Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 05/28/1980 - BONDIOLI SUB/EVERDING RESUB J MINUTES ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION Wednesday, May 28, 1980 A special meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, May 28, 1980 in the Multi-Purpose Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Kenna, Edward W. , Chairman Cummins, Leah, Secretary Geinosky, Frederick C. Glass, John R. Mullen, George E. Paliganoff, David J'. Stangeland, Orrin J. STAFF PRESENT: Stephen M. Feller, Administrative Assistant Charles B. Henrici, Deputy Fire Chief Thomas F. Rettenbacher, Building Commissioner Bondioli Subdivision Stangeland moved to approve a two-lot subdivision located on the northwest corner of Landmeier and Busse Roads. Mullen seconded the motion and all present voted 'AYE' . Everding Resubdivision Mullen moved to approve a two-lot resubdivision located on the northeast corner of Landmeier and Busse Roads subject to the following items: (1) That the Village Attorney is satisfied with the petitioner's commitment to relocate the drainage ditch at his expense for the entire length of the property by September, 1981 . (2) Upon approval from the Illinois Department of Transportation to relocate the drainage ditch, the petitioner will establish the required drainage easements. Glass seconded the motion and all present voted 'AYE' . SDK Subdivision No. 2 Stangeland moved to approve a 16-lot subdivision located on the northeast corner of Landmeier and Busse Roads subject to the same conditions assigned to the Everding Resubdivision. Glass seconded the motion and all present voted 'AYE' . Docket 80-2: Semar Petition for Annexation and Rezoning Robert Marx, Attorney, Herman and Philip Semar, Builders, and Don Ciaglia, Engineer, were present to represent the petitioners. The petitioners were requesting that the Village annex 10.46 acres of • Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - May 28, 1980 Docket 80-2: Semar Petition (continued) property located at the southwest corner of Biesterfield and Beisner Roads. The annexation would be made contingent on the property's being zoned O-T, Office/Transition District. The Village's Official Map shows the property zoned R-3, Single Family Residence District. Herman Semar began by stating that the proposed office development would be preferable to single family homes which would have to back up to Biesterfield Road. Kenna made several points, including: - The Village has no intention to land can't legally) forcibly annex the Itasca Meadows Subdivision. Moreover, the Village has previously rejected attempts to annex homes in the Subdivision. - The Village has adequate standards to insure proper flood control and storm water drainage at the site. - While he is personally opposed to an interchange at I-290 and Biesterfield Road, it appears inevitable that such an interchange will be constructed. This interchange will have a major impact on the properties in the area. Geinosky questioned whether or not the petitioners could comply with the parking provisions of the Zoning Ordinance while screening the western portion of the development. Rettenbacher replied that the loss of 38 parking spaces would not violate the ordinance. Glass pointed out that many of the trees in the southern portion of the project would be destroyed if the three lots presently fronting on Lincoln Street were developed for residential units. Glass also stated that he would like to see the southern portion of the property zoned Residential (and left vacant) , but still approvesthe Office Use on the northern portion of the development. Kenna replied that the Village Attorney had expressed reservations about splitting the zoning because he feared that courts would misinterpret the intent of this action in future years. Marx stated that the petitioners would be willing to "split the zoning" as long as the development could be built as proposed. Mullen expressed the opinion that if the rezoning is approved it will be very difficult to stop the continuation of Office/Transition zoning along Biesterfield Road to I-290. Ronald Cope, attorney for several residents in the area, repeated his concern that the development will intrude into the Itasca Meadows Subdivision and destroy the value of the residential properties. Kenna suggested that the Site Plan be revised to show the office building located farther to the south and most of the parking located to the north of the parcel near Biesterfield Road. The consensus of the Plan Commission was that: - Office/Transition zoning would be a good use for most of the property. - The Site Plan should be revised to show the majority of the parking to the north of the parcel near Biesterfield Road. - The revised Site Plan should include detailed dimensions of the proposed project and its relation to the neighboring properties. Kenna advised the petitioner that the matter will be further discussed at a future meeting of the Plan Commission. • • Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - May 28, 1980 Landscaping Plan: Industrial Building at 750 Arthur Avenue The consensus of the Plan Commission was to reject a Landscaping Plan which shows a row of 3 - 4 feet high honeysuckle bushes as screening between the industrial building at 750 Arthur Avenue and a single family home on Center Street. The Commission prefers that a row of five foot high evergreen trees be planted between the two properties. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Submitted by: Stephen M. Feller Administrative Assistant ms 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, McGraw-Hill.