Laserfiche WebLink
EGV Plan Commission Minutes <br /> September 3, 1975 <br /> Page 2 <br /> Vale Tract (continued) <br /> Also, dry detention areas should be encouraged , with public control <br /> and public maintenance of the common open space. The Attorney noted <br /> the Village Board's concern over Homeowners Associations:' failures <br /> as a viable means of open space responsibility and maintenance. <br /> Additionally, the Village Board felt that the Park District Board <br /> should be consulted in an early stage, particularly for P.U.D. 's in <br /> which the Park District would be given ownership of the open space. <br /> The consensus was further in favor of public ownership of all streets , <br /> built to Village specifications. Also, an R-5 designation should be <br /> developed providing for zero lot line as a district , with zero lot line <br /> possibly as a special use in other designations. Early provision for <br /> open space maintenance was another concern of the Village Board mentioned <br /> by the Attorney, with early commitment by the Park District for areas <br /> they would be taking control of and responsibility for. <br /> McGrenera stated that through discussions and meetings he had with <br /> members of the JPZ Committee, other Village Board members and the Park <br /> District, he felt there was an agreement with the P.U.D. and common <br /> open space concept , but there was a concern over anything additional <br /> in costs , maintenance, etc. <br /> Hauser stated that the Park District had no set criteria for <br /> open space areas that could be absolutely specified , but rather the <br /> District must see each concrete proposal . <br /> Hamilton stated that a new R-5 or revised R-4 designation was <br /> needed, calling for publicly owned common open space, either by the <br /> Village, Park District, or a combination of the two. <br /> The suggestion was made that Centex submit a plan to the Plan <br /> Commission for preliminary review, and then it would be forwarded to <br /> the Park District for review and approval , and thence return to the <br /> Plan Commission for review and possible acceptance for development. <br /> This plan would have specifics on amount of open space and characteristics <br /> of open space. <br /> The Attorney noted that the overall plan would be for open space, <br /> not specifics such as housing type, etc. <br /> The Consultant suggested that "spiney" greenways be forgotten in <br /> favor of larger, centrally located, easily maintained open space. <br /> The Attorney noted that he would attempt to attend Village Board <br /> and Plan Commission meetings, since there was no official liaison <br /> between the boards. <br /> The meeting adjourned at 10: 10 p.m. <br /> S bmitted by, <br /> Josey Misur Ii <br /> Administrative Intern <br /> JM:ms (September 10, 1975) <br />