Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 04/18/1979 - CEDAR CREST ANNEX & REZONING DOCKET 79-2 Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission April 18, 1979 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Acting Chairman Hauser at 8:05 p.m. on Wednesday, April 18, 1979, in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue, MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Edward Hauser, Acting Chairman None Leah Cummins, Secretary STAFF PRESENT: John Glass Richard M. Finn, George Mullen Administrative Assistant James Petri Charles L. Durham, Orrin Stangeland Administrative Intern Docket 79-2: Cedar Crest Annexation and Rezoning The Plan Commission, acting as a Zoning Commission, conducted a Public Hearing on the petition of the Cedar Crest Development Company. The petitioner was requesting that the Village annex approximately ten acres of property located on the southeast corner of Meacham and Biester- field Roads. The annexation would be made contingent on 2. 11 acres of the property being rezoned to B-3, Automotive Oriented District, and the remainder of the property being rezoned to A-1 , Special Use, for the construction of townhouses . The Village's Official Map indicates the property be zoned R-3, Residential District. Samuel LaSusa, Attorney, Allen Kracower, Land Planner, Edmund Burke, Engineer, and Frank Columbia, Developer, were present to represent the petitioner. LaSusa began the presentation by noting that the petitioner was prepared to make all of the required street and right- of-way dedication to the Village in conjunction with its annexation and rezoning request. LaSusa continued the presentation by stating that the townhouse development being proposed for the property requested for A-1 , Special Use zoning, would consist of ten structures with four units each. He added that the proposed townhouses would be similar to those existing in the Roundtree development and could be described as follows : 1 . Each unit would include a two-car garage; 2. Each unit would be built on a lot of 1 ,700 to 2,000 square feet; 3. Costs for the townhouses would range from $115,000 to $130,000; 4. The buildings would not exceed two stories in height; and 5. The development would not total in excess of 13 units per acre. LaSusa concluded by presenting revised site and engineering plans , as well as other materials , for the development, into evidence. Kracower continued the presentation by addressing the 2.11 acres of property being requested for B-3, Automotive Oriented District. He stated that one of the primary reasons the petitioner was asking for zoning type was because the uses of properties abutting the subject parcel dictated a commercial rather than a residential use. He added that large volumns of traffic on Meacham Road would also make the 2.11 acres noncondusive for a residential use. I Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - April 18, 1979 Docket 79-2 (continued) Kracower continued the discussion by noting that the townhouses proposed for the remaining property would include a total of 40 units (31 three-bedrooms and 9 two-bedrooms) . He added that the proposed development would also include 160 parking spaces with each unit provided with a, dr.iveway with space for two cars (in addition to the two-car garages) . Kracower also stated that the landscaping budget for the development would be equal to, or in excess of, the budget provided for the Roundtree development. Kracower next stated that the petitioner had not made a decision on what type of business it would propose for the 2.11 acre parcel requested for B-3, Automotive Oriented District zoning. However, he stated that the petitioner proposed providing access to the parcel via Meacham and Nerge Roads. He concluded by noting that the entire development would be provided with lighting as required by Village Ordinance. Next, Burke continued the presentation by stating that the proposed engineering plans reflected complete data for all water main and sewer line connections in conjunction with the proposed development. He also noted that the plans illustrated the new detention being proposed just abutting the existing one located in the Roundtree development. Burke completed the presentation by stating that the petitioner's intentions were to provide all the construction needs for those streets requiring additions (including Home Avenue and Biesterfield Road) . At that point, Hauser noted that until Village Staff has reviewed the revised site and engineering plans being submitted by the petitioner, the Plan Commission could not render full consideration to the subject annexation and rezoning request. LaSusa indicated that the petitioner understood the Plan Commission's position and had no problem with it. Next, Stangeland began the questioning by asking if the petitioner would be willing to provide a deacceleration lane for traffic turning north on Meacham Road. Burke responded that such a lane would be provided if required and not objected to by the County. Stangeland then asked only B-3, Automotive Oriented District zoning was being requested for the subject 2. 11 acre parcel instead of B-2, General Business District. LaSusa replied that the B-3 zoning request was being made because there was a chance that a banking drive-up facility might be proposed for the property. Stangeland next asked if any recreational facilities were being planned for the proposed townhouse development. LaSusa responded that no such facilities were being considered. Petri continued the questioning by asking who would own and maintain the common areas at the proposed townhouse development. LaSusa stated that the common areas would be turned over to a Homeowners Association. Petri noted that the Village Engineer had made reference to a segment of property abutting the petitionersfor which it was not known who the owner was . He stated that in his opinion, the Plan Commission could go no further until it was known who owned the property and what would .