of the units contiguous to the expressway and install triple-glazed windows in these units. Chairman Glass recessed the meeting at 9:20 p.m. for a break. The meeting was reconvened at 9:40 p.m. Commissioner Thompson stated his outstanding questions were all addressed by the petitioner. Commissioner Sokolowski asked about the size of the trees to be planted along the western boundary and the projected growth of the trees. Krogstad responded the trees would be 6 to 10 feet tall when installed and would grow approximately one foot per year. Krogstad added this would provide screening for the second story of the units in 6 to 8 years. Commissioner Paliganoff asked for additional information about the phasing of the construction. Wynsma responded they would like to begin work in the spring of 2000 and plan for the development to be fully built and occupied by 2003. Wynsma added that construction would likely begin with the northern cluster to minimize the impact of construction traffic on new residents. Commissioner Paliganoff asked for information on residential soundproofing standards from staff. S. Trudan stated the Village's only experience with this issue has been with the Huntington Chase development. Commissioner Meyers expressed satisfaction with the revised plans and had no additional questions. Commissioner Henrici asked if the planned sidewalk was included in the calculation of open space. Nelson stated some of the sidewalk would be located within the 30-foot building envelope, but did not know the total space taken up by sidewalk within the development. Commissioner Henrici asked if a homeowners association would be responsible for maintaining the screening fences. Wynsma responded a homeowners association would maintain the fences. Commissioner Henrici stated 100-foot intervals between brick piers would not offer much stability to the fence and asked the petitioner to revise the fence plans with shorter intervals between piers. Wynsma stated they would do so. Commissioner Henrici stated he counted 34 guest parking spaces but the plans state 35 are shown. Nelson responded he would recount and verify the number of guest parking spaces. Commissioner Geinosky asked if the property would drain water to the east into Talbot's Mill. S. Winnike stated the existing water management plan includes the two conservation areas which outfall into storm sewer also utilized by Talbot's Mill. Commissioner Geinosky asked if sufficient sewer capacity exists to accept additional water. Winnike stated the system was designed for a more intensive use than proposed and no shortfall is anticipated though the issue would be addressed in final engineering. Commissioner Geinosky asked if the developer has any intentions to extend Park Boulevard north to Martha Street in unincorporated Itasca Meadows. Wynsma responded no. Chairman Glass added that if and when Itasca Meadows is incorporated into the Village,the connection would likely be considered. Chairman Glass read from the minutes of the Plan Commission hearing on the Talbot's Mill development in 1999. The minutes indicated the developer would assume responsibility for maintaining the grassy median in Park Boulevard, and noted this maintenance cost should be shared with the proposed Concord development. Commissioner Henrici asked if soundproofing would be provided for units 60-65 which face the expressway. Wynsma stated the fronts would be soundproofed and noted much more landscaping would be provided to screen these units because of the amount of space available between them and the expressway. Chairman Glass opened the meeting to the audience. Bill Goorsky, 1042 Martha Lane, stated he did research on his property which abuts the subject property and cited a public right-of-way along the rear of his yard. He stated the proposed screening fence would be located in this area on his property. Discussion ensued on the property line in question and was determined to be a private matter between himself and the landowner. Cheryl Roberts, 1241 Old Mill Lane, expressed concerns about flooding on her property. She stated the developer is planning to construct too many units and asked what assurances she will receive that this development will not aggravate flooding problems in Talbot's Mill. Chairman Glass stated the developer will be required to meet Village and County engineering standards and that no building permits would be issued if the Village had any reason to believe the construction would create flooding problems for the community. Chairman Glass explained that the standing water seen on the property demonstrates the function of the detention area and the controlled rate of release of stormwater. He explained stormwater management is a regional issue,that each property owner in the region has a responsibility to address not only how stormwater is managed on their property but how its rate of drainage to neighboring properties is controlled. Chairman Glass reminded the resident that runoff from Talbot's Mill impacts residents to the east but it is controlled to eliminate any problems