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.