Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 02/08/1978 - SCHMIDT FARM SITE PLAN M i nu tes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission February 8, 1978 The special meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Shannon at 8: 15 P.M. on Wednesday, February 8, 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 Administrative Assistant John Glass Thomas Hamilton Edward Hauser James Petri William Wesley (8:34 P.M.) Schmidt Farm: Preliminary Site Plan Joseph Ash, Attorney, Tim Selke, and Joseph Hanlon were present to represent the Stape Development Company in their request to annex 120 acres into the Village. The property is located north of Nerge Road and east of Plum Grove Road. Shannon began the discussion by stating that he had received a letter from Mr. Hanlon in response to several questions raised by the Plan Commission during the meeting held on December 6, 1977. Shannon noted that the letter made two points: First, that the Schmidt farm was located within the Schaumburg Park District; and secondly, that Kingsport Village East (Village of Schaumburg) had a 50 foot right-of-way for all interior streets . Shannon also noted that Mr. Hanlon had sent a letter to School District 54 advising them of the proposed Schmidt Farm development. Shannon continued by stating that he received a letter from Tod Trayser, the Village Planning Consultant, concerning the two variations requested by the petitioner. Shannon noted that Trayser's recommendation included two points: First, that the Village maintain the 60 foot right- of-way requirement for all interior streets; and secondly, that the Village retain its position of separating retention area requirements from park land requirements. Ash responded by stating that he had reviewed Trayser's report and he noted that Trayser's observations were quite accurate. However, Ash argued that the petitioner's intent was to create more buildable lots so that the project could be economically feasible. Ash insisted that the cost of the land and the public improvements made it impossible to develop the property with single family homes unless the two variations were permitted. Ash continued by noting that if the petitioner's request for the two variations was not acceptable, he would ask the Commission to consider a mixture of single family and multi-family units . Next, Ash stated that historically the Schaumburg Park District accepted all dry detention areas and he did not believe that there would be any problem having the Schaumburg Park District accept the 12 acres Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - February 8, 1978 Schmidt Farm (continued) of dry detention proposed for the subject property. Hauser noted Ash's statement; however, he argued that the dry detention area was not the real problem. Rather, Hauser suggested that the problem in his opinion was whether the Village Board would allow the petitioner to make a cash donation in lieu of the 109 land donation. Hauser continued by stating that he was opposed to waiving the 10% land donation requirement because the proposed development would create a large usage of the park area and facilities located in Section 23. Hauser noted that since the subject property was located in the Schaumburg Park District, a situation would develop where people paying Schaumburg Park District taxes would be utilizing Elk Grove Park District facilities. Hauser concluded that he believed it was -extremely important to provide usable park area within the subject development. Ash noted Hauser's statement and he stated that the Schaumburg Park District was currently developing a 20 acre park site located across Plum Grove Road and northeast of the subject property. Ash argued that the 20 acre Schaumburg park site would be readily available for the residents of the 120 acre Schmidt Farm development. Ash continued by reiterating that the petitioner was attempting to maximize density so that it would be economically feasible to build detached single family houses. Ash noted that if the petitioner was unable to develop the property with single family houses , he would be willing to develop a mixture of single family and multi-family units . At this point, Ash displayed a preliminary site plan representing a mixture of single family and multi-family units. The preliminary site plan indicated a total of 384 townhouses and 268 detached single family units . Ash noted that the plan represented a density of approximately 9 townhouses per acre and it did provide for the required 60 foot right- of-way. Next, Ash stated that if the Plan Commission felt that the preliminary site plan representing the concept of the mixture of single family and multi-family units was acceptable, the petitioner would develop the plans and come back to the Plan Commission at a later date. However, Ash noted that the petitioner would still want to pay cash in lieu of the 10% land donation requirement. Hauser asked if the petitioner intended on dedicating a 50 foot right-of-way on Plum Grove Road. Ash stated that since Plum Grove Road was designated as a 100 foot right-of-way, the petitioner would provide the necessary 50 foot right-of-way for his side of the Road. Ash concluded by asking the Plan Commission for direction concerning the development of the subject property. Shannon stated that it was his opinion that the 50 foot right- of-way was unacceptable and he noted that he agreed with Trayser's report. Shannon also stated that the petitioner's proposal for substi- tuting money in lieu of park area was unacceptable because it would force people to travel to different developments in order to utilize usable park area. Ash suggested that the people living in the proposed development would be able to utilize over 10 acres of dry detention area. Shannon continued by stating that it appeared that the proposed development was landlocked from Section 23. Wesley noted Shannon's concern and he asked what the petitioner planned on doing with the existing buildings. Mr. Selke responded by stating that ultimately all the existing structures would be removed. Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - February 8, 1978 Schmidt Farm (continued) Glass stated that he was concerned over the proposed absence of park facilities. He noted that there was presently no access from the proposed development and the park area located in Section 23. Therefore, Glass argued that the residents of the proposed development would be forced to use the 20 acre park facility located across Plum Grove Road which would be highly undesirable because of the danger involved in crossing Plum Grove Road (especially for the children) . Hamilton continued the discussion by stating that he failed to understand why the petitioner was not able to operate under the same rules and regulations that all other large developers operate under. Hamilton argued that the petitioner was requesting two variations which in his opinion the Commission should not even consider. Hamilton continued by stating that because the proposed development was within the Schaumburg Park District, there was no other possible decision except that a park area must be provided. Hamilton agreed that a cash donation was out of the question and that a park area had to be provided. At this point, Hamilton asked Hauser how much park area would be required for the proposed development. Hauser stated that the development would require at least 7 or 8 acres of usable park area. Shannon noted Hauser's response and he stated that because of the Park District dilemma, it might be better for the petitioner to seek annexation with the Village of Schaumburg. Ash stated that the developer decided to petition for annexation into Elk Grove Village because they felt that Plum Grove Road was a natural boundary between Elk Grove and Schaumburg. Next, Wesley stated that he agreed with Hamilton's position; however, he noted that he would like to see the proposed development come into the Village as long as the subject property was annexed into the Elk Grove Park District at the same time. Ash responded by stating that the petitioner would assist in having the property disannexed from the Schaumburg Park District and annexed into the Elk Grove Park District. Hauser noted that the action to disannex would have to be started by the landowner. Ash responded to Hauser's comment by stating that he did not believe that the action to•disannex lay- sol.e-ly with the landowner. Cummins suggested that since there would be no schools located within the proposed development, it would be extremely important to provide a usable park area for the residents. Glass noted Cummins ' statement and he stated that it appeared that the school children from the proposed development would be quite far from the schools located in Section 23 and because there was currently no planned access into Section 23 there would be no way for the children to get to the schools. At this point Ash requested that the Plan Commission state their feelings about the proposed mixture of single family and multi- family units . The consensus of the Commission was that they had no objections to a mixture of single family and multi-family units provided that the petitioner' s plans were acceptable to the Commission. The Commissioners did note that the plans should include the 60 foot right-of-way for interior streets and an acceptable park area. Wesley stated that he would like to see the petitioner have the subject property disannexed from the Schaumburg Park District and annexed into the Elk Grove Park District. Ash stated that if the petitioner could work out an acceptable annexation agreement with Elk Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - February 8, 1978 Schmidt Farm (continued) Grove Village, the petitioner would do everything in his power to have the property disannexed from the Schaumburg Park District and annexed into the Elk Grove Park District. Shannon concluded the discussion by stating that it might be advisable to gain access into Section 23 from the proposed development by way of Allegany Lane or Hudson Court. Esjoda Subdivision Unit No. 3 Shannon noted that the Building and Engineering Departments had reviewed and approved the plat. Cummins made a motion to recommend approval of the plat. Hamilton seconded the motion. All present voted 'AYE' . Kenneth's Resubdivision Shannon stated that the Building Department and the Engineering Department had reviewed and approved the plat. Cummins made a motion to recommend approval of the plat. Glass seconded the motion. All present voted 'AYE' . Commissioner Hamilton departed from the meeting at 10: 10 P.M. Section 23: Preliminary Site Plan Shannon began the discussion by stating that Centex was requesting that the Plan Commission review three minor changes to the preliminary plat for Section 23. Shannon noted that the requested changes were, as follows : First, elimination of Trenton Circle, Block 15, without the reduction of lot count; secondly, elimination of Wilmington Circle, Block 11 , without the reduction of lot count; and thirdly, relocation of Julia Drive 148 feet north of the approved location. The consensus of the Plan Commission was to approve the first two changes as requested. However, the Commission noted that by moving Julia Drive to the north, the street would present a problem for the homeowner who lived directly across from Julia Drive. Shannon stated that the homeowner would be unfairly burdened with car headlights during the evening hours . The Commission suggested that Centex resolve the problem by relocating the lot which lies to the south of Julia Drive and moving the street south. During the discussion Shannon stated that he would like to determine the necessary leave-outs in Section 23 so that there would be a connection with the proposed Schmidt Farm development. The consensus of the Plan Commission was to approve the minor changes as noted above; however, Centex would be required to provide the necessary leave-out:(s) for access with the proposed Schmidt Farm if it were annexed into the Village. Shannon also requested the Police and Fire Departments provide the Plan Commission with their recommendations concerning how many leave-outs should be provided in Section 23 and where would the leave- outs be optimally located. Plan Commission Minutes - 5 - February 8, 1978 The meeting adjourned at 11 :00 P.M. RSub * - ed by: Richard M. Finn Administrative Assistant RMF:ms (2-13-78) c: Chairman S 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.