Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 07/22/1981 - ELKS LODGE r Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Wednesday, July 22, 1981 The special meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order at 8:10 p.m. on Wednesday, July 22, 1981 in the Multi-Purpose Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBER ABSENT: Glass, John R. , Chairman Cummins, Leah, Secretary Fulton, Clark Paliganoff, David J. Geinosky, Frederick C. Stangeland, Orrin J. Mullen, George E. STAFF PRESENT: Gary E. Parrin, Assistant Village Manager Charles B. Henrici, Fire Chief Thomas F. Rettenbacher, Building Commissioner George B. Knickerbocker, Village Attorney Jon P. Wildenberg, Administrative Assistant DOCKET 81-5: Petition of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks to extend a Special Use Permit to operate a Lodge at 115 Gordon Street. Geinosky moved to approve the extension of the Elks' Special Use Permit for a period of two (2) years, the second year contingent upon Village receipt of letters from the property owners involved allowing the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks to use their properties as a Lodge and parking lot. Stangeland seconded Geinosky's motion. The motion carried by a 6-0 vote (Cummins absent) . DOCKET 81-6: Petition of Centex Homes for: (1) a Text Amendment, (2) a rezoning of portions of Section 24, and (3) an amendment to the Hampton Farms Special Use Permit. The Plan Commission continued discussion of conditions to be attached to the Final Land Use Map. Glass noted that previous discussion had ended with the "tot-lot" issue and no resolvement had yet been reached. Glass also pointed out that Stangeland had proposed requiring a total of three (3) lots which would cover, in total, an area not to exceed 5,400 square feet, and which would be located in accordance with Plan Commission requests and Village Board approval at the time of final plat. The Village Board would also be allowed to reduce tot-lot areas if deemed appropriate. Paliganoff observed that equipment provision by Centex should also be included in discussion. Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - July 22,. 1981 DOCKET 81-6 (continued) Mullen inquired if it was not possible to put tot-lot areas in the hands of the Schaumburg Park District. Glass responded that it was not certain if the Schaumburg Park District would accept such property. Harker expressed resistance to involvement of the Park District. Paliganoff specified that the Village may go to the Park District at the time of final plat to receive recommendations as to what type of equipment should be provided on each play area as such play area is developed. Glass then sought to obtain consensus regarding off-street parking space requirements. Glass noted that the Commission was willing to set a "cap" of 2.4 spaces per dwelling unit, and a lower limit of 2.4 spaces per dwelling unit, and a lower limit of 2.0 (or whatever the Parking Ordinance 3.9 should be) . Geinosky stated that Centex should abide by whatever the Parking Ordinance states at the time of development. Harker pointed out that Centex would be agreeable to "cap" and lower limit boundary set by Parking Ordinance 3.9 if they would also be allowed to request a lowering of the off-street parking, subject to substantiation on the part of Centex that a lower requirement is adequate for a proposed development, and also subject to Plan Commission and village Board approval. Knickerbocker questioned Centex as to when a requirement of 2.4 would be binding. Harker responded that 2.4 is a limit the village may not go beyond requiring- Knickerbocker inquired as to when the Village could raise the 2.0 lower limit. Feinstein replied that this could be done through an adjustment in the Parking Ordinance 3.9. Knickerbocker asked Centex if they would resist if the Plan Commission recommended, and the Village Board approved, a requirement of 2.4 in any one given situation. Feinstein replied that Centex would not. Harker responded that if Centex would come in with a proposal at 1.9, then it would be within the Village's province to reject the proposal and require up to 2.4. Both the Village and Centex may conceive going below 2.0 provided Centex can demonstrate need for such, but in no case may the Village require more than 2.4. The Parking Ordinance does not set a lower bound. Knickerbocker suggested that Centex may go greater or lesser than 2.0, up to 2.4, at the time of final plat. Any requirement that would be less than 2.0 must be supported by proof from Centex that the lower requirement makes the most sense for a particular development. On the Final Plat, the requirement may be greater or lesser than 2.0 up to a limit of 2.4. Stangeland indicated that he was very concerned about guest parking and the intent of the section was to also provide adequate guest parking. Glass asked for and received consensus of all members regarding Knickerbocker's language for provision of off-street parking spaces. Glass directed the off-street parking requirement to be made a condition of rezoning. Section 5.37-5 D. (5) Conformance with the Conceptual Land Use and zoning Map. Line 10: 100 feet is to be changed to 10 feet for the protection of smaller parcels. Glass asked for and received consensus from Commission members regarding the change in line 10. Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - July 22, 1981 DOCKET 81-6 (continued) Section 5.37-6 Subdivision Control Mullen questioned why the village would accept this wording and not change the Subdivision Control Ordinance in whole. Parrin responded that the uniqueness of this development and the donation by Centex of the recreational land contributed to the wording of this section. Geinosky expressed concern that one street passing through the entire development may not be adequate to handle traffic generated from the multi-family buildings. Geinosky inquired whether or not a median should be provided, and expressed concern over how the heavy traffic at the intersection of Plum Grove Road and a proposed University Lane would be handled. Harker responded that widening of University Lane would create a choke point at the bridge where University Lane now exists. Centex does :not •wish to create a cross street through Elk Grove Village. Harker further stated that he would be willing to discuss provision of right turn lanes and traffic control at the proposed University Lane and Plum Grove Road intersection. Centex presented the following diagram as a possible solution: T � N v W + E island University Lane S E a University Lane could be widened near Plum Grove Road to provide three lanes of traffic: two for westerly bound traffic, one for easterly bound traffic. An island could be inserted