Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 12/16/2019 - 228 Devon Rezoning and Resubdivision 202-228 E. DevonElk Grove Village Plan Commission Minutes December 16, 2019 Present: J. Glass S. Carlson F. Geinosky K. Weiner J. Morrill P. Rettberg R. DeFrenza G. Schumm L. Bacigalupo Absent: None Staff: M. Jablonski, Assistant Village Manager/Director of Communication J. Polony, Deputy Director of Community Development R. Raphael, Senior Staff Engineer N. Radcliffe, Economic Development Specialist Petitioner: D. Houser, Seefried Properties (Item 2) J. Kohn, Colliers International (Item 2) R. Blocker, Jacob & Hefner Associates, Inc. (Item 2) Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Item 1: December 2, 2019 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Geinosky moved to approve the meeting minutes of December 2, 2019. Commissioner Morrill seconded the motion. Upon voting (Carlson, Geinosky, Weiner, Morrill, Rettberg, Schumm, DeFrenza, Bacigalupo, Glass) AYES, the motion carried unanimously. Item 2: PC Docket #19-13 Petition for Rezoning of 228 E Devon Ave. from B-3 to I-1 and Resubdivision of the properties at 202-228 E. Devon Ave. from six (6) lots to two (2) lots Chairman Glass read the legal notice into the record and asked the Petitioner to explain their purpose before the Plan Commission. M. Jablonski asked for the opportunity to provide some context around the development and the petition correctly before the Plan Commission. M. Jablonski stated the Plan Commission and 1 Village Board approved the rezoning of properties at 202-224 E. Devon to accommodate a proposed industrial redevelopment totally approximately $20 million. M. Jablonski stated the Petitioner had come back to the Plan Commission to incorporate the parcel at 228 E. Devon, which would be used for storm water and parking. M. Jablonski stated 228 Devon is currently zoned B- 3 because of a different development that wasn't able to move forward. M. Jablonski stated that at the Plan Commission meeting on December 2, when this hearing began, there was some discussion on the building setback from the property line. M. Jablonski stated building setback doesn't require a variation and was approved as part of the site plan in the original 5 parcel development. M. Jablonski stated that the area south of the subject properties is zoned industrial in Wood Dale, to the east are properties that are being used for commercial purposes, with non -conforming zoning; to the north are ComEd power lines, and north of that are single-family residential homes. M. Jablonski stated the Village does value the aesthetic qualities of our corridors and we did work with this Petitioner to get an upgraded fagade. M. Jablonski stated that when we look at the zoning and we consider the impact of this type of development, our primary concern has been the residential north of the ComEd power lines. M. Jablonski stated that when working with the developer on their site plan, that that was the main focus. M. Jablonski explained how the Village worked with the developer to make adjustments to the site plan, before it was submitted to the Plan Commission for review. She stated the traditional layout of this type of building have a 20 to 25 foot setback. The Petitioner first approached the Village with parking/loading in the back, which would face the residential properties to the north of the ComEd power lines. M. Jablonski stated that putting parking/loading in the front would mean that loading docks would be facing Devon, which would negatively impact the aesthetics of the corridor. M. Jablonski stated splitting the buildings into two with a central truck docking court was done to support the goals of the Village to provide a buffer to the residential properties north of the ComEd right-of-way, while maintaining a positive aesthetic along Devon Avenue. M. Jablonski stated building bump -outs were added to help screen the truck dock. There is a three foot high berm and a ten foot high masonry screen wall again to buffer those properties to the north of the ComEd right-of-way. M. Jablonski stated it is typical for industrial buildings to have 1 loading dock per 5,000 square feet, and the Village limited the Petitioner to 1 loading dock per 6,700 square feet to avoid users that focus entirely on trucking and limit the impact on the residential properties north of the ComEd row. M. Jablonski stated these properties were annexed back in 2017 and are currently operating as a legal non -conforming use with businesses operating on residentially zoned properties. M. Jablonski stated the Village cannot forcibly annex properties and then require an existing use to end immediately. M Jablonski stated that's why you see them zoned R-3, but they're not really being used as residential properties. N M. Jablonski stated that Village staff views the proposed building as a positive change to the Devon Avenue corridor by