Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 04/05/1978 - BOLGER REZONING AND ANNEX Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission April 5, 1978 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Shannon at 8:20 p.m. on April 5, 1978 in the Multi- Purpose Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: William Shannon, Chairman Richard M. Finn, Leah Cummins, Secretary (8:45 p.m.) Administrative Assistant John Glass Thomas Hamilton Edward Hauser James Petri Docket 78-1 : Bolger Rezoning and Annexation Terrence Bolger, Realtor, and Charles Byrum, Attorney, were present to represent the petitioner. _The petitioner was requesting that the Village annex approximately 1 .2.- acres of property located at the southeast corner of Rohlwing Road and Biesterfield Road. The annexation of the subject property would be made contingent on the property being rezoned to B-2, General Business District for the establishment of a Convenience Shopping Center. The Village's Official Map indicates the property to be zoned R-3, Residential District. Shannon began the discussion by noting that the petitioner had submitted a revised site plan and that the operating departments had reviewed the revised plans and had submitted their usual staff reports and recommendations . Shannon continued by stating that in his opinion there were three issues that the Commission had to address before making a decision on the petition for rezoning. First, was the proposed B-2 district the highest and best use of the property; second, would the request for a variation from the 75 foot setback adversely affect the future development of the abutting property; and third, could the petitioner provide proper access into the rear of the development in order to satisfy the Fire Department's requirements . Shannon concluded by noting that he had certain reservations about whether the proposed zoning would be the highest and best use of the subject property. Byrum responded to Shannon's statement by noting that the revised site plan attempted to answer several of the Plan Commissioners earlier concerns . He stated that the revised plan indicated the following changes: first, the original structure had been reduced from 11 ,000 square feet to 9,900 square feet; second, the new plan provided adequate rear access for emergency vehicles; third, the number of parking spaces had been reduced from 78 to 60; and fourth, the new plan provided a detailed landscaping plan which the petitioner would be committed to install . Byrum continued by stating that the petitioner would still require a variation from the 75 foot setback requirement and he might also need a variation from the parking requirements. Byrum further noted that the subject property was zoned for commercial use in the County; however, it was the petitioner's desire • Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - April 5, 1978 Docket 78-1 : Bolger Rezoning and Annexation (continued) to annex into the Village for the obvious benefits of water and sewer service, and fire and police protection. Byrum concluded by stating that the petitioner had attempted to satisfy the concer.ns outlined by the-Plan Commis.s.ion.during a prior-meeting. Shannon stated that the Commission did appreciate the petitioner's willingness to comply with their requests and that it was very apparent that the petitioner had demonstrated a good attitude of working with the Plan Commission. Shannon noted that a major concern that he had was the petitioner's request for a variation from the 75 foot setback requirements on the east and south sides of the subject property. More specifically, Shannon stated that the responsibility of land planning was what had the Commission concerned over the request to rezone the property. Byrum responded to Shannon's statement by stating that the subject property had certain limitations because of its actual size. Glass noted that precisely because of the size limitation of the property, it could imply that the proposed commercial use was not the best use of the subject property. At this point, Shannon stated that in his opinion the Commission could rule out residential and industrial uses for the subject property. He noted that the important question was whether the best use of the property was Commercial or Office-Transitional . Bolger responded by stating that he had hired the Research Realty Company in 1976 to determine the best use of the subject property. Bolger noted that Research Realty stated that because of the location of Alexian Brothers office structure, there would only be limited potential for developing an office complex on the subject property. Bolger continued by stating that the report issued by Research Realty indicated that the subject property would be best developed as commercial when Biesterfield Road was extended. Hamilton inquired if the petitioner could develop the property as central office for the Bolger Realtor operation. Bolger stated that he did not believe that he would be able to rent the office space that would be available. Bolger concluded by noting that if the property was only 20,000 square feet, he could successfully develop a small office building. However, he argued that because of the size of the property, he could not economically develop an office complex. Hamilton continued by asking Bolger if he ever considered developing the property with an office complex and if he had, did he ever have plans drawn up for an office building. Bolger stated that he had considered developing the property with an office complex. However, because of the economic