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