HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 05/28/1986 - HAMILTON LAKES VLG Minutes
• ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 1986
Location: Council Chamber
Municipal Building
901 Wellington Avenue
The meeting was called to order at 8:11 p.m. by Chairman Glass.
Members Present: Members Absent:
John Glass, Chairman Clark Fulton
Leah Cummins, Secretary
Fred Geinosky
Dave Paliganoff
Orrin Stangeland
Staff Present:
Alan Soffice, Village Engineer
Charles Henrici , Fire Chief
Earle Kracht, Building Inspector Supervisor
John Coakley, Administrative Intern
Others:
Chris Carley, President, Crow-Chasewood
• Bruce White, Vice President, Crow-Chasewood
Arnold Seeburg, Advanced Consulting Engineers
David Grossberg, Attorney representing Crow-Chasewood
David Miller, Metro Transportation Group
Pat McKillen, Trammell Crow, Office Division
Elber Maiden, Rolf Campbell & Associates, Inc.
Greg French, Restaurant Consultant, Trammell Crow
Christopher Isles, Planner, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
Eugene Stunard, Appraiser
Approximately 80 people in the audience
Docket 86-4: Hamilton Lakes Villa
7.9 acres, north side of Devon Avenue, east of I-290)
Bruce White addressed some of the Plan Commission questions
from the previous meeting and the Staff comments made since that
meeting. He stated that many of the open issues had been resolved
with the Village Staff.
Chairman Glass inquired about the ownership of the street
at the south end of Itasca Meadows. David Grossberg said that
the Crow-Chasewood property line comes to the center of the road.
Grossberg also stated that he had not been able to determine
whether or not the street was a public road. He stated that it
was up to the Village Board to determine whether or not the road
would be maintained.
David Miller addressed a previous question regarding the
method used for traffic analysis. He stated that trip generation
rates are calculated through the use of nationally and regionally
=2=
• accepted methods. The peak traffic generation is not equal
to the number of parking spaces because everyone would not be
leaving at once.
Greg French stated that the Hamilton Lakes Village
restaurants would be geared toward the Hamilton Lakes Office
lunch time crowd. While he could not give a specific
restaurant,French said that it would be a national chain
restaurant, preferably a "white table cloth" type of restaurant.
Orrin Stangeland raised a concern about water restrictions
and possible water shortages. Alan Boffice explained that the
Village Board was responsible for establishing water restrictions
and that no fire threat existed to the proposed development due
to a shortage of water.
Mr. Stangeland inquired about a possible area-wide office
glut. Pat Mc Killen responded that the Hamilton Lakes Office
Park had an 85% occupancy rate. The Hamilton Lakes Village
office buildings were close enough to Hamilton Lakes to be
connected with it.
Stangeland asked if the development would be built in phases.
He said he was concerned about a "scorched earth" appearance.
Chris Carley responded that the project would be built in phases
• but that Crow-Chasewood would go to great lengths to maintain
the grounds while developing. Carley added that Hamilton Lakes
Village would be the nicest multi-family development in the
surrounding area, if not the whole Chicago area.
Stangeland asked if it was reasonable to charge $800 rents
for three-story walkups. He asked the developer to provide three
examples of similar conditions and rent levels so that he could
be satisfied that there is a demand in the community for apartments
in this rental range. Bruce White responded that, based upon his
experience as a market consultant, Crow-Chasewood would have no
problem renting the 3-story walkups at the $800 rent level .
Stangeland questioned the reasons behind the variation request
for no elevators in the 3-story buildings. He was concerned that
the handicapped would be excluded. Carley responded that there were
elevators in the mid-rise building which would provide housing for
the handicapped. The exclusion of elevators from the 3-story
building was due to economic factors.
Stangeland asked if there was an advantage to Crow-Chasewood
if Beisner Road went through. David Miller stated that some of
the traffic from Hamilton Lakes Village would use Beisner. He
further noted that Beisner Road and Wellington Avenue would be
collector streets and better able to handle traffic than the
• side residential streets.
-3-
• Stangeland expressed concerns regarding the methods
used to figure the traffic analysis and net fiscal impact
analysis. David Miller reiterated that the traffic analysis
had been done in accordance with nationally accepted standards.
