Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 04/30/1974 - DEVON & 53 Minutes ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING April 30, 1974 A special meeting of the Elk Grove Village Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Richard McGrenera at 8: 15 P.M. , Tuesday, April 30, 1974 in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard McGrenera Edward Hauser Leah Cummins Mead Killion Marcus Grice Alvin Krasnow Thomas Hamilton VILLAGE STAFF PRESENT: Robert Franz, Administrative Assistant Chairman McGrenera opened by indicating that this was an informal meeting scheduled to discuss the future development of property commonly referred to as Devon-53• Developers and associates present at the meeting were: Rolf Campbell , Planning & Zoning Consultant Robert DiLeonardi , Attorney Joseph Zizzo, Landowner Joseph Arvidson, Landowner Dominic Buttitta, Landowner Joseph Buttitta, Landowner Jack Buttitta, Landowner Ted Szywala, Landowner (Parkway Development Co.) Jean Dalsky, Parkway Development Co. Anthony Bonavolonta, Schaffer-Bonavolonta Architects , Inc. Leo Lenaghan, Schaffer-Bonavolonta Architects, Inc. Floyd Schlassburg, Alden Bennett Construction Co. Mr. DiLeonardi stated that, although the developers still feel the original proposal was a good plan, they were interested in meeting to determine if a more acceptable plan might be agreed upon by all concerned. He admitted that the developers hope to gain Village approval of an alteration of the original proposal with a density higher than the 5 to 7 dwelling units per acre suggested by the Commission in their report (dated September 21 , 1973) to the Village Board recommending denial of the project. He further stated that this meeting would give direction to the developers to determine if there exists a basis to continue discussions with the Village or, as an alternative, go elsewhere. Mr. Campbell added that there are advantages to developing this 267 acres as a planned unit development; but if the developers and the Village could not get together, the individual landowner would like the Plan Commission to establish some ground rules for the development of each parcel independently. Mr. DiLeonardi interrupted here to state that the developers would like the April 9, 1974 letter from Rolf Campbell , requesting that the original petition be officially withdrawn, be held in abeyance pending this and possibly future meetings . Mr. McGrenera suggested that this might more appropriately be requested of the Village Board. Mr. DiLeonardi stated that with the passage of time the developers loose their enthusiasm for expending considerable money for public improvements , specifically the water reservoir. Furthermore, the developers are reluctant to go through the entire process of preparing and submitting plans for public hearing purposes without direction from some source on what is or is not acceptable with respect to the development of this land. Upon being asked what specifically the Plan Commission would like to see happen with this property, Commissioner Cummins responded that the September 21 , 1973 Plan Commission report was by no means capricious , and that subsequent meetings of the Commission following the submission of that report reaffirmed their opinion that it was a good report. Mr. DiLeonardi reiterated that the Commission proposal of 5-7 units to the acre was not acceptable to the developers. At this point Mr. Arvidson remarked that perhaps the Plan Commission in their review of the original proposal had become involved in areas in which they did not belong. He cautioned that some matters should have been left to the engineers and staff. Commissioner Cummins disagreed stating that the Commission had hired professional people who provided this expertise to the Commission. Paul Fuchs, Chairman of the Citizens of Elk Grove opposed to Devon-53, then requested to be recognized from the audience. He stated: that the original proposal called for a density of 28 units per acre; in October 1973, through a revised development proposal for the Buttitta property, the density was reduced to 17 units per acre; in December 1973 at a Village Board meeting the Village President reported that he had received a telephone call from Mr. DiLeonardi who stated the developers were prepared to meet with the Plan Commission and talk of a development with a density in the range of 10 units per acre. Mr. Fuchs questioned the Commission as to why at this time there is discussion of a higher density when that issue was apparently resolved earlier. Mr. DiLeonardi interjected that he had no recall of such a conversation with the Village President. Mr. Zizzo advised that he has been "sitting on his property for 13 years" and, in a very short time, intends to develop. He is considering installing his own sanitary sewer system and well , and feels Parkway Development Company may join him in this venture. His appearance at this meeting was to see what the Plan Commission wants