Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 02/28/1979 - LANDSCAPING REGENCY PARK AREA Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission February 28, 1979 The special meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Acting Chairman Hauser at 8: 10 p.m. on Wednesday, February 28, 1979 in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Edward Hauser, Acting Chairman George B. Knickerbocker, Leah Cummins , Secretary Village Attorney John Glass Richard M. Finn, George Mullen Administrative Assistant James Petri Charles L. Durham, Orrin Stangeland Administrative Intern MEMBERS ABSENT: None Landscaping and Screening for Regency Park Area Robt. Brodley, Landscaper, Larry Dohrer, Architect, Dick Crane, and Ben Rozanski were present to represent the petitioner. The petitioner was present to discuss landscaping and screening plans for the Regency Square Park Area. The petitioner was required by the annexation agreement to submit and receive approval of a landscaping and screening plan for the abutting Park Area. Steve Halberg was present to represent the Elk Grove Park District. Hauser began the discussion by noting that the Plan Commission Minutes of October 5th and October 22nd, 1977, had documented within them several contingencies the Plan Commission had submitted on the recommendation for approval of the Regency Square development. He continued by stating that one of those contingencies that was approved by the Village Board reflected the intention of the Village that the subject development include a Park Area with an acceptable landscaping and recreational development plan. He added that the Park Area would be primarily for the use of residents in the subject development and that recreational equipment was needed to complete it. Hauser also noted that the proposed area was to be completed before the development was occupied. Hauser continued the discussion by asking Halberg what type of recreational facility the Park District desired. Halberg responded by stating that a facility that would cater to children 4-10 was recommended by the Park District. He added that the facility should be able to handle approximately 35 children at any one time. Halberg continued the discussion by noting that the Park District was interested in the provision of a recreational area similar to certain parks existing in the Village. He estimated that the area proposed would cost approximately $3,800 (plants and labor) in addition to grading and seeding expenses. Rozanski acknowledged Halberg's statements concerning the needs of the proposed Park Area but stated that additional recreational facilities would mean more expenses to Regency Square residents . He added that the petitioner had not understood the additional recreational facilities (i Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - February 28, 1979 Landscaping & Screening for Regency Park Area (continued) to be part of its original agreement with the Village. At this point, Brodley asked what problems the Plan Commission had with the plan as presented. Cummins addressed Brodley's question by noting that in her opinion it was the function of the Plan Commission to review the landscaping and screening plan submitted and, if it was found to be unacceptable, to comment on those points that were unacceptable. Hauser acknowledged Cummins ' statement and continued the discussion by asking how many children were presently residing in the development. Rozanski responded by stating that there were approximately twenty-four children. He added that the petitioner did not expect many children in the development upon its completion. Hauser acknowledged Rozanski 's statement but noted that other children residing in abutting areas would also likely use the park facility. Brodley noted that the petitioner agreed with that likelihood and had taken it into account . Mullen continued the discussion by asking Halberg what would the Park District do with the lot if it were its property. Halberg responded by stating that the Park District would develop the parcel into a neigh- borhood park. Halberg added that there would be a limitation in developing the subject property into a recreational facility for wider use because of its small size. Next, Hauser asked if the Park District would recommend that something be done to develop the lot after it took over ownership. Halberg replied that the park would be further developed because of a commitment to people residing in the development. Mullen noted Cummins ' earlier comment by asking the other Plan Commission members if they found the landscaping for the proposed Park Area acceptable. The consensus of the Plan Commission was that the landscaping aspect of the plan was acceptable. Mullen next commented that as he understood the Plan Commission's feelings , it was the lack of recreational facilities for the proposed park area that was unacceptable. The consensus of the Plan Commission was to agree with Mullen's statement. At that point, Finn suggested that the Plan Commission could require the petitioner to commit to the recreational facilities in one of two ways : 1 . Request that the landscaping and recreational plan make a specific reference to the recreational facilities designated for the Park Area; or 2. Request that the petitioner make a cash donation to the Village