Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 11/21/1974 - DOCKET 74-11 TEXT AMENDMENT MINUTES ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION November 21 , 1974 The Public Hearing on Docket 74-11 was called to order by Chairman McGrenera at 8: 15 P.M. on Thursday, November 21 , 1974 in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alvin Krasnow Richard McGrenera William Wesley Joseph Cimino Edward Hauser Mark Grice MEMBERS ABSENT: Leah Cummins Thomas Hamilton Trustees Present: Edward Kenna Nanci Vanderweel Staff Present: Thomas Rettenbacher, Building Commissioner Gary Parrin, Administrative Intern Docket 74-11 The Plan Commission, acting as a Zoning Commission, held a public hearing on the petition of the Village of Elk Grove, represented by Trustee Kenna, for a proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment is to add to Section 5.23a, paragraph E to allow fences on double frontage lots where one yard fronts a major arterial street. Additionally, it was suggested that Section 3.85 should be amended to refer to and be consistant with Section 5.23-E. At 8:32 P.M. the public hearing was adjourned. Chairman McGrenera stated that the Commission will consider the petition. With the court reporter present, Trustee Kenna relayed to the Commissioners the outcome of a meeting with Gerald DeBruyne. The Village Board approached DeBruyne to purchase sufficient land for road easement. DeBruyne offered the right-of-way and is seeking annexation of his 20 acre tract with zoning for apartment and commercial activity. Trustee Kenna wanted to let the Plan Commission know what transpired , since they will conduct the public hearing December 2 on this matter. At 9:00 P.M. the Plan Commission reconvened in the Staff Con- ference Room. 0 i Higgins Industrial Park Unit No. 160 Chairman McGrenera presented the Commissioners with the Village Engineer's memo regarding compensatory storage. Grice moved to approve Unit No. 160. Krasnow seconded the motion. The following voted AYE : Grice, Cimino, Krasnow; NAY: Hauser; ABSTAIN: Wesley. The Chairman declared the Unit approved. Higgins Industrial Park Unit No. 166 Krasnow moved approval of Unit No. 166. Cimino seconded the motion. All present voted AYE. Higgins Industrial Park Unit No. 165 Wesley moved approval of Unit No. 165. Hauser seconded the motion. All present voted AYE. Higgins Industrial Park Unit No. 164 Krasnow moved approval of Unit No. 164. Hauser seconded the motion. All present voted AYE. Higgins Industrial Park Unit No. 163 Grice moved approval of Unit 163• Krasnow seconded the motion. All present voted AYE. Higgins Industrial Park Unit No. 162 Since Unit No. 162 is in the flood plain, Cimino thought the type of structure to be constructed should be known: this would aid in determining if it fulfills the Flood Plain Ordinance. Grice moved for approval . Krasnow seconded the motion. The following voted AYE: Grice, Krasnow; NAY: Hauser; ABSTAIN: Cimino, Wesley. The Chairman declared the Unit approved. Higgins Industrial Park Unit No. 161 Cimino moved for approval of Unit No. 161 . Wesley seconded the motion. All present voted AYE. Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 192 No action was taken due to Unit No. 193 being attached to Unit No. 192's approval form. - 2 - Plan Commission 11/21/74 • Elk Grove Industrial Park Unit No. 11 Hank Teague, Trammell-Crow representative, was asked by Wesley about fulfilling retention requirements . Teague replied that all retention calculations were approved by the Village Engineer. Krasnow moved for approval of Unit No. 11 . Grice seconded the motion. All present voted AYE. Frisbie Subdivision A revised plat of subdivision was presented to the Commissioners containing corrections pursuant to the comments of the operating departments . Krasnow moved to approve Frisbie Subdivision. Cimino seconded the motion. All present voted AYE. Mark Street The Village Engineer approved the plat of dedication contingent upon approval of the plat of vacation. Grice moved to approve the plat of vacation. Cimino seconded the motion. All present voted AYE. Wesley moved to approve the plat of dedication of the offset cul-de-sac. Krasnow seconded the motion. In the discussion that followed, Wesley asked Teague when the total acquisition of the property beyond the offset cul-de-sac would be accomplished. Teague replied that Trammell-Crow is currently negotiating for the property. Wesley then asked what guarantee does the Village have that the cul-de-sac will be built. Grice said that the plat of dedication gives the Village the guarantee. Chairman McGrenera stated that the plat of vacation is approved, but only if the Board of Trustees approve the plat of dedication. He reiterated that if the plat of dedication is not approved by the Village Board, then the approval of the plat of vacation is void. All members present voted to approve the plat of dedication. John L. Mgrkgy Resubdivision The proposal for resubdivision must be in conformance with Village ordinances . When that has been done, the resubdivision should be presented to the Village Engineer for approval before the Commission will act on the petition. Bonavolonta Chuck Byrum, Attorney for the petitioners , presented the Commissioners with a revised site plan showing the recommendations of the