Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 11/17/1982 - ALTERNATIVE HOUSING CONCET CENTEX Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Wednesday, November 17, 1982 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order at 8:15 p.m. on Wednesday, November 17, 1982 in the Multi-Purpose Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. Plan Commission Members Present: John R. Glass, Chairman Leah Cummins, Secretary George E. Mullen David J. Paliganoff Orrin J. Stangeland Clark Fulton Frederick C. Geinosky Centex Homes Representatives: Gerald Harker, President - Midwest Joe Luciani, Vice President - Midwest Russel Taylor, Land Planner Housing Commission Members Present: Karen C. Wirth, Chairperson Suzanne F. Miller Staff Present: Jon Wildenberg, Administrative Assistant Alternative Housing Concept of Centex Homes Chairman Glass related that Staff had informed him of the Village Board's comments regarding the alternate housing concept as proposed. In short, the Board finds many aspects of the plan objectionable. Among the points are: - Installation of sidewalk on one side of the street; - Reduced side yards; - Reduced street right-of-way (from 60' to 50') ; and - A preponderance of cul-de-sacs. Mr. Harker acknowledged receipt of a similar message from Staff and further stated that he believes mutual agreement could be reached on all objectionable items and that he would like to proceed with the concept. Centex is seeking direction as to which zoning classification or text changes would accommodate the alternate housing. Stangeland questioned the purpose of meeting with Centex at this time and also stated that if a public hearing is required, then Centex should petition instead of continuing the informal meeting process. Paliganoff noted that if mortgage interest rates begin to decline, then the affordability of housing currently planned for Section 23 increases. Paliganoff observed that affordable housing could merely be a function of mortgage interest rates; therefore, Centex would be It • EGV Plan Commission - 2 - November 17, 1982 Alternative Housing Concept of Centex Homes (continued) able to sell the traditional style homes in Section 23 when interest rates fall. Russ Taylor, Centex land planning consultant, proceeded with a presentation prepared for this evening's meeting. Various charts and maps of the "Study Area" (i.e. , the area proposed to include alternate housing - approximately 12.1 acres along the south side of Gibson Drive in the northwest corner of Section 23) were displayed for information and review. It was pointed out by Mr. Taylor that the housing idea had gone through two (2) drafts (referred to as Concept A and Concept B) . The latest draft for consideration is Concept B which includes: 70 lots on 12.1 acres; numerous cul-de-sacs with islands for green space and trees; average lot size of 5,725 square feet; minimum lot size of 4,047 square feet; a minimum frontage at the building Zine of 57 feet; average frontage at building Zine of 66 feet; 50 foot street right-of-way with sidewalk on one side only; street pavement of 28 feet back-of-curb to back-of-curb; cul-de-sac pavement of 24 feet back-of-curb to back-of-curb; and the placement of homes ranging from 1,250 square feet to 1,600 square feet in livable area. Attached to these minutes are tables of information distributed along with the presentation. For comparative purposes, statistics are presented for the "Study Area" under three (3) conditions: original (as currently zoned and platted); Concept A (the first Centex draft); and Concept B (the latest Centex draft, also previously presented to the Village President and Board of Trustees as well as the Housing Commission.) Discussion also centered on implementing the proposed single family concept. An outline of options proposed by Centex is also attached to these minutes. Harker concluded the presentation by stating that Centex desires to