Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 10/05/1977 - PISZCZEK DOCKET 77-10, 224 DEVON AVE. • MINUTES ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION October 5, 1977 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Shannon at 9:00 P.M. on Wednesday, October 5, 1977 in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue, Elk Grove Village. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: William Shannon, Chairman Edward Hauser Leah Cummins, Secretary James Petri John Glass STAFF PRESENT: Thomas Hamilton Richard M. Finn, William Wesley Administrative Assistant Docket 77-10: Piszczek, 224 Devon Avenue John Summerfield, Attorney and Ronald Piszczek were present to represent the petitioner. Robert Schwartz, Architect, was also present. The petitioner was requesting that the property located at 224 Devon Avenue be annexed into the Village. The annexation would be contingent on the rezoning of the property from R-3, Residential District to B-3, Automotive Orientated District for the establishment of a repair garage and equipment rental garage. Mr. Schwartz began the presentation by presenting a revised site plan to the Commission. Schwartz continued by stating that the proposed structure would be developed with three different heights . The height variations would be provided for trucks , autos, and office area. Schwartz noted that the proposed structure could be moved back to provide parking area in the front of the building. Hamilton began the questioning by asking if the petitioner could comply with the 75 foot side yard requirements. Mr. Schwartz noted that the petitioner could not comply with the side yard requirements; however, he justified the rezoning by stating that in his opinion the overall area would eventually be zoned for business uses . Therefore, he concluded that the 75 foot side yards would not be appropriate at that time. Hamilton objected to Mr. Schwartz statement and he noted that the zoning ordinance was specific on the side yard requirement. Hamilton continued by noting that the petitioner would not be able to comply with the 150 foot front yard requirement. Mr. Schwartz agreed that the petitioner had several problems , including the expenses involved in the extention of the sanitary sewer and water mains. Schwartz reiterated the petitioner's earlier request that the Village absorb a specific portion of the expenses and recover the money with recapture agreements when the neighboring properties annexed into the Village. At this point, Summerfield submitted a 1976 traffic survey of Devon Avenue and he noted that the traffic volume was a good indicator that the property would be very successful if it were rezoned to a commercial use. There were several residents present and they reiterated their concerns which were expressed at the two previous meetings . Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - October 5, 1977 Docket 77: 17: Regency Square/Perrie Grove Phase II Bob Brodley and Ben Rozansk-y, 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. Shannon noted that Mr. Finn had obtained information which answered a question voiced earlier with Commissioner Hauser. Shannon stated that the park land dedicated by the developers of Regency Square Phase 1 had been accepted by the Village; however, it had not been turned over to the Park District. Mr. Brodley began the discussion by suggesting that if the petitioners were to rearrange the proposed building layouts, they could comply with the Village's 50 percent open space requirement. However, Brodley noted that it would not be economically feasible to change the layout because it would greatly decrease the aesthetics of the property. Brodley stated that the exclusion of the 30 foot envelope requirement from the open space calculations was a difficult requirement to comply with, especially with the type of development they were proposing. Brodley continued by stating that the petitioners were requesting that the elevator requirements be waived since the structure of the proposed buildings would not warrant the use of elevators. Brodley suggested that one way that the petitioners would be able to provide additional open space would be to decrease the parking space requirements to 9 feet by 18 feet for approximately 15 percent of the total parking area (50 parking spaces) . Brodley supported his suggestion by noting that with the continued decline of the large cars in the county, it might not be necessary to require as large a parking space. Cummins agreed with Brodley's suggestion and she stated that Northwestern University had already instituted the small parking spaces in certain sections of their parking lots. Hamilton stated that he disagreed with the concept because he felt that large automobiles would continue to be used by many Americans. Brodley continued the discussion on the open space question by stating that if the 30 foot envelope around each building was calculated into the open space calculations, the petitioners would have approximately 60 percent open space as opposed to the 26.8 percent that would be cal- culated if the 30 foot envelope was excluded from the calculations. Brodley noted that in his opinion the 30 foot envelope requirement was designed for structures which would be six stories or higher. Mr. Roz'anskV continued the discussion by stating that the petitioners ' entire calculations were based on the inclusion of the park area into the total land area of the property. Ro=ansk;% noted that if the park area was subtracted out of the calculation (because in fact it was the Village's property) , then the following percentages would be correct: For Phase I . . . . 49.54% total open space 12.94% space occupied by the buildings 37.52% space occupied by roads and parking areas Total 100.00% Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - October 5, 1977 Docket 77: 17: Regency Square/Perrie Grove Phase II (continued) Phase II . . . . . 64.28% total open space (Elk Grove Development) 9. 