Loading...
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.