create affordable single family detached housing and to maintain value, homeowner individuality, and pride of ownership. Harker foresees a demand for the smaller single family home on a smaller lot. In response to Geinosky, Harker explained that additions to the original foundations of the homes would not be allowed through restrictive covenants; and.that the development, as proposed, should not have any adverse impact on the property values of surrounding areas. Harker suggested that Centex would address any concerns of the Plan Commission or supply any information prior to meeting with the Plan Commission at a later date. After such a meeting, Centex would be prepared to pursue the appropriate public hearing. Glass instructed that the Plan Commission would meet with the Housing Commission and Centex on December 15, 1982 to discuss alternate housing. Great-West Industrial Subdivision Consensus in favor of including a railroad siding easement on the plat of subdivision was reached. • EGV Plan Commission - 3 - November 17, 1982 The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. Submitted by: pt p. P. Wildenberg J inistrative Assistant ms Attachments 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 Finance, Police Chief, Director of Parks and Recreation, Centex, NWMC, Housing Commission. CENTEX HOMES MIDWEST, INC. WINSTON GROVE, SECTION 23 PLAN DATA COMPARISON ORIGINAL CONCEPT A CONCEPT B NO. OF LOTS 41 79 70 GROSS SITE AREA (1) 12.1 AC + 12.1 AC + 12.1 AC + DEDICATED STREETS 2.3 AC + 2.7 AC + 2.9 AC + RESIENTIAL AREA 9.8 AC + 9.4 AC + 9.2 AC + GROSS DENSITY (2) 3.4 DU/AC 6.5 DU/AC 5.8 DU/AC RESIDENTIAL DENSITY (3) 4.2 DU/AC 8.4 DU/AC 7.6 DU/AC MIN. LOT AREA (4) 7,918 sq.ft. 3,542 sq.ft. 4,047 sq.ft. AVG. LOT AREA 10,411 sq.ft. 5,183 sq.ft. 5,725 sq.ft. % INCREASE OVER MIN. LOT AREA 31% 46% 41% (1) Excludes surrounding open space. . (2) No. of units divided by gross site area. (3) No. of units divided by residential area. (4) Minimum lot area used for designing purposes . Actual minimum lot area shown on the plan may be greater than the minimum area shown. /r-) X45 c u r rejri'!y iii t o � q O m O O O ^ O O^ U N O O r Q �r Q=Pm Q N O 1 O M N MV WM✓ N o o ` _ r co o C � e w W o 1 O Q Qt co O O O O 4 N N r tft ttt^ In T^ -.• 0 0 O rn Qp•NC ADO C ov b CO J J Ul to N (b N Q Q�D d0 0 . yt ✓� M M N tf1 M M N N 'vl �� y y as d ' > C O O O O tf1 O O U-t;8 C t'f O Cl N O tPt N Cl O N IO 3�SC •"'W O O Q lO !`r to W t •' ` V F d O O O O J to r1 Z N _ •Y � "- - o ZO ` O - t• N J > � C e N > Z e W O < Q _ - O l7 A u o cn Uo 0O O n p to � O M � ✓ - C C .m+ L - - a a a N^ c ty c na K ✓o w cQ1 N ✓ ° o co at a 'O _ o v o c D ✓ _ 1. c7o _ a m J < � n a Ot N a a a - � •• •• . - > - t'J 0 y o L a •O m d a N V yt > > > � 7 N x m p T c C C L a•-• C C C o q _ li O T q CT C C •a X � m< < < _ y _ - a ) y c ✓ a v+a Q m m m m -_ _ - m ✓ m ✓ ~ � L✓ � � q E E E p N � N N N N •- O a to N N '< � -+ •o aoa - _ WD � 9 m rte+ 9 � T m '• .• _ N p O O O O O y 0 O O N m o n .+ m CENTEX HOMES MIDWEST, INC. WINSTON GROVE, SECTION 23 PLANNING & DESIGN CRITERIA ORIGINAL CONCEPT A CONCEPT B MAX. BLDG. HEIGHT 2-story - 35 feet 2-story - 35 feet 2-story - 35 feet MIN. LOT AREA 7500 sq. ft. 3500 sq. ft. 4047 sq. ft. MAX. GROUND COVER 35% 35% -35% MIN. LOT WIDTH 60 feet 46 feet 57 feet MIN. FT. YARD 25 feet 15 feet 15 feet (20' to garage) (20' to garage) MIN. SIDE YARD 8 feet 3 feet 3 feet MIN. SIDE BLDG. SEPARATION 16 feet 10 feet 10 feet MIN. REAR YARD 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet MIN. BUILDING SEPARATION: SIDE TO SIDE 16 feet 10 feet 10 feet SIDE TO REAR* 28 feet 20 feet* 25 feet* REAR TO REAR* 40 feet 40 feet* 40 feet* *Consideration to reduce building separation 5 feet is requested where a building corner is the closest portion of the structure to a side or rear of another building. This reduces interaction between buildings (views from a unit) while permitting maximum de- sign flexibility. A