|
VILLAGE of SUGAR GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION/ZONING BOARD of APPEALS MINUTES of MARCH 17, 2004
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Irv Ochsenschlager at 7:06 p.m. in the Village Board Room. The Commissioners welcomed newly appointed Plan Commissioner/Zoning Board of Appeals member, Andrew Konovodoff. ROLL CALL Plan Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) members present: Steve Benesch, Bob Dray, Andy Konovodoff, Irv Ochsenschlager, Ed Saloga, Absent: Ryan Reuland, Brian Schiber Also present: Scott Buening, Community Development Director, John Houseal, Planning Consultant, Dave Burroughs, Engineering Consultant, Nancy Zak, Recording Secretary. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 2004 MEETING Benesch made a motion, seconded by Saloga to approve the February 18, 2004 Plan Commission/ZBA meeting minutes as corrected. By voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Corrections: Page 4., first paragraph, the sentence should read, " In
response to one of the public comments that the distances were "all
off", he said he had a licensed professional surveyor Page 4. The vote on the Cornwell Circle variance should have read: Ayes: Dray, Saloga Nays: Benesch, Schiber, Reuland. Page 6. Regarding Hannaford Farm Subdivision, the sentence should read,
"The development is being modeled after Page 16. Schiber, in a memo, asked that the minutes be corrected to reflect that he did not make the motion regarding the Walnut Woods PUD Amendment. Upon discussion, the Commissioners were of the opinion he did, but were not certain if he did not, who did. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Petitioner's request was that of seeking approval of an Amendment and Restatement to Planned Development Ordinance 546 and Approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat of Resubdivision. The subject property is located at the Northwest corner of Illinois Route 47 and W. Park Avenue. The current land use is Office Building and vacant property. The Comprehensive Plan designation is Office, Route 47: Regional Commercial. Plan Commission/ZBA quorum present. Chairman Ochsenschlager swore in all that were to give testimony regarding the petition. Presentation Michael Mills, with Location Finders International, the agent for Olympia Investments, the contract purchaser for the proposed Lots 1 and 2. He introduced Herb Steinmetz, representing the sellers and Jamie White, representing the proposed Lot 3 owners. Mills stated they were looking at several lots, Lot 60 through 65 in the Sugar Grove Office and Industrial Center subdivision for development. The history of the property was that it was annexed into the Village approximately 30 years ago with a commercial designation. Twelve years ago, there was a subdivision called the Sugar Grove Office Industrial Center, but development did not happen. The Petitioner was here before the Plan Commission/ZBA for an amendment to the existing PUD because the PUD has been whittled down from something much larger to a 4.1 + acre piece. The Healy Chapel to the north and Borken were broken off, leaving Lots 60 through 65. The orientation of this parcel is with Route 47 heading North and Park in the southerly boundary. It amounts to being the Northwest corner of 47 and Park. Their aim is to clean up the existing PUD and make it marketable so it can be developed as a commercial enterprise bringing sales tax dollars to the community. The original plat had six lots, lots 60 through 65. The proposal is to replat those lots into 4 lots, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. Lot 3 has an existing office building located on it. Lot 4 is a vacant parcel. It too had been intended for an office building. Olympia Investment is the contract purchaser for Lots 1 and 2 which would have future retail buildings located on them. The drive and parking area have been given to Lot 3 and the same holds true for Lot 4. The area to the North of old Lot 64 is a stormwater detention basin broken in half giving the southerly half to Lot 3 and the northerly half made into an elbow and added to Lot 4. There is a cross access easement between Lots 2, 3 and 4 and Lot 1 with access onto Park Avenue for the benefit of all owners of the land included in the subdivided property. There also is access onto Division Drive to service all four users. Lot 3 is landlocked. The new process vacates everything and starts from a clean slate. Mills went on to state they are also requesting an amendment to the PUD with respect to uses. They are asking for additional uses as permitted uses; banks with drive through, restaurants with a drive through, drug stores with a drive through pharmacy, gas stations and car washes. Although their primary category is not the banking or gasoline industry, they need to get as many uses as possible to market as quickly as possibly. In the event their primary industry doesn't come into play, they will have the flexibility to go to a second and third option. They are also asking for changes in the parking and building setbacks. Those are a change in building setbacks from 20' to 30' along Park Avenue; change in parking setbacks from 20' to 30' along Route 47, from 20' to 15' along Park Avenue and from 20' to 10' along Division Drive with interior setbacks at 3'. Mills went on to state they are asking for an amendment to the PUD that the parking requirements be modified from 5:1000 S.F. of retail space to 4 1/2:1000 S.F. Commercial. For the office portion, Lot 3 and proposed Lot 4, they are asking the parking requirements be amended to 3:1000 S.F. Submitted with the petition, Mills stated, were the Preliminary Engineering and Final Plat of Resubdivision.