eliminating the existing blight and provide a high quality industrial exterior. M. Jablonski stated she understands the desire of the Plan Commission and the Village to make this development as aesthetically pleasing as possible, but in order to move it forward, there are certain financial viability standards that have to be met. M. Jablonski stated the Petitioner will go more in depth, but they have been going through the permitting process with the Cook County Department of Transportation and are being required to make improvements to Devon Avenue totaling $600,000 to $700,000. M. Jablonski stated if the Plan Commission chooses not to allow the incorporation of 228 Devon into this, it is possible that the development might not move forward. M. Jablonski stated she is not sure if they can move forward with just five parcels as there was a change to MWRD stormwater and flood plain regulations beginning August first, with additional changes coming January first. K. Weiner asked if the truck court being located in the center will become the new norm. M. Jablonski stated it would depend on the location of the development, and the proximity to residents. D. Houser stated they have looked into several options to meet the requests of the Plan Commission to move the building back from Devon Avenue. D. Houser stated the first option was to move the building back to the north using the same footprint. D. Houser stated there is a possible four feet of frontage if they work with their civil engineer on grades where they can move the buildings back and then there would be an additional 24 feet if they were to remove the drive lane. D. Houser stated this would not be ideal for the Village or Seefried as it would bring the building closer to residential. D. Houser stated reducing the clear height of the building would not be appealing to investors, which they found out in an investment memo they sent out. D. Houser stated the memo talks about competitive buildings and every one of them was at least 32 feet clear. D. Houser stated the industry is interested in 32 foot clear buildings. D. Houser stated reducing the clear height for just the offices was also considered. D. Houser stated shrinking the clear height in just the office bays is doable from a construction standpoint, however the square footage would be reduced by 5,000 square feet, which would not be appealing to the investors. D. Houser stated the fourth option was to reduce the overall building size by ten feet along the entire length of the building facing Devon. D. Houser stated this would come out to a reduction of rentable square footage of 5,500. D. Houser stated they had to add the sixth parcel because the five parcels would not be economically feasible as they had issues in the due diligence and geotechnical findings, so reducing the building size is not a good investment for them. D. Houser stated the overall reduction in square footage would not appeal to investors. D. Houser stated they also looked into relocating the eastern above ground detention to the front of the building. D. Houser stated this would not work due to an IDOT requirement prohibiting building a detention in the setback. D. Houser stated they looked into going back to the single building use with the rear loading docks. D. Houser stated that doing that increased the setback along Devon, but would be bad for the residents north of the ComEd row. D. Houser stated they also looked at a single building with loading docks on the east and west side of the building. D. Houser stated Cook County DOT did not want trucks to back up traffic near Ridge Road due to entering the east entrance to access one of the loading docks. D. Houser stated they looked into going back to the five parcel development. D. Houser stated during the due diligence they found out it would not be economically feasible to move forward with the original development plan. D. Houser stated the geotechnical report came back with a lot of bad news, the report stated the need for stone columns going 20 feet underground in order to give a solid foundation which will cost $220,000. D. Houser stated there are some areas that need to be chemically treated which costs $215,000. D. Houser stated they also found a high water table which means the east and west parking areas need to be done as permeable pavers which costs $220,000. D. Houser stated there is asbestos in a couple of buildings the abatement of which will cost $30,000. D. Houser stated they will have to widen Devon Avenue in order to create left hand turn lanes into all 3 entrances. D. Houser stated this will cost between $600,000 to $700,000, all money that was not accounted for. J. Kohn stated that after working with the Village, they took a variation of this site plan and received 10 offers from 25 developers. J. Kohn stated after finding more issues with the flood plain and soil conditions, an additional 5 developers