which -could be turned over to the Park District for equipment at the Park Area. Hauser acknowledged Finn's suggestion by asking the petitioner which method was their preference. Rozanski indicated that he had no problem donating money, however, the petitioner's concern was with the amount of cash involved. Cummins asked Halberg if suitable recreational facilities could be provided for the Park Area with a sum such as $5,000. Halberg responded by stating that $5,000 would probably be sufficient . Next, Glass asked what was the estimated cost for the plantings at the proposed park area. Crane responded that it would be approximately $11 ,000. Glass then suggested that if the Park District were allowed to secure the plantings for the Park Area, they might be able to do so Plan Commission Minutes -: 3 - February 28, 1979 Landscaping & Screening for Regency Park Area (continued) at a lower cost. He added that the savings might then be used to help defray the cost of recreational facilities. Halberg responded to Glass 's statement by noting that if the Park District was responsible to secure the plantings , they would contract it out and probably get a more reasonable price. Hauser acknowledged Halberg's statement by asking if he would be willing to get some figures reflecting the costs for the plantings. Halberg indicated that he would do so. Rohlwing Grove Unit 5 Subdivision - George Knickerbocker, Village Attorney, was present at the request of the Plan Commission to clarify certain points pertaining to the plat of subdivision for Rohlwing Grove Unit 5 . The property associated with the plat is located east of Rohlwing Road and north on Nerge Road, extended. Charles Byrum, Attorney, and Anthony Bonavolonta were present to represent the petitioner. Hauser began the discussion by stating that Knickerbocker was present to clarify the legal implications of allowing the subdivis.i.on of the proposed plat. Glass continued the discussion by noting that more specifically the Plan Commission was concerned that by allowing the subdivision at the Rohlwing Grove planned unit development, the planned unit development concept associated with it would be destroyed. Knickerbocker acknowledged the Plan Commission 's concern as stated by Glass by noting that the same issue had been raised in association with the Wild Oaks development. He continued by noting that Wild Oaks had been illegally sold as a subdivision and in that case the planned unit development concept was destroyed. Knickerbocker continued the discussion by noting that the plat before the Plan Commission included a notation which would let any subdivision buyer know that the proposed section was part of a planned unit development. He noted that this information in the Wild Oaks instance had been ignored and resulted in a subdivision being developed contrary to that specified by the planned unit development agreement. Knickerbocker stated that the note identify the subdivision as a legal planned unit development which would provide the Village with a strong case if the concept were violated. Knickerbocker concluded by noting that the plat as proposed would allow the petitioner to legally subdivide and meet any financial needs while insuring the protection of the planned unit development concept. Mullen continued the discussion by asking what advantages the Village gained with the planned unit development concept. Knickerbocker responded by noting that a planned unit development allowed the Village to apply more direction on the development of large parcels of land than might otherwise be possible. Mullen next asked what were the advantages to the developer with a planned unit development. Bonavolonta responded by stating that a planned unit developer has the advantage of a firm understanding with the Village on what will be allowed. Byrum agreed with Bonavolonta by adding that the developer is allowed more flexibility in planning since a planned unit development allows for certain variations which might not be allowed with conventional zoning requirements. However, he also added that with Plan. Commission Minutes - 4 - February 28, 1979 Rohlwing Grove Unit 5 Subdivision (continued) the planned unit development, the developer could not deviate from the concept agreed with the Village. Mullen then stated that his concern was with the possibility of a potential buyer of one of the subdivided lots taking the parcel and then claiming the right to make alterations in the plan. Knickerbocker responded by stating that the buyer was legally bound to the original planned unit development agreement and therefore could not make any changes . Byrum agreed with Knickerbocker and added the petitioner was only seeking to subdivide the subject property to alter the legal description and not to alter the concept. Next, Stangeland asked what would happen in the event that the planned unit development had multi-owners and one mishandles amenities on one side of the development and thus depriving planned unit develop- ment residents . Knickerbocker acknowledged Stangeland's concern but noted that such a situation could just as well exist under a single owner. He added that in either instance the Village did not have legal jurisdiction to affect the situation. Stangeland acknowledged Knickerbocker's response but stated that in his opinion such a