-become of it. LaSusa acknowledged Petri 's statement but noted that the petitioner did not know who the property belonged to. Petri then asked if there had been any plans made to provide screening for the proposed commercial site. LaSusa responded that there were none but added that plans could be developed if desired. Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - April 18, 1979 Docket 79-2 (continued) Next, Mullen asked if the petitioner had actually gone point by point through the comments rendered by Staff concerning the proposed site and engineering plans and was prepared to raise objections on any of them. LaSusa answered that one point strongly objected to was the Village Engineer's recommendation that the petitioner have a study conducted which would include data on the handling of the sanitary sewers for properties in excess of the petitioner's . Glass continued the discussion by noting that the Village would probably strongly desire a dedicated extension for Home Avenue. He asked how the petitioner would provide the extension if its property line only emerged partially into the area needed for the extension. LaSusa noted that the extension could only be built if the remaining property was secured for the petitioner. Glass stated that he felt there would be a need to identify the owner of the property in question and to classify what party would obtain it for the use of the extension before the issue could be discussed further. Glass next asked if sidewalks for Biesterfield Road would be provided in conjunction with the petitioner's development. LaSusa indicated they would. Glass continued by asking if interior sidewalks for the proposed development would be provided. Kracower replied that they could be if required. Glass then asked where exactly would the off-site detention proposed for the development be located. LaSusa stated that the deten- tion is planned for location immediately south of the one located in the Roundtree development. Glass asked if the subject property was currently owned by the Roundtree Homeowners As.soc,i.ati:on. . LaSusa noted that property intended for the new detention use was still on by the petitioner but might be transferred to the Homeowners, Assoc.ieti.on in . the future. He added that at that time the Roundtree Homeowners Association would probably need to seek an agreement with the one formed in association with the proposed townhouses for the maintenance of the additional detention area. At that point, Hauser noted that the Village Ordinance requires that the proposed development include provisions for the detention area on site. Burke acknowledged Hauser statement by stating that if that were the case something must be done to work it out. Finn agreed with Burke's statement and added that there might be a need to refer back to the Annexation Agreement to see if the on-site detention is required for the subject development. Hauser continued the questioning by asking if the petitioner would be willing to make any exclusions in the use for the proposed 2. 11 acres of commercial property. LaSusa responded that the site would definitely not be used for construction of a service station. Instead, he added, the site might be used for a bank drive-up facility or a restaurant. Next, Cummins asked if the petitioner had done a market analysis for the proposed townhouses. LaSusa stated that the petitioner has found that the type of townhouse development as that proposed usually attracted empty nestors and young marrieds. Hauser asked how many children could be expected to be generated out of the proposed development. LaSusa noted that Roundtree was a similar development and has only ten of its sixty-four units with children in residence. Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - April 18, 1979 Docket 79-2 (continued) Hauser concluded the questioning by asking if the petitioner was aware that the A-1 , Special Use zoning required 10% open space. LaSusa replied in the affirmative but added that the petitioner would probably ask for a variance on the open space requirement. At that point, Hauser opened the floor to members of the audience. The following is a synopsis of the comments to the Plan Commission: - Increased traffic safety hazards to school children will occur due to additional traffic resulting from the insti- tution of another commercial use on Meacham Road. - The Village does not need any more commercial concerns on Meacham Road. If too many are allowed, some shops will eventually be forced to close down. - The townhouse development as proposed will experience the same shortage of parking situation that now exists in Roundtree. This is especially true since no off-street parking is being planned. - The rezoning requested for the 2.11 acres of property on Meacham Road should not be allowed until the petitioner discloses exactly what use is being planned for the parcel . - Homeowners at Roundtree were told that the property now being proposed for detention would be used for open space as a small playground. Hauser informed the audience that their concerns, as well as the petitioner's testimony, would be addressed in future Plan Commission discussions . He also noted that the materials submitted by the petitioner to the Plan Commission would be referred to the Village Staff for its review and comments. The public hearing adjourned at 10:25 p.m. A full disclosure of the public hearing is available in the Official Transcript. Submitted by, i Charles L. Durham Administrative Intern CLD:ms (4/25/79) c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President and Board of Trustees , Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Building Commissioner, Village Engineer, Director of Parks and Recreation, Centex, NWMC. I