Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 09/21/1983 - CENTEX HOMES Minutes ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION Date: September 21, 1983 Location: Multi-Purpose Room Elk Grove Village Municipal Building 901 Wellington Avenue The regularly scheduled meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order at 8:10 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: John Glass, Chairman None Leah Cummins, Secretary Clark Fulton Frederick Geinosky George Mullen David Paliganoff Orrin Stangeland Staff Present: Ray Peterson, Village Engineer Robert Callahan, Supervisor, Building Department Docket 83-7: Petition of Centex Homes Midwest for a Text Amendment to the Elk Grove Village Zoning Ordinance creating a Special Use in the R-3 Residential District; and Docket 83-8: Petition of Centex Homes Midwest to rezone 38.11 acres in Section 23B from R-3 Residential to R-3 Special Use Centex Homes Midwest was represented by Gerald Harker, Joe Luciani, Russ Taylor and Paul Ulatowski. Chairman Glass opened the meeting with a discussion of the Staff comments. Harker remarked, that in his opinion, Mr. Peterson's comment regarding the width of Gibson Drive is inconsistent with past Village policies. Mr. Glass found merit in Harker's remarks based on his historical knowledge of past Plan Commission policies and actions. Mr. Harker then elaborated on his reasons for the reduction in width of Gibson west of Vermont. Mr. Harker did not understand Peterson's request for a minimum corner radius of 30' at all intersections. He stated that at the present time all 60' right-of-ways with 28' curb to curb pavements are installed with 20' corner radii. Mr. Harker was in agreement with the remainder of Peterson's comments. Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - September 21, 1983 Dockets 83-7 and 83-8 (continued) In his review of the Building Department comments, Mr. Harker stated that he was of the opinion that the 25' setback had been agreed upon at the September 7th meeting and he was in agreement with the comment regarding the 15' setback on adjacent street frontages. In regard to Mr. Cech's comments regarding the eyebrows, Harker said they have a value from a marketing point of view but would eliminate them if the Village desired. The Police Department's comment related to the proposed 20' setback and was not much discussed as the 25' setback had been agreed upon as previously stated. The Fire Service comments raised no objection and Harker noted that fact. Mr. Peterson was then asked to comment. He stated that in his opinion the area would generate a sufficient volume of traffic to justify considering Gibson Drive as a residential collector and the additional width would be desirable. Mr. Peterson stated that the 20' radius at intersections has been used in error and that a 30' radius is required by the IDOT manual; however, he does not have a problem with the 20' radius that has historically been used in the Village. The consensus of opinion expressed by the Commission members indicated their desire to have the ordinance requirements met regardless of any historical reference. A lengthy discussion followed on the road layout in Section 23 and their relationship to surrounding areas and anticipated traffic flow. Mr. Harker stated that he recently learned that the Village had a policy that was "anti retaining wall" in residential areas and this resulted in a discussion of the retaining wall incident in Section 18. George Mullen commented that he favored the eyebrows and he also favored a 20' setback with the garages set back an additional five feet. Mr. Harker stated that some garage setback from the front line of the structures is reflected in their architectural planning. The Commission considered the possibility of a 20' setback with a minimum 25' long driveway. Fred Geinosky discussed the 15' side yard on adjacent street frontages and concluded that no driveways should be permitted in these areas. Mr. Stangeland, at this time, brought up the reduced lot sizes. He added that he did not want to make a strong statement on setback requirements because it may imply a consent to the reduced lot size. The proposed lot sizes and the percentage of lots of less than 7,500 square feet was discussed. It was determined that 64% of the proposed lots are less than 7,500 square feet. Clark Fulton stated that he was not in favor of reduced lot sizes. Fred Geinosky stated that his original objections to the proposal had been overcome and he now favored the proposal as submitted. George Mullen said he is agreeable to the proposed Text Amendment for the area under consideration. Dave Paliganoff expressed a concern that the proposed development would change the character of the Village and attract a different type • e Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - September 21, 1983 Dockets 83-7 and 83-8 (continued) of purchaser than has traditionally appeared in the local market. He stated that he could, however, accept the Text Amendment. Leah Cummins stated that she would like to have at least 50% to meet existing area requirements but she is willing to accept the proposal as submitted. Mr. Mullen moved to approve the Text Amendment proposed in Docket 83-7 as it appeared in the legal notice published on August 8, 1983 with the following revisions: A. i Minimum lot area - 6,000 square feet. ii b. Front building setback line 20' with minimum driveway length to be 25' . B. i Local street right-of-ways - minimum 50' , except residential collector street to have 80' right-of- way with 40' pavement. Motion was seconded by Dave Paliganoff. Mrs. Cummins called the roll and the following vote was recorded: Aye: Cummins, Geinosky, Glass, Mullen, Paliganoff Nay: Fulton, Stangeland Absent: None The motion carried 5-2. Mr. Glass opened the discussion of the various conditions to be required for the Special Use R-3 in Section 23B. Mr. Mullen stated that to his belief all of the Commissioners were in agreement on the following conditions: Julie is to be a residential collector street; there are to be no driveways on the 15' setback street frontage; and a landscape plan is to be submitted prior to occupancy. A discussion followed regarding a phasing of the development. This was found to be unfeasable due to the practical mechanical aspect of installing underground improvements and streets. Mr. Harker suggested that Gibson west of Vermont be a 60' right-of-way with a 38' wide street. Mr. Glass addressed Mr. Peterson on this issue, who stated that he believed the 38' wide street would be adequate. Mrs. Cummins remarked that with the 38' wide street, she felt that the eyebrows on Gibson should be illuminated as this would provide more lot area. Mr. Mullen moved to approve Docket 83-8 to rezone 38.11 acres in Section 23B from R-3 Residential to R-3 Special Use with the following exceptions: Gibson Drive is to be considered a residential collector street west of Vermont except the street need be only 38 feet wide west of Vermont on a 60 foot wide right-of-way; the Gibson eyebrows are to be illuminated; a landscape plan is to be submitted prior to occupancy; no driveways are to be placed on the 15 foot setback side of corner lots; and Julie Drive is to be a residential collector street and the developer is to submit a schematic housing plat plan prior to final plat approval. Mrs. Cummins seconded the motion. Mr. Stangeland moved to amend the motion to restore the eyebrows and create a combined 45 foot and rear yard setback. The motion died for lack of a second. Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - September 21, 1983 Dockets 83-7 and 83-8 (continued) Mrs. Cummins called the role and the following vote was recorded: Aye: Cummins, Fulton, Geinosky, Glass, Mullen, Paliganoff, Stangeland Nay: None Absent: None The motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Submitted by: UGC - Robert J. 1lahan Building Department Supervisor ms c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President & Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Building Commissioner, Village Engineer, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Director of Parks and Recreation, Centex, NWA1C.