Commission and the Consultant. The changes to the site plan are attached to the minutes . In addition, SBL is dropping its request for a temporary sewage retention tank. The annexation agreement can contain a provision, 3 - Plan Commission 11/21/74 0 Bonavolonta (continued) with a time limit, which would leave a lot vacant to allow Nerge Road to curve smoothly onto Devon Avenue, should Nerge Road be Devon Avenue extended. Cimino asked the Building Commissioner what is the accepted width of a fire lane. He replied 12 feet. Byrum stated that the petitioner will comply. Hauser raised the question of donated land around the retention pond. He has reservations as to it being accepted by the Park District. Byrum asked Hauser if the Park District would rather have a cash donation. Hauser replied that he will present both alternatives, a land donation or a cash donation, to the Park District Board. Chairman McGrenera said that all subsequent plans of the petitioner should show the fire lane lineation and connections . Cimino asked Byrum if there is a percentage of trees that the Village can expect to be planted on the site. Byrum responded that SBL has a landscape architect on their staff and every effort will be made to make the development aesthetically pleasing. McGrenera stated that a number of communities give amenities to the developer in exchange for attractive :landscaping. At some time the Commission may desire to pursue this further. Chairman McGrenera read letters written to the Commission, and portions of the Public Hearing transcript, to refresh the Commission on what Village residents think about the development and its impact on them. Wesley stated that no matter what number of buildings are constructed, only 30 bedrooms are allowed per acre. Also, the permitted uses in B-3 are diverse and gives the Village no control over what could be built. The B-3 zoning is improper for the area along Rohlwing Road and he fails to see what the Village will gain from the development. The traffic problem at this location is bad enough; why compound the problem with the cars the development will generate. McGrenera said he wanted to give the developer some direction. Wesley said that the Commission should look at the development behind the Itasca Industrial Park. SBL was the architect for that development. McGrenera wanted to know how the Commissioners would vote on the preliminary plat, which must follow Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. This would give the developer some idea of how the Commission feels about the site plan. Krasnow, speaking as a Commissioner and giving his own personal opinion, said that multi-family is all that could be built there. He would vote for approval . Hauser said he would abstain since he missed three meetings on the Bonavolonta proposal . Cimino said he would also abstain. McGrenera interjected at this point that Cimino told him before SBL presented their petition that he was an acquaintance of the petitioner, and thus should not partake in voting on the petition. Because of this , McGrenera asked Cimino to sit in during the discussions and offer his comments , but would not be asked to vote. Consequently, Chairman McGrenera changed Cimino's abstention to a "no comment". - 4 - Plan Commission 11/21/74 Bonavolonta (continued) Grice said that the 12 foot walkways (fire lanes) would detract from the aesthetics of the development. Before he would vote, he wants to know alternatives to the 12 foot walkways . Wesley said he does not approve of the development. Speaking for Tom Hamilton, McGrenera said that Hamilton is ready to approve, but he wants the one lot at the intersection of Devon Avenue and the Nerge Road extension to be left vacant. This would allow sufficient land to connect Nerge Road and Devon Avenue with a smooth curve. McGrenera said he is ready to approve the development . He told Byrum that the Commission will meet with SBL again after the December 2 public hearing. The meeting adjourned at 12:52 A.M. Submitted by: G E. Parrin Administrative Intern (December 2, 1974) GEP:ms c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President and Board of Trustees , Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Building Commissioner, Director of Public Works/Engineering, Chief of Police, Fire Chief, Director of Finance, Planning Consultant, and Director of Parks and Recreation. - 5 - Plan Commission 11/21/74 Mr. Richard b4cGrener.a, Chairman Elk Grove Village Plan Commission 901 Wellington Avenue Elk Grove Village, Illinois Re: Devon - 53 Development - SBL Associates Dear Mr. McGrenera: At two recent meetings between SBL Associates and the Plan Commission of Elk Grove Village held on October. 31 and November 7 , 1.974, several suggestions for revisions in the Site Development Plan which we have prepared for the development of approximately 98 acres at the Northwest corner of Rohlwing Road and Devon Avenue were discussed and considered in• detail. At these meetings, we had the benefit of comments from the various staff and departments from the Village, as well as Mr. Allan P. Trayser, of the Village Planning Consultant, Carl L. Gardner & Associates, Inc. Enclosed herewith you will find a Plan for the Project which has been further revised as of November 1.1, 1.974, and incorporates the various items upon which we felt we received positive direction from the Plan Commission at the meetings . Specifically, we wish to point out to you the following changes to the Plan which should be noted: 1. There is an elimination of one of the driveways leading from the main parking area in .Parcel. 