Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 10/04/1978 - WESLEY J YOUNGS DOCKET 78-8 Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission October 4, 1978 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Acting Chairman Hauser at 8:20 p.m. on Wednesday, October 4, 1978 in the Multi-Purpose Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBER ABSENT: Edward Hauser, Acting Chairman James Petri Leah Cummins , Secretary John Glass STAFF PRESENT: George Mullen Charles L. Durham, Orrin Stangeland Administrative Intern Docket 78-8: Wesley J. Youngs - B-1 , General Business District to B-3, Automatic Oriented Business District Wesley J. Youngs and Daniel Sinclair, Attorney, were present to represent the petitioner. The petitioner was requesting that the property located on the northwest corner of Bond Street and Higgins Road be rezoned from B-1 , Business District to B-3, Automatic Oriented Business District to allow an Auto Parts Store. Hauser began the questioning by asking if the petitioner planned to tow in vehicles into the Auto Parts Store or would he bring in the parts requiring repairs . Youngs replied that his intentions were to only have the parts brought in for servicing. Hauser acknowledged Youngs ' statement and noted that if this were the case, the petitioner could operate under B-1 zoning according to the Building Commissioner. He continued by stating that B-3 would be needed at the Auto Parts Store only if automobiles were brought in for servicing. Sinclair acknowledged Hauser's statement by indicating that the petitioner would be willing to stay with the B-1 zoning if the use being requested were permitted. Hauser suggested that the petitioner submit a letter to the Plan Commission stating the petitioner's intentions to withdraw his petition for rezoning. Next, Mullen asked if the petitioner had any plans to include any other uses in his development that might require B-3 zoning. Sinclair replied that a deli might be included but he added that if any uses outside of B-1 zoning were desired, the petitioner would return. At this point, Hauser suggested the petitioner contact the Building Commissioner for the specifications of B-1 zoning. He added that the petitioner's request for B-3 zoning would be removed from the Plan Commission Agenda with the receipt of a letter from the petitioner stating his intentions. Stape Subdivision The Stape Building Company, purchase contractor of the 120 acre Schmidt Farm, was seeking approval of the final plat of subdivision. The subject property is located north of Nerge Road, east of Plum Grove Road and south of Section 23. Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - October 4, 1978 Stape Subdivision (continued) Joseph Hanlon, Attorney, was present to represent the petitioner. Hanlon began the discussion by noting that the Plan Commission had approved the Schmidt Farm Preliminary Site Plan. He added that the petitioner had now finalized the plat and was seeking the Plan Commission's approval . Hanlon continued the discussion by noting that the petitioner had been forced to realign several lots to provide a direct access into Section 23. He noted that the changes in the final plat did not result in a reduction of the 10% land donation while at the same time allowing the petitioner to retain the 408 total lots . Hanlon concluded by stating that the revised plan meets all Staff requirements although the detention area was now confined to a smaller area. Hauser acknowledged Hanlon's statement by noting that one of the primary concerns of the Plan Commission had been the squaring off of certain lots to eliminate dead areas in the park section. He added that the revised plan allowed for the same unacceptable effect with certain parts of the park area being "boxed in". He noted that the result would be that some homeowners would come to think of the park area immediately behind their homes as their private property. Hanlon responded by again noting that the changes were necessary if the development was to have a street properly aligned with Centex' Section 23 street. He continued by noting that the new design resulted in no other changes from the preliminary site plan and that the revision would allow the developer to save more trees in the area. Hanlon indicated that the petitioner had not been able to retain all of the lots while adding the street. Next Hauser asked why this condition had not been resolved in the previous site plans . Hanlon replied that the type of engineering expense needed to provide exact plans for the development made it undesirable for the petitioner to provide the quality of information on the preliminary plan. Next, Glass noted that the revised plat resulted in more than a minor change because even though the park area remained the same, the new configuration of the site made it very unattractive. He reiterated Hauser's point that the Plan Commission had approved the preliminary site plan on the basis of an open park area. Hanlon responded that the park area remained open though it may appear to provide only limited access. Hanlon added that it was the petitioner's contention that the plat as presented was the best possible plan. Stangeland acknowledged Hanlon's statement but suggested that a list be provided to demonstrate all changes in the proposed final plan. He continued by stating that in his opinion the Plan Commission could not reach a desion without such a list . Hanlon noted Stangeland's statement by noting that such a list might take weeks to compile. He also noted that Staff had reviewed the final plat and had approved it. At this point, Hauser asked Durham what was the Staff's reaction to the proposed final plat. Durham noted that Staff had found the plat met all requirements according to the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Next, Mullen noted that as far as he could determine only two lots had been eliminated because of the road change. He then asked where the petitioner had picked up the extra lot around the park area along with the additional two lots . Hanlon indicated that this was a question the land planner would have to answer because he was not prepared to respond. Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - October 4, 1978 Stape Subdivision (continued) Next Mullen asked if 408 lots were necessary. Hanlon indicated that the petitioner had to develop the 408 lots . Mullen then pointed out the area of the development abutting Schaumburg and asked why the extra lots could not be made up in that area. Hanlon replied by noting that a swell was needed in that area and that if the area was adjusted, the trees in the area providing a buffer between the single family development and Schaumburg's multi-family units would be eliminated. At this point, Brian Bozer, Engineer representing the petitioner, noted the private parking problem might be handled by providing a pitch of berm in the affected area to buffer park landscaping from the private lots . He added that in addition to eliminating the creation of private areas, this would also create a good visual effect while providing owners of the lot a screen from the park area. Hauser acknowledged the suggestion but reiterated Stangeland's suggestion that a list be provided stating specific changes. He added that Cummins had also noted an additional change from previous plans. Next, Glass stated that in his opinion the elemination of the lots because of the street:'•s installation was a development problem. He continued by noting that the Plan Commission's concern was the provision of a development that was compatible to the Village. Mullen agreed with Glass 's statement and added that the petitioner should provide for the eliminated lots in some other way. Hanlon reiterated his point that such changes would result in a long process and great expense. At this point , Hauser indicated to the petitioner that two choices were now open. Either the plat could be returned to the Land Planner for further consideration or the Plan Commission could vote on the plat at the present meeting. Hanlon responded by stating that he would take the plat back to the petitioner and would return it at a later date. Hauser concluded the discussion by stating that the Stape Subdivision Plat would be placed on the next agenda. 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 the purpose of constructing 204 townhouses. The subject property is located in Winston Grove Section 24. Harper began the presentation for the petitioner by noting that the following changes had been made on the site plan: 1 . Road access brought out to Meacham; 2. Elimination of the cul-de-sac on the west area of the development; 3. Provisions made for development of open area for additional recreational use; and 4. Provisions for an intersection for the single-family and multi-family units in the development. He noted that the site revisions were in response to directions given by the Plan Commission at its September 20, 1978 meeting. Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - October 4, 1978 Docket 78-6: Winston Grove Section 24 (continued) Glass began the questioning by asking what Centex planned on doing about an access at the southeast corner of the development. Luciani replied that plans were not determined at the present time because Centex was waiting to see what the County would do with the center right-of-way at the corner. Hauser then asked if there would be any access problems with the area. Harper responded by stating that the area would be accessible to res i dentspw-i-th-open--access.. At this point, Cummins asked Durham if the Village had a control ordinance restricting the placing of recreational vehicles between the detached garages and the units . Durham noted that there was an ordinance which required that such vehicles be placed only on a solid surface. Harper acknowledged Durham' s statement by adding that *his type of vehicle probably would not be allowed in the proposed development. Next, Hauser noted that there could still be a problem of creating tunnel effects with the detached garages. Harper responded by indicating that the designer of the streets (constant curving) would work to eliminate such an effect. Next, Glass asked if there were plans, for creating a Townhouse Association for the development' s residents . Harper replied that one was required for the development. Mullen continued the discussion by asking if the lines in the open space could be brought down to provide better access to the area since if the area was to be dedicated to the Village, the general public would have to have proper access . Harper responded by noting that the feeling the petitioner had received from the Village Board was to retain the natural effect of the area. Mullen acknowledged Harper's statement but asked if an abutting area could be designed to provide -access for the public. Harper replied by stating that he saw no problem in providing such access since it would become part of the Association's Agreement. Next, Glass stated that a problem still existed because of the limited visitor parking provided by the development. He continued by noting that such a parking problem would be critical if the 49 acre open space were open to the public. Mullen acknowledged Glass 's statement by stating that he was not sure a problem really existed. It would seem unlikely that a great many guests would be visiting at any one time. Stangeland continued the discussion by asking if the plan provided driveways that would hold four cars . Harper responded by indicating that was the case. Glass then stated that the same plan demonstrated that in some areas footage between driveways may overlap into driveway aprons thus blocking the driveway. He continued by noting that the driveways on the corners met at an angle causing them to partiallly share driving lanes. Harper acknowledged Glass ' s concern by stating that the angle would be corrected. Glass next reiterated his concern over possible parking problems within the development. Harper replied by stating that he believed that the area was distributed in a fashion that would allow adequate parking throughout the development. He added that the Townhouse Association would probably take steps to eliminate any illegal parking with help from the Police Department. At this point, Glass stated that in his opinion the site plan was conceptually good. Harper acknowledged Glass 's statement by Plan Commission Minutes - 5 - October 4, 1978 Docket 78-6: Winston Grove Section 24 (continued) noting that the petitioner would take the directions given by the Plan Commission and proceed toward developing a final plat. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Hauser noted the report from the Acting Village Engineer concerning his review of the Schaumburg Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. He stated that the Plan Commission needed additional information before developing an ordinance for recommendation to the Village Board. The consensus of the Plan Commission was to seek additional information from the Engineering Department before working on a Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. Centex - Winston Grove Section 23B Hauser noted that the Engineering and Building Departments had approved Centex - Winston Grove Section 23B. Cummins made a motion to recommend approval of the plat. Stangeland seconded the motion. All present voted 'Aye' . The meeting adjourned at 11 :20 p.m. . Submitted by: Charles L. Durham Administrative Intern CLD:ms 10/17/78 c: Chairman 5 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.