The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLAN COMMISSION - 07/20/1988 - 751 LIVELY BLVD SPECIAL LOCATION PLAN PERMIT MINUTES ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION July 20, 1988 Members Present: John Glass, Chairman, Plan Commission Leah Cummins, Fred Geinosky, Clark Fulton, Dave Paliganoff, Members Absent: Phil Knudsen Staff Present: Thomas Rettenbacher, Bldg. Commissioner Dawn Underhill , Administrative Intern Others Present: 1 Newsreporter Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m. 751 LIVELY BLVD Others Present: Walter R. Minch, Petitioner The petitioner is requesting a "Special Location Plan" permit to construct a parking area adjacent to his property at 751 Lively Blvd. The parking area would be on Natural Gas Pipeline of America's property. Natural Gas Pipeline of America is aware of the petitioner's plans. Chairman Glass started the discussion by asking the petitioner why he needed more parking. The petitioner responded that more parking was needed due to his tenant expanding his business. Of the five departments that reviewed the "Special Location Plan" only two departments , Building and Engineering, had concerns with the plan. COMMENTS FROM ENGINEERING The design engineer must determine the exact location of the JAWA main and must indicate it on the plan. "Special Location Plan - Not to be used for construction" must be placed on the plan as its title in large, bold letters. The Village Engineer needs a letter from Natural Gas Pipeline of America stating that the latest Special Location Plan is acceptable to them. -2- • PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The location of the JAWA main would be on the next updated plan submitted. The title has already been corrected on the plan. The petitioner explained that Natural Gas Pipeline of America has reviewed the plans, however, they are waiting for the final drawing to write their letter of approval . (The Village Engineer will not issue permits until he has received the letter. ) COMMENTS FROM BUILDING Is there going to be a provision along the North property line to contain vehicles on the property or will they be allowed on the next lot? What will happen to the existing concrete driveway and apron for the original loading space? Cars and vehicles will be encouraged to park in the 25 foot setback in violation of the ordinance. New driveway to parking area is 2 feet wider than the apron leading to it. The apron and driveway should match at the property line. PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The petitioner did not see a problem with the vehicles parking on the property next door; since there had not been problems in the past. However, the width of the neighboring driveway and the design of the proposed parking lot raised some concern among the commissioners that drivers would use one driveway for ingress and the other driveway for egress. Tom Rettenbacher suggested a barrier such as wheel stops. The petitioner's concern with the wheel stops was that they would be a hindrance for snowplowing in the winter. Chairman Glass still felt that there should be some kind of a barrier due to past problems with industrial park parking problems. George Mullen suggested that they could raise the curb and use that as a barrier. The petitioner stated a raised curb would be difficult since pavement already existed. The Plan Commission felt the best option was wheel stops. Pertaining to the removal of the loading dock, the commission felt that replacing the loading dock area with new sod would deter people from parking there, and therefore, avoid violation of the Village ordinance. The petitioner also agreed to extend the apron by 2 feet to match the new driveway. A motion was made by George Mullen for approval of the Special Location Plan with staff review. The motion was seconded by Fred Geinosky, and the commission voted unanimously (Knudsen absent) for approval . -3- HAMILTON MANOR APARTMENTS Others Present: Kernel Parikh, Developer William Cogley, Attorney for the Developer Glenn Christianson, Landscape Architect and Planner Thomas Beck, Architect The developer's attorney, William Cogley, submitted 6 copies of the revised site plan for Hamilton Manor Apartments to be reviewed by staff. Mr. Cogley presented the improvements the developer had made to the site plan, based on recommendations made by the commission at the May 18, 1988 public hearing. IMPROVEMENTS TO PLAN 1) The setback for the easterly boundary along Route 53 was increased: FROM TO 58 feet (Southerly Bldg) 98 feet (+40) 65 feet (Northerly Bldg) 169 feet (+104) 2) The developer had increased the number of bathrooms to two bathrooms per a 2 bedroom unit. 3) The developer had included a tennis court with screening for a recreational area. 4) The Plan Commission received packets containing the financial information requested by them on May 18. The packets included: - Income and expense statement - Market survey of Rental Occupancy in the area. Mr. Cogley wanted to point out that an error had been made on May 18 in reference to the break-even point for the Hamilton Manor Apartments Development. It had been stated to be 60% rental occupancy, however, it is now calculated to 85% rental occupancy. The estimated construction cost for the development is $10,000,000. Referring to the market survey of rental occupancy in the area, Mr. Cogley stated that the average occupancy rate is 95%. He expressed that due to the developer's experience, the developer feels confident in maintaining at least a 95-97% occupancy rate. Mr. Cogley also wanted to inform the Commission that on July 11, 1988, the developer went in front of the ZBA to ask for variations. • -4- • The variations were for no elevators in a three story building, and 1% variation in open space. Both variations were granted by the ZBA. The developer explained that due to the design of the buildings, he would need to install a total of 16 elevators, 4 per a building, with a total item cost to be $1,000,000. The developer continued to state that with an item cost of $1,000,000, it would prove to be a hardship for the development. The developer had met with the Fire Department to discuss alternatives to elevators. The developers suggested that they would widen their landings and corridors for easier access. The commission was concerned about a three story building with no elevators, and the accessibility for elderly and handicapped tenants. The developer stated that there would be specially designed first floor units for the elderly and the handicapped. Dave Paliganoff inquired if the buildings would be equipped with sprinklers. The developer confirmed that there would be sprinklers. More discussion took place dealing with the elevator issue. However, it was pointed out that the topic was moot, since the ZBA already granted the variations. The developers went over several features with the Plan Commission that made their apartments deluxe. They were as follows: - a separate dining area - two bathrooms - dishwasher - microwave oven - garbage disposal The developers added that along with the 4 apartment buildings, there would be a two story building, which would be used as a rental office and as a recreational facility. In the back of the building there would be a play area for children. Leah Cummins was concerned with headlights shining into the windows of tenants on the first floor. The developer stated that a continual hedge would be placed around the buildings for privacy. Dave Paliganoff asked what kind of tenants did they expect to attract, and the salary range of the tenants. Kernel Parikh said the tenants would be white collar workers that hold middle management positions with a household income of $60,000. Tom Rettenbacher pointed out to the commission that the 2 swimming pools were not located in Kernel Parikh 's development, and that there was no interconnection with Phase I and Phase II . Kernel Parikh stated they were in the process of making a reciprocal agreement with the owners of the other two phases for use of the swimming pools. Dave Paliganoff suggested that a Letter of Understanding be presented to the Plan Commission. Chairman Glass, with Leah Cummins concurring, believed that the developers needed to look into specific recreational facilities for children and toddlers. A listing of equipment for the recreational facility should be submitted to the commission. Although Chairman Glass would not be able to attend the next Plan Commission meeting on August 3, he suggested if all material was in on Hamilton Manor Apartments, and it was satisfactory to continue the discussion and possibly take a vote at 7:30 before the public hearing scheduled at 8:00 p.m. GENERAL Chairman Glass wanted the Plan Commission to be aware of the correspondence he has received from Olga Seda and Leah Cummins pertaining to the handling of the Devon Avenue Corridor proceedings. A motion was made for adjournment by Fred Geinosky, and was seconded by Leah Cummins. The motion passed unanimously (Knudsen absent) , and the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ��rClh2. -CJ Dawn Underhill , Administrative Intern rh C: Chairman & Members, Plan Commission, Chairman, ZBA, Village President, Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Building Commissioner, Village Engineer, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Village Attorney, Park District, NWMC, INDAB