Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 08/16/1978 - TRAVELL CROW COMPANY ALLEN HAMILTON R • Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission August 16, 1978 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Acting Chairman Hauser at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 16, 1978 in the Multi-Purpose Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Edward Hauser, Acting Chairman Thomas Rettenbacher, Leah Cummins, Secretary Building Commissioner John Glass Richard M. Finn, Thomas Hamilton Administrative Assistant George Mullen Charles L. Durham, James Petri Administrative Intern Orrin Stangeland MEMBERS ABSENT: None Allen Hamilton - Trammell Crow Company Allen Hamilton was present to make a brief presentation concerning Trammell Crow's proposed development of the property located between Devon and Thorndale Avenues , and Arlington Heights Road and 1-90. Hamilton began the presentation by noting Itasca has recently adopted a new comprehensive plan. Hamilton continued by stating that Trammell Crow's proposed development would include five lakes (approximately twenty-five acres) within the 274 acres of the property site. He stated that the first phase of the development called for two buildings connected by a mall . Hamilton next noted that a major component of the first phase of the development was an eleven story, 400 room hotel . He added that the first two floors of the hotel would be devoted to public areas and conference rooms. Hamilton concluded the presentation by stating that one of the central purposes of the Trammell Crow plan was to ease traffic within the proposed development. Plan Commission Acknowledgment Hauser acknowledged Gary Parrin's, Assistant Village Manager, report concerning the Village's intention to petition the Plan Commission for the rezoning of approximately 14 acres of property located on the northeast corner at Busse Road and Landmeier Road. Docket 77-20: Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center The petitioner (Elk Grove Village) was requesting a Text Amendment to Section 5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance to amend the Village's B-2, General Business District. Hauser began the discussion by restating the Plan Commission's decision that ASTC's be permitted in an 0-T, Office Transitional District • Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - August 16, 1978 Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center (continued) and the Residential Districts (R-1 , R-2, R-3) with a special use permit. He continued by informing the Commission members that Rettenbacher and Finn would draw up a rough draft outlining the Commission's recommenda- tion concerning the Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as related to ASTC's. He added that the draft would be presented to the Commission for its consideration at their next meeting. Hauser then noted that the only other attention the Commission had to give to the ASTC matter concerned the consideration of the following special conditions brought up for discussion by Commissioner Hamilton at the Commission's August 2, 1978 meeting: 1 . Each ASTC shall provide a loading facility as a part of the building; 2. Each center shall provide an approved plan for vehicular ingress and egress, said approval to take the form of a certificate signed by the Chiefs of the Police and Fire Departments and the Village Engineer, certifying that the plan for ingress and egress, proposed by the user, will not interfere with either highway or shopping center traffic, nor increase the risk to persons or property; and 3. One parking space shall be provided for each 150 square feet of floor area of building plus one parking space for each person, employee and professional or technical staff member on duty at any one time. Rettenbacher continued the discussion by noting that the third condition (concerning parking spaces) could be provided for by adding it as a third paragraph under 'Office Uses' in Section 3.96 of the Zoning Ordinance. . Next, Cummins noted that the second special condition (provision for approved ingress and egress) could be amended by merely adding ASTC to the statement. At this point, Glass stated that ASTC should be restricted to a free-standing building. He further suggested that the ASTC use only permit other medical uses in the structure. Mullen noted Glass's statement but added that if such a building were allowed then ASTC's could not be permitted on any other floor than the first. Hauser responded by restating his position that it might be better if the Commission considered specific conditions at a later time (i .e. Special Use Hearing) . Finn acknowledged Hauser's statement and noted that specific conditions could be required by the Commission at the time a petitioner requested a Special Use Permit. Cummins noted Hauser and Finn's statements but she stated that in her opinion certain conditions had to be set out to give the petitioners time to comply. The consensus of the Commission was to require ASTC's to be restricted to free-standing buildings with only other medical uses being permitted. Hauser continued the discussion by asking Commission members to consider whether or not ASTC's should be required to have an ambulance loading facility. Hamilton responded by suggesting that the first condition be amended to read as follows : "Each ASTC shall provide, as a part of the building, a loading facility for the use of ambulances, which facility shall not be used for other vehicles ." • • Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - August 16, 1978 The consensus of the Plan Commission