Buening told the Commissioners that Staff met with the Petitioners and discussed the proposed amendments. It would require a relatively complicated process to accomplish what was desired. The process chosen to follow seemed to be the most expedient way to do it. Several properties that originally were a part of the PUD were deleted. In addition to cleaning the up PUD from a planning standpoint, it also cleans up the existing PUD ordinance by deleting some of the other properties that aren't part of the property anymore. The existing language regarding industrial uses is not part of the PUD anymore and the covenants don't apply to these properties anymore. Jamie White, representing the owner of proposed Lot 3, stated they have no objection to what Olympia is petitioning for. They consented to the petition. They believe the changes are making good use of the property. White said he had a personal issue, and that was with the drive through for the restaurant. He did not believe it world be appropriate to have an order window right next to people in an office who are trying to work. They have discussed this with the Petitioner and are considering making restrictions on that. Herbert Steinmetz had sent a letter to Buening, after reviewing the revised ordinance regarding the Sugar Grove Corporate and Industrial Center dated March 9, 2004. In it he advises of three changes to be made: the interior side and rear yard building and parking set-backs are to be 3', language was added to allow a sign for the benefit of Lot 3 to be located on Lot 4 and changing the reference to Lot 64 to Lot 3 in paragraph 6. Buening stated Staff's recommendation has 15 conditions, of which No. 15 could be deleted because it has been addressed and No. 12 would change from a 5' setback to a 3' setback. These issues have yet to be addressed by the Petitioner. However, they are boilerplate issues that are not unusual. Mills said, in reference to condition No. 6 in Staff's recommendation, they had an extensive meeting with Burroughs and believe they are in agreement with all of his engineering comments Public Comment and Questions No one rose to speak for or against the petition, nor was any comment received by Village Staff. Close of Public Hearing Chairman Ochsenschlager closed the hearing at 7:29 p.m. Commission/ZBA Discussion Ochsenschlager questioned if there is any problem with the proximity of the easterly-most exit or entrance as it related to Route 47? Mills responded, that issue was brought up several months ago and that access was moved westerly and restricted to right-in /right-out. It is in the jurisdiction of the Village of Sugar Grove. It is outside the purview of IDOT. If they went to IDOT for access onto Route 47, they know the answer would be "no". They would not get utilities from the right-of-way of Route 47. Benesch asked how far away the entrance was to Route 47? He had concern there might be a problem there when someone is going to turn in, slow down and get hit by someone traveling behind them because it's so close to Route 47. Mills stated it's 60' off of the right-of-way of Route 47. Buening stated the Route 47 right-of-way might be 120'. Mills stated their development was coordinated with the Route 47 improvements along with the proposed Jewel development. If their development occurs first, they will make the improvements to Route 47. If Jewel starts first, they will make the improvements. Part of the improvements includes the deceleration lane on Route 47. As drivers are heading South, they will pull off into the right hand lane to slow down. The movement will be restricted to right-in. Mills did not have the exact measurements, but the distance from the driveway in question to the right-of-way is 60', plus there is a significant amount of distance between the westerly edge of the right-of-way and the actual edge of the pavement. There is then at least 100' there. The deceleration lane would have to be coordinated with IDOT. In regard to the permitted uses requested, one of Staff's recommendations was to keep banks and gas stations-car washes as special uses. When asked why this was a recommendation, Buening stated there is a concern about the trend of proliferation of too many banks in commercial zones. The banks generate property tax but they don't generate retail sales tax. The Village would like to have more control over how many banks the Village gets in any of its commercial districts. The