Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 07/19/1978 - WINSTON GROVE DOCKET 78-6 • Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission July 19, 1978 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Acting Chairman Hauser at 8:05 p.m. on Wednesday, July 19, 1978 in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Edward Hauser, Acting Chairman Robert Callahan, Leah Cummins, Secretary Building Inspection Supervisor John Glass Richard M. Finn, Thomas Hamilton (9:30 p.m.) Administrative Assistant George Mullen James Petri Orrin Stangeland MEMBERS ABSENT: None Docket 78-6: Winston Grove Section 24 Fred Feinstein, Attorney; Russell Taylor, Architect: 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 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 town- houses . The subject property is located in Winston Grove Section 24. Taylor began the presentation by briefly describing the petitioner's site plan. He noted that the subject property was located in the northwest corner of Elk Grove Village. He stated that the subject property was bordered by the encroachment limit of the flood plain, and therefore the site plan was designed according to the criteria that would be required. At that point, Luciani stated that the proposed site plan would meet all Village requirements and standards concerning detention areas. Harper continued the presentation by stating that the petitioner was requesting an A-2, Special Use because it would allow the developer to vary the lot size. He noted that the petitioner was requesting two variations from the Zoning Ordinance: First, that the proposed development would have 10.5 units per acre " the Village's Zoning Ordinance permitted only 10 units per acre; Secondly, the proposed site plan indicated that the detached garages would be placed in front of the units and they would only have a 25 foot setback from the lot line -- the Zoning Ordinance requires a 60 foot setback from the lot line. At that point, Hauser stated that he had received a letter from the Village of Schaumburg concerning the proposed rezoning. Hauser stated that the Village of Schaumburg's letter expressed a deep concern over the future east-west access from Schaumburg and other communities lying west of Elk Grove Village. Hauser noted that the • • Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - July 19, 1978 Docket 78-6: Winston Grove Section 24 (continued) Village of Schaumburg would like to see Weathersfield Way extended to an improved Rohlwing Road/Old 11 . 53• Hauser also noted that the letter indicated that the Village of Schaumburg was currently making efforts to have Martingale Road extended southward to Rohlwing Road with a four-lane divided roadway cross section. The letter continued by stating that the approval of the rezoning petition presently before the Plan Commission with the proposed site plan would prevent the extension of Weathersfield Way and greatly impair areawi-de traffic control . Hauser concluded by stating that the letter respectfully requested that the Plan Commission require the petitioner to either redesign the proposed site plan to include a direct arterial link to Weathersfield Way between Plum Grove Road and Martingale Road or require the petitioner to dedicate a 100 foot right-of-way in such a location that an extension would be possible at a future time. Feinstein noted Hauser's statement;' however, he stated that in order to provide the access that was referred to in the letter submitted by the Village of Schaumburg, the petitioner would have to construct a � roadway over very poor soil . He stated that such a requirement was outside the realm of the proposed project and would defeat the petitioner's intent to provide housing at a reasonable costa He noted that the petitioner was currently planning on charging approximately $55,000.00 per unit. Cummins began the questioning by asking if the petitioner intended to have any of the units federally subsidized. Feinstein responded that the proposed development was not a low income housing plan. It would be completely financed by conventional sources . Cummins continued by asking if the petitioner was aware that the Village Engineer had recommended that Ordinance No. 1097 be invoked in the development of the proposed townhouse area. Feinstein stated that they were aware of the recommendation and that the proposed project would be implemented over a two year period of time, thereby limiting the number of units built per year. Mullen continued the questioning by asking the petitioner what it would mean if they were requested to conform with the Zoning Ordinance as it related to the two variations referred to earlier. Luciani responded to the question by stating that in his opinion there was no way of placing the garages in the rear of the proposed townhouses without the development of an alleyway between each unit. Mullen noted that the site plan provided many acres of open space. He asked the petitioner what they intended to do with the open space. Luciani stated that the open space would be dedicated to the Village. Mullen continued by asking why the developer had not connected the proposed rezoning development's street network together with the single family street development. Luciani stated that the two proposed developments were separated by Salt Creek and that in order to provide a connecting roadway, the petitioner would have to construct a very expensive bridge network. Hauser noted Luciani 's response and he asked how the Fire Department would respond to the single family units . Luciani stated that the Fire Department equipment would have to travel through Section 23 in order • • Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - July 19, 1978 Docket 78-6: Winston Grove Section 24 (continued) to reach the single family development proposed in Section 24. Stangeland asked if the proposed detention area would be dry detention. Luciani stated that it would be dry detention. Glass continued the questioning by asking the petitioner how many street parking places would be available for each unit. Luciani stated that he was unable to answer the question because he had not calculated the answer. Glass continued by noting that in his opinion, there was a significant problem with the proposed rezoning site plan in that it did not provide adequate offsite parking. Luciani noted Glass's concern; however, he stated that in the proposed residential area , there would be approximately two offside parking spaces. Glass continued by noting that because of the high density of the proposed development, there would be a real problem with providing visitor parking. Glass asked if the petitioner had thought of possibly providing extra parking. Luciani stated that they had not. Glass continued by asking the petitioner what they intended to do with the open space before it was turned over to the Village. Luciani responded by stating that the property would be turned over to the Village in its natural state. Glass noted Luciani 's response and he stated that in his opinion it would be very difficult for a family with young children because there would be no recreational areas in the proposed development. Petri commented that the proposed site plan appeared to have the highest use of the