was to agree with Hamilton's suggestion. Next, Finn asked the Commission if it was their intent to make the hospital requirements consistent with the proposed ASTC zoning district requirement . Finn noted that during an early meeting, the Commission stated that they planned on requiring a Special Use in 0-T district for hospitals. The consensus of the Commission was that it should be incorporated in the proposed Text Amendment. Rettenbacher concluded the discussion by recommending that the Commission require ASTC's to conform with any (and all ) new guidelines established for 0-T zoning (i .e. setback requirements) . The Commission agreed with Rettenbacher's recommendation. Docket 78-6: Winston Grove Section 24 Joseph Luciani , Director of Development, Centex; Gerald Harper, Vice President in Charge of Operations , Centex; and Richard Howe, Project Manager, Centex, were present to represent the petitioners. 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 con- structing 204 townhouses. The subject property is located in Winston Grove Section 24. Hauser began the discussion by noting that the petitioner was requesting the following variations from the Zoning Ordinance: 1 . Allow the proposed development to have 10.5 units per acre -- the Village's zoning permitted only 10 units per acre; 2. Allow for detached garages placed in front of the units (as indicated on the site plan) and allow a 25 foot setback from the lot line -- the Zoning Ordinance requires a 60 foot setback from lot line; and 3. Allow the typical ground cover for a lot on the proposed site to be 5,232 square feet -- the Zoning Ordinance permitted only 4,872 square feet for a lot. Howe acknowledged Hauser' s statement but stated that they did not agree that the dwelling units per acre as represented in the site plan exceeded the amount permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. At this point, Rettenbacher reported that the site plan did not comply with certain conditions as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. He added that he saw no reason why the petitioner could not submit another site plan that would be in accordance with Zoning Ordinances. However, he reiterated that the present plan did not fulfill many of the requirements as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Hauser noted Rettenbacher's statement by suggesting that the petitioner get together with Rettenbacher to enable the petitioner to prepare an acceptable site plan. Mullen stated that he opposed the road proposed by the Village of Schaumburg. Hamilton agreed adding that he felt the Commission should vote against recommending the road. The consensus of the Plan Commission was that the road should not be allowed because of poor soil quality where it would be built and because it might invite unwanted traffic in the proposed development. At this point, Hauser asked Commission members to consider the use of detached garages in the development. Cummins began by stating that ~ ,• • • Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - August 16, 1978 Winston Grove Section 24 (continued) she could not imagine the detached garages in the Village. She added that in her opinion they would be unattractive. Rettenbacher acknowledged Cummins' statement by noting that proposed garages did not conform to Village setback and building separation requirements . Hamilton responded by stating that while he tended to agree that the detached garages were unattractive, he saw no justification for the Commission not to permit the detached garages. He added that he felt Centex was a better judge of the housing market than the Plan Commission. Hauser continued the discussion by seeking input from the Commission concerning the ground cover variation being requested by the petitioner. He began by stating that in his opinion, the land was locked in as proposed by the developer. Mullen agreed noting that the townhouse development needed access to Meacham Road. At this point, Finn informed the Commission that the Fire Department had reviewed the preliminary site plan for the entire Section 24 and the Fire Chief had submitted a report stating that the Department would not approve the site plan because there was not proper access to the single family homes. Harper responded by stating that access at Meacham would create undesirable traffic through the development. Mullen disagreed stating that in his opinion there would be no great increase of traffic due to an access route at Meacham. Harper reiterated his point that traffic would increase, adding that there would be a safety hazard to small children. Glass responded by stating that in such an event the development should include a recreational area for kids to keep them out of the streets . Hauser suggested that the discussion concerning this issue be delayed until the Fire Department reviewed the site plan. He also requested Centex to make a study of any possible alternative solution concerning the access issue. Hauser concluded the discussion by asking the petitioner about provisions for visitor parking in the development. Harper answered by noting that 21 parking spaces were being planned for each single family unit. He added that additional spaces would be provided on curves in front of the units for temporary use. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Submitted by: )�dZ� Charles L. Durham CLD:ms Administrative Intern (8/24/78) c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President & Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Building Commissioner, Village Engineer, Planning Consultant, Director of Parks and Recreation, Calkins, Centex.