Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 07/15/1981 - ROHLWING AND NERGE - ROBERT CALKINS REZONE Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Wednesday, July 15, 1981 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order at 8:10 p.m. on Wednesday, July 15, 1981 in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Glass, John R. Chairman Cummins, Leah, Secretary Fulton, Clark Mullen, George E. Geinosky, Frederick C. Paliganoff, David J. Stangeland, Orrin J. STAFF PRESENT: James E. Sunagel, Deputy Fire Chief Thomas F. Rettenbacher, Building Commissioner Jon P. Wildenberg, Administrative Assistant Docket 81-7: Public Hearing Petition of Robert Calkins for rezoning from R-3 to B-2 the northwest corner of Rohlwing and Nerge Roads. The Plan Commission, acting as a Zoning Commission, conducted a Public Hearing on the petition of Robert Calkins to rezone the northwest corner of Nerge and Rohlwing Roads from R-3, Single-Family Residential, to B-2, General Business. Robert Calkins, Petitioner; Richard Jones, Attorney for Calkins; Walter Carlson, Architect; and Wally Wood, Real Estate Broker; were Present to represent the petitioner. Richard Jones, Attorney for Calkins, presented to the Commission: a copy of the petition for rezoning, a copy of the Plat of Survey for the property, and a letter from the owners (name of Vale) authorizing Calkins to pursue rezoning of the property. Walter Carlson, 2330 Brickvail Lane, was then called on by Richard Jones to present the salient aspects of the site plan to members of the audience and members of the Plan Commission. Jones also noted that the property was first subdivided ten years ago with the intent of putting it to commercial use. Carlson began by stating that the intent of this project was to maintain the residential character of the area by introducing an office- type business development which would blend into its surroundings. Carlson further pointed out that: - The plan he submitted on this day is a revision of the plan first submitted to the Village. Residential areas to the north and west will be shielded by a six-foot hedge or wooden fence. - All signs displayed on storefronts will be of uniform size and shape; in no case will an individual sign exceed 8 feet by 2 feet. i • Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - July 15, 1981 Docket 81-7 (continued) -- The proposed building will be 100 feet long by 70 feet wide, covering a 7000 square foot area. - Curb cut locations as shown on site plan have been approved by the State and County. The developers are hoping for medical, professional, or small business tenants. A 20 x 120 foot loading area has been designated along the west property line in back of the building. - Lighting poles on the west, north, and east sides have bulbs which face downward and do not allow light to spread more than one foot behind fixture. - Public walks are provided. - Utility easements as recommended by the Village Engineer are provided. - Storm water retention will be in the parking lot. - Face brick will be provided on all sides of the building except for the front, which is store frontage. - Working hours are hoped to be normal and not extend beyond 10 P.M. Trash disposal and pickup will occur at rear doors of proposed shops. No additional testimony on behalf of Calkins was submitted. Fulton questioned the method of waste disposal. Carlson answered that dumpsters would be placed at the back of the building and hauled out into the parking area for emptying into garbage trucks. Fulton then asked if examples of proposed light fixtures existed someplace in the Village for Plan Commission members to view. Rettenbacher responded that there are similar fixtures in the Municipal Building parking lot. Fulton commented he was concerned with the amount of light projecting behind a fixture and disturbing homes in the area. Rettenbacher stated he could control lot lighting through application of Building Department criteria and ordinance requirements. Deputy Fire Chief Sunagel was then called on to express Fire Department concerns. The Fire Department is concerned with emergency vehicle access to the front of the proposed building. As currently designed, the turn at the entrance on Rohlwing Road is too sharp to allow full-size apparatus access. Carlson addressed Sunagel by noting that the conceptual. plan is in agreement with all applicable ordinances. Mention was made that the driveways could be widened to reduce the turning angle for Fire vehicles. Rettenbacher commented that the Village's Driveway ordinance, Section 11, regulates width and a variance may be granted by the Board of Trustees. Carlson maintained that the 75 foot setback requirement has caused the turning angle in question to be so sharp. Rettenbacher inquired if Fire apparatus could be parked on Rohlwing Road for purposes of access to the front of the building. Sunagel stated this would force Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - July 15, 1981 Docket 81-7 (continued) the Fire Department to clear an additional set of obstacles