Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 07/16/1981 - CENTEX Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Thursday, July 16, 1981 The special meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order at 8:10 p.m. on Thursday, July 16, 1981 in the Multi-Purpose Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Glass, John R. , Chairman Cummins, Leah, Secretary Fulton, Clark Mullen, George E. Geinosky, Frederick C. Paliganoff, David J. Stangeland, Orrin J. STAFF PRESENT: Gary E. Parrin, Assistant Village Manager Charles B. Henrici, Fire Chief James E. Sunagel, Deputy Fire Chief Thomas F. Rettenbacher, Building Commissioner Thomas J. Cech, village Engineer Jon P. Wildenberg, Administrative Assistant DOCKET 81-6 The Plan Commission continued the public hearing on the Centex petition for a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Consideration of the draft ordinance (dated June 30, 1981) began. Section 5.37-6 Subdivision Control Consensus was reached to have items (1) , (2) , (3) , and (4) dropped from the text amendment. Concerns addressed in items (1) - (4) will be made part of the conditions attached to the Conceptual Land Use and Zoning Map. Section 5.37-1 Purpose Consensus was reached by all members but Stangeland to maintain the 20 acre minimum parcel limit. Section 5.37-2 Uses Paliganoff desired more precise language concerning uses. Parrin suggested the addition of a phrase which states: "may include but not be limited to golf courses, tennis courts, pools, recreational structures and commercial uses accessory to the recreational uses of the subject property." Parrin indicated the Village Attorney would be directed to include the above wording. Section 5.37-3 General Requirements A. Rettenbacher noted that if the ordinance should read: "16 units per buildable acre", then a definition of buildable acre must also be set forth for purposes of enforcement. Feinstein answered Rettenbacher by explaining that "Buildable Acre" meant those portions of the Multi- Family District designated for multi-family use. Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - July 16, 1981 DOCKET 81-6 (continued) Section 5.37-3 (continued) Glass asked for direction from the Commission on whether the density requirement should be six units/acre, or sixteen units per buildable acre. Fulton asserted that density requirements should be linked to acreage on which buildings will be erected. Feinstein commented that as written, this ordinance is more restrictive on density than the (A-2) Multi-Family Residence District currently in the Village's Zoning Ordinance. Glass proposed accepting the six unit per acre limitation. All members, but Fulton, consented. Section 5.37 B Approved as drafted. Section 5.37-3 C It was suggested that language providing for setbacks against major arterial streets be included. Section 5.37-3 D Approved as drafted. Section 5.37-3 E Approved as drafted. Section 5.37-3 F Approved. Section 5.37-3 G Line 2 - Eliminate "in the following cases". Language is to be created which will enable the Plan Commission to review and approve at time of final plat any buildings which vary from the two-story requirement, but which may be proven safe by petitioner after Plan Commission and Staff review. Section 5_.37-3 H Enabling language is to be created which will allow for Plan Commission review and approval at time of final plat. Section 5.37-3 I Line 1 - Insert "driveways" before "streets". Section 5.37-3 J Geinosky pointed out that the conditions under this section were still unclear. Harker explained that Centex was looking for a "cap" of 2.4 and a lower limit of whatever the current Parking Ordinance would state. Glass asked Harker if Centex would be willing to leave Section J, as written, in the Ordinance and thus create enabling language to allow for a cap of 2.4 as a conditional use of the property. Harker agreed to that concept. Glass then proposed a conceptional framework for Section J: "That the parking requirements be those of the Parking Ordinance (Section 3.9) , and that variances may be recommended by the Plan Commission up to a cap of 2.4 off-street parking spaces per residential unit." Section 5.37-3 K Approved as drafted. s s Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - July 16, 1981 DOCKET 81-6 (continued) Section '5.37-3 L (Proposed) Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control T. Cech, Village Engineer, submitted language which would provide for some measure of control by the Village over soil erosion and sedimentation. Glass questioned Cech if standards of erosion control were available to apply. Cech replied there were, and control may also be exercised through enforcement of grading plans, landscape plans, and construction timetables. It was also noted that the burden will be put on the petitioner to prove compliance with standards of soil erosion and sedimentation control. The Commission was in agreement with the concept of the proposed language. Section 5.37-4 C. (4) Commission suggested changing "maximum density" to "maximum allowable density". Section 5.37-4 D Line 2 - Change "may" to "must" or "shall", subject to Village Attorney's recommendation. Section 5.37-5 C. (2) Line 3 - Insert "Final" for "Conceptual". Section 5.37-5 D. (5) Lines 1 - 5 remain the same. Line 6 to read: "contain a change in (1) the general perimeter of". Line 7 remains the same. Line 8 to read: "Multi-family dwellings, (2) in the proposed". Line 9 - change "100" to 111011. Line 11 - after "street" add: or such other amount as specified in the conditions to the Conceptual Land Use and Zoning Map but not to exceed 100 feet. Section 5.37-6 Subsections (1) - (4) to be stricken from ordinance. Concerns addressed in items (1) - (4) will be made part of the conditions attached to the Conceptual Land Use and Zoning Map. Geinosky moved to accept the Text Amendment subject to review by the Village Attorney and a final reading by the Plan Commission. Voting Aye: Stangeland, Paliganoff, Geinosky, and Glass; Nay: Fulton. The motion carried four to one, and the Plan Commission will recommend to the Village Board that the A-3 Zoning Ordinance be adopted. DOCKET 81-6 (continued) The second portion of the Centex Homes' petition was then taken under consideration (rezoning portions of Section 24 to a combined multi-family recreational district) . Glass inquired of Commission members if there were any objections to the proposed rezoning of Section 24 and the 1.05 acre parcel