similar building separation criteria is permitted within planned developments. CENTEX HOMES MIDWEST, INC. _ WINSTON GROVE, SECTION 23 POPULATION COMPARISON ORIGINAL CONCEPT A CONCEPT B TOTAL UNITS 41 79 70 #2 BED. UNITS - 39 (50%) 35 (50%) #3 BED. UNITS 37 (90%) 40 (50%) 35 (50%) #4 BED. UNITS 4 (10%) - - POPULATION 0 - 4 Years 14 23 21 5 - 13 (K-8) 24 36 32 14 - 17 (9-12) 13 19 16 Adult 83 150 133 TOTAL POPULATION 134 228 202 SOURCE: Illinois School Consulting Services "Table of Estimated Ultimate Population per Dwelling Unit" dated 12/15/81 . CENTEX HOMES MIDWEST, INC. WINSTON GROVE, SECTION 23 PARKING ANALYSIS LOCATION ORIGINAL CONCEPT A CONCEPT B NO. UNITS 41 79 70 ASSIGNED SPACE Garage 82 79 113 Driveway 82 79 118 UNASSIGNED SPACE On-Street 80 108 96 On Gibson , 25 25 26 TOTAL PARKING 269 291 353 ASSIGNED RATIO 4: 1 2: 1 3.3: 1 UNASSIGNED RATIO 2.6: 1 1. 7: 1 1 .7: 1 TOTAL PARKING RATIO 6.6: 1 3. 7: 1 5.0: 1 Parking counts based on prototypical assignments for units for Original and Concept A figure. Concept B counts based on Illustrative Site Plan. CENTEX HOMES MIDWEST, INC. WINSTON GROVE, SECTION 23 STREET DATA COMPARISON ORIGINAL CONCEPT A CONCEPT B L.F. Sq.Ft. L.F. Sq.Ft. L.F. Sq.Ft. INTERNAL STREET 28' B/B 1,610 40,250 2,115 52,875 1,700 42,500 241B/B (Cul-de-sac) 138 3,317 - 1,317 27,657 Gibson (28' B/B) 465 11,625 465 11,625 465 11,625 TOTAL 2,213 55,192 2,580 64,500 3,482 81,782 No. of Lots 41 79 70 L.F. Street/Lot 54.0 32.7 49.7 % Over Original Change - -39.4% - 8.0% Sq.Ft. Pavement/Lot 1346.1 816.5 1168.3 % Over Original Change - -39.3% -13.2% CENTEX HOMES MIDWEST, INC. WINSTON GROVE, SECTION 23 TRAFFIC GENERATION This traffic generation analysis has been prepared to evaluate the potential traffic impact of new development on the streets around the study area. The Institue of Transportation Engineer (ITE) 1976 report entitles "TRIP GENERATION", which is widely accepted as basis for trip generation surveys, was utilized for this study. Three single-family residential concepts were analyzed, the "Original" concept reflecting 41 dwelling units, "Concept A" reflecting 79 dwelling units and "Concept B" reflecting 70 dwelling units. All concepts utilize dedicated streets for access to and from the residential homes. As determined in the ITE report, single family homes generate approximately 10 vehicle trips per day based on weekly study times. These trips are non-directional movement , that is to say, they do not reflect vehicles which travel to or from the residential units . Each day traffic reflects two peak travel times, one in the morning and• one in the evening. The most vehicles traveling the streets during a one hour period within these peak travel times is known as the peak hour traffic. Approximately one vehicle trip per unit is generated during the morning and evening peak hours. For the purposes of comparing traffic impact, the peak hour trip generation is compared for each of the development alternatives in the following table. TRAFFIC GENERATION USE ; CENTEX HOMES MIDWEST, iNC. .WINSTON GROVE, SECTION 23 LANDSCAPE PLANNING The following is a general listing of plant material from which final plant species assignments will be selected. BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME DECIDUOUS SHADE TREES Acer p. 'Emerald Queen' Emerald Queen Norway Maple Acer rubrum Red Maple Fraxinus. p. 'Summit' Summit Green Ash Gleditsia t. i . 'Skyline' Skyline Honeylocust Tilia c. 'Greenspire' Greenspire Littleleaf Linden Tilia c. 