infeasibility of such a project, he never had plans developed for that type of development. Hauser inquired if Bolger felt that there was a definite need for a Convenience type operation at the proposed location. Bolger stated that he was certain that there was a need for the proposed development. Hauser noted Bolger's statement but he stated that in his opinion there didn' t appear to be the definite need that the petitioner insisted did exist. Glass noted that according to the revised site plan, it appeared that the proposed landscaping was located within the right-of-way for Rohlwing Road. He inquired what would happen to the landscaping if Rohlwing Road was ever widened. Bolger stated that if Rohlwing Road Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - April 5, 1978 Docket 78-1 : Bolger Rezoning and Annexation (continued) was ever widened, it would cut�into the landscaping; however, he noted that there would still be approximately 15 feet of landscaping left if the road was widened. Glass continued by noting that the revised site plan indicated berms in a 16 foot wide area. He noted that in his opinion, it would not be practical to place berms in such a small area. Bolger agreed with Glass's contention and he suggested that he put the sidewalk two feet within the lot line and run a two foot wide hedge between the lot line and the right-of-way on Rohlwing Road. Hauser reiterated that he was not convinced that the proposed Convenience Shopping Center was the best use of the property. He also stated that he did not agree to allowing a variation from the 75 foot setback requirements . Hauser concluded by noting that he had doubts over whether the proposed use would be viable because of the existence of several nearby convenience shopping centers . Byrum noted Hauser's concern and he stated that Bolger was going to build and manage the proposed development and he was quite certain of a successful operation. At that point, Hamilton moved to recommend to the Village Board the approval of the rezoning request. Cummins seconded the motion. Hauser stated that if the Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning, in effect the Commission would be recommending that the petitioner be granted a variation to the 75 foot setback requirement and a variation to the parking requirement. Hamilton argued that the petitioner could comply with the 75 foot setback requirements on the east and south sides of the property by simply moving the proposed structure to the north so that it abutted the corner of Biesterfield and Rohlwing Roads . However, Hamilton noted that such a plan would be ridiculous and it would be very poor planning. Shannon stated that he shared the concern over the variation from the 75 foot setback; however, he believes the actual affect was not as severe because there were no people living on the east or south sides of the property. At that point, Shannon called for a vote. Those voting 'AYE ' are as follows: Shannon, Cummins , Glass, Hamilton, and Petri . Voting 'NAY' : Hauser. Centex Section 23: Final Plat Joseph Luciani , Dick Corlett, Robert Folley and Paul Hendersen were present to represent the petitioner, Centex. Luciani began the discussion by stating that Centex had decided to divide Section 23 into two parts . He noted that the portion referred to as Section 23A was located east of Biesterfield Road and east of Potomac Street. Shannon began the questioning by asking if Section 23A would affect access into the Schmidt Farm. Luciani stated that Section 23A would not affect the establishment of an access into the Schmidt Farm if it were decided that one was needed. Luciani noted that the proposed final plat for Section 23A was exactly the same as the preliminary plat that was approved by the Plan Commission several months earlier. He continued by stating that the reason that Centex decided to divide the development into two sections was because the property was located in two different sanitary sewer Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - April 5, 1978 Centex Section 23: Final Plat (continued) sheds . Luciani contended that dividing the development into two sections would be more workable to the Village and to Centex. Luciani continued by noting that he had met with the Elk Grove Park District and School District 54 in an attempt to determine the actual location of the proposed school building to be located in Section 23. Hauser stated that before recommending approval of the final plat, he would like to be assured by Centex that the Park District would be willing to resolve any engineering problems that might exist in the proposed park area and the detention site. Shannon agreed with Hauser's concern and he stated that he would like to keep a door open in case the Park District had any problems with the engineering of the property that they would eventually take over. Luciani responded by stating that he would be willing to meet with the Park District and discuss and resolve any possible engineering problems . At that point, Hamilton made a motion to recommend approval of Section 23A final plat contingent on the Village's receipt of a letter from the Elk Grove Park District indicating approval of the engineering plans for the park area and the storm water detention areas . Hauser seconded the motion. All present voted 'AYE' . The meeting adjourned at 11 :30 P.M. Sub ted by, Richard M. Finn �J Administrative Assistant RMF:ms (4-14-78) c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Building Commissioner , Village Engineer, Planning Consultant, Director of Parks and Recreation, Calkins, Centex.