Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 06/07/1978 - GULLO ANNEX & REZONING DOCKET 78-4 0 Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission June 7, 1978 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Acting Chairman Hauser at 8: 15 p.m. on Wednesday, June 7, 1978 in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Edward Hauser, Acting Chairman Robert J. Callahan, John Glass, Acting Secretary Building Supervisor Thomas Hamilton Richard M. Finn, James Petri Administrative Assistant MEMBERS ABSENT: Charles L. Durham, Leah Cummins Administrative Intern Docket 78-4: Gullo Annexation and Rezoning 4 acres - 0-T District; 5 acres - 1-1 The Plan Commission, acting as a Zoning Commission, conducted a Public Hearing on the petition of George and John Gullo. The petitioners were requesting that approximately four acres of a total nine acre parcel of land located east of Carroll Square, west of Stanley Street and south of Oakton Street be rezoned 0-T, Office Transitional District. The Village's Official Map indicates the property to be zoned 1-1 , Light Industrial District. Robert Clementi , Attorney, and John Gullo were present to represent the petitioner. Mr. Clementi began the presentation by stating that the petitioners' original plan was to develop the entire nine acre parcel with light industrial buildings . However, upon further consideration the petitionersdecided that it would be in their best interest to develop four acres of the nine acre tract with office transitional structures. Hauser began the questioning by asking Clementi why the petitioner was requesting 0-T zoning. Clementi replied to the question by stating that the Village's Master Plan showed the subject property as 0-T zoning. Clementi added that the petitioners were willing to conform with all requirements relating to 0-T zoning. At that point, Hamilton asked the staff what the requirements were for 0-T zoning. The Building Supervisor. responded by quoting from the Zoning Ordinance as it pertained to 0-T zoning. The Building Supervisor noted that 0-T zoning only permitted the construction of a three-story building. Hamilton next asked when the petitioner would start development of the parcel . Gullo answered that .it was his intention to begin development during the current building season. Hamilton continued by asking what type of buildings were planned. Gullo stated that the design of buildings to be constructed had not yet been determined. However, Gullo noted that whatever type of building he constructed would be attractive. Petri asked the petitioners what type of buffer was planned by the petitioners. Gullo responded that he would provide shrubs and evergreens between the proposed development and the existing residential areas . Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - June 7, 1978 Gullo Annexation and Rezoning (continued) Petri continued by asking if the petitioner had intended to include commercial uses on the site or would the development be used strictly for offices . Gullo stated that there would only be offices allowed. In addition, he noted that the proposed development would blend in well with the surrounding area. Next, Glass continued the questioning by asking the petitioner how high he intended to construct the proposed structures. Gullo responded by stating that the building would be about two or two and one- half stories high. Glass next asked the petitioner if he would be willing to submit a landscaping plan for review by the Commission. Gullo indicated they would comply. Glass noted that he had reservations over whether or not the proposed development could be developed so that it would be compatible with the abutting area. Glass next asked if the petitioners had plans to subdivide the property. Gullo indicated that the property would be subdivided at a later date. Hauser continued the discussion by noting that a petitioner that had recently appeared before the Plan Commission stated that there was no demand for office transitional building in Elk Grove Village. Gullo responded by stating he disagreed with that viewpoint and he noted that he owned buildings in Elk Grove Village and had never experienced any trouble in renting or selling space. Hauser next asked the petitioners what would be the affect on the traffic flow in the area due to the proposed office development. Gullo stated that the traffic flow would increase but not to any large degree. Hauser concluded his questioning by asking Gullo if he would be willing to submit an overall landscaping plan for the site. Gullo indicated that he would but he noted that he would only construct one building at a time and therefore a full landscaping plan would not be possible. - At this point, Hamilton asked the Village Staff if the Plan Commission was just concerned with the zoning question in relation to the Gullo site. Finn replied that Hamilton was correct and the Plan Commission was only to consider the zoning aspect involved. Next, Hamilton pointed out that the subject property was not recommended for residential use in the Master Plan. He noted the reason was because of the property's close location to Runway 32 of the airport. Upon closing the discussion by the Commission, Hauser opened the floor for discussion by other interested parties . As a result, the following concerns were expressed concerning the proposed rezoning of the Gullo property: (A petition presented stated the following objections to proposal ) (a) Changing use from current R-5 (Cook County) to 0-T would provide a buffer to only one of the abutting residential areas. (i .e. Southern residential border would not have a buffer.) (b) Property values to abutting areas would decrease. (c) Increased traffic flow in the area would adversely affect abutting residential areas. (d) Proposal does not conform with provisions made by the 1968 Comprehensive Plan. • • Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - June 7, 1978 Gullo Annexation and Rezoning (continued) At that point, . Hauser adjourned the Public Hearing. A full dis- closure of the Public Hearing is available in the Official Transcript. Schmidt Farm: Preliminary Site Plan Joseph Ash, Attorney, Tim Selke, Joseph Hanlon, and Joseph Linden were present to represent the Stape Development Company. The petitioner was requesting to annex approximately120 acres of property into the Village. The property is located north of Nerge Road and east of Plum Grove Road. Ash opened the discussion by presenting a revised site plan and introducing Joe Linden who briefly explained the plan. Linden proceeded by first showing the original site plan calling for the development of 120 acres of land with single family housing. He then presented the new site plan explaining that minor changes requested by the Village Staff had been incorporated into the revised site plan. Hauser opened the questioning by asking Linden what the slope ratio was for the detention area . Linden explained that the detention area slope ratio would get bigger