Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 07/07/1981 - CENTEX/PARK DISTRICT Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Tuesday , July 7, 1981 The special meeting of the' Plan Commission was called to order at 8:12 p.m. on Tuesday , July 7, 1981 in the Multi- Purpose Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: Glass, John R. , Chairman Cummins, Leah , Secretary (8 :27 p.m. ) Fulton, Clark Geinosky , Frederick C. Palignoff, David J. Stangeland, Orrin J. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mullen, George E. STAFF PRESENT: Charles A. Willis, Village Manager Gary E. Parrin, Asst . Village Manager Geo. B. Knickerbocker, Village Attorney T. F. Rettenbacher, Bldg. Commissioner C. B. Henrici, Fire Chief Docket 81-6 The special meeting was scheduled in order to discuss the proposed Text Amendment . Parrin addressed the Commission and briefly described the events. that occurred, resulting in the proposed text amendment : - The Elk Grove Park District approached Centex Homes and requested whether more acreage, in addition to the acreage set aside. for the Upper Salt Creek Water- shed, could. be made available to the Park District in order to develop a golf course in Section 24-B. - When Centex responded favorably, the Park District advised the Village and sought the Village 's input and direction in order to accomplish the acquisition of additional acreage for recreational purposes. - The Village Staff met with Centex to discuss their development plans for Section 24-B. It was subse- quently agreed by both that a text amendment for a multi-family/recreational district should be considered to accomplish the rezoning of Section 24-B. - A public hearing was scheduled to consider a proposed text amendment submitted by Centex prior to the actual hearing date. Staff rewrote the text amendment. The Commission was requested to review the amended text amendment since it contained procedures, definitions, -2- conditions, and other pertinent information necessary for staff to administer the new zoning district. A consensus from the developer on the rewritten text amendment was necessary so that the public hearing could proceed in an orderly manner as the Commission addressed the policy issues. Those items where a consensus was not reached between Staff and Centex were noted in written memoranda and verbal testimony. Parrin also noted that the green sheets were the Centex Proposal . The pink sheets were the Village ' s proposal . A comparison between Centex 's proposed text amendment and the Village ' s proposed text amendment will reflect the extent to which Staff changed the Centex proposal . Jerry Harker asked Joe Kabbes to report on the vote of the Hampton Farms homeowners for the retention. of the 5-acre site. Kabbes advised the Commission that by a vote of 17-6 the Homeowners Association agreed to retain the 5-acre parcelfor the Homeowners Association ' s private use. Twenty-three of the thirty-six eligible voters participated in the decision. Lew Smith said that the 5-acre parcel was not necessary for the golf course development. Glass asked the Commission to consider each section of the text amendment (pink sheets) . Section 5. 37-1 Purpose Fulton agreed with the general purpose statement . The section provides the Commission with the flexibility to place conditions on the rezoning or conceptual land use and zoning map. The development of tot lots could be such a condition . In response to a question from Palignoff , Knickerbocker responded that the zoning district would require a minimum development site of 20 acres. The 20-acre requirement would enable other properties within the Village the ability to utilize the new zoning district . He went on to note that if the A-3 district is a positive asset to the community, then a 20-acre minimum would enable more properties to develop under the A-3 district . An increase in the minimum acreage would reduce the number of parcels that could be rezoned under the district . Cummins was concerned about the type of development that would occur under the proposed A-3 district. The smaller the tract of land, the greater the potential that the recreational development would be detrimental to the betterment of the community. . In response, Glass said that any property owner seeking to develop under the A-3 must obtain the concurrence of a municipal government to accept . the portion of property designated for recreational development. Without said con- currence, no rezoning would be approved by the Village. -3- Knickerbocker added that any proposed site plans would have to confirm with the A-3 requirements and receive the Commission ' s approval . Cummins suggested that the 20-acre minimum requirement be held in abeyance for further discussion after the remainder of the ordinance has been addressed by the Commission. Palignoff asked Knickerbocker how the A-3 district parallels the current A-2 district . Knickerbocker responded that the A-3 follows the procedural requirements of the A-2 special use. The major difference is that the property owner, under the A-3 , is not required to submit detailed site plans until a later- date. Under the A-2. special use, an approved site plan is required before approval of the rezoning. 