property; however, he noted that it probably was not the best use of the property. Petri asked the petitioner why they were only providing a two rated dividing wall as opposed to a masonry wall . Harper stated that the decision was based on economic factors . Petri continued by asking where the closest schools would be and how would the residents reach them. Luciani stated that in Section 23 there was currently proposed a grammar school and a junior high school which would be less than one quarter mile away from the proposed development in Section 24. Hamilton stated that he had requested the United States Soil and Water Conservation District to review the proposed site plan. He noted that he had received a letter from them stating that the proposed site plan would not be in violation with the Upper Salt Creek plan. Hauser noted that the Commission's report on the subject development stated that the proposed ground coverage for a typical lot was 5,232 square feet which exceeded the 4,872 square feet that was permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Luciani noted Hauser's statement and he stated that in some instances the lot size would exceed the square footage allowed by the Zoning Ordinance and therefore they would require a variation. Hauser next asked what advantage would the Village receive by accepting the open space. Feinstein responded to Hauser's question by stating that the open space would be left in its natural state as required by Federal and State regulations. Hauser continued by asking why the petitioner proposed detached garages. Harper stated that the petitioner's market studies had sugested that the detached garages would be a very good selling feature. 0 Y Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - July 19, 1978 Docket 78-6: Winston Grove Section 24 (continued) Next Hauser asked why the petitioner was attempting to isolate the proposed development. Luciani responded by stating that the site plan was designed in such a manner that through traffic would not have to travel through the development. Hauser noted that in his opinion the cul-de-sacs shown on the site plan were very misleading and in actuality were deadends. Luciani noted Hauser's concern and he stated that it might be possible to have one of the cul-de-sacs join Meacham Road; however, Luciani noted that that decision would have to depend on engineering variables Cummins asked if Centex had ever produced a townhouse development similar to the one being proposed. Harper stated that Centex had not designed any townhouse development similar to the one being proposed. Next Glass inquired if the petitioner would be willing to provide road access from the single family development to the townhouse development. Luciani stated that it would be unfeasible to provide such an access because it would require the building of a costly bridge network which was outside the scope of the proposed development. Cummins concluded the questioning by asking when the petitioner intended on having the townhouses ready for occupancy. Harper stated that it was Centex' intent to begin construction during the spring of 1979 and the units would be ready for occupancy some time during the fall of 1979• A full disclosure of this transaction is available in the Official transcript. Docket 78-7: Northern Home Furnishings Company Howard Galler was present to represent the petitioner. The petitioner was requesting that approximately 1 . 19 acres of land located at 600 Busse Road be rezoned from B-2, General Business District to 1-1 , Restricted Industrial District. The petitioner was proposing to construct an industrial building on the subject property. Galler began his presentation by submitting a proposed site plan for the subject property. He noted that the subject property was surrounded by 1-1 , Restricted Industrial . Hamilton began the questioning by asking the petitioner why he wanted to rezone the property. Galler responded by stating that originally he had requested that the Village rezone the entire parcel to a B-2, General Business District, for the development of the Northern Home Furnishings Company. Galler noted that it was the petitioner's original intent to expand the NHFC after a period of five years ; however, upon the lapse of the five year period, it was determined by the petitioner that business did not warrant the expansion of the NHFC. Therefore, it was the petitioner's intent to rezone the portion of the property not occupied by the NHFC to an 1-1 , Restricted Industrial District zoning. Glass continued the questioning by asking what size and height the petitioner proposed for the industrial building. Galler responded to the question by stating that the building would be 2,800 square feet and approximately 18 feet in height. He noted that it was the 1 Plan Commission Minutes - 5 - July 19, 1978 Docket 78-7: Northern Home Furnishings Company (continued) petitioner's intent to begin construction of the industrial building some time during the spring of 1979. Petri inquired whether the petitioner intended to have one sole user of the building or would there be multiple users. Galler stated that the petitioner was considering the possibility of having multiple users . At that point, Hamilton moved to approve the petitioner's request to rezone the property at 600 Busse Road from B-2, General Business District to 1-1 , Restricted Industrial District. Mullen seconded the motion. All present voted 'Aye' . Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance: Conditional Uses in B-3, Automotive Oriented District Hauser began the discussion by noting that he had received a memo from the Village President requesting that the Plan Commission act upon the text amendment for conditional uses in B-3, Automotive Oriented Business Districts. Hauser continued by stating that the Plan Commission had discussed the issue on various occassions ; however, there was con- siderable indecision on how to act upon the text amendment. At that point, Hamilton stated that the proposed text amendment in its present form was totally unacceptable and he moved that the Plan Commission recommend that the text amendment be denied. He noted in his motion that the Plan Commission acknowledged the intent of the proposed text amendment and that the Commission would resolve to prepare a workable proposal for the Village Board's consideration when the Plan Commission's workload permitted. He further requested authorization to engage the Village Planning Consultant to assist the Commission's efforts in developing an acceptable proposal . Petri seconded the motion. All present voted 'Aye' . Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 233 Hauser noted that the Engineering and Building Departments had approved Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 233. Mullen made a motion to recommend approval of the plat. Glass seconded the motion. All present voted 'Aye' . Loos First Addition to Elk Grove Hauser noted that the Engineering and Building Departments had approved Loos First Addition to Elk Grove. Mullen made a motion to recommend approval of the plat. Cummins seconded the motion. All present voted 'Aye' . The meeting adjourned at- 11 :05 p.m. Submi X by, Richard M. Finn RMF:ms Administrative Assistant (7/28/78)