Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 10/26/1977 - ESJODA SUBDIV/CENTEX IND PARK/MARATHON/GREYHOUND Special Meeting Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission October 26, 1977 The special meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Shannon at 8: 15 P.M. on Wednesday, October 28, 1977 in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue, Elk Grove Village. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: William Shannon, Chairman Richard M. Finn, Leah Cummins, Secretary Administrative Assistant John Glass Thomas Hamilton Edward Hauser James Petri William Wesley (9:00 P.M.) Esioda Subdivision Unit II Shannon noted that the Engineering and Building Departments had approved the Esjoda Subdivision Unit II . Cummins made a motion to recommend approval of the plat. Hamilton seconded the motion. All present voted 'AYE' . Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 222 Shannon noted that everything was in order pertaining to Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 222. Hamilton made a motion to recommend the plat. Glass seconded the motion. All present voted 'AYE' . Marathon Subdivision Shannon stated that the one lot subdivision for the newly annexed Marathon Station had been reviewed and approved by the Building and Engineering Departments. Hamilton asked why the plat only showed 47.78 feet right-of-way on Rohlwing Road. Shannon asked Finn to direct Hamilton's question to the Village Engineer. Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 221 Shannon noted that the Building Department and the Engineering Department had approved Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 221 . However, Shannon stated that the parcel was larger than two acres and should have a Cook County Soil and Water Conservation Report. Upon further examination, it was revealed that the report had not been properly submitted. Docket 77-13: Greyhound Suburban Station Shannon noted that a list of issues concerning the Greyhound Special Use petition was distributed to the Commission members at the previous Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - October 26, 1977 Docket 77-13: Greyhound Suburban Station (continued) Plan Commission meeting. The petitioner was requesting a Special Use to establish a Greyhound Suburban Bus Station at the Park and Shop Arcade located on Arlington Heights Road and Higgins Road. Hauser stated that he had reviewed the list of issues and his main concern was the access into the service area located behind the shopping plaza. He noted that he felt that it would be necessary to eliminate the single row of parking spaces located in the service area, in order that any potential access problem would be avoided. Hauser sited the garbage dumpsters weekly pickup as being a potential problem if the rear parking was not eliminated. Glass stated that his concern was that passengers would attempt to reach the bus station from the rear entrance and this might cause access problems. Hamilton noted Glass' concern and he stated that he agreed with Hauser's suggestion that the rear parking be eliminated. Glass suggested that the "no parking" restriction should be posted at the beginning of the access into the rear service area. Shannon agreed with the Commissioner's suggestion that the rear parking be eliminated. Hamilton further suggested that the traffic (in the service area) should only be allowed to flow in one direction and he recommended that the flow be from north to south. Cummins made a motion to recommend the Special Use contingent on the following two requirements : (1) That parking be prohibited at all times in the service area located behind the Park & Shop Arcade. (2) That traffic in the alleyway be allowed to flow only in one direction. The Commission recommends that the traffic flow be from north to south in the service area. Glass seconded the motion. All present voted 'AYE' . A copy of the Plan Commission's findings of fact is available from the Manager's Office. Docket 77-17: Regency Square/Perrie Grove Phase II Bob Brodley, Rudy Gaston and Ben Rozanski , present owners of Phase I of Regency Square, were present to represent the petitioners . Also present in support of the petitioners was Howard Good, Attorney; Thomas Humes, Larry Dohrer and John Bendly, Architects for Phase If . The petitioners were requesting a Special Use to establish a multi- family dwelling under the Village's A-2 District. The proposed facilities would be constructed by two different developers. The first plan was for the development of the south half of the tract by Elk Grove Develop- ment Associates. The second plan was for the development of the northern half of the tract by Bianco Development Company. Bendly and Rozanski began their presentation by showing the Commission slides of their many previous developments . Upon the conclusion of the slide presentation, Mr. Brodley submitted a variety of pictures of his developments to the Commission. Brodley noted that in order for the petitioners to fully comply with the 50% open space requirements , they would only be able to develop 109 units compared with the proposed 194 units requested for the northern tract. He noted that the 109 units calculated to a density of 91 units per acre which was economically unfeasible. Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - October 26, 1977 Docket 77-17: Regency Square/Perrie Grove Phase II (continued) Humes next addressed the Commission concerning the open space requirements . He demonstrated on two site plans exactly how the develop- ment could be built with the requested variations under a Special Use in the A-2 District and how it could be constructed under the A-2 District. Humes noted that under the A-2 District they would probably construct the buildings at least four stories high so that the elevator requirements wou,l,d be more economical . Bendly suggested that the A-2 Special Use development that was presently proposed would be much nicer to live in compared to the development if it were built under strict adherence to the Village's A-2 Zoning District. Bendly also noted that under A-2, the developers would have more units in each structure and common corridors would be utilized. Hamilton, citing resent research, argued that common corridors have been shown to promote criminal activities . He stated that a study conducted by HUD indicated that the more people who live in a structure and share a common corridor, the higher the probability of crime. Hamilton stated that he was against any development which would utilize a common corridor. Humes continued