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.