Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 07/01/1981 - CENTEX HAMPTON FARMS Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Wednesday , July 1 , 1981 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, July 1 , 1981 in the Multi- Purpose Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: Glass, John R. , Chairman Cummins, Leah, Secretary Fulton, Clark Geinosky , Frederick C . Mullen, George E. Paliganoff , David J. Stangeland, Orrin J. STAFF PRESENT : George B. Knickerbocker, Village Attorney Robert Callahan , Building ( Inspector Supervisor) Gary E. Parrin, Assistant Village Manager Thomas F. Rettenbacher, Building Commission James Sunagel , Deputy Fire Chief Steven J. Wylie, Administrative Intern Docket 81-6 The Plan Commission, acting as a Zoning Commission, continued to consider the petition of Centex Homes Midwest . The petitioner is requesting (.1 ) a Text Amendment establish- ing a combined multi-family recreational district, (2), the rezoning of portions of Section 24 to a combined multi- family recreational district , and (3) the amendment of the Special Use Permit for the Hampton Farms portion of Section 24. These proposals apply to property located east of Plum Grove Road, north of the Chicago District Pipeline, and west of Meacham Road. Chairman Glass began by reading three letters(regarding the Centex petition)into the record. The first letter, . from Mr . Lynn Phillips, concerned the disposition . of the five acres south of the creek along Vermont Drive. Phillips indicated that since the' Park District did not intend to use that land as part of the proposed golf course, it should remain part of the Homeowners Association. The second letter, submitted by Mr. Paul Whittington, inquired as to whether the subject property rezoning would restrict its land use to a golf course, and if not, what else could the land be used for. Whittington also expressed the desire to keep the above-mentioned five acres in the Homeowners Association. The final letter read into the record was from Hanne (sic) Vessel and requested the Homeowners Association retention of the five acres south of the creek along Vermont Drive. -2- Docket 81-6 (continued) Glass announced . that the Plan Commission members would now direct questions to the representatives of Centex 'Homes. Stangeland began by commenting on the absence of a time limit for subject property development, asking William Gillilan , President , Centex Homes Midwest , if he felt that this was good for, the Village. Gillilan responded that Centex would be meeting the market demand and that the Plan Commission would have the right of approval , prior to construction. Stangeland then asked Gillilan. if he felt the Plan Commission had been responsive to the market need and Gillilan replied that he did. Finally , Stangeland inquired as to the number of buildable acres Centex would be forfeiting. Taylor, Vice President, Michael L. Ives & Associates, Inc. , responded that it was a total of 25. 5 acres. Geinosky then inquired about the extent of the additional traffic generated by the golf course. Gillilan replied that traffic through the residential areas could be discomaged by not widening University Drive. Regarding the safety of golfers crossing .University,. Gillilan stated that parking could be disallowed on one or both sides of that throughway. Again , concerning traffic, Geinosky asked if the increased population of the development would hinder ingress and egress from the parking areas of the subject property. The petitioners produced a traffic study indicating the projected traffic levels and pointed out that the trips per:.1.household diminished with increased density. Geinosky expressed concern over the impredica- bility of developing traffic levels and inquired of the Village Attorney whether the Plan Commission could request changes. Knickerbocker replied that the Plan Commission could specify.. - any conditions for roads it wished. Stangeland asked if a "Y" leading into University might discomage through traffic. Parrin indicated that it would probably make no difference. Gillilan noted that such a configuration might even encourage traffic. - At this point, Taylor produced a tax impact analysis in response to an earlier question. The analysis indicated that if a development of 713 mid-range priced units . - ($65,000 avg. ) were built , the tax revenue to Elk Grove Village would be $62,470. Sunagel commented that the property development would spur the need for an additional ambulance. Parrin commented that the need for the ambulance would be inevitable regardless of the improved parcel . -3- Docket 81-6 (continued) Cummins. then remarked that she was uncomfortable with the revised definition of a Combined Multi-Family Recreational District . The Text Amendment (5.37-1) now reads that such a project "shall not encompass less than 20 acres in area" rather than the 75 acre ! requirement of the last revision. Cummins also indicated that she felt with this new zoning district that the Village was granting a "blank check" to developers and reliiguishing too much control . Gillilan reiterated that the new district matched A-2 Special Use in many .ways and that the Village would still have final approval of the buildings. Knickerbocker then . commented that, indeed, the Plan Commission would have the opportunity to review and approve future site plans and that those plans must conform to the ordinance. He also remarked that the new classification did not necessarily