or smaller depending on a number of variables (i .e. single family only or single and multi-family units) . He noted that if a bigger detention area were required then two or three j units would be eliminated to provide the needed area . Hauser next asked if the revised site plan had been shown to the Schaumburg Park District. Ash responded that it had and that the Park District found the site plan acceptable. Hauser asked how the residents from the north of the development would gain access into the park area. Linden replied by stating that an access walkway about 20 feet wide would be provided for those residents. Hauser responded by asking if the petitioner could run the cul-de-sac to the west of the proposed development along Plum Grove Road with additional homes while at the same time taking away the lots in the north area of the path area. Both Ash and Linden agreed this could j be done. Glass agreed that the proposed park area would not allow access to all the residents in the proposed development. He then asked if it might be possible to alter the site plan in a way that would provide all residents with park area access . Linden responded by stating that the petitioner was open for suggestions of alternatives to the park area. Hauser noted that he agreed with Glass 's observation that the proposed park area did not allow enough access for the residents . Linden defended the proposed park area by stating that there was sufficient space to build a variety of recreational facilities . Glass noted that because of the placement of the northwesterly cul-de-sacs , in effect a private park area had been created for the lots located on the two cul -de-sacs . He suggested that a possible solution to the petition was to eliminate the cul-de-sacs. Next, Hauser asked if the petitioner was going to grade and seed the park and detention areas . Ash indicated that the petitioner intended to grade and seed both areas. At this point, Finn asked the petitioner what were the plans for I i I I Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - June 7, 1978 Schmidt Farm (continued) maintenance of the walkways in the development. Linden responded that it could be left up to an association or to the Village to insure maintenance for the walkways. Linden added that he felt the walkways should be five feet wide with fences on both sides. Ash then stated that the developer would put in these fences. Glass interjected that he felt the walkways should be five feet wide with an additional two feet on each side. Linden agreed that Glass 's suggestion would be desirable, but he noted that the two feet area on both sides of the walkway should consist of stone so that the area would be maintenance free. Hamilton next stated that he would like to see additional access to the park area , perhaps by opening up a few other spaces for the park area. Linden acknowledged Hamilton's statement and indicated that the petitioner would work on creating better access into the park area. Next, Finn expressed a concern noted in the Street Department report concerning the curves (eyebrows) included in the proposed developments. He explained that the problem with the curves were that they hindered effective snowplowing in the winter months . Hauser asked the petitioners if the petitioners would be able to solve the problem. Linden replied that by eliminating the curves , they would loose six lots and therefore the developer would suffer financially. Linden, however, noted that the petitioner would comply with the staff recommendations. Glass noted that the subject property abutted Section 23 and asked the petitioner where they proposed to install a connecting street from their development into Section 23. Hanlon answered by stating that the abutting properties would meet at Hudson Court. Hauser concluded the discussion by expressing the Plan Commission's concerns to meet with the Village Board to discuss a connecting street with Section 23 and the Schmidt Farm. Hauser also noted that the petitioner should revise the site plan according to the following criteria : 1 . Sidewalks; 2. Eliminate eyebrows ; 3. Make Park District adjustments; and 4. Cut down 80 feet of access roads. Shenandoah Subdivision Neil Hunter was present to represent the petitioner. The petitioner was presenting a final plat of subdivision pertaining to the 34 acre parcel that was previously annexed into the Village. The plat of subdivision was referred to as Shenandoah and it was in general conformity with the preliminary plat attached to the Lancer annexation agreement. Hauser began the discussion by asking the petitioner if he was willing to make minor changes to the detention area as requested by the Park District's Engineering Staff. Hunter stated that the Lancer Corporation would make any changes that would be required in the detention and park areas as required by the Park District's Engineering Staff. Hunter noted that the land surveyer had made a minor mistake in several of the footages indicated on the final plat of subdivision. He Plan Commission Minutes - 5 - June 7, 1978 Shenandoah Subdivision (continued) requested the Plan Commission's permission to revise the minor mistakes after the Plan Commission recommended approval of the plat. At that point, Hamilton moved to recommend approval of the Shenandoah Subdivision contingent upon the petitioner's corrections of the minor mistakes. Petri seconded the motion. Voting AYE: Hauser, Hamilton, and Petri ; ABSTAINING: Glass. Eager's Subdivision Hauser noted that the Building and Engineering Departments had reviewed and approved the Eager's Subdivision. Hamilton made a motion to recommend the plat for approval . Glass seconded the motion. All present voted AYE. Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 228 Hauser stated that the Building and Engineering Departments had reviewed and approved Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 228. Hamilton made a motion to recommend the plat for approval . Petri seconded the motion. All present voted AYE. Elk Grove Industrial Park Unit 18 Hauser noted that the Building and Engineering Departments had reviewed and approved Elk Grove Industrial Park Unit 18. Glass made a motion to recommend the plat for approval . Petri seconded the motion. Hauser, Glass , and Petri voted AYE to the motion with Hamilton ABSTAINING. Docket 77-14: 7-Eleven Food Store SW corner of Nerge & Meacham Roads Hamilton moved to deny 7-Eleven Food Store's request to rezone property located on southwest corner of Nerge and Meacham Roads from R-3, Residential District to B-2, General Business District. Petri seconded the motion. All present voted AYE. Frisby Resubdivision Hauser noted that the Building and Engineering Departments had reviewed and approved the Frisby Resubdivision. Hamilton made a motion to recommend the plat for approval . Petri seconded the motion. All present voted AYE. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Submitted by, Charles L. Durham CLD:ms Administrative Intern (6/21/78)