backed out. J. Kohn stated they then learned about the MWRD changes, which left them with 2 developers, Seefried being one of them. J. Kohn stated Seefried has had success with attracting high profile tenants to Elk Grove Village and believes they will make it a first class building. P. Rettberg asked if there were any changes to the previous presented plan and if the Petitioner has any hard evidence that the development isn't economically feasible with an increased setback. D. Houser stated there were no changes. D. Houser stated the rentable square footage in this area range from $8 to $9 a square foot. They noted for example if they reduced the building by 5,500 square feet for an extra 10 feet of setback, the rent would come out to $47,000 in rent per year that they would have to come up with. D. Houser stated they would have to reduce their construction 4 cost to keep the rate of return at 6.2% for their investors. D. Houser noted a typical speculative building costs $40 a square foot, but this building would be around $60 a square foot due to the costs of extra glass, architectural design, and geotechnical work. D. Houser stated they would need to make up close to $450,000 if they were to reduce the footprint of the building by 5,500 square feet. P. Rettberg asked if the Petitioner is a contract purchaser. D. Houser stated they hold the contract with the construction companies. P. Rettberg asked who owns the properties if this development does not go through. D. Houser stated it would go back to the original 6 owners. P. Rettberg asked what the view looks like from the north side of the building. D. Houser stated you see the two buildings, a 10 foot sound wall and 3 foot berm. P. Rettberg asked if the geotechnical report is done before or after the acceptance of the contract. D. Houser stated you cannot do that report unless you have a contract. P. Rettberg asked if they knew the area was prone to flooding. D. Houser stated they knew, but carry a contingency in all developments they work on. D. Houser stated they carried a higher contingency for this development due to those issues. K. Weiner asked if the turn lane will be continuous or 3 separate turn lanes. R. Blocker stated the widening will be symmetrical and continuous starting from the bridge to Ridge Ave. R. Blocker noted it will help those leaving the development and improve safety. F. Geinosky asked if there will be mountable medians on Devon Ave. R. Blocker stated it will abide Cook County DOT standards and will be flat concrete. F. Geinosky asked if there will be an impact in traffic due to 24 truck docks. D. Houser stated the users of the proposed buildings understand they need to be efficient moving trucks in and out, and does not see an issue with hold- ups. F. Geinosky stated he would like to see as much landscaping as possible. F. Geinosky asked if they could move the building 4 feet back to the north. D. Houser stated they would have to add a retaining wall but they are trying to eliminate that. M. Jablosnki stated they could move the building back but this would move the development closer to the residential homes. Such a change would also trigger a zoning variation, which would require a new public hearing. Chairman Glass stated he is pleased that the Petitioner tried to find alternatives, although they could not find a solution. Bill and Lynda Joern, the residents located at 202 E. Devon Ave., stated they have lived in Elk Grove Village for 30 years. L. Joern stated they had owned a business and closed it down due to this development. L. Joern stated they had renters on the property and had auctioned off all of their equipment and the renters left. L. Joern noted they have been waiting for this development to move forward since July. RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Schumm moved to recommend approval for the following: • Petition to rezone the property at 228 E. Devon Ave. from B-3 to I-l. • Petition to Resubdivide the properties at 202-228 E. Devon Ave. from six (6) lots to two (2) lots. With the following conditions: • Cross -access easements and easements for shared private utilities must be approved by Village Staff. • Retaining walls within easements shall be eliminated or reduced, subject to the approval of Village Staff. Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. Upon voting (Carlson, Geinosky, Glass, Morrill, Weiner, Rettberg, DeFrenza, Schumm AYES, Bacigalupo OPPOSED) the motion carries 8 to 1. Item 3: Adjournment Commissioner Morrill moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Rettberg seconded the motion. Upon voting (Carlson, Geinosky, Weiner, Morrill, Rettberg, Schumm, DeFrenza, Bacigalupo, Glass, AYES) the motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, '�&144!�_ Nick Radcliffe Economic Development Specialist C: Chairman and Members of the Plan Commission, Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk 6