differ from a combination of A-2 and A-2 Special Use. Gillilan again indicated that Centex Homes could not give its land away under the requirements of A-2 zoning. Cummins noted that the Fire Department thinks health , safety and welfare are involved in the installation of elevators. Gillilan responded that Centex would discuss their installation if that" were true. Sunagel expressed the desire of the Fire Department to review the proposed buildings. and assess the elevator needs rather than grant a blank variance of no elevator requirements . in three- story buildings. The discussion returned to the flexibility of the Combined Multi-Family Recreational District and Cummins stated that she still felt an "erosion of control" . Parrin commented that he felt the Plan Commission would have adequate control . Paliganoff inquired about a time limitation for development such as five years. Gillilan responded that this would be inadequate because the market could not be predicted. After a brief recess Cummins asked Lewis Smith , Elk Grove' Park District President, if there were any other way for Elk Grove Village to obtain a golf course. Smith .replied that there was not, and commented on the desire of the public to obtain such a facility. Cummins asked Smith where the nearest golf course was and he said it was Golden Acres and that. it was fairly near. He added that it was in bad repair and that it would be closed and rezoned in the future. Cummins asked about the anticipated price range of the housing and Gillilan responded that it would be moderate, similar to Hampton Farms. -4- Docket 81-6 (continued) Cummins inquired as to whether there would be any safety problems regarding the housing across Plum Grove Road or passing automobiles. Smith said there would not be and that, generally , this golf course would be roomier than other courses in the area. Mullen asked Gillilan if a developer could build on 20 acres economically under this zoning classification. Gillilan responded that he could not speak to that matter. Mullen asked about the rationale for lowering the land area requirements to 20 acres. Parrin commented that it was in light of other anticipated Village annexations and their possibilities for development. Stangeland questioned what assurance the Village had that an 18-hole golf course would be constructed on the subject property. Knickerbocker said he would suggest conditions that compel such construction . Mullen then remarked that he wanted a review of the_ - tax impact report before any. vote were taken . Parrin assured that staff would review Centex ' s analysis. Mullen inquired about the damages the Village might incur if Centex sold the property. to an unethical developer. Knickerbocker replied that all parties were protected by the conditions of the agreement . He also stated that . he would propose language requiring that the property revert to R-3 if it fails to be developed. Mullen related that he was not opposed to the proposed golf course, nor was he opposed to government- owned golf courses, but that he did not agree with the cost estimate of $1 . 5 million and thought that it would end up costing closer to $2 million. Considering the length of time it would take to repay the bonds, Mullen wondered if the course were a good investment. Smith informed the Commission that the bond issues would only replace ones that were about to be paid off and that there probably would be no need for a tax increase. Smith said that the golf course would cost taxpayers $8-10 for . 5 years. Fulton expressed concern over the number of bedrooms should Centex decide to focus on three-bedroom. units. He asked if there were anything wrong with a 10% variation limit on the number of bedrooms. Gillilan responded that he wanted the market to decide the mix. Fulton continued that he was concerned with the population density and wanted to find a way to limit the numbers Gillilan stated that he did not agree with that method of solving the disagreement. -5- Docket 81-6 (continued) Fulton then requested an explanation of the building separation requirements of the new classi- fication . Rettenbacher, with the aid of a diagram, offered an explanation . At this point , Chairman Glass asked whether any member of the Plan Commission had strong objections to the A-3 Combined Multi-Family Recreational District . The Plan Commission members made the following comments: Pagliganoff - Indicated A-2 Special . Use (with conditionsYwould simplify the development of the subject property. He said he was leery of creating a new district with potential for development abuse. Stangeland -Stated that he was not necessarily opposed to the golf course, but was opposed to A-3. He felt it was a "blank check" , that it set a dangerous precedent , and that by adopting it the Plan Commission was beginning to rule itself out of existence. Geinosky - Indicated he was in favor of A-3 . Mullen - Stated no objections. Cummins - Expressed categorical opposition but said she was willing to negotiate. Fulton - Declared that he was not against the concept of the new zoning district, but wanted the concerns of the Plan Commission taken seriously. Glass considered this a consensus to move ahead and scheduled meetings for Tuesday, July 7 and Thursday , July 9. The meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m. Submitted by, mw Steven J l ie �+-�- Adminis ative ntern 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 & Recreation , Centex, NWMC, McGraw-Hill .