car wash-gas station, are intense type uses and have their own location issues. The Village will want to review those uses thoroughly before approval. Houseal told the Commission, his consulting firm is working with two communities that are working with developers who are proposing banks as portions of larger developments. They too have an issue with banks taking away the retail tax generation of what could go there in lieu of a bank. In one community, the developer has agreed where the bank pays cash to the municipality in lieu of retail tax that would have been generated if another use was there to get a primary retail spot generating tax use. In another community, it was the bank that offered this as part of their package because they knew the Village was reluctant to have a bank in that prime retail location. They put that in the development agreement. So there is a way to not limit banks, but incorporate a way they can be provided in a way that it doesn't rob the Village of potential retail tax. Mills called attention to the Jewel site proposing a bank with a drive through and a gas station. He asked that the playing field be even for them to do the same. He was agreeable to limiting uses, saying if they got a bank, perhaps they could not have a gas station or the reverse. Benesch referenced the Comprehensive Plan recommendation in the Staff report, questioning the setbacks from Route 47 and that the development being proposed does not meet those setbacks. Buening stated the PUD now in question was approved by the Village prior to the Route 47 plan being developed. Dray was in favor of the project in general, but wanted additional time to think about the special uses. Benesch agreed with Staff in regard to the accumulation of banks and that it would be a shame to lose retail tax dollars. After some discussion, Commissioners felt receptive to the Petitioner's request to allow either a bank with drive through or a gas station on Lots 1 and 2. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SALOGA, SECONDED BY BENESCH, THAT THE PLAN COMMISSION/ZBA: APPROVE THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 546 TO AMENDING AND RESTATING CONDITIONS OF THAT ORDINANCE, APPROVE OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED MARCH 18, 2004, DELETING CONDITION NO. 15 AND AMENDING CONDITION NO. 12 SO THE PARKING LOT SETBACK WOULD BE 3' INSTEAD OF 5'. IN ADDITION, EITHER A BANK WITH A DRIVE THROUGH OR A GAS STATION, AS PERMITED USES, BE ALLOWED ON EITHER LOT 1 OR LOT 2. VOTE ON THE MOTION:
Petition 03-003: Hannaford Farm Subdivision Annexation, Rezoning, Planned Development and Preliminary Plat of Subdivision (Vanguard Homes, LLC) continued Prior to opening continuance of the hearing, discussion took place regarding quorum since Saloga recused himself from participating. It was determined the four remaining Commissioners did compose a quorum and the majority of those present and voting constituted a decision. Chairman Ochsensclager swore in those planning to give testimony (who were not sworn in at the last meeting). Presentation J. Saloga, Attorney representing the Petitioners, described the 122-acre parcel of property in question as being on the North side of Merrill Road. 139 homes are planned to be developed on the property. At the end of the last session, there were still some engineering issues to resolve. The revised, current engineering plan demonstrates that most have been resolved. However, some engineering issues are unanswerable at this point in time. For example, what the county is going to do about Merrill Road and the intersection of Bliss Road. The Petitioners will continue to work on those issues. J. Saloga said they received a report that morning that had to do with the sidewalk and bikepath trail system. They spent the day agonizing over it. The exhibit in the staff report shows the bike path in dark lines. Their primary concern is particularly with the bikepath as it comes at the end of the cul-de-sac down to Merrill Road. The secondary concern is putting a 10' wide sidewalk in front of the homes as opposed to possibly marking off a portion of the pavement for a bikepath. The reason this important to them, Saloga went on, is that area is going to hold premier lots of the entire subdivision. It's going to have the most dramatic vista. The foot/bikepath will invite the general public through this area and diminish those two lots tremendously. If a 