Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - October 1.9, 1977 <br /> Docket 77-17: Regency Square/Perrie Grove Phase If (continued) <br /> appeared to him that the petitioners did nothing on the shared parking <br /> issue. Brodley responded by stating that they would pursue shared <br /> parking with the adjacent industrial users. <br /> Hauser noted that Rettenbacher's report (10-19-77) indicated that <br /> the buildings in Phase II South would be located within 15 feet of the <br /> property line along Perrie Drive and Grove Terrace. Hauser stated that <br /> Rettenbacher's report made a valid point in noting that a single family <br /> residential building would be required to be set back a minimum of 25 <br /> feet. Gaston responded to Hauser's statement by suggesting that the <br /> petitioner could comply with a 25 foot setback, however, the design <br /> would not be aesthetically acceptable. <br /> Shannon next turned his concerns to the 30 foot building envelope <br /> requirement. He noted that he had some reservations about allowing the <br /> full 30 feet of the building envelope requirements to be used in the <br /> open space calculations. Hamilton suggested that the inclusion of the <br /> 30 foot building envelope in the open space calculations was acceptable <br /> because of the location of the park area. However, Hamilton argued that <br /> it would only be acceptable if the park area was fully developed at the <br /> time of occupancy of the proposed development. <br /> Rozanski asked the Commission if they were requesting the petitioners <br /> to equip the park or just develop the park land. Hamilton stated that <br /> it was his intent that the park be completely equipped so that it could <br /> be utilized by the tenants of the proposed development. Shannon noted <br /> that the grading and seeding of the park area was only a starting point. <br /> Brodley stated that the petitioners wanted to develop a good park; <br /> however, he requested that the Commission explain how they wanted the <br /> park area developed. <br /> Hauser suggested that the Park District spends an average of $10,000 <br /> per acre to develop park areas. Shannon suggested that the completion <br /> of the subject park area was very important. _He argued that it was <br /> extremely important that the subject _park area be fully-developed at the <br /> th <br /> time of occupancy of Oe-proposed developments . Shannon noted that <br /> if the Commission allowed the inclusion of the 30 foot building envelope <br /> in the open space calculations, the Commission must be assured that the. <br /> park area would be ready for use by the tenants . <br /> Brodley stated that he could agree to having the park area fully <br /> developed before occupancy of the proposed development. <br /> Hauser suggested that the Village had always required the 30 foot <br /> building envelope to be excluded from the open space calculations and <br /> he asked why the petitioner's circumstances were so unique that they <br /> could not comply with the requirement. Brodley stated that there <br /> were three reasons : <br /> (1) High cost of the property. <br /> (2) The proposed density is lower than the allowed 20 <br /> units per acre. <br /> (3) The park area was donated during the Phase I development <br /> and the donation greatly compromised the petitioners ' <br /> Phase II calculations. <br /> Next, Petri stated that he would like to see a comprehensive land- <br /> scaping plan which would indicate how each proposed structure would be <br />