HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 05/19/1982 - REZONING PUBLIC HEARING DOCKET 82-3 FIRST ARLINGTON BANK AND GULLO • • •
Minutes
ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 19, 1982
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Plan Commission was
called to order at 8:07 p.m. on Wednesday, May 19, 1982 in the Multi-
Purpose Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue.
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBER ABSENT:
Cummins, Leah, Secretary Glass, John R. , Chairman
Fulton, Clark (arrived 9:07 p.m.)
Geinosky, Frederick C.
Mullen, George E.
Paliganoff, David J.
Stangeland, Orrin J.
STAFF PRESENT:
Thomas F. Rettenbacher, Building Commissioner
Jon P. Wildenberg, Administrative Assistant
Public Hearing: Docket 82-3 Petition of the First Arlington National
Bank and John Gullo for rezoning of Lots 1 and 2 in the Gullo
International Office and Industrial Center Subdivision from Office
Transitional (O-T) to Restricted Industrial District (I-1) .
The Plan Commission, acting as a zoning commission, commenced Public
Hearing proceedings to consider the petition of the First Arlington
National Bank and John Gullo for the rezoning of Lots 1 and 2 in the
Gullo International Office and Industrial Center Subdivision from
Office Transitional (O-T) to Restricted Industrial District (I-1) .
Lot 1 is located at the northwest corner of Stanley and Oakton Streets.
Lot 2 is located at the northeast corner of Stanley and Oakton Streets.
In the absence of Chairman Glass, Secretary Cummins served as
Acting Chairman over the Public Hearing and appointed Mullen as Acting
Secretary for the evening. -
Lee Garr, Attorney for the petitioner, presented three witnesses to
give testimony at the hearing. Mullen collectively swore in: Mr. John
Gullo, Property Owner; Mr. Vernon Schultz, Real Estate Broker; and Mr.
Rolf Campbell, Land Use Planning and Zoning Consultant.
Mr. Garr called on John Gullo to present testimony. Mr. Gullo
described his building background and experience in Elk Grove Village.
This experience includes an office and light industrial development on
both sides of Stanley Street, at the Oakton Street intersection. To date,
the light industrial portion of his development is built and occupied.
The designated office transitional portion is not built. Mr. Gullo is
seeking to rezone the office transitional portion to a restricted
industrial classification.
In response to Mr. Garr, Mr. Gullo stated that the reason for a
zoning change request is to alleviate the hardship presented by a Zack
of demand for construction of office space at the subject locations.
Mr. Gullo stated that he has not received any requests or inquiries to
Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - May 19, 1982
Docket 82-3 (continued)
build office space along Stanley or Oakton Streets. However, he has
received many requests to build industrial buildings similar to those
constructed on the I-1 portion of his development. If granted the
zoning change, he will construct buildings of that nature and could
complete the entire development by 1983.
Mr. Vernon Schultz, a Real Estate Broker with offices at 729 Busse
Road, Bensenville, was called to testify by Mr. Garr. Mr. Schultz began
by stating that his specialty is Industrial and Office Space real estate
and that he is familiar with real estate conditions in Elk Grove Village.
Currently, there is a 2'F year supply of office space in the Greater O'Hare
area. Occupancy rates of 61% to 74% are being experienced. In light of
this, construction of more office space in the area is hard to justify.
Building office space at this time on the subject location would be
economic suicide. The chances of an office development succeeding at
Oakton and Stanley would be slim. However, restricted industrial
buildings on the same property would be successful.
Cummins inquired as to what style of building Mr. Schultz was referring
to. Mr. Schultz responded that he was thinking in terms of buildings
similar to those on the east side of Oakton Street constructed by Mr.
Gullo.
Paliganoff, referring to the Public Hearing transcript of June 7,
1978 for Docket 78-4 in which Mr. Gullo had petitioned for O-T and
I-1 zoning on the subject property, noted that it was felt in 1978 there
would be sufficient clientele to make the office-transitional zoned
property economically feasible. Paliganoff asked Mr. Schultz if the
market evaluations of four years ago were valid. In reply, Schultz
stated he would not agree with the past feelings of market conditions.
Schultz further stated that vacancy rates in light industrial buildings
are lower than office complexes - the full or near full occupancy of
the project on the east side of Stanley Street is an indicator of this.
In response to Stangeland, Schultz commented that he would not
recommend attempting to develop an office park at this time.
Stangeland asked how the residential market surrounding the subject
property would be affected if a change from O-T to I-1 zoning was granted.
Schultz replied that there would not be much affect on the residential
market.
Cummins then opened questioning to residents in attendance at the
Public Hearing.
Mr. Doug Wood, 637 Oakton, inquired as to the occupancy rate of
the constructed industrial buildings on the east side of Stanley Street.
Schultz related that they were either at or near capacity.