associated with it. A resident who resides at 1177 Talbots Lane asked if the exteriors would include brick. Wynsma stated the fronts of the units would contain brick. The resident asked if all the units would be the same color. Wynsma stated they would be the same color,but different models would offer different elevations. Tom Rodgers, 314 Wellington Avenue, asked what kind of soundproofing would be provided and suggested the actual decibel level of roadway noise be determined. Jeff Snyder, 1901 Albany Court, stated he moved from Talbot's Mill because of the noise in the area. He stated office buildings are the best use for the property and there is an unmet demand for office space in Elk Grove as evidenced by the number of office uses located in retail spaces. He added that Park Boulevard should be opened to Martha Street and the subject property should be developed to screen noise from the existing residents. Chairman Glass stated the property would not support a smaller office use and the existing connection to Martha Street is for emergency purposes only. Chairman Glass directed the petitioner to revise the landscape plan to reflect additional landscaping to screen units 60—65 from the expressway and to revise the fence plan with shorter intervals between brick piers. In addition,Chairman Glass directed the petitioner to develop additional ways to minimize noise impact on the residents and to develop Letters of Awareness for potential buyers. Finally, Chairman Glass requested staff to provide their comments on the revised plans for the next meeting. Chairman Glass closed the public hearing and stated the Plan Commission would meet at their next regularly scheduled meeting on December 15 to take a vote on the petition. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Res tfull submitted, /� � Peter J. adop s Assistant to the Village Manager C: President and Board of Trustees, Chairman and Members of the Plan Commission, Chairman and Members—ZBA, Village Clerk(2), Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Assistant to the Village Manager,Administrative Intern, Director of Engineering/Community Development, Director of Public Works,Fire Chief,Deputy Fire Chief(2), Assistant Fire Chief, Village Attorney. To the Planning Commission: Business travel and a weekly volunteer commitment prevented my husband and I from attending the public hearing on the development at the northwest corner of Park and Devon. We want you to know that we fully support rezoning of the property to residential. We had feared an earlier plan calling for a mix of business/hotel development, believing the influx of drivers in rental cars in a neighborhood would make it very hazardous for pedestrians. We believe additional townhouses are the best use of the land, and are very pleased to hear that some of the land will be donated to the park district. There is an abundance of wildlife in that area, including egrets and great blue herons who use the ponds in summer and fall. You may want to consider adding stop signs on Park at Talbots to help address traffic concerns. Thank you. Kelly and Christine Hughes 1183 Talbots Lane C I::C.E. , NOV 3 0 1gg9 V, , � Ray Rummel -- 1 -- Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:45:52 RECEIVED Nov. 23, 1999 Mr. Robert E. Phillips R E C E I V E V NOV 2 9 1999 Zoning Board Chairman Zoning Board Commissioners NOV 2 9 1999 ELK (?ROVE VII_IAGE Dear Sir: VILLAGE CLEFIXS OFFICE �t��l?.i�Jrliry I attended the 11/17/99 public hearing concerning the property along Park Blvd. It seems that some people didn't understand the purpose of the meeting, which is to consider the rezoning of the property from commercial to residential. As much as everyone in Talbots Mill would like the area to stay as is, that is no longer an option. People talked about property values, well, just imagine what a hotel/motel, office complex or even a storage facility would do to our property values. I don't think we would see the values of our homes rising as they are now. The issue of safety was also brought up, doesn't everyone think that a residential area would be a lot safer, after all, there would be families with children buying these homes. A hotel/motel would only bring in transient people, they certainly would not care about the property and you can only just imagine what a storage facility would do to our community. I also think an office complex would be detrimental to the community. If the board is truly considering the value of our community, the safety of our children and residents, then their only choice is to grant the Zoning change to residential. Any builder, including the one currently proposing to build townhomes, abide by and take into consideration the density of the homes they are proposing and also takes into account the noise from Rt. 53. They would have to do more than just a berm with landscaping. The berm with a sound barrier fence and landscaping along the entire western line (Rt.53) of the property would be more beneficial for the new homes and also to the exisiting homes of Talbots Mill so that we do not