situation was less likely to develop under a single owner. Knickerbocker noted Stangeland's statement but indicated that the Village was pretty much limited to assuring that the development was well planned. He added that the Village lacked the authority to monitor day-to-day operation of the development where no public health was endangered. Glass acknowledged Stangeland's concern and Knickerbocker's statements by noting that because the Village had little operational control over a planned unit development, it was important to exercise care where control was possible. He noted that this was especially true since the developer had a right to transfer ownership. At that point, Glass made a motion to recommend approval of the plat. Cummins seconded the motion. All present voted 'AYE' . Docket 78-10: Proposed Revision to the Planned Development Located at Village on the Lake Jeffrey Rochman, Richard Burton, Michael Levin, Marvin Richman, and Robert Soloman were present representing United Development Company. The petitioners were requesting an amendment to the preliminary land use and zoning plat, and a Special Use Permit in order to revise a site plan for the construction of 144 manor homes in lieu of three five-story buildings with 282 proposed units. The 11 .6 acre parcel is located at the northwest corner of Biesterfield Road and Leicester Road. Hauser began the discussion by stating that the Plan Commission was to consider if the proposed development was compatible to the Village and the best use of the subject property. Glass continued the discussion by noting that the manor home concept was relatively new and seemed to sell well . Glass noted that he was not convinced that the manor homes were the best use of the subject property for the following reasons : 1 . The manor homes were not being offered to meet the needs of low cost housing in the Village. 2. The petitioner stated that empty-nesters would comprise a Plan Commission Minutes - 5 - February 28, 1979 Docket 78-10 2. (continued) significant portion of the development residents . If so, the one story walkup proposed might be detrimental to them. 3• The proposed manor homes would contrast poorly with the existing tall buildings at the Village on the Lake. 4. The manor home development would result in too many buildings in a relatively small area. Next, Petri stated that the proposed manor homes would lack a natural barrier between them and other types of units. He noted the Staff report on manor home developments in Wheaton and Palos Hills which relayed a favorable impact on the respective villages . Petri added that he had visited the development in Wheaton and had the following comments : I . The manor homes were well built but had wide streets and a natural buffer between its 340 units and abutting developments. 2. Although the development had no amenities , it was not really in the promimity to other developments to cause a trespassing problem. 3• Parking was difficult to locate. 4. Driveways were considerably longer than those allowed for the units proposed in the Village. 5• The several small cul-de-sacs presented a snow removal problem. 6. There appeared to be no safety problems even though no side- walks were included in the development. However, residents reported there were few children residing in the homes. Petri concluded by stating that in his opinion the manor home concept was more acceptable where a large open space was involved. Next, Stangeland stated that he felt that the manor home concept could be made to be an excellent addition to the Village. However, he added that the present plan would not be a good addition to the Village due to the many planning flaws . He added that he had little sympathy for the developer's plea that market changes justified the plan as presented. Mullen continued the discussion by stating he could envision many disadvantages to the proposed development. He noted that amony these were the congestion, parking, and sidewalk problems. Next, Hauser noted that the proposed development's lack of open space and recreational facilities went contrary to that required for a planned unit development in Section 4. 12 of the Zoning Ordinance. He added that as a result :the proposed site was not sufficient. At that point, Cummins made a motion that based on the evidence, the Plan Commission recommended that revision to the planned unit development located at Village on the Lake be denied. Glass seconded the motion. All present voted 'AYE' . At that point, Rochman stated that the petitioner was willing to receive directions from the Plan Commission in order to seek approval based on modifications to the proposed site plan. Cummins addressed Rochman's statement by explaining that the Plan Commission might normally address specific points objected against in an unacceptable site plan. However, she added that in the case of the site plan under review, the problem was one of incapatibility with the abutting properties. Hauser concluded the discussion by directing Staff to prepare a findings of fact for the review and approval of the Plan Commission. Plan Commission Minutes - 6 - February 28, 1979 The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.m. Submitted by, Charles L. Durham Administrative Intern CLD:ms (3/7/79) 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.