when attempting access. At this point Robert Calkins pointed out to the Commission that the parcel in question was originally subdivided ten years ago under old zoning regulations, for commercial purposes. Jones mentioned that the proposed development is the highest and best use of this property. Calkins asserted that, as designed, the building is also compatible with residential area. Fulton then asked Glass and Rettenbacher if they had received feedback from any nieghbors in the area. Both Glass and Rettenbacher responded they had not. Geinosky questioned the need for a professional and business center at this location; and also asked for evidence that the proposed development is the highest and best use of this property. Wally Wood, a real estate broker, answered on behalf of Calkins that in his experience he has not been able to place professional and small business concerns in sites nearby the proposed development. In Wood's opinion, this location will sell, and is very good for the purpose intended by Calkins. Geinosky expressed concerns with the addition to automobile traffic this project may cause. Specifically, he foresees difficulty in making a left turn from either of the proposed driveways. Geinosky then asked if the petitioner had done any traffic studies that dealt with his questions. Carlson responded to Geinosky by noting that neither State nor County authorities have said anything negative to the petitioner regarding traffic flow. Paliganoff suggested one form of control or relief may be to designate specific driveways as being "in only" and "out only". Paliganoff also said he would be in favor of possibly adding an additional driveway. Geinosky inquired as to when trucks would be expected to arrive at the facility. Carlson, in response, stated that it is not known for certain at this time, but hopefully there would be a minimal amount of truck traffic. Calkins also added that closing time would be around 10:00 p.m. and hopefully all deliveries could be made during the day. In response to Geinosky, Glass related that he thought the largest truck the State would allow on Nerge Road was 72,000 pounds. Stangeland then asked Calkins if parking lot lights would be left on 24 hours. Carlson explained in response that lights would not be left on 24 hours a day and that some type of time system would be used to activate and deactivate them. Stangeland inquired whether any deliveries would be made on the front (east) side of the building. Carlson pointed out that deliveries there would have to be done with a small vehicle. Stangeland then observed that deliveries to the front would augment Fire Department access problems. Carlson suggested that leases for this building could be designed to force tenants to take deliveries at back. Stangeland then asked Calkins if he could give assurances banning coin-operated amusements from the building. Calkins asserted that he would supply any legal documents regarding coin-operated amusements that the village would desire. Paliganoff asked Calkins if all units were to be leased or if Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - July 15, 1981 Docket 81-7 (continued) there were other rental modes, such as condominium, being contemplated. Calkins replied that all units were to be leased. Paliganoff expressed concerns regarding noise emanating from the building's heating and cooling equipment at night. Carlson stated this would be taken care of by the roof design for containing such equipment, and also by ordinance requirements that not more than fifty-five (55) decibels of sound be audible at the lot Zine. Paliganoff also expressed concerns regarding traffic. In response to Glass, Calkins stated he would be willing to submit an updated landscape plan prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. In response to Sunagel, Calkins indicated he would be willing to post fire lane signs at points determined by the Fire Department to help alleviate access problems. Members of the audience in attendance were then asked to step forward and present questions. itiir. Neal McKinnon of 1441 William Clifford Lane pointed out that speed limits on Alerge and Rohlwing Roads are prohibitive to making turns into the proposed site. Mr. McKinnon also wanted to know what recourse citizens would have if objectionable businesses came into the building. Glass explained that uses would be limited by the B-2 Zoning ordinance; liquor licenses would be subject to village Board approval; and that parking restrictions would prohibit use of the building as a restaurant. .Mr. McKinnon also noted that if trash is picked up early in the morning, noise problems are centain. McKinnon also stated he felt traffic problems would emerge as a result of this development. Gertrude Ray of 1446 William Clifford Lane questioned potential building owners, Mr. and Mrs. k1agnelli, as to their place of residence; why they want to own in Elk Grove village; and what assurances can be made that everything will be kept neat and clean. The magnellis responded that they are looking at this building