Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 09/20/1978 - WESLEY J YOUNGS DOCKET 78-8 Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission September 20, 1978 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Acting Chairman Hauser at 8: 10 p.m. on Wednesday, September 20, 1978 in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Edward Hauser, Acting Chairman Charles B. Henrici , Leah Cummins , Secretary Deputy Chief, Fire Department John Glass Richard M. Finn, James Petri Administrative Assistant Orrin Stangeland Charles L. Durham, MEMBERS ABSENT: Administrative Intern George Mullen Docket 78-8: Wesley J. Youngs - B-1 , General Business District to B-3, Automatic Oriented Business District The Plan Commission, acting as a Zoning Commission, conducted a Public Hearing on the petition of Wesley J. Youngs. The petitioner was requesting that the property located on the northwest corner of Bond Street and Higgins Road be rezoned from B-1 , Business District to B-3, Automatic Oriented Business District to allow an Auto Parts Store. Daniel Sinclair, Attorney and Wesley J. Youngs were present to represent the petitioner. Mr. Sinclair began his presentation by stating that the petitioner was seeking the zoning change to provide for an Auto Parts Store which would include several press machines and valve grinders. He continued by noting that such machinery is not permitted under B-1 zoning. Sinclair added that it was the petitioner's position that such a facility would benefit the Village and the machinery would not disturb area residents. Youngs continued the discussion by stating that basically he was just moving his business to a larger area. He added that the only reason B-3 zoning was being requested was to permit several pieces of machinery which would be maintained in an area of approximately 528 square feet. Cummins began the questioning by asking how many people would be required to operate the machines . Youngs responded by stating that 2 persons would work the machines . Glass continued the questioning by asking if a shopping center was being planned for the area. Wesley stated that there were six other rental units being planned for the proposed 14,000 square foot building. He continued by indicating that 8,000 square feet would be used for his business with the other 6,000 for other uses. Glass next asked about the petitioner' s provision for parking. Youngs responded by noting that the site plan called for 82 parking spaces . Glass then asked where refuge would be picked up at the site. Youngs indicated that refuge would be picked up in the rear of the building. Next, Petri asked if landscaping had been planned for the site. Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - September 20, 1978 Docket 78-8: Wesley J. Youngs (continued) Sinclair responded by stating that the site' s developers would provide landscaping plans if required by the Village. Petri then asked about the level of noise that would be generated by the machine shop. Sinclair answered by stating that there would be little or no noise. Hauser noted that the machine shop would have to meet the noise level requirements outlined in the Village's Zoning Ordinance. Stangeland continued the questioning by asking if the parking lot would be used for cars overnight. Sinclair responded that no cars would be left outside on an overnight basis. Cummins then asked what were the chances of the building expanding into additional B-3 uses. Sinclair indicated that B-3 was only needed for the 530 square feet for the machine shop. Glass acknowledged Sinclair's statement by stating that in his opinion the entire property needed B-3 zoning. At this point, Finn suggested that the petitioner leave the proposed site plan for Staff review. Hauser acknowledged Finn 's suggestion and he requested that Staff review the proposed site plan prior to the next Plan Commission meeting. At that point, Hauser adjourned the Public Hearing. A full disclosure of the Public Hearing is available in the Official Transcript. Plan Commission Acknowledgement Acting Chairman Hauser acknowledged the resignation from the Plan Commission submitted by Thomas Hamilton. Hauser noted Hamilton' s years of service to the Village and praised him for a job well done. He added that both the Village and the Commission would miss Hamilton but offered him best wishes for the future. Docket 78-6: Winston Grove Section 24 Gerald Harper, Vice President in Charge of Operations , Centex; Joseph Luciani , Director of Development, Centex; and Richard Howe, Project Manager, Centex, were present to represent the petitioner The petitioner was requesting that approximately 77.6 acres of property be rezoned from R-3 , Residential District to A-2, Special Use, for the purpose of constructing 204 townhouses . The subject property is located in Winston Grove Section 24. Harper began the presentation by stating that changes and alterations had been made on the site plan in response to the Plan Commission's direction. He noted that Centex had reviewed changes in the following areas : 1 . Ground cover per lot to the amount permitted by Zoning Ordinance; 2. Density reduced; 3. Distance between buildings increased; 4. Area between units and detached garages increased (15 feet to 24 feet) ; 5. Plans for access to Meacham; 6. Recreational facilities provided; and 7. Interconnection for the single-family and multi-family units in the development a possibility. Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - September 20, 1978 Docket 78-6: Winston Grove Section 24 (continued) Harper continued by adding that the total open space at the site was 64% which was well over the 50% requirement. Hauser began the questioning by asking why Centex would not move the townhouses closer to the garages to open up the space behind the units . Harper responded by stating that moving the units forward would open more common area while the distance in front would provide meaningful private space. Hauser then asked the Deputy Fire Chief if the Fire Department would have any trouble with the detached garages located in front of the units. Henrici replied by noting that the detached garages would allow the department to isolate garage and home fires and there would be an access . Stangeland continued the questioning by asking if there would be any problem providing two-car garages for the units . Harper responded by stating that there were now plans for a mixture of one- and two-car garages . He added that there was still space for three cars per unit with one-car garages and that the total on and off street parking would allow four parking spaces for each unit located in the development . Harper next addressed the recreational facilities for the proposed site. He stated that in his opinion, the 60 acres of open space and the one acre of park would be sufficient. Hauser noted Harper's statement by asking how much distance there was from the proposed park to the furthest unit. Luciani replied by stating there was approximately 700 feet between the park and the furthest townhouse. Next, Harper discussed the proposed interconnection between the . multi--family and single-family sections of Section 24. Harper continued the discussion by noting that if Centex was required to provide a road connection between the two developments it would cost approximately $175,000. He noted that this was a concern to Centex because the townhouse development was designed and constructed to allow people in the housing market to purchase a home which was affordable. If the connection were required, the price of each unit would be increased and the increase could prevent certain people from purchasing the units. Henrici acknowledged Harper's comment by stating that while the Fire Department had accepted the Meacham Road access into the site, an alternative was necessary. Henrici continued by noting that the Depart- ment's objective required a three minute response time to all areas located within the Village. He added that with the connecting access through Section 23, most of the units in the proposed development could be reached within the three minute time limit. However, he noted that there were approximately 40 houses which would be outside the four minute response time and that was totally unacceptable. Glass acknowledged Henrici 's statement by asking if traffic on Meacham Road might present an access problem in an emergency. Henrici responded by noting that traffic on Meacham tended to be relatively bad during rush hours and without an alternative route, the Fire Department would face certain uncertainties . He added that the best alternative would be direct access through the townhouse area to the single family area. Harper noted Henrici 's comments by asking if access from the townhouses would be considered at the time the plans for the single- family section were provided. He noted that the proposed thoroughfare Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - September 20, 1978 Docket 78-6: Winston Grove Section 24 (continued) would be for the protection of that section and not for the townhouses. Hauser responded by saying that the Plan Commission could not go any further on the rezoning issue without a revised plat. Next, Hauser suggested that the Commission decide if the proposed development was the best use for the subject property. The consensus of the Plan Commission was that the rezoning proposed was the best use. Hauser then asked the Commission to consider the road interconnection between the townhouse and single-family sections . The consensus of the Plan Commission was that the interconnecting road should be provided. The Plan Commission also agreed that access should be opened onto Meacham Road. Hauser then asked the Commission members ' feelings on the detached garages and parking issues. Glass stated that he was concerned with an alleyway effect being created by the detached garages located along the street. Harper stated that while he appreciated Glass's concern, it was the petitioner's contention that the proposed plan was marketable and would be a good development . Stangeland noted that he was concerned over the proposed reduction in parking spaces for the townhouse development. Harper acknowledged Stangeland's statement but noted that the development already allowed for a minimum of three parking spaces per unit while only two were required by Ordinance. Next , Hauser addressed the possibility of developing the open space directly abutting the storm area for recreational uses . Harper indicated that the petitioner would look into the possibility of develop- ing approximately 250 square feet for recreational uses . At that point, Harper stated that it was the petitioner's hope to submit the finalized site plan to the Plan Commission as soon as possible. Finn next stated that the Building Commissioner had indicated to him that the petitioner' s concept was heading in the correct direction for the A-2 special use. Finn suggested that the petitioner submit revised plans for staff review and then appear at a future Commission meeting. The consensus of the Plan Commission was to agree with Finn's suggestion. Circle Bay Subdivision Hauser noted that the Engineering and Building Departments had approved the Circle Bay Subdivision. Glass made a motion to recommend approval of the plat. Stangeland seconded the motion. All present voted 'AYE' . Robert's Subdivision Hauser noted that the Engineering and Building Departments had approved Robert's Subdivision. Glass motioned to recommend approval of the plat. Cummins seconded the motion. All present voted 'AYE' . The meeting adjourned at 11 :05 p.m. Submitted by: ` Charles L. Durham CLD:ms Administrative Intern (in/9/7A)