his demonstration by comparing how the proposed development would look with 11 parking spaces per unit compared to the required 2 spaces. He noted that if the petitioners were required to have 11 parking spaces, there would be approximately 32% common open space. Humes suggested that if the 30 foot building envelope were included in the open space calculations , there would be approximately 72% common open space. Brodley stated that under the Village's A-2 District, there was a requirement for elevators. He noted that if they developed under the A-2 District, they would be forced to have 100 units per structure to make the elevator requirements economical , and they would also have to develop long connecting corridors. Brodley suggested that he would rather spend money on the Park Area and landscaping since the aesthetics of the entire development would be greatly increased. Brodley concluded by suggesting that if the development was to be developed strictly under A-2, then the two petitioners would develop their respective parcels separately. Shannon asked the petitioners if there was any way that they could raise the common open space by rearranging the buildings so that a double count on the 30 foot building envelope could be obtained. Humes stated that there was no other way to design the building except going to a side by side building arrangement. Hamilton argued that the 30 foot building envelope was actually hindering the Commission from reaching a good plan for the development. Shannon noted Hamilton's statement and he asked if the subject Park Area could be of any use to the Park District. Hauser stated that because of its location, the area would largely be used by the residents of the proposed development. Hauser did note that he did not feel that the proposed park renovations should be the major consideration. Shannon asked if the petitioners had thought of putting some of the parking under the proposed structures. Rozanski stated that the cost would prohibit any type of underground parking. Shannon stated that he felt that 11 parking spaces per unit was quite adequate for the proposed development. Hamilton agreed with Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - October 26, 1977 Shannon and he suggested that the required 2 parking spaces per unit was too large of a requirement. Shannon asked the petitioners if the Park Area was calculated in the common open space calculations. Dohrer stated that the Park Area was calculated in the open space calculation. Mr. Finn stated that he had discussed the open space calculation requirements with the Building Commissioner and it was Mr. Rettenbacher's interpretation that the dedicated Park Area should not be calculated in the development's common open space statistics . Shannon next asked the petitioners how much open space would be available if the Village required only 11 parking spaces per unit and eliminated the 30 foot building envelope from the open space calculations . Humes stated that within the entire development there would be approxi- mately 24% open space. Shannon also noted that the Commission's landscaping requirements would be very strict and he definitely wanted to see a workable Park Area implemented before the new residents occupied the proposed development. Wesley asked what type of recreational facilities would be provided in the proposed development. Rozanski stated that they were analyzing the possibility of constructing a 2 story clubhouse. However, Rozanski noted that they had not committed to the clubhouse at the present time. Brodley stated that they also planned on providing barbecue facilities throughout the proposed development. He noted that all the information would be supplied in the landscaping plan. Brodley continued by suggesting that they were considering the possibilities of developing a tennis court or miniature golf on the development. Shannon stated that the Commission had three alternatives available to them in determining their recommendation to the Village Board. First, to deny the Special Use request; second, approve the Special Use allowing the open space variation and the 11 parking space requirement; or thirdly, to adopt a Text Amendment similar to the one adopted in connection with the Senior Citizen Apartment Complex. Wesley withdrew his second to the motion that was tabled at the previous Plan Commission meeting which recommended the Special Use request be denied. At that point Cummins made a motion to recommend approval of the Special Use request for the Phase II development of Regency Square. Cummins' recommendation included the following provisions: (a) That the Village allow the petitioners a variation to the Village's common open space requirements, due to the unique variables mentioned above. (b) That the Village allow the continuation of the provision for 11 parking spaces per dwelling unit as provided for under the original plan approved in June, 1970. (c) The Village's authorization to permit a variation to the common open space is made entirely contingent upon the following: (1) That the petitioners provide an acceptable recreational development plan for the Park Area which immediately adjoins the subject development. (2) That the petitioners provide an acceptable landscaping plan for the entire Phase II development. (3) That the petitioners, at their own expense, shall implement Plan Commission Minutes - 5 - October 26, 1977 Docket 77-17: Regency Square/Perrie Grove Phase II (c) (3) (continued) and complete the recreational development plan for the Park Area and the landscaping plan for the development of Phase II . The recreational development plan and the landscaping plan shall be implemented according to the specifications of the Plan Commission. The Park District will assist the Plan Commission in determining the specifications of the subject Park Area. Cummins further noted that the recommendation was made contingent on the petitioner complying with the above provisions and the other provisions outlined in the Plan Commission's findings of fact. Hamilton seconded the motion. Voting 'AYE' : Shannon, Cummins, Glass, Hamilton and Petri ; voting 'NAY' : Hauser and Wesley. A copy of the Plan Commission's findings of fact is available from the Manager's Office. The meeting adjourned at 12:45 A.M. Su ' tedby, I / Richard M. Finn Administrative Assistant RMF:ms (10-31-77) c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President & Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Building Commissioner, Village Engineer, Planning Consultant, Director of Parks and Recreation, Calkins, Centex.