Elber Maiden explained that the net fiscal impact of the
development had been done according to professional and
accepted methods and standards.
(9:25 p.m. , 10 minute recess)
George Mullen inquired about excess traffic and the
Beisner Road and Wellington Avenue extensions. He also raised
concerns regarding the property values of residences surround-
ing the development. He asked if this development would be
the highest and best use of the property and inquired about
the requested variation from the 30-ft. building envelope
requirement.
David Miller explained that the extension of Beisner Road
was necessary but that the Wellington Avenue extension was a
policy decision that would be up to the Village Board. Miller
stated that the existing roads along with the Beisner Road
improvements and extension would be sufficient to handle the
increase in traffic that would be generated by the development.
• Eugene Stunard stated that, based on numerous studies of
the effects of similar multi-family projects, before and after
their development, there would be no adverse effects upon the
values of property surrounding Hamilton Lakes Village. He
noted that while some people might not want to live near apart-
ments, most people would not care.
Chris Carley stated that Hamilton Lakes Village would be
the highest and best use of the property. The proposed multi-
family, office and business zoning would best fit in with the
zoning surrounding the property. The office buildings and
restaurants would be tied into their location along I-290 and
across from Hamilton Lakes. The multi-family apartments would
meet a long term need in the Village.
Bruce White explained that the variation from the 30-foot
building envelope would allow Crow-Chasewood to build smaller
buildings. Compliance with the 30-foot envelope would result
in larger buildings with a greater density. White stated that
Crow-Chasewood was complying with the building separation
requirement.
David Paliganoff requested that the developer show what
the tax advantage for Elk Grove residents would be if the zoning
• changes were granted. He also inquired what the difference in
traffic would be if the property were developed for multi-family
-4-
rather than for single family residences. David Miller responded
that the multi-family residences would generate greater traffic
than single family residences.
Paliganoff asked what Crow-Chasewood would do if their
rezoning request was denied. Carley responded that a portion
of the property was already zoned for multi-family dwellings
in the County. Carley pointed out, however, that while they
owned the property outright and could develop without annexation,
the proposed development was preferable to Crow-Chasewood.
Leah Cummins expressed her concern that the developer not
develop in the County. She pointed out the disadvantages of
not having Village emergency services, water and sewer available.
She requested that the developer list all of the variations from
the Village codes that they have requested.
David Grossberg stated the requested variations are as
follows:
1 ) Open space reduction from 50% to 38%.
2) Reduction in the 30-foot envelope around a building
to 10 feet.
• 3) To allow six-story buildings to exceed the 60-foot
maximum for a maximum height of 75 feet.
4) That elevators be excluded from the three-story
buildings.
5) A building height variation to permit a building
six stories and ninety-feet in height rather than
the 0-T zoning which permits 3 stories and 35 feet
in height.
6) A parking variation for office use requirements to
allow one parking space for every 285 square feet
rather than the required 1 space for every 200
square feet.
John Glass read a letter from a resident regarding potential
problems that may be created by Hamilton Lakes Village. The issues
raised in the letter were traffic, noise, parties, the safety of
children and problems associated with multi- family residences.
Chairman Glass then asked the petitioner what the most
logical emergency service route to Hamilton Lakes Village would be.
Dave Miller responded that the Beisner Road extension would be the
best route. Miller stated that Wellington Avenue would not be as
good a route due to the on-street parking and the schocd located
• there.
Glass inquired how the development would be affected if
Wellington Avenue and Beisner Road did not go through. Miller
-5-
stated that to alleviate traffic problems, Beisner Road needs to
go through. He said that the extension of Wellington Avenue is
an issue for the Village Board to decide. Carley stated that
the development is still possible without extending Beisner
Road but that the Beisner Road extension is better from a
health and safety standpoint.
Following further discussion, Chairman Glass announced
that the public hearing would be continued to June 11 . The
meeting was adjourned at 10:58 p.m.
Respectively submitted,
ReWOHOAAK Y
Administrative Intern
mw
c: Chairman 8 Members of Plan Commission, 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.