in Section 23 to (A-3) . No opposition was voiced. Glass declared that discussion would now center on conditions of rezoning to be attached to the Conceptual Land Use and Zoning Map for Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - July 16, 1981 DOCKET 81-6 (continued) Section 24 and the 1.05 acre parcel in Section 23. Stangeland opened by stating that some type of recreational area for small children should be provided. Glass concurred that "tot lots" which are easily accessible by small children should be included, and that some language providing for such is needed. Harker maintained that Centex would not like to be tied down to specific numbers. Glass replied that for the sake of conceptual and verbal development discussion would proceed in vague terms. Stangeland remarked that eventually a requirement should lock into a specific number. Harker replied that future conditions cannot be foretold, therefore specific numbers may tie Centex down into an agreement totally out of place in the future market. Glass noted that the type of product proposed by Centex may dictate that the number of play areas required be large. Harker observed that the product may also dictate a small amount of play area. Glass pointed out that "tot lot" requirements are tied into approval of the final site plan, and although it may be difficult to cite specific numbers, there should be certain recreational elements that "shall be required" or "may be required" of Centex. Harker suggested that any recreational space requirements be based on a rationale or definition of adequacy, perhaps 2,500 square feet of play lot area per 1,000 population. Feinstein asserted that any play area donation makes the golf course area donation become more uneconomical. Glass reiterated that the play lot areas under discussion are targeted for use by small children who cannot cross streets or travel far to recreate. Partin suggested that recreational requirements be tailored to the prospective population of each phase, as each phase becomes developed. Harker explained that he was concerned about future boards inter- preting language differently than the present board, and possibly losing ground. Glass related that if conditions for rezoning of this property are not set forth now, they would never be. Glass asked for the opinions of the Commissioners. Geinosky maintained that play area requirements should be specific. Paliganoff observed that a minimum of common recreational area should be provided. Feinstein questioned the amount of space that should be required. Stangeland suggested that the Commission look to requirements used before within the Village to set a precedent. Feinstein specified that a formula is needed to determine space requirements, and asked if a standard existed for such formula development. Paliganoff pointed out that Centex could as well use the recreational area requirement to attract customers. Stangeland proposed language that would provide for three lots of active juvenile recreational areas, each being a minimum of 30 feet by 60 feet. Harker expressed agreement with the concept and parameters proposed by Stangeland, and asked that a "cap" in square footage be placed on the total area dedicated to tot lots. Harker also stated that locations of play areas could be left to the Village's discretion. Glass asked Harker if Centex would be willing to set aside a minimum Plan Commission Minutes - 5 - July 16, 1981 DOCKET 81-6 (continued) amount of square footage. Harker replied that he would be more comfortable planning under a "cap", or maximum. Glass restated that a minimum standard of provision should be the aim of the Commission. •Paliganoff asserted that he, too, would rather see wording to the effect of a minimum provision rather than a maximum allowable amount. Stangeland related that some language providing for playground equipment should also be made a condition for rezoning of the property. Harker indicated he was not in agreement with Stangeland's suggestion. Fulton observed that appropriate active equipment .could be specified at the site plan rev.iec•: stage. Glass added that the Park District could offer recommendations as to what pieces of equipment should be provided. Feinstein noted that the Plan Commission could hold as a reaui.re- ment for approval of the play area that equipment be provided. Harker asked the Commission if they would be amenable to limiting equipment requirements to juvenile-type only. There was general agreement on the Commission to Harker's inquiry, with the exception of Paliganoff who pointed out that young children may not be the only population group which would desire easily accessible recreation and by limiting equipment provision to young children the Commission is excluding.other age groups. 5.37-3 A Density Requirements As written, the Text Amendment allows a maximum of six units per acre to be constructed within the (A-3) District. This would produce 713 units (6 x 118.9) . Stangeland remarked that the maximum number of units should be below 700. All other members of the Plan Commission agreed that no special density requirement should be recommended as a condition to the rezoning. Glass noted that any recommendation of the Plan Commission is predicated on the assumption that a golf course be built on the dedicated recreational area. Parrin indicated that the legal method for guarantee of a golf course is not exactly certain, and that the Village Attorney, Centex's Attorney, and the Park District,'s Attorney are pursuing the final arrangements. 5.37-3 J Off-Street Parking Geinosky related that a minimum number of off-street parking spaces be set in accordance with the current ordinance and that the maximum number of off-street parking spaces to be required by the Village be "capped" at 2.4. Feinstein responded that the minimum requirement may go below ordinance requirements if Centex can convince the Plan Commission it is needed, and the Plan Commission approves. Glass asked for and received consensus of 2.4 as a "cap" on off- street parking requirements, and directed it to be made a condition for rezoning. Plan Commission Minutes - 6 - July 16, 1981 Glass called a meeting for July 22, 1981 at 8:00 p.m. to further discuss conditions for rezoning and review language of the Text Amendment. Paliganoff moved to adjourn and was seconded by Geinosky. The Plan Commission meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.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.