HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 07/09/1981 - CENTEX • r
Minutes
Elk Grove Village Plan Commission
Thursday, July 9 ,"* l981`':
The special meeting of the' Plan Commission was called
to order at 8 :10 p.m. on Thursday, July 9 , 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.
Stangeland, Orrin, J.
STAFF PRESENT:
Thomas F. Rettenbacher, Building Commissioner
Charles B. Henrici, Fire Chief .
Jon P. Wildenberg, Administrative Assistant
Docket 81-6
The Plan Commission continued the public hearing on the
Centex petition for a text amendment rezoning Section 24-B by
creating a new zoning classification. Consideration of a
draft dated June 30 , 1981 began .
Discussion first centered on language contained in
5.37-3(H) (General Requirements) of the proposed text amend-
ment which deals with dwelling unit limits for one and two-
story buildings. Questions were raised by members .of the
Commission regarding the- intent and clarity of section (H) as
currently written .
Jerry Harker, representing Centex Homes, pointed out that
the intent of this section was to set forth a framework of
parameters to plan and build from in the future.
Thomas Rettenbacher, Building Commissioner, proposed a
rewording of the last sentence in (H) to: "If all units _are
one-story, then this requirement shall not apply to single
or multi-story buildings where all living space is located
on one floor" .
Cummins indicated that the intent of the Commission is
to eliminate the potential for unaesthetic "row-house" type
developments.
Chairman Glass observed that no limitations are imposed
on 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 and 6-story buildings as the ordinance is
presently drafted. Glass also noted that problems of access
by emergency services in very long 1 or 2-storybuildings might
possibly be remedied through the site plan review process. '
o •
-2-
Fulton queried as to why the ordinance has been
structured to restrict dwelling units in 2-story buildings,
but not in 1 , 3, 4, 5 and6-story buildings.
Glass asked Centex representatives if they would be
amenable to any sort of unit limitations on 17story build-
ings. Centex indicated they may but would have to .see some
specifics.
Cummins proposed language to replace the entire
section (H) : in concept , a new section (H) would limit
2-story buildings to no more than 16 dwelling units each
with a provision restricting attached 2-story dwelling units
to no more than 8 in number; additionally, should a building
consist of a combination of 1 and 2-story dwelling units
then that building would be restricted to no more than 15
dwelling units.
Initial reaction to the Cummins ' offering by Centex
was negative. Centex maintained that parameters suggested
would not allow enough flexibility for the developer to con-
form to future market demands.
Glass and Cummins reiterated that some language is
necessary and some agreement between the two parties is
needed that would effectively restrain the development of
"row-type" housing. Glass posited that it may not be practical
to limit dwelling units in 1-story buildings considering the
density requirements previously set forth via ordinance. Glass
thought that perhaps density requirements coupled with market
conditions may present an effective deterrent* to very long
1-story building development.
. Plan Commission members tended toward setting forth
in writing some specific dwelling unit limitations. To this
end, Geinosky forwarded revised language to replace 5.37-3(H) :
"'If a building consists of 1-story dwelling units
only , then that building shall contain no more than
8 dwelling units.-
"If a building consists of 2-story dwelling units
only , then that building shall contain no more than
8 dwelling units.
"If a building consists of a combination of 1
and 2-story dwelling units, then that building shall
contain no more than 15 dwelling units. "
Centex again reacted negatively, their representatives
(Harker & Feinstein) stating that they would have trouble
accepting Geinosky ' s wording on the grounds that it would leave
Centex in a position where they may not be able to adjust to
future market demands.
Glass then asked Harker and Feinstein if Centex would
agree in concept to language which stipulates that all future
1 or 2-story building developments be subject to site plan
review and approval by the Plan Commission . This proposed
language would replace the last sentent of section M .
Harker, in response to Glass asserted that he could
agree to the conceptual framework Glass offered but must defer
•
-3-
final comment until giving the matter more thought .
Glass noted that even though the Plan Commission is
dealing. strictly with Centex at this time, it is not certain
what development company will own the property (Section 24-B)
in the future. Therefore, the Village needs an ordinance
which will restrict all potential developers.
At this point Counsel for Centex (Feinstein) moved that
the discussion progress to other issues.
Before moving on to other issues, Glass questioned the
Commission members to determine if all were in agreement with
general principle of submitting all 1 and 2-story building.
developments to Plan Commission site plan review and approval
prior to construction. All members were in agreement .
Discussion then proceeded on to wording of 5. 37-3(G)
which deals with requirements for elevators in certain types
of buildings. Feinstein offered changes to section (G) as
follows: i) delete subsections ( 2) and (3) of the draft ;
ii) insert a new section (2) which conceptually provides
for Centex to submit at the time of final plat any buildings
of "unique design" for review. and. recommendation by the Plan
Commission and Staff. Upon receiving the recommendation of
the Plan . Commission and Staff , the Village Board may approve
such elevators and building designs. as recommended.
Geinosky expressed concern over the inclusion of
"unique design" .wording. It was felt that this term would
be too subjective and would pose problems for future
application of the ordinance . Other members of the Commission .
agreed, and it was moved to strike "unique design" wording .
Glass then directed Feinstein to present a new draft utilizing
the Commission ' s concerns. Feinstein indicated the draft would
be forthcoming.
Section ( I ) was then considered. Feinstein indicated
that he and Staff had developed the concept of this section
and asked for the Commission ' s concurrence on said concept .
