Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 11/05/2003 - CEDAR GLEN TOWNHOMES Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Minutes November 5, 2003 Present: J. Glass F. Geinosky P. Ayers E. Hauser C. Henrici D. Sokolowski T. Thompson J.Meyers Absent: D.Paliganoff Staff: M. Roan,Assistant to the Village Manager A. Boffice,Director of Engineering&Community Development M. Pye,Assistant Director,Engineering S. Trudan, Assistant Director,Community Development Petitioner: T. McGowen,Attorney A.Kensey,Project Engineer G. Carey, Carey Construction Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. Item 1: October 1 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Henrici moved to recommend approval of the meeting minutes as written,and Commissioner Ayers seconded the motion. Upon voting(Glass, Ayers,Hauser,Meyers,Henrici, Sokolowski,Thompson, AYES,Geinosky,ABSTAIN,Paliganoff ABSENT)the motion carried. Item 2: PC Docket 03-5: Cedar Glen Townhomes,Meacham Road—cont.from Sept.3 Chairman Glass read the petition into the record and noted that this meeting was a continuation from the September 3d hearing. Chairman Glass noted that the latest Engineering comments were dated October 27s'and then asked the petitioner if he had received these comments. T.McGowen stated that he had received the comments and would like to address them. T.McGowen pointed out that they have submitted several new exhibits that would help address staff comments. He first mentioned Exhibit A as being the builder's resume of residential projects that they have completed,are working on and will be starting in the near future. In regard to Engineering's October 270'memo,'t. McGowen noted that as the petitioner,they would be seeking a variance from the required sixty foot right-of-way for a fifty foot right-of-way. Even though a variance was being requested,he still felt that the easement could accommodate all necessary utilities. - 1 - As for the concerns over a Home Avenue extension, the petitioner stated that they would not be tying into Home Avenue but instead will be tying into West Glenn Trail. By doing this,they will not be boxing in any homeowner. T.McGowen stated that they have an agreement in place with the property owner to the north allowing them to line up their proposed roadway with Dakota Avenue on the west side of Meacham Road. The petitioner next noted Engineering's concern for a dedicated easement from Wal-Mart. The petitioner stated that for internal reasons, Wal-Mart will not dedicate the land. Instead,they will offer a perpetual easement, which serves the same purpose as a dedication. Due to the fact that the property is in a land trust,they do not want to change ownership. The Village Attorney has stated that the Village would accept a properly worded agreement. In regards to water detention, T. McGowen noted that due to the right-of-way crossing the existing water detention area they would need to rework the current water detention area and create a separate agreement with Wal-Mart and incorporate their purchased property into the plans. Both concepts have been agreed to in theory,but the petitioner must wait for final approval before Wal-Mart would be willing to finalize any agreements. The petitioner noted that they would oblige with Engineering's request to landscape and construct a barrier around the future detention pond for safety and aesthetic purposes. As for Engineering's parking concerns with placing four cars in a sixteen foot wide driveway,the petitioner noted that they felt sufficient parking existed by being able to place two cars in the garage and two more in the drive with eight on-street guest parking spots. With this parking layout, there would be eighty outdoor parking spots for 36 units. T.McGowen did note that they would be seeking a variance from the Village's 50%Pavement Ground Coverage Ordinance. He also noted that two of the six units would meet Village standards,but the other four would need a variance and the entire ratio for the project would be approximately 52% (Exhibit E). Chairman Glass asked if the ratio was for sixteen or eighteen foot driveways. The project engineer,A. Kensey,noted that the ratios were set for sixteen foot driveways. Chairman Glass question if the 52.04% coverage ratio included Example A or B. A.Kensey stated that they used the worst case scenario of Example B. Chairman Glass questioned if it would meet the 50%requirement if Example A was used. T. McGowen noted that it would be close,but it would still require a variance. In terms of Engineering's request for the buildings to be located on separate subdivided lots, T. McGowen noted that a revised Plat of Subdivision would show six lots with each building being on its own lot. T. McGowen also noted that they would revise their landscape plan and install additional landscaping and parkway trees along Meacham and in the backyards. In regard to the twenty foot surveyor's gap,T. McGowen stated that they still have not been able to ascertain whether or not they can use the twenty feet. The petitioner currently has several attorneys, title companies, surveyors and engineers working on this issue,but to date determining an answer has been unascertainable. If it is determined that they can use the additional land,it would resolve many of Engineering's questions. If it is determined that the additional land cannot be used,they will have to resort to two alternative plans: - 2 - I. Move the road ten more feet toward the water detention pond and use additional underground water detention. This would provide a fifty foot easement,but would still need a variation. In addition, they would be required to obtain additional approval from Wal-Mart to encroach onto their property. 