Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 07/02/1980 - FOUR COLUMNS RESUB/VILLAGE ON THE LAKE MINUTES ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION Wednesday, July 2, 1980 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, July 2, 1980 in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kenna, Edward W. , Chairman Cummins, Leah, Secretary Geinosky, Frederick C. (arrived at 8:45 p.m.) Glass, John R. Paliganoff, David J. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mullen, George E. Stangeland, Orrin J. STAFF PRESENT: Stephen M. Feller, Administrative Assistant Thomas F. Rettenbacher, Building Commissioner Four Columns Resubdivision Glass moved to approve a three-lot subdivision consisting of approximately 12 acres and fronting on both Devon and Arthur Avenues. Cummins seconded the motion and all present voted 'AYE' . Docket 80-4: U.S. Home Petition to Revise the Approved Amended Site Plan for the Condominium Phase of the Planned Unit Development at Village on the Lake I Frederick Bragiel, Attorney, Walt Wilson, Division President for U. S. Home, and Reynir Einarson, Vice President of Land Development for U. S. Home, were present to represent the petitioners. The petitioners were requesting that the Village revise the approved 1973 site plan for Parcel D of the Planned Unit Development at the Village on the Lake. The approved 1973 site plan provided for three five-story buildings with 282 units. The petitioners were requesting the revision in order to construct six three-story buildings with 279 units. The property consists of approximately 11.6 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Biesterfield and Leicaster Roads. Kenna reported that he had received a letter from.Frederick Bragiel (Attachment A) which recaps the Petition of U. S. Home and a letter from Village on the Lake's Attorney, Marshall Dickler (Attachment B), objecting to Bragiel 's letter. i -2- Kenna made several points including: - Bragiel is incorrect when writing that the petition of U. S. '.Home is "only a minor modificiation to the existing Planned Unit Development". The Plan Commission is con- sidering this matter because a major change is being proposed. - Bragiel 's request for an early decision by the Plan Commission is not consistent with the previously agreed upon timetable. U. S. Home had no objection to Kenna's announcement on- June 4, 1980 that the evidence from the public hearing would be considered at the meeting on July 2, 1980. - U. S. Home has failed to submit the market studies requested by Paliganoff at the June 4, 1980 public hearing. - The portion of Bragiel 's letter which indicates that "U. S. Home will not consider modification of its proposal" is disturbing because it leaves no room for compromise. - While the burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate that the plan would be compatible with the overall P.U.D., there was no testimony from Urban Develop- ment concerning its interests in the petition. Kenna then read two letters of support for the U. S. Home petition. The first letter (Attachment C) was from the Custom Lots Association and the second letter (Attachment D) was from Townhouse Association. Wilson explained that U. S. Home has not conducted any studies indicating that three-story buildings could be sold faster than five-story buildings. He stated that U. S.Home is requesting the change so that it can build its own product on the land. Cummins expressed concern about the number of buildings that are being proposed, the building setbacks and the number of parking stalls in the development. Paliganoff asked U. S. Home to provide documentation that its proposal is the highest and best use of the land. Kenna suggested that there is a need to make the proposed development compatible with the existing condominium buildings near the site. -3- Bragiel asked that he be permitted to revise the site plan in an attempt to address the concerns of the Plan Commission. He indicated that the revised Plan would be available for the next meeting, and asked that the Plan Commission make a final decision on the petition at the next meeting. Dickler objected to Bragiel`s proposal, and declared that a revised site plan would require a new public hearing with prior notification. Kenna stated that a new public hearing would not be necessary but that he would have a court reporter transcribe the proceedings at the next meeting. Landscaping Plan: '150 Arthur Avenue Ross Mac Neil, representing Graphics Color Corporation, presented a plan to use honeysuckle bushes as a screening between the industrial building at 750 Arthur Avenue and a single family home on Center Street. On May 21, 1980, the Plan Commission rejected the same plan and suggested that a row of evergreen trees be planted between the two properties. Mac Neil remarked that the honeysuckle bushes would provide an excellent year-round screening. He added that the abutting property owner on Center Street supported the installation of honeysuckle bushes. The consensus of the Plan Commission was to approve the use of honeysuckle bushes pending receipt of a letter of support from .the resident on Center Street. I The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. I i Submitted by: Stephen M. Feller Administrative Assistant j mw CC: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President & Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Building Commissioner, Village Engineer, Director of Public Works, Director of Parks and Recreation, Centex, NWMC, Mc Graw-Hill. School Dist. #54 I I