Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 07/12/2006 - 06-5/GEO GULLO & FIRST AMER BK/MEACHAM RD Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Minutes July 12,2006 Present: F. Geinosky T.Thompson D.Paliganoff E.Hauser P.Ayers J.Glass C.Henrici J.Meyers Absent D.Sokolowski Staff. M.Roan,Assistant to the Village Manager S.Trudan,Assistant Director of Community Development Petitioner: M.Gullo,George Gullo Development Corp. M.Alesia,Attorney for G.G.D.C. D.Donohue,Donohue&Assoc.Landscape Architect C.LaSpina,Architect T.Fagen,Land Planning Strategies N.Toberman,Civil Engineer T.Wells,First American Bank G.Trupek,Architect for First American Bank Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Item 1: June 7 Meeting Minutes Secretary Geinosky motioned to approve the meeting minutes.Commissioner Meyers seconded the motion. Upon voting(Glass,Geinosky,Hauser,Hemici,Paliganoff,Ayers,Thompson,Meyers, AYES,Sokolowski,ABSENT)the motion carried. Item 2: PC Docket#06-5: GGDC&First American Bank—Special Use Meacham Road(CONTINUED FROM JUNE 7,2006) Chairman Glass noted that this hearing was a continuation of the June 7,2006 Public Hearing and that the petitioner had made changes to his previously submitted plan. M.Alesia stated that he would be representing the petitioner who was also supported by First American Bank He noted that there were several new witnesses. Secretary Gemosky swore in the new witnesses. M.Alesia stated that the petition consists of three parcels:Parcel 1 -First American Bank,Parcel 2- proposed strip center,and Parcel 3 -previously approved George Gullo Development strip center. - 1 - Based upon the concerns expressed at the previous hearing,M.Alesia noted that the petitioner has withdrawn his request for drive-through facilities on Parcel 2 and Parcel 3. It was noted that in addition to the Special Use for a banking facility,the petitioner was also seeking a drive-through for the bank,which was approved through the banks previous Special Use. Several individuals expressed concern with the northbound service road. Those with concerns worried that drivers would use it as a cut-through to avoid the signal at Meacham Road. As a result,the petitioner is now proposing one-way southbound traffic in the drive aisles behind the two(2)strip centers. To assist with their testimony,M.Alesia introduced their witnesses. Testifying on the traffic flow was T.Fagan of band Planning Strategies. T.Fagan noted that the site has it shared access point with Steak`n' Shake and a second access point,and full drive,between the middle strip center and the proposed First American Bank. Due to concerns that the rear drive aisle would be turned into a major cut-through, the petitioner has turned the rear drive aisle into a southbound only lane. In addition,the originally proposed aisle between the two strip centers has now been filled in with landscaping. T. Fagan also noted that the drive-through facilities have also been eliminated. Testifying about the proposed landscape plan was D.Donohue. He noted that the petitioner has installed a broad array of plant materials on the site. The plan includes trees along Meacham Road, shrubs to screen the parking lot,and heavy landscape plantings along the rear lot line. He noted that the trees that they were proposing would be 3-1/2"in diameter and approximately seven to eight feet in height. He also stated that the banks dumpster would be screened with evergreens. Architect C. I.aSpina noted that the aesthetics of the proposed strip center were the same as the previously approved center on the northern lot,Parcel 3.He noted that the height would be 24' and that it would be composed of stone and masonry. The petitioner's civil engineer,N.Toberman,stated that the design calls for a temporary full access between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Once Dakota Drive is completed,that full access will be eliminated and it will become a right-in,right-out only. A left tum lane will be constructed on Meacham Road at the Dakota intersection. N.Toberman also noted that the drive between the two(2)strip centers has been eliminated,and now exists as a landscaped area. In addition,he noted that he has transformed the rear drive aisle into a fourteen-foot(14'),southbound traffic only drive with parallel parking stalls along the eastern border of the property. N.Toberman stated that handicapped parking is now located in the middle of the shopping center. In addition,the parking lot will be used for storm water detention. M.Alesia noted that the petitioner is seeking to construct one additional strip center on Parcel 2 and move the already approved bank facility from Parcel 2 to Parcel 1. Although the Village's new ordinance requires that banking facilities obtain a Special Use,M.Alesia reiterated that the petitioner is not seeking to construct a bank,which has not already been approved. Commissioner Thompson asked for clarification on the temporary access. N.Toberman stated that until Dakota gets extended,they are proposing a full access drive that would include one inbound lane and two outbound lanes for north and southbound traffic. -2- Commissioner Ayers stated that when the bank was approved the landscape plan required low shrubs to block the headlights from crossing the road into the residential homes. Commissioner Ayers noted that the landscaping for the strip centers does not have any low shrubs. D.Donohue stated that he would make that adjustment and add the low shrubs to the plan. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned the area in between the two(2)strip centers. He asked the petitioner if the area would serve as a walkway and be landscaped or lighted. D.Donohue stated that the area would be a green,open space,with walkways on the sides. C.LaSpina stated that the lights would be only on the walkway and would not show into the neighboring homes to the east. He noted that the lighting was needed for pedestrian safety. Commissioner Paliganoff asked what the square footage would be of the open space. C.LaSpma noted that it would be 15'x70'. Commissioner Paliganoff asked why the proposed bank location would be better than what was previously approved. T.Wells stated that it is not a better or worse location for the bank,but it is a better location for the shopping center. Chairman Glass stated that the bank claimed that Lot 2 was a better option at the last hearing. G.Trupek stated that Lot 2 was the better option since Lot 3 was not there. Also,Lot 2 was closer to Biesterfield Road than Lot 1. Commissioner Ayers stated that the Village wants Dakota Drive to line up with whatever gets developed and will need land in order to make that happen. T.Wells stated that the transaction needed to make that happen has already taken place with the property owner to the south. Commissioner Hauser questioned who was the owner of the different parcels. M.Alesia noted that GGDC currently owns the northern lot,Lot 3. If the petitioner's proposal were accepted,then GGDC would also purchase the middle lot,Lot 2,from First American Bank. Commissioner Hauser asked if the Village Attorney felt that there need not be any additional hearings for the bank's needed Special Use. M.Alesia stated that through his conversations with the Village Attorney,the Village Attorney indicated that additional hearings were not needed. M.Roan confirmed M.Alesia's comments. Chairman Glass stated that he too received a verbal opinion from the Village Attorney that this was a proper and appropriate procedure. Commissioner Meyers questioned if the Plan Commission had any say in this matter. Chairman Glass noted that the Plan Commission could either approve the bank's relocation to Lot 1 or deny their move,which the bank has indicated that would proceed with their previously approved plans for Lot 2. Commissioner Hauser questioned the bank if they resolved their issues with the Community Reinvestment Act. T.Wells stated that they had resolved all issues. Commissioner Hauser requested that the Village receive something in writing stating that all issues are resolved. T.Wells stated that they would submit the paperwork to the Village. Commissioner Hauser noted that things have changed within the Meacham Road corridor since First American Bank was approved. He questioned the bank if they still felt their business would be successful in the location. T.Wells noted that it would be successful as they are already in the Village and that this would serve as their second branch. Commissioner Hauser questioned T.Wells as to why they would be successful. T.Wells stated that based on his experience with running banks he feels they will be successful. He noted that they have opened in equally competitive markets and have done just fine. Commissioner Hauser stated that he was concerned that this would not work out. Commissioner Thompson noted that this is just another place for their customers to do business. - 3 - Commissioner Meyers asked if staff has reviewed and approved the submitted plans. S.Trudan stated that they have not reviewed or approved the plans. Chairman Glass asked S.Trudan to note anything that they have seen so far that should be addressed. S.Trudan stated that the parking area in front of the two(2)strip centers should be broken up with drive aisles and some landscaped medians. He noted that the location of the handicapped parking stalls should be at the end of the buildings and not in the middle. Engineering questions if the space in between the buildings is necessary. S.Trudan noted that they do not like the rear one-way drive aisle and that they also question the parallel parking stalls in the rear. S.Trudan stated that they have concerns with the area in between the bank and the middle strip center. He noted that there appeared to be a"no man's land'for cars entering and exiting the area. Chairman Glass stated that staff really needs to conduct a full review of the proposal. Commissioner Meyers would like the traffic problems addressed between the Police Department and the Department of Engineering&Community Development. Commissioner Meyers also noted that he was concerned about the legality of the bank. Another concern of Commissioner Meyers was the potential of Wal-Mart expanding. Chairman Glass noted that if Wal-Mart were to ever expand,anything they intended to do would need to come before the Plan Commission. Commissioner Meyers noted that the bank was cleared through the Community Reinvestment Act two (2)years ago. He questioned why nothing had been done since then. T.Wells stated that he has been working with the petitioner on details of this project. Commissioner Henrici noted that since the petitioner increased the size of the buildings if that would have any effect on the side-yard setbacks. S.Trudan stated that the setback for this zoning is zero. Commissioner Henrici reiterated that the landscape plan must show a continuous row of hedges along the west property line,next to Meacham Road. Secretary Geinosky noted that since the petitioner removed his request for the two(2)drive-throughs, thus