2. If it is determined that they cannot use the twenty (20) foot surveyors gap and Wal-Mart does not grant the additional easement,the petitioner will resubmit the cul-de-sac proposal. The petitioner noted that although the through road makes more sense,the consensus of the Commission was that the forty foot easement would not provide enough room. T.McGowen also noted that they would be asking for A-2 zoning,Multiple Family Residence District. As a result,the number of bedrooms would not exceed an average of thirty units per acre nor would the number of dwelling units exceed an average of fifteen units per acre. The petitioner's presentation ended with A.Kensey discussing the differences in structure heights between the proposed development and the neighboring structures in the Cambridge Homes subdivision. Chairman Glass then questioned the petitioner as to whether or not they had cleaned up the property on Meacham Road. S.Trudan stated that there still exists a substantial amount of debris on the property. G. Carey noted that they had removed all of the existing tanks and equipment,but that there is still a dumpster located on the property. Chairman Glass questioned if they were still illegally operating a business from that location. G. Carey stated that the matter was still in court. Chairman Glass then noted that the Village had received a petition from neighboring property owners and then he read the petition into the record. Commissioner Hauser noted that although this is a unique property, it would be best served by a cul-de- sac. According to his recollection, there also seemed to be support for this design at the February 20, 2002 conceptual meeting and September 3, 2003 public hearing. Commissioner Hauser also questioned the quickest route for emergency vehicles if the intersection into the proposed development was blocked, noting that he felt it would be quicker to cut through the Wal-Mart parking lot. He finally noted that before discussions continue, the Commission should first determine what to do with the roadway configuration. Commissioner Meyers noted that it was troubling that there was no final plan. He also stated that if we cannot use the twenty foot strip of land, the petitioner would need to obtain access to Wal-Mart's parking lot. Due to the fact they that are working with unknowns,they cannot approve anything. Before the Commission listens to the testimony of all the residents on hand,the Commission and residents should first know what is going to happen. Commissioner Henrici agreed with Commissioner Meyers,but noted that he is opposed to the cul-de-sac. He felt strongly that they should use the leave out provided since it would assist in the circulation of traffic. Secretary Geinosky noted that he would be in favor of the cut through,but that since there were too many variables he didn't want to waste the resident's time. Commissioner Ayers noted that in the first meeting he was in favor of the cul-de-sac,but now feels that the leave out should be utilized for through traffic. - 3 - Chairman Glass stated that he felt it was important to have the meeting tonight and knew there would be no decisions made. He advised the residents that he did not feel it would be fair for them to cancel the meeting without any type of update. In addition, it was his intention from the beginning to continue this meeting to a later date. A. Boffice did make a note that staff has been researching the twenty foot surveyors gap,but has been unable to determine ownership. Commissioner Meyers presented an additional question regarding the width of the proposed driveways. A. Boffice noted that sixteen feet is the width of the garage door opening. He noted that eighteen feet is the norm and that a sixteen foot driveway would be very narrow. Commissioner Meyers agreed that it would be very narrow and aesthetically unpleasing. He also asked the petitioner to reconsider widening the driveways. Chairman Glass also noted that if they were going to ask for a variation anyway they might as well do the driveways correctly. Commissioner Ayers reminded the petitioner that they will still need to fit the utilities and parkway trees into the proposed development. T.McGowen noted that with respect to the continuation,they should have a yes or no answer on the twenty feet in a relatively short period of time. The petitioner noted that if the answer is negative, they would resubmit their original plans for a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Meyers questioned the differences between Exhibits B and D. T.McGowen noted that based on staff comments, they provided Exhibit D at the last minute. Chairman Glass stated that no specific date would be set for the next meeting and that the residents in attendance should provide their names and address to be notified of the next meeting. Item 4: Adjournment Commissioner Sokolowski moved to adjourn and Secretary Geinosky seconded the motion. Upon voting (Glass,Geinosky,Ayers,Hauser,Meyers, Henrici, Sokolowski,Thompson,AYES, Paliganoff ABSENT) the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matthew I Roan Assistant to the Village Manager C: Chairman and Members of the Plan Commission,Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, 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. - 4 -