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 .