losing Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts,if he has received any notice from any other tenants. M. Gullo stated that there has been much interest and that he has not yet decided on tenants. Secretary Geinosky asked if there would be eighteen(18)stores. M.Gullo stated that it would depend on how much space was taken up by the tenants. Chairman Glass requested a five(5)minute recess before turning the meeting over to the residents. The meeting reconvened at 8:15 p.m. S.Giglio,720 Easton,raised a question about the one-way rear access road. Chairman Glass informed the resident that the rear access road is a one-way southbound road. S.Giglio asked if the Plan Commission would consider adding speed bumps. -4 - T.Roberts,708 Easton,noted that there is nothing that would prohibit two-way traffic behind the buildings. In addition,he asked that the Commission not consider speed bumps due to the noise created by vehicles passing over top of them. B. Shah,700 Easton,thanked staff for working with her to resolve the lighting issue with Steak`n' Shake. She also asked if it would be possible to move the building closer to Meacham Road,with parking in the rear. She indicated that this would move the dumpster smells away from their homes. Chairman Glass noted that by doing this Ms.Shah would have more issues with vehicle noise than she would of preventing from dumpster smells. B. Shah asked what the hours of operation would be. Chairman Glass stated that they do not know at this time since no tenants have been signed. B. Shah asked if the petitioner would sprinkle the berm. Chairman Glass noted that the entire berm is commercial property and that it would be maintained. B. Shah asked the tree height. Chairman Glass stated that it would be approximately eight feet(8'). D.O'Hara,716 Easton,noted that the current fence is not sufficient and asked that any approval require a more sturdy structure. K.Shah,700 Easton,noted that he was concerned about cut-through traffic and wanted to know if a speed limit could be placed on the rear drive aisle. Chairman Glass stated that the Village has no jurisdiction on maintaining speed limits on private property. K. Schorsch,763 Easton,asked about the potential of a traffic signal at the intersection of an extended Biesterfield Road. Chairman Glass stated that placing a traffic signal at the future intersection would all depend on future traffic flow. K. Schorsch asked if the Plan Commission would consider narrowing the rear drive aisle to decrease the potential for cut-through traffic. Chairman Glass stated that he does not share the same concerns with many of the residents in the audience regarding cut- through traffic. He reiterated that traffic flow on Meacham Road is not bad enough for people to use the rear aisle for cut-through traffic. i S.Patel, 1453 Normandy,stated that cleanliness is important. There being no further questions from the audience,Chairman Glass presented his comments regarding the proposed plan. Chairman Glass noted that the area just north of the proposed future Dakota access there seemed to be a large area of open traffic space. T.Fagen agreed. C.LaSpina noted that one or two parallel parking spaces could be removed,and that would prevent any truck traffic from interfering with the parked vehicles. Chairman Glass asked what would happen if the i trash enclosures were removed. Chairman Glass noted that the petitioner needed to add a tum around in the middle of the parking lot and that the parking lot needed to be broken up with some landscaped medians. Chairman Glass stated that he was impressed with what the petitioner came back with following the previous hearing. Chairman Glass asked the bank representatives if this was the exact same bank plan. G.Trupek stated that is was the exact same bank plan,just moved south one lot. Commissioner Ayers stated that he appreciated the residents concerns about the landscaping. - 5 - Commissioner Henrici asked the petitioner to keep the middle area between the buildings closed to vehicle traffic. Chairman Glass raised an issue with lighting in the rear of the building. C.LaSpina noted that they were low foot-candle lights for the fagade. He reiterated that the shopping center needed the lights to keep the employees safe. Chairman Glass noted the following: • He agreed with the one-way rear traffic aisles; • He questioned the need of the rear parallel parking spaces; • He requested that the petitioner explain ingress and egress of the south traffic aisle between the strip center and the bank; • Add landscape medians and a turnaround to the strip center parking lot; • Landscape the front of the parking lot with small shrubs; • Explain traffic movement;and • He has no objection to moving the bank one(1)lot to the south. Secretary Geinosky questioned if hours of operation were part of the annexation agreement. Chairman Glass stated that there was no way to legally enforce hours of operation. With no further questions,Chairman Glass closed the public hearing and continued the meeting to August 2,2006 at 7:00 p.m. Item 3: Adjournment Commissioner Henrici moved to adjourn. Commissioner Meyers seconded the motion. Upon voting (Glass,Geinosky,Hauser,Henrici,Paliganoff,Ayers,Thompson,Meyers,AYES,Sokolowski, ABSENT)the motion carried. i The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matthew L 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, Director of Engmeering/Community Development,Director of Public Works,Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief(2),Village Attorney. , - 6 -