Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 03/16/1976 - ANNEXATION AGREEMENT s MINUTES ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION March 16, 1976 The special meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order at 8:20 p.m. on Tuesday, March 16, 1976 in the Staff Conference Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: William Shannon Leah Cummins Warren Jacobson Alvin Krasnow Edward Hauser STAFF PRESENT: William Wesley Gary Parrin, Thomas Hamilton Stan Klyber (9:00 p.m.) Administrative Assistant Thomas Rettenbacher, Building Commissioner Commons of Rountree Samuel La Susa, Donald Storini , Frank Columbia, William Lawrence, John Galiano and Otto Stephani were present to discuss a revised concept plan. The plan reflected 80 units , as provided in the annexation agreement, and a new location for the 1 .52 acre parcel for a park site. Mr. Rettenbacher informed the Commissioners that the agreement provides for straight A-1 zoning. In order to develop the property as reflected on the plan, a special use permit would be required to allow more than one building per lot. The subdivided lots , under straight A-1 , would require side, rear and front yard setbacks . The plan shows attached townhomes which do not have the necessary side yards . The Village Attorney is requested to determine if the developer will have to apply for a special use permit, which requires a public hearing, or if the agreement is broad enough that a special use was the intent of the agreement, thus making a public hearing not necessary. Mr. Lawrence presented the revised concept plan. The following is general site information: GENERAL INFORMATION TOTAL SITE 20.0 Acres Commercial (Gross) 4. 10 Park Site 1 .52 Multiple Family (Gross) 15.90 Dedicated Right-of-Way 1 .50 Multiple Family (net) 12.88 Retention Pond 0.60 Total Number of Dwelling Units 80 Net Density 5.55 Dwelling Units per Acre Gross Density 5.03 Dwelling Units per Acre Building Coverage 2.0 Acres Pavement Coverage 1 .9 Open Space 10.5 Number of Parking Stalls 201 2.5 Parking Stalls per Dwelling Unit Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - March 16, 1976 Mr. Lawrence further stated that mounding and screening would be provided between the commercial property and residential properties . Mr. Hamilton questioned Mr. Lawrence on how open space was calculated. Mr. Lawrence replied that the open space was all land around the buildings less roads and buildings with deeded lots . Mr. Rettenbacher noted that the 30' envolop between buildings cannot be considered in the open space calculations . Mr. La Susa stated that the detention pond was engineered to be a dry detention pond. Mr. Hamilton asked how the drainage would occur. Mr. Lawrence explained that a control outlet would be provided to make sure dewatering will occur. Mr. Hauser then asked about the elevation of the land around the detention pond. Mr. Hamilton added that he would like to know how high the detention pond would be in relation to the homes backing up to the pond. In reply, Mr. Lawrence noted that the pond will be lower than the existing of residential homes . The developer' s property will also slope toward the pond, thus the pond will be the lowest acreage in the area. The topographical survey is reflected on the revised plan. Mr. Wesley questioned if the topographical survey is current. Mr. Columbia replied that the survey is no more than two months old. It was taken after Centex completed their work in the area. Mr. La Susa stated that from a time framework, the developer is almost "locked-in" to this site plan in order to meet the building season. Mr. Hauser mentioned that the Elk Grove Park District has a policy of having a minimum of 3 acres for a park. The Park District Board authorized Mr. Hauser to offer $22,000 to purchase another 1 .52 acres adjacent to the land to be dedicated to the Village. This would provide a more useful area for park purposes. Mr. La Susa declined the offer stating that his client would loose time in order to change the plan and that such a transaction is not economically feasible unless units , on a per acre basis , lost by the sale of land were placed elsewhere in the development. The developer will submit a detailed site plan following the requirements of Sections 5.34 and 5.35 of the Zoning Ordinance. This portion of the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Section 22 Mike Ives , Steve Bilheimer, Rick Burton and Tom McCabe were present to discuss Section 22. Mr. Bilheimer stated that it was the opinion of the Village Board at their last meeting (3-9-76) that the Commission should continue with review of Section 22. The Administrative Assistant reaffirmed the content of his February 17, 1976 memorandum to Mr. Shannon. Section 22 review is to continue as the Commission has been doing. Klyber added that Section 22 review should proceed by the Commission while the Ad-Hoc Committee simultaneously considers the A-2 and R-5 districts . • J Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - March 16, 1976 Mr. Shannon informed Mr. Bilheimer that he was not going to hold up Section 22 because there is enough work to do and the Commission can continue. The plan will be reviewed to a point of approval , but final approval will await further direction from the Village Board. In reference to the business (B-3) zoning, Mr. Bilheimer has put together a packet for a zoning hearing. Mr. Shannon said the Commission will have to decide if the B-3 requested zoning is acceptable. The zoning changes will be submitted by Centex at the next meeting. Mr. Bilheimer noted that the Commonwealth Edison lines along Meacham Road are not the responsibility of Centex. If the overhead lines have been raised by Commonwealth Edison, the Village should contact Commonwealth Edison to place them underground. Mr. Ives stated that the developer does not just donate net acreage. Additional property is dedicated to provide access to the property. This is why gross area is shown. Net area is reflected to show what land is available for each use. The Commission agreed that the average lot size does not need to be shown in plan data. Mr. Wesley said the developer need only show that each lot meets the minimum Village lot size. Mr. Shannon said that crosswalks need not be shown at this time within those blocks in excess of one thousand feet. It will be considered when the final determination of park sites is considered. Shannon said that at the next meeting the Commission must decide if the street configuration is acceptable. Also, park site placement will be considered. .4 .4 The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Submitted by, fyin7!it rrin Ative Assistant GEP:ms (3-22-76) c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President & Board of Trustees , Village Clerk, Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Building Commissioner, Director of Public Works/Engineering, Planning Consultant, Director of Parks and Recreation, Calkins , Centex.