Commission members indicated agreement with concept and
directed Feinstein to present a final draft of this section, also.
After a short break it -was noted by Glass that Mullen
had departed for the evening. Glass conveyed to the meeting
that he would interject Mullen ' s concerns into the discussion
as it progressed. Glass also declared that consideration of
the Centex petition would continue after the Wednesday ,
July 15, 1981 , Public Hearing, if time allowed.
Discussion then advanced to Section 5.37-3(J) which
deals with requirements for the provision of off-street
parking spaces.
Stangeland introduced revisions to section (J) as
follows :
"J. A minimum of two off-street parking spaces,
with provision for adequate guest parking,
adequate ingress, egress, and maneuvering,
shall be provided for each dwelling unit. "
• •
-4-
Glass then solicited the opinions of Commission members
regarding Stangeland ' s revision.
Paliganoff questioned -the need to address parking
requirements at all . He suggested inserting and applying
the Village 's current parking ordinance in place of
Stangeland 's wording.
Stangeland replied that there is a need to set a
standard and his language provides for such . Paliganoff
responded by stating that adoption of strict requirements
in the text amendment would limit Village power to modify
parking standards in the future, whereas reliance upon
current parking regulations would allow the Village to
more readily modify standards in conformance with future
needs.
Rettenbacher expressed concern regarding enforcement
difficulties if proposed wording were adopted.
Stangeland asserted that the intent of his passage was
to make mention of guest parking requirements, not to set
forth specific standards, but to introduce guest parking as
a conceptual consideration. Fulton and Geinosky expressed
agreement with the direction of the Stangeland language.
Cummins related that she was in agreement with Paliganoff ' s
idea of inserting and utilizing current parking requirements.
Stangeland then asked for Commission consensus to relay to
Centex. that a minimum of two off-street parking spaces should
be provided. All members agreed.
Glass then solicited from Centex its views on Stangeland ' s
language, and parking requirements. Harker began by saying
he was not in agreement with the concept of utilizing current
Village parking ordinances because their application is sub-
ject to much more variation and uncertainty than Centex can
deal with to plan future developments. Harker emphasized
the need for concrete _planning- information while pointing
out that the term "adequate" as used in Stangeland' s wording
is too vague and may subject him to hardship. if standards
vary in the future. Centex has found by survey that
provision of two off-street parking spaces is normal in the
northwest Chicago area.
Glass interjected that a flexible parking space require-
ment may be beneficial to both Village and developer by
allowing either party, upon substantial justification, to
adjust parking requirements to meet uncertain future market
demands and conditions. Glass went on to suggest that perhaps
a standard range be developed for use in this special zoning
classification .
Centex added that any standard or standard range should
be "capped" -only expanded to. a specific level .
Glass then offered to have language altered to state
that a minimum of two off-street parking spaces per dwell-
in; unit be provided up to some agreeable maximum number.
Centel countered that the Urban Land Study indicated
1 . 75 off-street parking spaces to be a normal requirement
• •
and suggested this figure be made the lower boundary of
any standard range. Harker went on to offer an upper
boundary limit, or "cap", of 2. 4 off-street parking
spaces per dwelling unit.
Glass questioned the likelihood of standards used
to set a range remianing valid over time. Geinosky
asserted that standards used should be subject to
continual evaluation and review, thereby allowing
greater flexibility to accommodate future Village and/or
market demands.
Cummins departed at 11 :05.
Harker restated Centex ' s need to work under more
definite regulatory conditions in both the present and
future.
At this point , Paliganoff re-expressed a feeling
that the current parking ordinance should be made a part
of this special zoning district . Geinosky and Fulton
signaled agreement with Paliganoff .
Harker indicated Centex would be amenable to section (J)
as currently drafted in the pink copy (dated June 30, 1981)
or to some type of "cap" placed on the number of parking
spaces required per dwelling unit . Feinstein- related that
Centex has given many considerations to the Village through
.: the latest draft of ordinance and that the parking issue
is not one which Centex will "back down" from. Feinstein
then suggested. commencing to other issues.
Before. moving on, Glass asked member of the Commission
to consider the following points regarding the parking
space issue :
i) That they think about placing an appropriate
"cap" on the number of spaces required per
dwelling unit .
ii) That any recommendation or impasse will be
settled by the Board of Trustees and it is
his feeling that Centex would most likely
win arguments presented to the Board.
Discussion of section 5. 37-3(K)
Both Plan Commission and Centex are in agreement with
wording as drafted on pink copy (dated June 30, 1981) .
Stangeland then proposed an addition of a section
5. 37-3(L) which would provide for some control over serious
erosion and settlement damage . Rettenbacher offered that
State or County control measures may serve as a reference
point for language development in this area. Glass then
directed that the Village Engineer prepare a sample draft .
Centex will meet with the Village Engineer to discuss and
prepare said language.
Glass made a motion to adjourn and indicated that : "
i) The Centex petition may be considered after
the Public Hearing on July 15, 1981 (petitioner
to be in attendance July 15) .
-6-
ii) A meeting is called for July 16, 1981 at 8 p.m.
to continue the Centex petition. This meeting
will be for the purpose of obtaining conceptual
agreements and not to create final language ;
therefore, no. final language is due on the 16'ib .
iii) The 20-acre issue remains a rough spot as. well
as traffic control in and out of* Plum Grove Road.
The motion to adjourn was carried at 12:00 a.m.
Submitted by :
JW:mw JON1 WILDENBERGoe
'Administrative Assistant
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 .