5.37-2 Uses The Commission suggested that the definition of uses be rewritten as follows: Multi-family dwellings and public recreational uses such as golf courses, tennis courts, pools, recreational structures and commercial uses accessory to the recreational uses of the subject property. Smith did not want to preclude the Park District from franchising food services or utilizing catering services. Knickerbocker said the language, as proposed by the Commission , would not put such constraints on the Park District . However, whether the Village seeks to impose licensing for liquor or food sales is a matter separate and distinct from the text amendment. 5.37-3 General Requirements Paragraph A Fulton suggested calculating density on buildable acreage, not total acreage. There was a consensus among the Commissioners on this approach. Predicated on 45.84 buildable acres, Feinstein said 15. 55 dwelling units per acre would provide the 713 units requested by Centex. The number should be rounded upward to 16 dwelling units per acre because rounding downward to 15 would only permit 688 dwelling units on the 45.84 acre site. Stangeland, Geinosky , Glass and Palignoff favored 16 . dwelling units per buildable acre. Cummins and Glass favored 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Cummins was concerned with the problems that arise . with high density development and the subsequent impact on Village services. These problems could be lessened by such action as determining separation between buildings and limiting building heights. Density alone does not determine whether a development will be good or bad. 0 i -4- Paragraph B Glass questioned whether the bedroom count should be calculated using the total number of permitted dwelling units or the actual number of dwelling units. Harker stated that an actual number of dwelling units would give a maximum number of bedrooms. Knowing the maximum number of bedrooms is extremely important since Centex would be transferring a significant amount of property to the Park District . Cummins disagreed with Centex 's approach to this matter. Centex said it ' s giving up so much when, in actuality, the Village and Park District are giving Centex a magnificent opportunity to build units that will abut a golf course. Harker acknowedged that these are mutual. benefits and considerations. It is Centex ' s goal to reach a com- fortable balance between the benefits that will accrue to both the Village and Centex. Centex must protect its interest in the land for a number of years since not only will a large portion go to a municipal agency, but Centex does not have a development plan for the remaining property. Glass suggested that the word 'permitted' be removed and replaced with the phrase. . . 'to be, or as actually, built. . . ' . The change occurs on page 2 and 3 . Paragraph C Cummins recommended that the building set-back from a major arterial street( ie : Plum Grove) should be greater than 15 feet . Harker suggested 25 feet or the height of the building, whichever is greater. The Commission agreed and directed the Village Attorney to insert. the appropriate language into Paragraph C. Paragraph -D Stangeland questioned why the mean would be measured from the highest finished grade. In response, Harker noted that the land contour slopes away from Plum Grove Road. Paragraph D compensates for the change in topography . Paragraph E Line 3 : change dwellings to dwelling. Line 4 : add the word 'to ' after 'relates ' Line 5: add 'of the Zoning Ordinance ' after 3 .55. Paragraph F Change the phrase 'that term' to the word 'height ' . -5- Paragraph G Feinstein drew the following examples to correspond to the building types where elevators would not be required: Example for (1) 2 story m ------------- �+ unit t 0 4-�access points U) / � 1 Story Unit CO Example for ( 2) 1 story unit a� 0 2 story unit access points ------------- / C') r Example for (3) 2 story ---------------- m unit 0 2 story + access points v� --------------- unit Henrici suggested that all buildings in excess of 2 stories be required to have elevators. When Centex knows the specific design of a building, they can . seek a waiver from the Village on the installation of elevators after Fire Department review of the building layout . After considerable discussion, Knickerbocker was directed to prepare language that would enable the Commission to require elevators in buildings in excess of two stores as a condition of the rezoning and site plan review. Paragraph H Remove the last sentence. Paragraph I Fulton and Cummins suggested that there was ambiguity between private and public ownership. The Attorney is to rewrite this section in order to differentiate and clarify which areas would be for public ownership versus private ownership. -6- Paragraph I (continued) Glass advised the Commission that the remaining sections of the text amendment will be discussed at a special meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 9, at 8 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 11 :45 p.m. Submitted by : mw GParrin, s i t t Village Manager 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 .