Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 03/22/1978 - BOLGER REZONING DOCKET 78-1 Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission March 22, 1978 - The special meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Shannon at 8:20 p.m. on Wednesday, March 28, 1978 in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: William Shannon, Chairman Leah Cummins John Glass STAFF PRESENT: Thomas Hamilton Richard M. Finn - - - Edward Hauser James Petri - - Docket 78-1 : Bolger Rezoning Terrence Bolger, Realtor, was present to represent the petitioner. The petitioner was requesting that the Village annex approximately one- half an acre of property located at the southeast corner of Rohlwing Road and Biesterfield Road. The annexation of the subject property .------ would roperty -----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 issue before the Plan Commission was rezoning and that the Village Board would have to decide if the petitioner would be granted the two variations that were requested. Shannon continued by noting that the two variations that were being requested were: first, a variation with respect to the distance between the proposed structure and the easterly and southerly lot lines , and, secondly, a*variation with respect to the construction of the parking spaces , a distance of eight feet to the north of the northerly line of the proposed structure. Shannon stated that the proposed landscaping along Biesterfield and Rohlwing Roads would be removed if the two roads were ever widened. Hamilton requested that the Village Engineer review the right-of-way requirements for Rohlwing and Biesterfield Roads and report back to the Commission. Shannon suggested that the subject property appeared to be an ideal location for a commercial use; however, he noted that there was a significant problem with the proposed 15 feet wide rear driveways because the Fire Department would not have the required access to the rear of the structure. Shannon also stated that the subject property abutted residential property and if the abutting property was developed residential , the people living in the residential area would be extremely close to the proposed Convenience Shopping Center. Hamilton agreed with Shannon and he stated that the proposed commercial use would adversely affect the residential properties located to the east and south of the subject property. Shannon next asked if the petitioner could rearrange the structure if the Village only required 60 parking spaces instead of the normal Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - March- -22`x;. 1978 requirement of 78. Bolger stated that if the Village only required 60 parking spaces , he could move the proposed structure a total of 2$ feet to the north and the Fire Department's concern over the narrow access to the rear would no longer be valid. Hamilton asked if the petitioner was aware of any potential conflict between his proposed development and the proposed 1-90 Interchange at Biesterfield. Bolger stated that he had seen the proposed 1-90 Interchange at Biesterfield Road and the Interchange was located to the north of 1-90 and there did not appear to be any conflict. Hauser noted that even with a reduction in the number of parking spaces, the petitioner would still require a variation from the 75 foot setback requirement. Hauser continued by asking the petitioner how viable the proposed Convenience Center would be as an economic interest considering the existence of several other nearby Convenience Centers . Bolger stated that he felt that the subject property was an ideal location for a Convenience Shopping Center and he believed that he would be able to fill the structure with tenants with little or no trouble. Shannon asked how many tenants the petitioner planned to have housed in the structure. Bolger stated that besides himself 'there _would be four or five tenants . Shannon continued by stating that the proposed location of the trash facilities would have to be moved to a more suitable location. Glass concurred with Shannon's statement; however, he noted that in his opinion_ there was not enough property to place a structure the size that was being proposed by the petitioner. At this point, Hamilton suggested that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the rezoning with reservations over the two variations requested by the petitioner. Hamilton further suggested that the petitioner be required to provide at least a 30 foot setback from the south of the property line and at least a 20 foot setback from the east property line. Hamilton noted that within the setbacks the petitioner would be required to include 5 feet for screening. Hauser stated that he could not be certain that a 30 and 20 foot setback would be adequate if the abutting property was developed residential . Hamilton noted Hauser's concern and he stated that if the property to the east and south were developed residential , the developer would have the ability to arrange the lots in an acceptable manner. Hamilton agreed that if a residential development already existed to the east and south of the subject property, the Commission would have to insist on the 75 foot setback. However, since the abutting property is not developed, it may be that some people actually prefer to live next to a Convenience Shopping Center. Glass noted that he was concerned about the location of the proposed loading space. He noted that with the loading space in the rear of the structure, an unloading truck could block the access from emergency equipment. At this point, Shannon concluded the meeting and he noted that the Commission would discuss the Bolger rezoning request at the April 5, 1978 Plan Commission meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10: 15 p.m. Sub ted by: �LLI�Gur�C Richard M. Finn RMF:ms Administrative Assistant (4/4/78)