Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 10/19/1977 - ROHLWING SHOPPING CTR/REGENCY SQ PERRIE GROVE DOCKET 77-17 Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission October 19, 1977 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Shannon at 8:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 19, 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 (8:45 p.m.) Rohlwing Grove Shopping Center Shannon noted that since the 7-Eleven Public Hearing, he had investigated the outside lighting at the Rohlwing Grove Shopping Center. Shannon continued by stating that in his opinion, the glare from the outside lighting was highly undesirable. Glass agreed with Shannon and he stated that if the shopping center complied with the Village's outside lighting requirements, then he did not want to see any similar types of development until the requirements were made more restrictive. Shannon suggested that the Plan Commission address the lighting problem and he directed that the item be placed on the Commission's agenda. Shannon also requested that the Village staff make arrangements with a knowledgeable lighting expert to discuss the issue with the Plan Commission. 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 along with Larry Dohrer, Architect, to represent the petitioners. 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 Development Associates . The second plan was for the development of the northern half of the tract by Bianco Development Company. Hauser requested that the Village Engineer investigate whether the proposed development would cause any flooding problems in the area. Shannon next asked if the petitioners pursued the shared parking that was proposed at the October 5th Commission meeting. Rozanski stated that he had not contacted any of the industrial users; however, he noted that he would like to pursue the concept in the future. Rozanski continued by stating that he felt that any shared parking agreement would take a considerable amount of time and it might not be worth planning on shared parking at the present time. Shannon stated that it • Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - October 1.9, 1977 Docket 77-17: Regency Square/Perrie Grove Phase If (continued) appeared to him that the petitioners did nothing on the shared parking issue. Brodley responded by stating that they would pursue shared parking with the adjacent industrial users. Hauser noted that Rettenbacher's report (10-19-77) indicated that the buildings in Phase II South would be located within 15 feet of the property line along Perrie Drive and Grove Terrace. Hauser stated that Rettenbacher's report made a valid point in noting that a single family residential building would be required to be set back a minimum of 25 feet. Gaston responded to Hauser's statement by suggesting that the petitioner could comply with a 25 foot setback, however, the design would not be aesthetically acceptable. Shannon next turned his concerns to the 30 foot building envelope requirement. He noted that he had some reservations about allowing the full 30 feet of the building envelope requirements to be used in the open space calculations. Hamilton suggested that the inclusion of the 30 foot building envelope in the open space calculations was acceptable because of the location of the park area. However, Hamilton argued that it would only be acceptable if the park area was fully developed at the time of occupancy of the proposed development. Rozanski asked the Commission if they were requesting the petitioners to equip the park or just develop the park land. Hamilton stated that it was his intent that the park be completely equipped so that it could be utilized by the tenants of the proposed development. Shannon noted that the grading and seeding of the park area was only a starting point. Brodley stated that the petitioners wanted to develop a good park; however, he requested that the Commission explain how they wanted the park area developed. Hauser suggested that the Park District spends an average of $10,000 per acre to develop park areas. Shannon suggested that the completion of the subject park area was very important. _He argued that it was extremely important that the subject _park area be fully-developed at the th time of occupancy of Oe-proposed developments . Shannon noted that if the Commission allowed the inclusion of the 30 foot building envelope in the open space calculations, the Commission must be assured that the. park area would be ready for use by the tenants . Brodley stated that he could agree to having the park area fully developed before occupancy of the proposed development. Hauser suggested that the Village had always required the 30 foot building envelope to be excluded from the open space calculations and he asked why the petitioner's circumstances were so unique that they could not comply with the requirement. Brodley stated that there were three reasons : (1) High cost of the property. (2) The proposed density is lower than the allowed 20 units per acre. (3) The park area was donated during the Phase I development and the donation greatly compromised the petitioners ' Phase II calculations. Next, Petri stated that he would like to see a comprehensive land- scaping plan which would indicate how each proposed structure would be Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - October 19, 1977 Docket 77-17: Regency Square/Perrie Grove Phase II (continued) screened. Hauser noted Petri 's request, and he suggested that he doubted whether the Commission should allow the 30 foot building envelopes to be included in the open space calculations. Dohrer responded to Hauser's statement by noting that if the 30 foot building envelope requirement was not included in the open space calculations then in effect the petitioners were being penalized because of their building design. Dohrer suggested that if the proposed structures were pushed together, they would comply with the 50% open space requirement. However, the building design would be highly undesirable to the developers and the surrounding property owners . Hamilton argued that the 30 foot building envelope requirement was not intended to apply to the proposed development. Hamilton noted that the requirement was for high-riser-structures and not for 21-story buildings. Wesley stated that the petitioners were requesting a large variation to the common open space requirements ; however, it appeared that the petitioners were not willing to reciprocate to the Village. Wesley concluded by noting that he was not happy with the trade-off. Hamilton continued by stating that the Village desparately needed the type of housing that was being proposed. Hamilton noted that if the proposed development did not have the adjacent park area, he could not approve the development. However, after considering all of the variables, and with the understanding that the park area would be fully developed, Hamilton stated that he supported the approval of the proposed development. Hauser stated that he would rather see the Commission recommend a parking variation instead of the inclusion of the 30 foot envelope in the open space requirements since the future tenants would be able to utilize the park area. Wesley noted that he was worried about the possible appearance of the proposed structures. He explained that in his opinion he felt that the petitioners did not demonstrate that the proposed development would be aesthetically acceptable. Hamilton argued that he felt that the Commission had acted to protect the local property owners and the Village. He noted that the Commission had fully executed their responsibilities to the Village and there was nothing more that they could do to assure that the proposed development would be beautiful . Brodley noted that the developers were investing over $4 million and he assured the Commission that they would develop the property to the best of their abilities . Hamilton made a motion to recommend approval of the Special Use based on the findings of fact submitted to the Plan Commission on October 17, 1977. The motion failed for lack of a second. Glass made a motion to recommend disapproval of the Special Use. Wesley seconded the motion. Wesley noted that his concern was over the credibility of the petitioners. However, he suggested that the Commission members investigate other developments constructed by the petitioners . Hamilton agreed with Wesley's suggestion and he moved to table the motion. All present voted 'Aye' . Hauser requested that the petitioners develop figures based on less than the required two parking spaces . Glass also requested that the Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - October 19, 1977 Docket 77-17: Regency Square/Perrie Grove Phase II (continued) petitioners explain how they arrived at their density figures . At this point Shannon concluded the meeting. He scheduled a special Plan Commission meeting for Wednesday, October 26, 1977 at 8:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 11 :50 p.m. Submitted by, Richard M. Finn Administrative Assistant RMF:ms (10-25-77) 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.