Mrs. Marion Parker, 631 Oakton, asked what affect the proposed rezoning
would have on single family residences in the neighborhood. Schultz replied
that one would be hard-pressed to find any appreciable difference in
property values as a result of the rezoning.
Mr. Marcel Racoma, 626 Carroll Square, asked what would happen to
the tenants of the Carroll Square development if I-1 type buildings are
erected. Mr. Racoma postulated that tenants would leave and the apartment
development would then fail . Mr. Schultz offered no response as this is
not his area of expertise.
i •
Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - May 19, 1982
Docket 82-3 (continued)
Mr. Rolf Campbell was then asked to testify.
Mr. Garr presented Mr. Campbell 's credentials as a City Planning
and Zoning Consultant.
Campbell commented that in his opinion, a restricted industrial
classification, utilizing buildings similar to those on the east side of
Stanley, would be the highest and best use for the subject properties.
Campbell presented exhibits of the area which included a sample
plan for development of the 0-T areas. Pertinent aspects of the sample
plan included:
(a) All truck docks to be faced toward Stanley Street;
(b) Employee parking areas along the back of each building; and
(c) A 10 foot buffer area between the Carroll Square Apartments
and the proposed industrial development comprised of a
fence with landscaping material on both sides, atop a
slightly raised land berm.
Campbell further suggested that the Plan Commission require a
specific landscape plan of the developer and that the Commission limit
the subject areas to certain uses within the I-1 zoning category. In
addition, Campbell stated that traffic intensity will be less with an I-1
type development than an office development. An office development
needs a high volume of traffic to succeed. +
Geinosky expressed concern that a land use buffer, represented by
0-T zoning, would be removed and replaced by a landscape buffer under
I-1 zoning. Geinosky inquired whether landscaping itself would be an
adequate buffer as opposed to a transitional zoning district. Campbell
observed that landscaping would be adequate if the Plan Commission limits
use on the property to nothing that is more intense than what is currently
in place on the east side of Stanley Street.
Geinosky questioned what the building height limitations are for the
I-1 and 0-T districts. Rettenbacher replied: 60 feet (6 stories) in I-1
and 30 feet (3 stories) in O-T.
Gullo indicated he may be amenable to limiting building height to
22 feet, or 1 to 2 stories.
Geinosky noted that concerns regarding heavy traffic at the subject
location had been expressed in 1978 at the previous Public Hearing and
asked if any data was available to substantiate those concerns.
In response to Geinosky, Gullo related that approximately 10 to 15
employees per building could be expected in a light industrial type
development. If the rezoning is granted, he envisions constructing
seven (7) buildings.
Stangeland asked if the petitioner would be amenable to any restrictions
placed on uses in the I-1 district. Gullo replied he would be amenable to
a 22 foot building height limitation and that he would be willing to discuss
limitations placed on use of the property. However, he would not be willing
to restrict 24 hour operations.
Gullo explained that in 1978, when he first petitioned the Village,
he was advised that if the 0-T zoning became a hardship he would have the
ability to petition for a rezoning. Garr added that the petitioner and
Village should be able to come to an agreement regarding restrictions
placed on the property should the rezoning be granted.
Cummins opened the hearing to questions and comments from the audience.
Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - May 19, 1982
Docket 82-3 (continued)
Mr. Doug Wood, 637 Oakton, expressed a concern for truck traffic
and heavier traffic in general should the property be rezoned. He is in
agreement with the current O-T zoning and feels it should not be changed.
Mrs. Marion Parker, 631 Oakton, asked what the setback would be along
Oakton Street should a rezoning be approved. Rettenbacher informed her
that the setback would be 25 feet.
Mrs. Parker then presented pictures of debris on the subject property
taken on May 9, 1982. Mr. Rettenbacher presented pictures of the subject
property taken May 19, 1982. Mr. Gullo indicated he would cooperate with
the Health Department to clean up the area.
Mr. Richard Kluck, 901 Shadywood, indicated he had trouble maintaining
water pressure at his home and expressed a concern that the Gullo development
would lower his water pressure. K1uck also inquired as to who would
compensate him for any loss in property value as a result of the rezoning.
Kathy Keseski, 635 Oakton, expressed concern over the amount of
traffic which would be generated down Stanley Street and asked if Stanley
Street could be closed (with a chain to permit Fire Department access) .
Glass indicated that Stanley Street will likely go to Higgins Road
someday and there may be consideration of making Stanley a one-way street
in the direction of Higgins Road.
Cummins indicated that the Plan Commission would take the petition
under consideration and render a decision at the June 16, 1982 meeting.
The input of Staff will be sought on a number of questions.
The Public Hearing was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
Submitted
by:
)Ion P. Wildenberg
Administrative Assistant
ms
c: Chairman. & Members of Plan Commission, Village President & Board of
Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager,
Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Building Commissioner,
Village Engineer, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Director of
Parks and Recreation, Centex, NWMC.