19% space occupied by the buildings 26.53% space occupied by roads and parking areas Total 100.00% Phase II . . . . . 48.08% total open space (Bianco Development) 11 .66% space occupied by the buildings 40.26% space occupied by roads and parking areas Total 100.00% Proposed Entire Development 56.22% total open space 10.73% space occupied by the buildings 33.05% space occupied by roads and parking areas Total 100.00% Mr. Rozansk y noted that the above figures included the 30 foot building envelope in the open space calculations. Glass, returning to the earlier suggestion of reducing the parking standards, asked how much area would become open space if the reduction were allowed. Brodley stated that the reduction would provide approxi- mately 12,000 to 13,000 additional square feet to the open space. Hamilton reiterated his concerns and he stated that he was opposed to any reduction in the parking space standards. Wesley noted that he was not satisfied with the amount of open space that the petitioners were displaying and he also stated that he agreed with Hamilton's position that the parking spaces should remain ten feet by twenty feet. Wesley continued by asking how large the dedicated park land was . Brodley stated that the park area was approxi- mately five acres in size. Glass stated that in his opinion there didn' t appear to be very much open space once the Pipeline easement and the Commonwealth easement were excluded. Cummins agreed with Glass; however, he suggested that the existence of the two easements was one reason why she felt the proposed development would be more acceptable than it would normally be. Glass next suggested that he would like to see a continuous flow of the park area and it might be necessary to take several parking spaces out, especially where the parking area abutted the park area. Glass further suggested that the tenants of the proposed structures should be allowed to utilize the two easements for garden areas. Brodley stated that he would seek permission from the owners of the easements to allow the tenants to utilize the land. Shannon noted that the petitioners would be required to submit a landscaping plan. Brodley stated that they would comply with the request. At this point Hamilton made the following motion: (1) The Plan Commission would recommend the inclusion of the 30 foot envelope in the open space calculation, due to the unique nature of the development including the location of the Commonwealth Edison easement and the pipeline right-of-way which lie on the sides of the subject property. (2) The Village would require the petitioners to provide a landscaping plan of the entire development and a recreational development plan of the park area. The petitioners would implement the recreational development plan for the park area immediately adjoining the subject r • Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - October 5, 1977 Docket 77717: Regency Square/Perrie Grove Phase If (continued) development. The landscaping plans would be approved by the Plan Commission. The recreational development of the park area must be approved by the Park District. (3) The petitioners would create a hookup of the parking areas with a 60 feet easement west of the northwest parking lot. (4) The Plan Commission would recommend the waiving of the elevator requirements . Glass added a fifth point to the motion which stated that the Plan Commission would consider a shared parking plan submitted on behalf of the petitioners and the adjacent industrial firms. Cummins seconded the motion. Voting 'Aye' for the motion: Shannon, Cummins, Glass , Hamilton; Abstaining: Wesley. After conferring with his associates , Mr. Brodley stated that they accepted the recommendation in principle. However, Brodley noted that they were not willing to build a complete park. Brodley suggested that they would grade the property, seed it, and work with the Park District on other necessary aspects. Wesley noted that he did not care for the proposed appearance of the buildings, nor the limited space between each structure. Shannon directed Finn to contact the Park District and inquire if the District would be willing to work with the petitioner on developing the park land. Shannon also directed Finn to draw up a finding of fact for the Regency Square Special Use petition so that the Commission could review the entire project and enable them to make a recommendation to the Village Board. Docket 77-19: Value Rug Mart, Inc. The Plan Commission, acting as a Zoning Commission, held a Public Hearing on the petition of the Robbins Company, Owners of Record, and Value Rug Mart, Inc. for the rezoning of approximately 2.5 acres located at 1100 Elmhurst Road. Hamilton made a motion to recommend that the subject property which was zoned 1-2, General Industrial District be rezoned to B-2, Business District to establish a retail carpeting, floor covering and office use operation. It was further recommended that the petitioner be allowed to continue the present uses of the southwest quadrant of the existing structure and the southwest parking area for a transitional period not to exceed three years. Cummins seconded the motion. Voting 'Aye' : Shannon, Cummins, Hamilton and Wesley; Abstaining: Glass. Sprague's Resubdivision Shannon noted that the Engineering and Building Departments had approved the Sprague's Resubdivision. Wesley made a motion to recommend approval of the plat. Hamilton seconded the motion. All present voted 'Aye' . Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 220 Shannon noted that everything was in order pertaining to Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 220. Glass made a motion to recommend the plat. Hamilton seconded the motion. All present voted 'Aye' . r • Plan Commission Minutes - 5 - October 5, 1977 The meeting adjourned at 11 :35 P.M. Sub ted by, Richard M. Finn Administrative Assistant RMF:ms (lo/14/77) 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.