Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 06/24/1981 - CENTEX - HAMPTON FARMS Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Wednesday, June 24, 1981 The special meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order at 9:25 p.m. on Wednesday, June 24, 1981 in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Glass, John R. , Chairman Cummins, Leah, Secretary Fulton, Clark Geinosky, Frederick C. Mullen, George E. Paliganoff, David J. MEMBER-ABSENT: Stangeland, Orrin J. STAFF PRESENT: Gary E. Parrin, Assistant Village Manager Thomas J. Cech, Village Engineer Robert Callahan, Building Supervisor James Sunagel, Deputy Fire Chief George B. Knickerbocker, Village Attorney PARK DISTRICT: Lewis L. Smith, President Thomas Hoffman, Attorney Docket 81-6 The Plan Commission continued the public hearing on the Centex petitions for a text amendment, rezoning Section 24B and an amendment to the Hampton Farms Special Use Permit. A representative from the Schaumburg Park District raised certain concerns that are addressed later in the minutes. Karen Kabbes, a resident from the Hampton Farms subdivision, expressed concern on the lack of tot-lots in the area. The Deputy Fire Chief submitted testimony to the Commission listing Departmental concerns with the elevator and cul-de-sac length requirements of the proposed text amendment. Unless elevators are required in buildings exceeding two stories, there may be difficulty in transporting a patient down to ground level. The text amendment should require elevators in buildings exceeding two stories in height. If the developer were to propose unique bidding designs that would create situations where elevators would not be necessary, the developer could petition the village for a waiver of the requirement. Mullen questioned the Deputy Chief on the Department's recommendation for cul-de-sacs. Sunagel responded that a 900' cul-de-sac should: - Have a looped water;-main since high density development would most likely be built along the length of the cul-de-sac. Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - June 24, 1981 Docket 81-6 (continued) - The minimum width to the entrance to the 'bulb' should be 501 . - Given the length of the cul-de-sac, the street width should be 35' rather than 28' . The additional width would provide for greater accessibility and mobility for Fire equipment in a high density area. Parking on the street in the subject area will be more intense than parking found on cul-de-sacs in single-family areas. Mullen then requested Staff to obtain a comparison of R-3 dwelling unit density to A-3 dwelling unit density for Section 24B. The calcula- tions should first include proposed right-of-way, and then excluded any right-of-way. In response to Paliganoff, Feinstein ,sai.d that Centex Homes is speaking on behalf of the Hampton Farms Board of Directors. The Board of Directors consists of Centex personnel until such time that the homeowners represent a majority of the dwelling unit ownership. Paliganoff continued by asking whether it is the Association's desire to retain the five acres of Hampton Farms that will not be utalized for the golf course. Feinstein replied that the question- was posed to the homeowners. If it is the homeowners' desire to retain the five acres, they may do so. It is not necessary for the course and, therefore, the homeowners can keep- the property or turn it over to the Park District for ownership and maintenance. Glass requested Centex to obtain a decision from the homeowners. The Commission would appreciate their input so that the ownership of the five acres can be brought to a conclusion. Fulton questioned the Village Attorney on the off-street parking requirements required by the Zoning Ordinance. Knickerbocker said that the Zoning Ordinance requires two off-street parking stalls per dwelling unit. This requirement is applicable to multi-family areas also. Fulton noted that the existing requirement is not adequate for this type of high density, particularly with no restrictions on the number of three bedroom units. Gillilan and Luciani presented four examples of building types (i.e. : midrise, townhouse, and combinations) to show potential land users and densities that would be permitted under the text amendment. In addition, Centex presented testimony that showed the relationship of Section 24B land configuration to the single-family homes in Schaumburg. This was done in response to the letter received by the Commission from Mr. and Mrs. Schwartz. Section 24B drops off significantly from Plum Grove Road. The difference in elevations from the homes on the west side of Plum Grove and the probable location of the Centex buildings was described as follows: - A four-story building constructed in Section 24B and located 260' - 280' from a single-family home in Schaumburg would be below the roofline of the home. - A five-story building constructed in Section 24B and located 260' - 280' from a single=family home in Schaumburg would be 5' - 8' above the roofline of the home. Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - June 24, 1981 Docket 81-6 (continued) - A six-story building constructed in Section 24B and located 260' - 280' from a single-family home in Schaumburg would be 98' above the roofline of the home. Centex went on to testify that there would be 373 cars generated by Hampton Farms and Section 24B, if developed as single family, during a peak hour. If Section 24B was developed as a multi-family area, both Section 24B and Hampton Farms would generate 463 cars during a peak hour. Geinosky felt that the additional 1,400 or 2,000 people that would reside in Section 24B would cause too much additional traffic for the two-lane Plum Grove Road. Centex disagreed and felt that the impact on Plum Grove Road would be negligible. Staff and Centex responded to Fulton's question on water and sanitary sewer by stating that there is sufficient capacity to provide both services. In response to Geinosky, Gillilan noted that both the Plan Commission and Village Board retain as much control for the submittal, review, and approval of plans for Section 24B under the text amendment as under the existing Zoning Ordinance. Mullen added that should there be vagueness in the text amendment, the Village would be hard-pressed to deny or modify Centex Development proposals. Gillilan responded that the text amendment is as specific as current ordinances and the language, requirements and application of the provisions of the text amendment were reviewed and concurred with by Staff. Geinosky asked Centex why a 50' right-of-way was requested for interior streets. Gillilan said that each time the 50' right-of-way is provided, an additional 10' would be added to the golf course distance between the fairway and the Centex residential property. A representative from the Schaumburg Park District submitted the following concerns: - The creek might back up into the Spring Valley Nature Sanctuary during the construction of the course. (Centex'S Engineer responded that the IDOT regulates and prohibits such an occurance before, during and after construction.) - Fertilizing of the golf course could spread to the trees and grasses in the Sanctuary, thereby causing a deleterious affect on the wildlife in the Sanctuary, (Newcombe will respond to the Commission on this matter:) - Fencing would prohibit wildlife from roaming through the area. (Center Engineer said that the Sanctuary will not be fenced from the golf course area that is in the flood plain pursuant to IDOT policies. A fence could catch debris, resulting in a backup of water into the preserve.) - The lack of a baseball diamond or other such park facilities in Section 24B could cause/force kids into the Sanctuary. The provision of some other recreational facilities would deter the use of the Sanctuary. Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - June 24, 1981 Docket 81-.6 (continued) Mullen asked Centex if it would build a six-story building within 15' of Plum Grove Road as permitted by current ordinances. Gillilan responded 'No' . The transcript will contain Centex's response to each question/concern raised.by Joe Kabbbs, a resident of the Hampton Farms development. Knickerbocker advised the Commission that it might want the text amendment to include a commercial accessory use provision to enable the Park District to have a restaurant or pro shop on the golf course. Glass requested Feinstein to submit a final draft of the text amendment before the next Plan Commission meeting on July 1, 1981. The public hearing and special meeting adjourned at 12:35 a.m. Submitted by: G • E. Parrin a�' Assisl'ant Vz11 age Manager ager 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.