10' sidewalk is on the front, the bikepath on the side and a bikepath across the rear, there will be three sides of public access. The lots aren't going to generate the same kind of excitement as originally contemplated. Those paths will be a major detraction in that particular location. J. Saloga went on to say part of the plan was to get a bicycle path or access back to Denny Road. Denny at the North end of the project will have a regional bikepath running out to Route 47. So there's a bikepath across the north of their development. A trail already exists on the forest preserve to the south. They are asking that those two requirements be removed from the Staff recommendation so they can market their property as they were hoping to. Buening explained that Village Staff had met with the Park District, the Forest Preserve District and the Department of Transportation to devise this network of paths. He, himself, was not in attendance. The Forest Preserve District has the intent of extending the path from the parking lot at the southern corner of the development into the Virgil-Gillman Trail, which is a regional trail. It was felt there should be linkages between various trails, knowing that Denny road is going to end up being a type of regional trail also. They wanted to have a connection point between those trails and felt it was appropriate with the improvement being done here there would be a regional path essentially through this development. Buening stated there would be multiple ownership interests of different sections of the trail system between the Village, the Park District and Homeowners Association. A lengthy discussion took place regarding the issue of the bikepath/trail system through the Hannaford Farm proposed development, with numerous suggestions being offered to meet both the desire of those planning the regional pathway and the developer's need. J. Saloga said they would like to move forward with a recommendation, and perhaps deal with the issue of the bikepath route and specifications at a later date. In the memo submitted by Commissioner Schiber, he asked or an explanation of the platting of Parcels L and M instead of same area being included with the park site Parcel N. J. Saloga explained they were so designated because of their negotiations with the park district. The Park District did not want to take the whole three-acre parcel. So to balance the cash and land donations to the Park District, they came up with the compromise, which was felt to be good for both parties. A 20' easement was created that would be owned by the Homeowners Association that will be natural prairie grasses that will delineate Parcel N and the lots. So there will be the Homeowners Association Lot, a 20' natural easement and then the Park District property. Buening stated there are several conditions that were in bold on Staff's recommendation need to be addressed prior to final approval by the Village Board. Some are being worked on; some need clarification by the Public Works Department, and some need to be resolved in cooperation with the County regarding sight distances to determine what improvements are actually needed? A tree survey was submitted but is still being reviewed by the Village. The Park District will need details on what improvements are proposed for the park sites. The landscape plan still needs further review, and obviously the trail issues just discussed need to be resolved. J. Saloga added they would like to be able to put up 8 models. That was agreeable to the Commissioners and Buening. Close of Hearing With no further questions or comments from the public, Chairman Ochsenschlager closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. The Commissioners further discussed the bikepath trail through the development and clarified what would be acceptable to the developer. Buening, in an effort to bring closure on the bikepath/trail issue, suggested that in Staff condition No. 3, the second sentence, where it says bikepath trails shall be constructed according to the attached bikepath trail exhibit, add to that, subject to further negotiations with Staff, paths within Village right-of-way and based on direction from the Plan Commission and elimination of the path between Merrill Road and Chestnut Hill Court. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAY, SECONDED BY KONOVODOFF, THAT THE PLAN COMMISSION/ZBA RECOMMEND TO THE VILLAGE BOARD APPROVAL OF THE HANNAFORD FARM DEVELOPMENT PETITION TO REZONE, THE PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAT AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SUBDIVISION. THE ABOVE RECOMMENDATION IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FOR IN STAFF HANNAFORD FARM DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATED MARCH 16, 2004, CHANGING PARAGRAPH 3 TO READ:
CHANGING PARAGRAPH 4 TO READ:
VOTE ON THE MOTION:
Petition 04-003: Main Street Rezoning and Special Uses: Rezoning from R-3 to B-1 Community Shopping District, Special Uses for Apartments above First Floor, a Special Use for a Chiropractor/Physical Therapist and Dental Office (Estate of George D. Ratos by James G. Ratos, executor) Chairman Ochsenschlager swore in those planning to give testimony regarding the Petition. Presentation: James Ratos stated he was proposing to construct a new building on the East side of Main Street, south of 32 Main Street. It would be a duplicate building of the one standing next to it now and be of all brick construction. A physical therapist would like to take half of the proposed building and a dentist has spoken for the other half. He is asking for a Special Use to include three apartments on the upper level. When the first building went up, the zoning was in place to move ahead with it. Since then the zoning regulations have changed and now requires approval of a Special Use . Public Comment and Questions: No one rose to speak in favor or against the petition or ask questions. Staff had no input from the public regarding this proposal. Buening stated a lot of research was done on this when Staff was going through the site plan review. At one time this property was zoned business. Several zoning map changes were made, and it is believed there were some errors on the zoning map that happened when some of the lots were taken for highway improvements for Route 47 and Route 30 back in the 60's. Somebody miscounted. When the Village-wide zoning map was adopted, a couple of years ago, this got caught in the wrong location, so based on discussion with the Village Attorney, in order to correct that, because the specific zoning is doubtful, it needs to be amended through a public hearing like tonight's. Commission/ZBA Questions and Comments: Benesch questioned the parking depicted off Main Street. Ratos said those spaces were for the apartment tenants. Chairman Ochsenschlager closed the public hearing at 8:53 p.m. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BENESCH, SECONDED BY SALOGA THAT THE PLAN COMMISSION/ZBA RECOMMEND TO THE VILLAGE BOARD APPROVAL OF THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-3 TO B-1, FOR A SPECIAL USE TO PERMIT A CHIROPRACTOR/PHYSICAL THERAPIST OFFICE AND DENTAL OFFICE AND FOR A SPECIAL USE TO PERMIT THREE APARTMENTS ABOVE THE GROUND FLOOR FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MAIN STREET, SOUTH OF 32 MAIN STREET, SUBJECT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN STAFF MEMO, PAGE 5, DATED MARCH 17, 2004. VOTE ON THE MOTION: AYES: DRAY, BENESCH, KONOVODOFF, SALOGA, OCHSENSCHLAGER NAYS: NONE ABSENT: SCHIBER, REULAND MOTION CARRIED The Plan Commission/ZBA approved the Finding of Fact
5. OLD BUSINESS Petition 02-009: Sugar Grove Center Development Approval of Findings of Fact (Waterford Development) A MOTION WAS MADE BY BENESCH, SECONDED BY DRAY THAT THE PLAN COMMISSION/ZBA ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT FOR THE SUGAR GROVE CENTER (JEWEL) PREPARED BY VILLAGE STAFF, DATED MARCH 11, 2004 AND IN ADDITION ADOPT EXHIBIT A, THE DEVIATION LIST FOR THE CENTER FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXHIBIT B, THE EXHIBIT LIST AND THE SPECIAL USE STANDARDS SUBMITTED BY STAFF . VOTE ON THE MOTION: AYES: BENESCH, DRAY, KONOVODOFF, SALOGA, OCHSENSCHLAGER NAYS: NONE ABSENT: SCHIBER, REULAND 6. NEW BUSINESS Alternative Futures Presentation by the Conservation Foundation Ksenia Rudensiuk, Director of Watershed Planning Legal Counsel, presented a summary of the recently completed Blackberry Creek Watershed Alternative Futures Project. Blackberry Creek watershed was chosen because it has a comprehensive watershed plan and an implementation council for that plan. However, the intent ofthe project was to create results that apply throughout the Fox River basin and throughout the upper Midwest.
b. Castle Bank Variance for Sign
c. 716 Cornwall Circle setback variance
8. ADJOURNMENT
|
|
Home • Contact us |