Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 12/02/1971 - HIGGINS IND. PARK/BOARDWAL SUBDIV. MINUTES REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 2, 1971 Members Present: Chairman Shannon; Messrs . Siewert, Staddler, Pottker, Hamilton, Bantner; Mrs . Cummins. Others Present: Mr. Rettenbacher, representing Village Administration; Dr. Schumer, Messrs . Davis , Carroll, and architects . 1 . The meeting opened at 8:15 p.m. 2. New Business A. The Higgins Industrial Park Unit No. 50 was presented to us . Chairman Shannon said he had asked Centex to advise us if the proposed building would be of the executive type since it fronts residential development, but that Mr. Calkins had not provided him the information. It was moved by Siewert, seconded by Bantner that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the plat by the Village Board, contingent upon their receiving satisfaction from Centex that the building will be appropriated to face the single family residences across the street, in accordance with all previous agreements, and with the recommendation that there be underground utilities on Kelly and Gordon Streets . Voting AYE - all members present. Voting NAY - none . 3 . Unfinished Business A. Boardwalk Subdivision. Mr. Hamilton presented to the Plan Commission a layout of his own creation which appeared to embody all of the classic elements of good planning . The Plan Commission members responded with enthusiasm to the thoughtfulness that went into the layout. Mr. Hamilton advised us that, after January lst, any land development over ten (10) acres will require a detention pond, to comply with the Metro Sanitary District. Mr. Davis , the builder, entered at this time with his architect. He said the plan under discussion complies with the subdivision control ordinance. The architect presented elevation studies and a rendering of the proposed development, indicating that the latter represented the flavor of their intentions . Mr. Hamilton attempted to explain to the architect why we are so concerned about this land. It represents the geographical center of the Village; is the highest point of the Village; is a crucial piece of land for those reasons, and is therefore important that it be aesthetically appealing. Mr. Davis said from his point of view, the development has to Minutes of regular Plan Commission Meeting held December 2, 1971 Page 2 be economically feasible as well as attractive. He said from the tenants' point of view, the least number of occupants of a building is the most desirable. He is hoping to strike some happy compromise between the high priorities that the Village, the builder, and the tenants place upon this development. Our general feeling was that the unequal roof line helps a great deal to relieve what otherwise might be a barracks-type appearance of the buildings . At this point the question of elevators came up when it was mentioned that the buildings would be in excess of two stories in height. Elevators were not included in the planning, and it suddenly became apparent that neither the builder nor the architect was wholly familiar with the requirements of our new ordinance (not yet adopted, but proposed) . The proposed ordinance, in the section defining and describing the A-2 District calls for a Special Use for an R-4 residence district and says in Item 5-e (page 40): "No building shall exceed sixty (60') feet or six (6) stories in height. Ail buildings in excess of two (2) stories in height shall be equipped with elevators provided however, that elevators shall not be required in a three-story building where the second and third stories are used as one dwelling unit. " This new complication caused a great deal of distress to those present, although for a variety of reasons . Dr. Schumer urged the Plan Commission to refer the matter to the Village Board without further delay. He recited the history of the misadventures he and his associates have experienced in their attempts to rezone and sell this piece of land. He dramatized the need for undelayed action by the Plan Commission. Chairman Shannon patiently explained that land developers have a responsibility to comply with our ordinance and to so state in presenting themselves to us . They even can say that they comply except for one or more specific items . Until they do this, we should not make any recommendation to the Village Board. Mr. Rettenbacher was asked to enumerate whatever conditions of the proposed ordinance had been overlooked by the Boardwalk petitioner, and he mentioned common open space and area of of the buildings had not been indicated on the plat. Cummins suggested we abandon the planned agenda for the evening, and sit jointly in an attempt to enumerate the exact requirements for compliance with the proposed ordinance (if we could make Minutes of regular Plan Commission Meeting held December 2, 1971 Page 3 some educated guess about what that document presently calls for) , and that we then make a recommendation to the Village Board for acceptance of the plan predicated on those terms . Cummins put the foregoing in the form of a motion which was seconded by Pottker. Shannon recommended waiting for two weeks to see if the department reports could be made available, and then suggested that we proceed to recommend to the Village Board whether or not this additional information was received. Hamilton suggested we meet 7:00 P.M. Monday night for the purpose mentioned in Cummins' motion above, plus reviewing the department reports, so that a recommendation could be made to the Village Board at the December 16th meeting of the Plan Commission. Finally, a request for a vote was made on the motion which was on the floor. Voting AYE - Bantner, Pottker, Cummins . Voting NAY - Siewert, Staddler, Hamilton. Shannon broke the tie with a NAY vote . At this point, 10:45 p.m. , Cummins left the meeting. Siewert assumed the role of Secretary. G . Gatzke Property. 1 . Present and representing developer were Terri Stavos, Tom McCabe and a representative from Investment Development Corporation. 2 . Representatives from Park Board were Edward Hauser and Lew Smith. a . Discussion centered around available properties for a north exit through Perrie Grove and through Gatzke by eliminating the cul-de-sac. b. Park Board indicated its concern was that Willow would eventually be extended to the east to the Gatzke property and that it should be brought to our attention to consider any problems brought on by connecting Willow to industrial streets . c. Gatzke representatives indicated that since it appeared we would not approve with a cul-de-sac, they therefore proposed a new plan. (See copy.) d. Motion was made (Hamilton-Staddler) to approve, and that through their consideration of providing a street 120 feet longer than necessary, the Board consider waiving the cost of traffic light fee . (Road to end of Minutes of regular Plan Commission Meeting held December 2, 1971 Page 4 boundaries of property.) We so recommended. Passed unanimously. B. No change. C . No change. D . No change. E. No change. F. No change. H . No change. I. No change. 4. Committee Reports . A. Report: Tom Hamilton on meeting November 29th . Rolf Campbell speaking to Village Officials . (See report attached.) B. No other reports . 5. Chairman's Report. A. See Bill on Centex 1100 acres report. B. See Bill on Hospital Plan. C . Plat of Dedication on land south of State Road - near High School. Motion made to approve . (Hamilton-Shannon) D . Dinner. The motion was made by Pottker and seconded by Staddler to adjourn. Respectfully submitted, Leah Cummins Charles Siewert cc: President and Trustees Village Manager Village Clerk (2) Acting Village Engineer Building Commissioner Chairman and Secretary of Plan Commission ms