to create and maintain the configuration. Geinosky specified that acceleration and deceleration lanes near Plum Grove Road should be provided. Geinosky asked if anything could be done by the Village since Plum Grove Road is a County road. Glass replied that a plan could be submitted and made subject to County approval. Glass suggested that University Lane intersect with Plum Grove Road substantially north of Weathersfield Road. Centex replied that 200 feet is the current County requirement. Glass asserted that he would like a 250 foot separation. Geinosky proposed that University Lane at Plum Grove Road be a minimum of three lanes with a median that separates two westerly bound lanes from one easterly bound lane; and that acceleration and deceleration lanes be required on the east side of Plum Grove Road whether Plum Grove Road is two or four lanes, subject to County approval. Glass added that University Lane should be at least 250 feet north of Westhersfield Road. Parrin added that the Village Engineer should make the final determina- tion as to the length of lanes provided on University Lane. Glass then directed these traffic control measures be made part of the conditions to rezoning. Paliganoff suggested signalization be provided near the golf course to facilitate the safe crossing of golfers over University Lane. Glass observed that some sort of signalization should be provided and reviewed at the time of final site plan to protect golfers crossing University Lane. Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - July 22, 1981 DOCKET 81-6 (continued) Section 5.37-6 (continued) Harker responded that the Park District and Centex should jointly present a concept for adequate control to the Village for approval . Section 5.37-6. (2) Cul-de-Sacs Fire Chief Henrici presented a rationale for requiring 35 foot curb to curb pavement if a cul-de-sac should be over 400 feet in length. Henrici explained that wider pavement will be needed to ensure accessi- bility of Fire equipment, and that a 900 foot cul-de-sac is too long of a dead-end situation. A 900 foot dead-end could hamper response time. Harker explained that Centex would be willing to conform to Henrici's recommendation if a cul-de-sac should exceed 400 feet. if a cul-de-sac should be less than 400 feet, then the pavement requirement would be 28 feet. Glass suggested that the maximum length allowed for a cul-de-sac should be 900 feet. Glass directed the following be made a condition to rezoning of the property: No cul-de-sac shall exceed 900 feet in length. The pavement width requirement for cul-de-sacs of 400 feet or less shall be 28 feet from back of curb to back of curb. The pavement width requirement for cul-de-sacs exceeding 400 feet shall be 35 feet from back of curb to back of curb for the total length of street. Section 5.37-6. (3) Private Common Driveways Stangeland questioned Centex's rationale concerning this section. Harker responded that he would be willing to add wording which provides for private common driveways to be subject to the review and recommendation of the Plan Commission, and approval of the Village Board at the time of final land use map creation incorporating same. Consensus was obtained from the Commission regarding Harker's language. Glass declared that approval of the A-3 District, and approval of the rezoning, are contingent upon the golf course becoming a reality. The Plan Commission takes this position because all discussion has been evolving around the assumption that a golf course will be built. Also, a golf course is considered the highest and best use for the designated recreational area. Glass directed that construction of a golf course be made a condition of rezoning. Feinstein submitted a copy of a letter from William Newcomb Associates dealing with fertilization standards of the golf course area. (A copy is attached to and made a part of these minutes.) Feinstein also informed the Commission, for the record, that a revenue analysis will soon be submitted for Commission review. Glass asked Mr. Lew Smith of the Elk Grove Park District what impact development of a golf course would have on the development of other park sites. Smith reported that the Park District maintains a hedge of $300,000 of non-referendum bonding power; and even with the conceived construction of the golf course, he expects to have $800,000 worth of non-referendum bonding power at the end of 1982. Glass directed Staff to prepare a finding of fact to rezone the property incumbent upon construction of an 18-hole golf course. Plan Commission Minutes - 5 - July 22, 1981 HAMPTON FARMS SPECIAL USE PERMIT The Plan Commission discussed amending the Hampton Farms Special Use Permit. Mr. Joe Kabbes, a resident of the Hampton Farms Subdivision, requested that the new open space area created by amending the Special Use Permit be graded and seeded in a like manner as the original area being transferred. Karen Kabbes, resident of Hampton Farms, raised concerns about screening the newly created play area from the golf course. Glass directed Staff to include concerns for regrading, seeding, and screening of the newly created 200 foot by 300 foot play area in the finding of fact. Glass then called a Plan Commission Meeting for August 5, 1981 at 8:00 p.m. in the Municipal Building. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Submitted by: Jon 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, McGraw-Hill . R i' ! CENTIZX HOMES L D I a WILLIAM NEWCOMB aSSOciates June 29, 1.981 Joe Luciani, Vice Pres. P.E. Land Development Centrex Homes 887 E. Wilmette Bldg. B Palatine, Illinois 60067 Dear Joe, This is to provide you information regarding the comparative amounts of fertilizer used for field crops vs. turf grass. Basically, all crops or plant - materials require 6 lb. of nitrogen per 1000 sq. ft. per year. Fertilization of field crops will usually occur in two equal applications, 3 lbs. nitrogen per 1000 sq, ft. , once early spring and once early summer. Fertilization of turf grass will usually occur in twelve equal applications throughout the growing season, i lb. nitrogen per 1000 sq. ft. per year. This comparative application rate exhibits normal farm fertilizer practice to be six times more intensive than normal turf grass practice. Thus, for purposes of interruption of any wildlife feeding habits, the turf grass practice would certainly be less dis- ruptive. It has been our experience, as a golf course operator, that none of the golf course maintenance practices interfere with the abundant wildlife that returns to the area once golf course construction is completed. Sincerely your William K. Newc mb WKN/rw 116 EAST LIBERTY ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48104 Phone (313)663-3064 or (313)663-3386