Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 12/13/1978 - VILLAGE ON THE LAKE DOCKET 78-10 Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission December 13, 1978 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Acting Chairman Hauser at 8: 15 p.m. on Wednesday, December 13, 1978 in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Edward Hauser, Acting Chairman Gary Parrin, Leah Cummins , Secretary Assistant Village Manager John Glass Thomas Rettenbacher, George Mullen Building Commissioner James Petri Kenneth Schuster, Orrin Stangeland Acting Village Engineer MEMBERS ABSENT: Charles Henrici , None Deputy Fire Chief Docket 78-10: Proposed Revision to the Planned Unit Development located at the Village on the Lake The Plan Commission, acting as a Zoning Commission, conducted a public hearing on the petition of Urban Development Company for an amendment to the preliminary land use and zoning plat, and special use permit in order to revise a site plan for the construction of 144 manor homes in lieu of three 5-story buildings with 282 proposed units . The 11 .6 acre parcel is located at the northeast corner of Biesterfield Road and Leicester Road. Jeffrey Rochman, Maurice Wallack, Robert Gorski , Richard Burton, Michael Levin, Paul Jensen, Marvin Richman, Richard Hitchcock and Robert Solomon were present representing United Development Company and Urban Investment and Development Company. Richman began the presentation by noting that the entire 287 acres were zoned for a Planned Unit Development in 1968. Since 1969, the development plans for Village on the Lake were amended three times (1969, 1971 and 1973) due to changing market conditions . These same conditions again necessitated a change. There are currently 442 condominiums in the existing five buildings . Their original timetable included all eight buildings to be built by 1973 with a total of 724 units . It took eight years (1969-1977) to sell the units in the existing five buildings due to lack of market demand for condominiums . The 11 .6 acre parcel remained vacant not only because of the market conditions , but also because it took fifteen months for in-house studies and consultant reports to develop plans for the best use of the property. Richman continued by noting that the cost to reproduce the condominium buildings would be greater than the market demand for condominiums. United Development Company was only selling 50 units per year in the existing buildings . They project that it would take six years to sell new con- dominium units . Not only would they have to rent the units not sold, but the rental units would have a detrimental effect on selling the condominium units . Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - December 13, 1978 Docket 78-10 (continued) United Development Company considered single family homes , townhouses , garden apartments and midrise buildings , with either sale of the units , renting the units or obtaining Federal subsidies for the units. They concluded that manor homes would not only be the most marketable type of unit, but manor homes would also be in the best interest of the Village and best use of the property. The petitioners then had a slide presentation of similar types of developments with Tudor elevations . The developments included The Timbers (Palos) , Country Club Village (Oak Hills) , Briar Cliff Manor (Wheaton) and Lexington Village (Schaumburg) . Their proposal is for 4 and 8 unit buildings with $1 ,750 - $2,000 spent for landscaping each unit. Mullen began the questioning by asking how the petitioners will handle parking, street widths and maintenance of the streets . The petitioner responded that they not only meet Village Ordinances by providing one parking stall in the garage and one on the driveway, but also provide 22 additional guest parking stalls. There would be an adverse impact on the development if they had to provide 72 stalls to conform to the Police Department recommendation. The streets will meet Village construction standards , but will be 24 feet in width rather than 28 feet. An Association will maintain the private streets . Stangeland asked whether the market conditions will be changing again. In response, the developers noted that the possibility does exist, that is why they are anxious to begin building. The 144 manor homes would be sold within 18 months at a selling price in the low to mid $70,000 range. Cummins noted that sidewalks and lighting are not on the plan. The petitioner confirmed that there will be no sidewalks for the development, but they will meet Village Codes for lighting. If they have sufficient funds, more decorative light poles will be used. Cummins added that the Village Board and the Plan Commission are not fond of private streets. The developer acknowledged that he knew there, was some sentiment against private streets . Petri concurred with a previous comment by Cummins that the 22 additional parking stalls are totally inadequate and the plans should be redesigned. Next, Petri asked how the manor homes will be separated from the recreational facilities at the Village on the Lake and whether they propose any facilities in the proposed development. The petitioners noted that their buyer profile reflects that elevations and landscaping amenities make the project marketable. Additional recreational facilities will not be needed, and if so, the Park District sites are available to them. They also added that the Village on the Lake is private property and their recreational facilities are not available to the manor homes. Storm detention requirements and sanitary sewer line capacity were also brought up