as an investment opportunity, and that they will give their word to keep up the building and the rest of the site. Ms. Ray was also interested in what assurances could be given that this exact building will go on the lot. Glass replied that there are no guarantees other than any building must meet all code and ordinance requirements. Calkins declared he was willing to put in writing that no 24-hour stores would be allowed. Glass asked to receive that in writing. Linda McKinnen of 1441 William Clifford Lane expressed her total non-support of this rezoning. With that, Chairman Glass notified everyone in attendance that the Calkin's petition will be considered at the August 5, 1951 Plan Commission meeting. The Public Nearing was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Plan Commission Minutes - 5 - July 15, 1981 Regent's Center Landscape Plan The Plan Commission then heard the petition of Draper and Kramer, Inc. to berm and landscape a 20-foot section of land on Lot 10 of SDK Subdivision No. 2. Mr. Stan Johnston was present to represent Draper and Kramer, as was the landscape architect employed by Draper and Kramer to develop the landscape plan presented to the Village. Glass opened the discussion by noting that the addition of a 3-foot berm in the utility easement will create more problems for accessing those easements. Rettenbacher stated that 3-foot berms do exist elsewhere in Elk Grove and are not <unwiedly obstacles. Glass then observed that the intent of this project should be to screen residents from a commercial property. In addition, such screening should be effective twelve months of the year and therefore trees which lose their leaves in the fall present a problem. Staff had presented a recommendation that certain tree species be replaced by others for reasons of disease control. Geinosky inquired if Draper and Kramer would be amenable to those substitutions. Johnston replied they would. In response to Paliganoff, Johnston commented that Draper and Kramer would raise berm, install evergreen trees, or install a fence, wherever the Village felt they were needed. Rettenbacher expressed concern that a 400 foot long fence might create access problems for Police and Fire Departments. Paliganoff mentioned that perhaps a taller berm would provide adequate screening, or that evergreen trees should be included. Stangeland questioned Johnston as to why there were no evergreen trees included in his plan. Johnston replied that when the plan was being drawn, it was felt that the height of the berm would provide enough screening. Glass noted that landscaping allowed under the plan would set a precedent for future development of the property. Something which is pleasing and provides year-round screening of truck docks is needed. All members agreed that a revised plan should be submitted which addresses the issue of 12-month screening for truck dock areas, and takes into consideration recommendations of the Village Forrester. A revised plan will be submitted by the petitioner for Commission review on August 5, 1981. Docket 81-6: Petition of Centex Homes Discussion of the proposed text amendment (pink copy dated June 30, 1981) continued. 5.37-4: Procedure for Conceptual Land Use and Zoning Map. A. Approved. B. (1) . Approved. B. (2) . Glass questioned if this section was in conflict with any other sections proposed. Feinstein replied, no conflict was intended, and Village Attorney would address this section for continuity. B. (3) . Glass felt this section should be worded similar to B. (2) . Plan Commission Minutes - 6 - July 15, 1981 Docket 81-6 (continued) 5.37-4: C. (1) . Approved. C. (2) . Paliganoff asked why 500 feet is required. Rettenbacher replied that 500 feet is consistent with present ordinance requirements. Fulton wondered if mention of surrounding buildings should be included. Glass and Rettenbacher explained that the zoning must be shown, but not necessarily the content of the areas. Approved. C. (3) . Approved. C. (4) . Paliganoff maintained this section is not clear and a definition of density is needed. Rettenbacher suggested adding "maximum density allowed". C. (5) . Approved. C. (6) . Approved. C. (7) . Approved. D. If "may" is changed to "must" then this section is approved. 5.37-5: Procedure for Final Land Use Map; Filing; Changes. A. Stangeland suggested dropping the word "substantially". If Village Attorney can clarify this wording, then section is approved. B. Approved. C. (1) . Approved. C. (2) . "Conceptual" should be changed to "Final". D. (1) . Approved. C. (2) . Approved. C. (3) . Approved. D. (4) . Approved. D. (5) . 100 feet could be major change in 20 acre parcel. "100 feet" should be changed to "10 feet". D. (6) . Approved. D. (7) . Approved. D. (8) . Approved. D. (9) . Approved. Meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Submitted by: ;On P. Wildenberg ms Administrative Assistant Plan Commission Minutes - 7 - July 15, 1981 c: 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, Fire Chief, Director of Parks and Recreation, Centex, NWMC, McGraw-Hill.