Loading...
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.