on a parcel by parcel basis . Chairman McGrenera responded that speaking as an individual member, he wanted the 267 acres developed within Elk Grove Village but is unable to give specific density for each parcel Plan Commission 2 - 4/30/74 r without a plan to examine. He did indicate that a buffer or transition zone is needed between the existing corporate limits and the developers ' property should multi-family zoning be granted. Mr. Szywala commented that he was not sure of what conclusion was reached on the density issue by the Commission in its September 21 , 1973 report. Commissioner Killion responded that the Commission's review of the professional literature (primarily the Urban Land Institute) on this subject revealed among residents of planned unit developments a close relationship between density and satisfaction. Furthermore, an average density of 6.9 units per acre was found to be most desirable by the experts in the field. Mr. DiLeonardi queried as to whether such a study was made relative to the Village on the Lake planned unit development and was the Commission aware of any dissatisfaction from those residents . Chairman McGrenera replied that he was unaware of any dissatisfaction, but that to his knowledge no survey was ever undertaken. Mr. Zizzo interjected that the Commission was concentrating solely on planning whereas "the Village" must look at both planning and economics . He stated that, although he had zoning for 29 units per acre from Cook County, he would not build at that density because he would not have a development of which he could be proud. However, he felt that if a lower density is required then the building and related requirements of the Village should likewise be relaxed. Mr. DiLeonardi inquired as to how and why the Village arrived at a zoning classification of 15 to 20 units per acre in its recently adopted zoning ordinance. He further stated that the developers were no longer advocating 28 units per acre but were requesting something in between 28 and 7 units per acre. At this point Commissioner Killion, emphasizing he was speaking only for himself, related a proposal he felt might be considered by both the Village and developers . The proposal provided for the following zoning classifications : Parcel A (Arvidson) - 30 acres - R-4 Parcel B (Zizzo) - 27 acres - R-4 East of Bisner/A-1 West of Bisner Parcel C (Cohen) - 50.7 acres - A-1 lower half/R-4 upper half Parcel D (Buttitta) - 80 acres - not included Parcel E (Cohen) - 80 acres - R-4 According to Commissioner Killion this would result in lower density but at the same time would provide "instant zoning" to the petitioners . However, due to the reduced density, the developer would/ should not be required to contribute all funds normally required of developers who annex to the Village. Commissioner Hamilton asserted that two major mistakes were made by the developers in their original proposal : (1) They began with a density figure and made the porperty accomodate it, and (2) They did not test soils until after the buildings were spotted. Other Commission members commented that too much emphasis was being placed on density, and that it alone cannot and should not decide a good plan. In response to a question on the maximum building height which would be acceptable, Plan Commission 3 - 4/30/74 • Commission members responded that it was difficult to say without knowing where the particular buildings are to be located. Mr. DiLeonardi described that he felt the major problem was that the Village wanted a planned unit development with density spread throughout. However, due to the separate and distinct ownership of the parcels involved, such an arrangement is not acceptable to the developers in that one may prosper from a concentration of density while another suffers from a lack of same. To avoid this in the original proposal , the density was spread throughout the project. Commissioner Hamilton commented that it appears the developers want the benefits of PUD without PUD planning, and that the ideal situation would be common ownership of the subject property. To which Mr. DiLeonardi responded that, if certain concessions would be made by individual owners, the common ownership idea may have merit. Discussion then centered on what type of development the subject land could support, with Commissioner Hamilton remarking that physical barriers preclude some development of land. Mr. Arvidson advised that at one time he had Village approval to construct 100 homes on his property and only decided against development because the Village had requested his efforts to get all four property owners to come to the Village with a unified plan. Now he feels he is being told that, due to soil conditions, he cannot build on his land. Commissioner Hamilton replied that he was unaware of the background or reasoning for earlier approval but that street and sidewalk construction should likewise be seriously examined when proposed in bad soil areas . Commissioner