Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 02/07/1979 - SCHMIDT FARMS FINAL PLAT t � i Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission February 7, 1979 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Acting Chairman Hauser at 7:35 P.M. on Wednesday, February 7, 1979 in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Edward Hauser, Acting Chairman Richard M. Finn, John Glass Administrative Assistant James Petri Charles L. Durham, Orrin Stangeland Administrative Intern MEMBERS ABSENT: Leah Cummins George Mullen Proposed Revisions to the Schmidt Farm Final Plat Joseph Hanlon, Attorney, was present to represent the Stape Development Company. Hanlon was present to respond to the request received by the Village from the Cook County Department of Highways to investigate the feasibility of revising the Schmidt Farm final plat to create a better street pattern and connection between Section 22 and the Schmidt Farm. The revision would result in the realignment of Cardinal Lane so it would connect directly with Arkansas Drive in Section 22 South. Hanlon began the discussion by noting that the Staff report submitted by the Acting Village Engineer indicated that the request made by the County for the Cardinal Lane realignment was only a suggestion. Glass acknowledged Hanlon's statement by noting that the location specified by the County was one with a traffic flow problem. He added that he was not certain that creating a four-way at the location would solve the problem any better than a "T" intersection. Stangeland acknowledged Glass 's statement by stating that in his opinion discussion of the traffic flow question could only be addressed academically. He continued by stating that he favored the final plat as approved. However, he noted that his main concern was with the safe crossing of children at the subject intersection. Hanlon acknowledged Stangeland's concern. He continued by noting that there would be a pedestrian crossing problem no matter which type of intersection was installed. Hanlon then stated that a crossing guard would have to be assigned at the point where traffic stopped to help aleviate the danger to children. At that point, Stangeland moved to recommend approval of the final plat as presented by Stape Builders , Inc. Petri seconded the motion. All present voted "Aye". Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - February 7, 1979 Bolger Landscaping and Screening Plan Terrence Bolger, Realtor, and Harold Anderson, Landscaper, were present to represent the petitioner. The petitioner was present to discuss the landscaping and screening plan for the 1 .2 acre parcel that was recently annexed into the Village. The petitioner was required by the annexation agreement to submit and receive approval of a landscaping and screening plan for the 1 .2 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Biesterfield and Rohlwing Roads . Bolger began the discussion by noting that while the Plan Commission tended to suggest evergreens as a screening plant for the site, his landscaper strongly recommended honeysuckles. He stated that Mr. Anderson had attended the meeting to answer questions concerning the honeysuckle recommendation. Anderson continued the discussion by noting that many Shopping Centers used honeysuckles for screening. Hauser acknowledged Anderson's statement but noted that Plan Commission members had stated the following concerns with the use of the honeysuckle as a screen: 1 . The subject parcel would probably lie abutting a residential area in the future and honeysuckles may not be compatible with that area; 2. Honeysuckles tended to collect garbage; 3. An immediate screening would be needed and honeysuckles would take time to grow; 4. Honeysuckles would not provide adequate screening during winter months ; and 5. Evergreens would be more cost-effective as a screen. Anderson noted the concerns by stating that an evergreen screen would have definite drawbacks . He continued by noting that evergreens tended not to be as fully grown as honeysuckles and some would die relatively early. Anderson also stated that an additional problem with evergreens was that they tended to be windburned during the winter months . Anderson continued the discussion by stating that a new strain of honeysuckle was now available which had branches not as thick as those presently used. He also noted that the honeysuckles would be able to collect paper before it was allowed to enter onto abutting areas. Bolger agreed with Anderson's statement and added that the honeysuckle would provide a better screen because of its additional height. Hauser acknowledged Anderson and Bolger' s statements but noted that because the development had been granted a variation to the setback requirements , screening had increased in importance. Glass agreed with Hauser and noted that since the abutting property would probably be zoned residential , a plant that would provide a screen all year round would be desirable. Anderson responded by stating that honeysuckle screening would maintain enough of a barrier to provide a screening even during winter months . Hauser acknowledged Anderson's statement by asking if it would be possible to get an actual view of how the landscaping and screening plan might look with the use of the honeysuckles and trees. Anderson indicated that he might be able to present such a visual aid to the Plan Commission if desired. Next, Glass stated that in his opinion the subject site required a screen with a sufficient setback from the adjoining intersection. Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - February 7, 1979 Bolger Landscaping and Screening Plan (continued) Anderson noted Glass ' statement and suggested that a plan could be prepared to meet the requirements . At that point, Hauser suggested that the petitioner proceed with preparing a proposed landscaping and screening plan for the Plan Commission's consideration. Docket 78-10: Proposed Revision to the Planned Development located at the Village on the Lake Jeffrey Rochman, Maurice Wallack, Robert Gorski , Richard Burton, Michael Levin, Paul Jensen, Marvin Richman, Richard Hitchcock, and Robert Soloman were present representing United Development Company. The petitioners were requesting an amendment to the preliminary land use and zoning plat, and special use permit in order to revise a site plan for the construction of 144 manor homes in lieu of three five- story buildings with 282 proposed units . The 11 .6 acre parcel is located at the northeast corner of Biesterfield Road and Leicester Road. Rochman began the discussion by stating that in response to directions given by the Plan Commission at the public hearing, the petitioners had prepared a revised site plan. He also noted that the petitioners were also prepared to answer objections raised against use of the 11 .2 acre parcel for the proposed manor homes development. Burton continued the discussion by presenting the revised site plan. He noted the following revisions had been made to the plan: - Streets were increased from 24 ' to 28' . - Guest parking spaces increased from 22 to 72 spaces . - Walkways extended throughout the proposed development with some connecting. - Setbacks from primary road increased beyond 15' to 20' to 25' in most cases . - Setbacks from Village on the Lake tennis courts