by Petri . The project engineer said that Lake Cosman has more than adequate capacity for storm water. In addition, the 8 inch sanitary sewer line on Gloucester or the 12 inch sanitary sewer line serving Alexian Brothers Medical Center both have adequate capacity for their estimated sanitary sewage flows. • Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - December 13, 1978 Docket 78-10 (continued) It was pointed out by Glass that the property line for the 11 .6 acre parcel goes through the existing tennis courts . The petitioner had intended to deed this portion of their property to the Village on the Lake Association. Also in response to a question from Glass , it was noted that exterior maintenance of the buildings , utilities and streets will be the responsibility of an Association. The Manor Home Association would take over their proposed development after two years or after the sale of 75 percent of the units. At a request from Glass , United Development Company will submit an Association budget after it is prepared. Glass continued by noting that the "cul-de-sac" sections of the development and the 24 foot wide private street do not provide for proper vehicle traffic flow, turnaround capability or additional parking stalls. When he questioned the petitioners about screening between the manor homes 35 feet from the Village on the Lake tennis courts, the petitioner responded that the proposed 36 inch high screening could be increased in height. Hauser addressed the need for additional recreational facilities . He noted that in the original planned unit development agreement, the developer had stated that a recreational area would be provided for the parcel . Now, Hauser noted that it appeared that the petitioner did not wish to provide the recreational area that was agreed to when the planned unit development was originally proposed. The developer reiterated that their buyer profile reflects a 40 - 50 year age group with an estimated lifestyle which would make recreational facilities burdensome to the Association. Recreational facilities would be at their disposal through the local Park District. Hauser concluded by requesting the petitioner to submit a report on the effect of the proposed plan to the physical development, tax base and the economic well-being of the Village pursuant to Section 4.52 of the Zoning Ordinance. The developer was advised by Cummins that sidewalks are required on Leicester and Biesterfield Roads . Glass asked if the Association would have storage available for equipment or a facility for Association meetings. In response, the developer said maintenance will be performed by outside contractors and the Association would have to find a meeting facility offsite. Deputy Chief Henrici advised the Commission that the proposed private street should be designated a fire lane which would prohibit parking on the street. The following is a synopsis of comments presented to the Plan Commission from the audience: - Trespass problems will occur due to residents from the manor homes attempting to use the Village on the Lake recreational facilities. - The plan is not in compliance with open space requirements . - There are inadequate provisions for guest parking. The overflow parking will use Village on the Lake parking stalls . - No recreational facilities for the proposed development. - The developer should not be permitted to depart from the original planned unit development concept. When they bought condominiums, they also bought the original site plan which reflects eight buildings . - The Village on the Lake would not have sufficient recreational facilities to serve the manor homes . Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - December 13, 1968 Docket 78-10 (continued) - The manor home concept is not acceptable. - The manor homes destroy the open space and cause crowded conditions . - There is a market for condominiums, contrary to the statements of the developer. - Private streets and utilities are a heavy burden to any Association. - The recreational facilities which United Development Company said would not be attractive to buyers are really a necessity. - The developer is reneging on their commitment to build eight buildings . - There will be 1 ,000 angry residents if the development, as proposed, is constructed. United Development Company informed the Commission that a landscape plan will be submitted to insure that all landscaping discussed during the public hearing will be installed. Hauser advised the petitioner that the testimony will be discussed at their January 17, 1979 meeting. The public hearing adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. A full disclosure of the public hearing is available in the Official Transcript. Submitted by: C. •�41� AsAs Parrin antVillage Manager GEP:ms Attachment: Objections submitted by the Ad Hoc Committee of the Village on the Lake c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President and Board of Trustees , Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Building Commissioner, Village Engineer, Director of Parks and Recreation, Centex, NWMC. (12/15/78) r } O B J E C T I O N I TO PROPOSED REVISION TO APPROVED- LAND USE PLAN Now comes the AD HOC COMMITTEE of the Village on the Lake Condominium Associations - -(hereinafter -referred to as "Objectors") by and through their attorney STEVEN P.' BLOOMBERG and pursuant to authority granted by members of the individual associations , enters its Objection to the proposed revision of an approved land use plan presented by Urban Land and Development Company to the Village of Elk Grove. 