Killion recommended that, due to its being surrounded by single family dwellings , Parcel E (foot of Biesterfield Road) should be zoned R-4 and the developer advised of the Village's decision to extend Biesterfield through that property. Chairman McGrenera briefly commented on the recent meetings of the Village with respect to an interchange at Biesterfield and 1-90. In light of that briefing and the need to extend Biesterfield Road westward, it was felt that perhaps single family zoning would not be appropriate at that particular location. Mr. Zizzo requested that the Plan Commission and the Village Board meet and decide on acceptable zoning for each parcel and agree on what points they wish the Commission to further negotiate in a second meeting with the developers . He further stated that if he leaves this meeting with direction from the Commission that new plans be prepared and a public hearing scheduled, he would be forced to withdraw his property from the unified proposal . Commissioner Cummins replied that this, in fact, reverses the normal procedures for Plan Commission consideration of proposed developments , and that it is incumbent on the developer to submit proposals for Plan Commission review and not be granted zoning before doing so. Commissioner Killion interjected that he felt common ownership was unlikely and, therefore, perhaps the Commission should recognize that they may have to deal separately with each owner. Chairman McGrenera added that, although this may be true, Plan Commission - 4 - 4/30/74 he was doubtful that the Village Board would indicate which zoning classification is acceptable for each parcel . Commissioner Cummins, in response to comments made earlier in the meeting by Mr. DiLeonardi , stated that the Zoning Ordinance adopted in December 1972 was obsolete when passed due to the extended length of time in making revisions . She further took exception to Mr. DiLeonardi 's comments that, due to the location of this property on the extremities of the Village, increased use of the land was possible. Commissioner Cummins stated that the Village should not settle for anything less for the extremeties than it would for the heart of the community, not only because the future inhabitants will be citizens of Elk Grove but also because such a practice makes for bad relationships with neighboring communities . Mr. DiLeonardi replied that he only meant to indicate that, if 15 units to the acre was permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, then perhaps the extremities of the Village were a logical place for it. Commissioner Cummins questioned whether it was possible for the developers to take the September 21 , 1973 Plan Commission report and, along with comments made at this meeting, prepare a conceptual plan for review by the Commission . This was supported by Commissioner Grice who stated that he does not intend to do the planning for the developer, but instead must have some proposal to review and critique. Mr. Arvidson remarked that the developers have been "bounced around" quite a bit even after receiving step by step direction from the Village as to how to proceed. He further stated that at the present time there was a good group of developers , but that this might change if some became frustrated and sell . Mr. DiLeonardi interjected that such action might result in a new owner or even present owner going to the County with a proposal . This comment brought a negative reaction from both Plan Commission members and the fifteen to twenty people in the audience. It was pointed out by the Commission that the "threat" of developing in Cook County was no longer there in that the County had developed a different attitude towards such developments . There insued discussion relative to the amount of public land to be dedicated to the Village for park use. Although it was felt that such a development should provide its own private recreation, the developers agreed that their proposal should comply with Village standards on land dedication as well . Chairman McGrenera requested the developers to consider feelings expressed at this meeting by the Plan Commission and, upon submitting a conceptual plan for development of the 267 acres , a second meeting would be scheduled. It was further stated that the Commission would be willing to hold special meetings if necessary to expedite this matter. Mr. DiLeonardi thanked the Commission for its time and advised that the developers would be in contact. Plan Commission 5 - 4/30/74 The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 P.M. Submitted by: Robert D. Franz 61 Administrative Assistant (May 2, 1974) Approved by Plan Commission on Date RDF:ms c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, President & Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Building Commissioner, Director of Public Works/Engineering, Chief of Police, Fire Chief, Director of Finance, and Director of Parks and Recreation. Plan Commission 6 - 4/30/74