and other recreational facilities increased up to a minimum of 25' and up to 30' in some instances. - Increased building setbacks and space between buildings from 25' to 401 . - Front setbacks decreased to 20' due to pavement increases but still adequate space provided for one car in each driveway. - Landscaping basically unrevised. Petri acknowledged the revisions by stating that the provision of the additional parking spaces was good. However, he noted that the revised site plan had taken away from the site's green space and did not provide enough open space. Petri added that in his opinion it was still the same plan and therefore unacceptable. Stangeland agreed with Petri by noting that the proposed development was extremely cramped. He stated that children would have to dodge cars while moving about and guests would still have problems parking. Burton acknowledged Petri and Stangeland's statements by noting that such on-street parking problems were common in most single family areas. He added that the Fire Department had reviewed the site plan and had no objections to the on-street parking provisions. (0 S Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - February 7, 1979 Docket 78-10 (continued) Stangeland continued the discussion by noting that large cars parked in driveways would be forced to extend very close to the curb due to the proposed setback. Burton responded by indicating that there would still be adequate space between the curb and the car with the area provided. Next, Petri noted that in his view the site plan did not illustrate any place to put snow. Burton acknowledged Petri 's statement but noted that this was a common problem in many developments . Petri responded that Burton's statement was correct but in the proposed development the problem would be more severe. Glass continued the discussion by noting that the site plan illustrated private streets . He added that that would not be accepted by the Village. Richman responded by stating that the petitioners would be willing to dedicate the streets to the Village. Glass next noted that the lack of usable open space in the proposed development might present a problem since market conditions might change in the future. Tracy Cross, Marketing Consultant, responded by stating that current market conditions dictated the type of plan pro- posed. He added that the current buyer profile reflected mostly young single and married persons who tended to be highly mobile and pursued recreational activities away from home. Glass acknowledged Cross ' statement but stated that a problem still would exist if the buyer profile were to change. The following are a list of objections made by representatives from the Village on the Lake Association: Density increase due to change to manor homes will cause the tax assessments for others to- rise. -- Mobility of manor home residents will result in the addition of an unstable population to the Village. Market for condominiums remain high. Revisions to site plan are minor and still unacceptable. Area remains congested and unsafe for children. -- Manor home residents will have no recreational facilities and will be forced to use those owned by Village on the Lake. Richman acknowledged the objections but stated the basic problem remained that condominiums would require 4 - 6 years to sell . He added that based on their experience the manor homes would be more saleable. Richman continued by noting that the proposed site plan met all Village requirements and standards . Wallack continued the discussion by stating that the petitioners were seeking approval of the site plan as proposed. However, he added that if the Plan Commission would offer additional directions , they would go back and make revisions. Hauser responded that there was no question concerning the site plan's success in meeting Village provisions , but there was over its compatibility as a use within the Village. At that point, Hauser stated that the Plan Commission would require additional time to review the information. He added that the petitioner's request would be considered further at a meeting as designated in the immediate future. (9 i Plan Commission Minutes - 5 - February 7, 1979 Docket 78-6: Winston Grove Section 24 Gerald Harper, Vice President in Charge of Operations, Centex, and Joseph Luciani , Director of Development, Centex, were present to represent the petitioner. The petitioner was requesting that approxi- mately 77.6 acres of property be rezoned from R-3, Residential District to A-2, Special Use, for purposes of constructing 204 townhouses . The subject property is located in Winston Grove Section 24. Harper began the discussion by briefly summarizing issues discussed and resolved relating to the proposed site plan in previous Plan Commission sessions . He noted that the final major issue remaining concerned the provision of the 50% common open space requirement for the A-2, Special Use zoning. Harper continued by noting that the Village Board had directed the petitioner to reserve land on the south side of Salt Creek for the common open space and dedicate the land on the north side to the Village for the flood plain. Glass continued the discussion by asking if the common open space had been determined as usable. Harper responded by stating that the common open space was as discussed in previous Plan Commission meetings and would be sectioned into usable open space area and then graded and seeded. Glass next asked if it would be possible to give public access from the west side of the development without infringing on private property. Harper noted that a problem existed because an easement could not be legally created at the location because people in the development would be paying for it while it went for public use. Harper continued by noting that a solution might be accomplished with the Village Board by permitting the easement for public use as a legal variation. Next, Hauser asked if the plat before the Plan Commission was being presented for approval as a preliminary concept and design. Luciani indicated that the petitioner was seeking preliminary approval of the site plat. Hauser then asked if the line for the common open space had been defined at that time. Harper noted that the open space would be made workable for the Association although the natural area around the creek would be preserved. At that point, Finn noted that upon recommendation of approval of the final plat by the Plan Commission it would not be returned. He also noted that the Village Staff had reviewed the plat and had no problems with it. The concensus of the Plan Commission members was to direct Staff to draft a finding of fact for its review. Centex Industrial Unit 238 Hauser noted that the Engineering and Building Departments had approved Centex Industrial Unit 238. Glass made a motion to recommend approval of the plat. Stangeland seconded the motion. All present voted "Aye". The meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m. Plan Commission Minutes - 6 - February 7, 1979 Submitted by: e Charles L. Durham Administrative Intern CLD:ms (2/19/79) c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President and Board of Trustees , Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Building Commissioner, Village Engineer, Director of Parks and Recreation, Centex, NWMC.