1 to Nerge 'Road and its stead, there is the creation of a new private drive- way from the Northwesterly portion of the main parking area to the major private drive within the residential area. This new driveway lines up with an existing driveway to the East- of the private drive (recommendation of Plan Commission and of Pair. Trayser) . i 2 . The main private drive within the residential area ! has been enlarged at its point of intersection with Nerge i Road and a divider island has been placed in the middle of the drive (recommendation of Plan Commission) . 3 . Fire lanes have been placed in and around the residential area to provide accessibility for emergency vehicles to and from the apartment buildings ('recommendation of Plan Commission and Mr. Trayser) . 4 . One of the two private driveways leading from Nerge Road has been eliminated from Parcel 3 and a connecting drive- way has been created from the entrance way of the remaining i driveway to the parking area served by the eliminated driveway (recommendation of the Village) . i 5 . A turn-around area has been created at the end of the main private drive in the residential area. Further, the parking areas are -designed to provide for the turn-around of cars within the area (recommendation of Mr. Trays-er) . 6 . The scale of the parking spaces has been revised to reflect compliance with Village requirements of 200 square feet for each stall.. Further, the location of the parking spaces has been revised to provide for better parking ratios for parking areas located in the proximity of the buildings to be served (rec,ommendation of Mr. Trayser) . • 7 . Concern has been expressed that the "10 per cent land donation" previously proposed by the Petitioner was not located in an area best suited for the needs of the Village, in that it surrounded the retention pond located at the easterly edge of the Site. Petitioner proposes as an alterna- tive donation that. portion of the property located :in the Northwest corner of the Site Plan designated as "Softball Diamond" . This would serve a recreational need of the res-.- idents es-idents of units to be constructed within the Site, as well as Vi-ll_age residents across Rohlwing Road. There has been some slight building re-alignment to open the space. Individual members of the Plan Commission have expressed their .concern that some . sort of an indication be given by the . Petitioners as to the contemplated development of Parcels 4 and 6 for which Petitioners are seeking B-2 and B-3 ' zoning, .respectively. It has been explained by' the Petitioner on several occasions that due to the relatively long range development- schedule of these commercial areas and to the fact that the Petitioners are presently attempting to determine from current discussions with possible end commercial users of the two tracts the nature of current market preferences for eventual use and development of the tracts, it is impossible for the Petitioners to commit to a precise development- plan at this time. The Petitioners are aware, hoz::ever, that it is helpful for the Plan Commission in. planning :for the overall use of the entire tract being annexed to be apprised of the tentative- uses entativeuses contemplated. for each tract and the tentative subdivision of Lots for each tract. To accomplish this, Petitioners have, for demonstrative purposes only, designated outlines of subdivided lots and proposed uses for the Lots in each tract (itemized in B-3 and i generalized in the B-2 tract) . i i The Petitioners are asking for straight zoning for each of the subject tracts in question and j::ill, at a later date , once final uses have been determined and Plats of Subdivision have been ' prepared, submit .final plats to the Village for approval.. There is no guarantee that the final plats or the end uses will fall within the representations of the tentative uses and Lot locations I I i -3- contained in the Plan . Petitioners are agreeable, however, that the Annexation Agreement with the Village contain provisions specifically limiting- development of the B-3 area to the uses permitted within B-1 and B-2 districts and to the following per- mitted uses within B-3 districts: 1. Automobile service stations . 2 . Drive-in banks. 3 . Restaurants , including drive-in establishments serving food or beverage for consumption outside the structure. 4. Card stores and gift shops . S . Motels 6 . Indoor places of entertainment and amusements . 7 . Undertaking establishments . 8, Equipment sales, rental and services . 9 . Public utility stations . and, that any other Use of the area will require prior Village consent. We trust that the changes we have made on the Plan and explained in this letter, as well as the previous inEormati_on and exchanges we have passed on in prior meetings provide the Plan Commission with a sufficient factual basis to enable it to make a final decision on the Petitions for Annexation and Zoning here- tofore submitted to the Village. Dated this 14th day of November, 1974. SBL ASSOCIM •S i i