1. THE PROPOSED REVISION DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR .AN R-4 DISTRICT. (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) . The current Ordinance of the Village of Elk Grove defines Common Open Space as "land unoccupied by structures, buildings, streets , rights of way, and automobile parking lots and designed and intended for the use or enjoyment of residents of a planned development. " The Ordinance further states that "except for Senior Citizen Housing, no area within 30 feet of any building or structure, except structures used for recreational use, shall be includable for Common. Open Space. " In .an R-4 District (Planned Development) fifty percent of the area not subdivided into lots shall remain common open space. Although the proposed revision allegedly meets the fifty percent common open space requirement, it appears that the calculation of the. common open space area includes the 30 foot envelope around the buildings, which is contrary to the Ordinance. 2 . - THE PROPOSED REVISION DOES NOT MAKE ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR GUEST PARKING AND UNIT.- OWNERS WITH MORE THAN TWO VEHICLES . 4b If -the residents of - the manor homes do not have parking I. for their vehicles and for the vehicles .of ,their' guests within the confines of the manor home development, the overflow will park in - the existing parking lots of Objectors and along the f streets of the development creating congestion and potential traffic hazards. The approved land plan for the undeveloped area provides for adequate parking for three 5-story condominium f buildings -similar to parking now provided for the- existing buildings . i. _The proposed common open space of the revision has been obtained by sacrificing adequate parking for open -space, which- is contrary t to the intent of the Ordinance that open space be provided for the use or enjoyment of the residents of a planned development. 3 . THE PROPOSED REVISION DOES NOT PROVIDE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE MANOR HOMES . Since no facilities will be provided by the developer, the residents of the new development will have to. look elsewhere .for recreational opportunities . The closest and most convenient . facilities are those owned- and maintained by Objectors . Objectors have no way to restrict their tennis courts and swimming pools to i the exclusive use of their residents without undertaking costly I and time-consuming policingand screening procedures . In addition, i it destroys the neighborhood good-will of an area for outsiders who .do not contribute to the upkeep and -maintenance ' of recreational facilities to be able .to participate .in the use and enjoyment of the facilities. The existing facilities were not - intended for the use of the future residents of the undeveloped portion of Parcel D. i I i -2- j According to the land plan .now in existence for the remainder of Parcel D, the residents were to have their own facilities . If Urban Land Development is permitted to depart- from the approved land plan, its failure to provide recreational facilities will place an undue burden on the existing facilities. If there were no recreational .facilities in the entire development, failure to provide . such facilities for the remainder of Parcel D would create few problems. However, since facilities do exist, Objectors do not wish to be placed in the position of the "haves" ` i keeping out the "have-nots" , especially when the "have-nots" are children who desire to use playgrounds, tennis courts , and swimming pools adjacent to their homes. 4 . THE PROPOSED REVISION DEPARTS FROM THE CONCEPT OF A I WELL-PLANNED COMMUNITY WHICH PROVIDES ADEQUATE .AMENITIES FOR ALL ITS RESIDENTS. Objectors purchased their homes in reliance on representations made by the developer that the entire community would be developed according to an approved land plan. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of a brochure used by the developer 's salesmen in marketing the units previously constructed. This brochure shows L the remainder of Parcel D as a part of the entire community with buildings, facilities, and parking all consistent with an overall i plan stressing care-free suburban living. Objectors relied on I f the representations of the developer that 'the land plan approved by the Village of Elk Grove was a land concept of development for I i 1 -3- 1 i i • i 4b all of Parcel D. . The very essence of. a planned unit development is that the entire plan will be carried out as approved. To let the developer depart from the plan in the later phases of construction is to destroy the concept. If- changes are to be permitted in the various stages of a land plan, then each stage should be approved separately to protect consumers from purchasing a dwelling unit in which they think is a total community only to discover that the total .community concept is subject to the developers ability to -remove -a material portion of the land from the- plan. The purpose- of this Plan Commission is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of -the -community by prohibiting the developer from proceeding with only those parts' of an approved land plan which prove to be profitable at the expense of the residents of the Village. AD HOC COMMITTEE OF THE VILLAGE ON THE LCONDOM ASSOCIATIONS BY: \�} NIbN�l/f � S� teven �P. loomberg MOSS AND BLOOMBERG, LTD. Attorneys at Law 330 W. Irving Park Road Wood Dale, Illinois 60191 • 1 EXHIBIT A Lake Lake Wellington Avenuev9 - ca �o FS Lake N ccW -j ;ZV Q -'" 9 898 Wellington Ave. Elk Grove Village,Illinois 60007 - 312 593 0340 Village on the Lake - ,•�`.�• '.. _- mss_--.;,�,-:� • - -� Biestertield Road