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.