end up with a wind tunnel affect in the open areas. After all, you do want to have friendly relationships with current property owners of Talbots Mill. Sincerely, Janet Schwichtenber g 823 Spring Creek Ct. Elk Grove Vlg. Il. 60007 t November 28, 1999 =a Itl,Ef Mr. John Glass NOV 3 Chairman Planning Commission 0 1999 901 Wellington Ave. Elk Grove Village, iL. 60007 5 OFFIG, Dear John, I will be unable to make the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for December 1, 1999 as I will be out of town. I would, however, like to express my opinions and concerns to you and my fellow commissioners. In regards to the rezoning request, I am in favor of this. I have always looked at the impact rezoning requests have on existing residents and businesses first and then secondly how it will fit in with the overall geographic area. Although many of the neighboring residents feel differently, I honestly believe if there were two proposals before us, one being Concord and the other a commercial developer looking for exactly the use it is zoned for, the residents would want us to take this one. Concord's presentation on the surrounding land uses also supports this position. Turning towards the proposal itself, I have the following concerns: 1. Noise- No matter what we do there will be complaints from our new residents of this development in regards to road noise. Just as our schools on the east side of the Village are being soundproofed these townhomes should be soundproofed also. This should include special windows, doors and soundproofing insulation for the walls and attic. I'd like to see this as a requirement for a positive recommendation. 2. Screening- Unlike Huntington Chase, this development will be almost on the same elevation as the expressway. A six foot fence sitting on top of the berm would at least block the view of the expressway from the first floor of the units and when driving through the neighborhood. There is nothing we can do for obstructing second story views of the expressway although evergreens planted between the buildings abutting the expressway and the berm will soften the view over time. I also believe the northern boundary should be given closer scrutiny with regards to the comments made by Mr. Gorski who lived on Martha lane ( specifically approximate distance of buildings to north property line and problems Lincoln Meadow residents currently have with drainage when the property was graded and rezoned years ago). 3. Open Space- The intent of our open space regulation does not include donated land to count as open space. If this continues to be Concord's position (variance) I would be very much opposed to this project. While we have in the past granted 2 50 foot right-o-ways; the plurality of inconvenient guest parking, 2 foot reduction in the width of the interior drives and not meeting required open space regulations makes this project too dense and therefore undesirable. I admit the combination of unbuildable land, site layout and proximity to expressways make this venture less than optimum. It is not my responsibility to ensure a successful return on investment by allowing the developer to cram as many units as possible in the buildable space they have. I would be receptive to granting the 50 foot right-o-ways. I would allow a reduction in our 50% open space requirements only for the amount of additional parking spaces the developer was willing to put in at the end of the public driveways. In other words any additional spaces outside the 30 foot envelope would not count against the open space calculation. John, I would appreciate it if you would see that my fellow commissioners get a copy of my letter and I trust all will have a productive meeting. Sincerely, Paul Ayers Plan Commissioner Date: 12-1-99 For: Concord Development By: JEN Land Design, Inc. Re: Park Boulevard Property Site Data Comparison Concord Development Kimball Hill Lexington Homes Park Boulevard Property Talbot's Mill Huntington Chase Total Multi-Family 18.53 Ac. 50.645 Ac. 48.6 Ac. Site Area Public Park 1.85 Ac. --- (Private) 3.4 Ac. Public ROW. 1.37 Ac. 9.840 Ac. 8.9 Ac. Net Site Area 15.31 Ac. 40.805 Ac. 36.3 Ac. Total No. of Units 102 452 336 1-Car Garage Units --- 372 184 2-Car Garage Units 102 80 152 Gross Site Density 5.50 D.U./Ac. 8.92 D.U./Ac. 6.91 D.U./Ac. Net Site Density 5.94 D.U./Ac. 11.08 D.U./Ac. 8.46 D.U./Ac. (excl. ROW,) Net Site Density 6.66 D.U./Ac. 11.08 D.U./Ac. 9.26 D.U./Ac. (excl. ROW. & Park) Parking Provided: Garage 204 532 488 Driveway 204 532 488 Off-Street Guest/Ratio 35/0.34:1 150/0.33:1 112/0.33:1 Total/Ratio 443/4.34:1 1214/2.69:1 1088/3.24:1 Open Space Provided 7.62 Ac. 20.403 Ac. 15.8 Ac. Percent of Net Site 49.77% 50.00% 43.50% Notes: (1) Excludes 1.85 Ac. Includes 1.2 Ac. Excludes 3.4 Ac. Public Park, Private Park, Public Park, Excludes RO.W. Excludes R.O.W. Excludes R.O.W. (2) Excludes Area Win Excludes Area w/in Excludes Area Win 30 Ft. of Bldg., per Ord. l O.Ft. of Bldg., vs. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. of Bldg., per Ord. Public ROW. Width 50 Ft. 50 Ft. 60 & 50 Ft.