'Olympic' Olympic Littleleaf Linden The plant list above indicates the proposed species of shade trees which will be speci- fied for use as Street Trees. All trees shall be balled and burlapped with a minimum trunk diameter of two and one- half inches (22") measured at a height of six inches (6" ) above finished ground level , as required by the village. Additional trees planted in conjunction with the project ' s landscaping program may also include selections from the following list: DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREES Acer ginnala Amur Maple Amelanchier grandiflora Apple Serviceberry Alnus glutinosa European Black Alder Betula nigra River Birch Cornus mas Corneliancherry Dogwood Crataegus crusgalli Cockspur Hawthorn Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington Hawthorn Malus floribunda Japanese Flowering Crabapple Malus 'Profusion' Profusion Crabapple Malus 'Snowdrift' Snowdrift Crabapple Malus zumi 'Calocarpa' Zumi Crabapple Syringa amurensis japonica Japanese Tr-Ee Lilac EVERGREEN TREES Abies concolor Concolor Fir Picea pungens Colorado spruce Pinus nigra Austrian Pine Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine NOTES: F>e quired number of Street Trees was calculated on the basis of one tree per fifty feet (50' ) . At street corners, trees shall be located at least twenty feet (20' ) from the intersection of street right-of-way lines. The required trees have been located outside of the dedicated parkway in order to attain a cluster or mini-grove feeling, which will be more aesthetically pleasing in conjunc- tion with the curvalinear street system 'and to avoid interference with utilities due to the reduced right-of-way. CENTEX HOMES MIDWEST, INC. WINSTON GROVE, SECTION 23 PRODUCT ANALYSIS UNIT TYPE ONE-CAR TWO-CAR TOTAL A 3 15 18 B 9 8 17 C 8 9 17 D 7 11 18 TOTAL 27 (39%) 43 (61%) 70 Based on the Illustrative Site Plan CENTEX HOMES MIDWEST, INC. WINSTON GROVE, SECTION 23 IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY CONCEPT Centex Homes Midwest, Inc. believes that the proposed single-family development is beneficial to the community. It will provide single family housing which is affordable and desired by the public. In doing so, the building permit activity for single-family detached homes will increase in the Village. The problem with the proposed concept is that it is not possible to implement the development with the current Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Control Ordinance. Amending the current codes are possible, however, to permit such a development. Both Zoning and Subdivision Control ordinances provide a means of being amended by the Village Board of Trustees after receiving recommendations from the Plan Commission. Aside from creating a new zoning district, various amendments to specific sections of the Zoning and Subdivision Control ordinances will provide means to implement the development proposal . The following information is provided so that the Village Board of Trustees can analyze the potential avenues of implementation and provide direction to the Plan Commisssion relative to ordinance amendments . These avenues reflect efficient means of implementing the proposal while maintaining or improving the integrity of the Village ordinances . A. CREATE A NEW ZONING CLASSIFICATION Centex believes that the proposed single-family development does not drastically differ from the current regulations to warrent a. new zoning district. If this avenue is selected, however, the new district would include rezoning and development design criteria which would be applicable throughout the community. Specific improvement criteria could also be stipulated which would supersede the Subdivision Control Ordinance. The issue concerning this avenue is whether or not the integrity of the existing code will be compromised. Because the land use is not drastically different from existing single family districts, the implementation of a new zoning district may weaken the zoning ordinance. B. AMEND EXISTING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS The proposed development appears to reflect a land use which could be considered as a Planned Development. Planned Developments are permitted special uses in the R-4, A-1, and A-2 zoning districts. The Appendix located at the back of this report section outlines the existing uses and design criteria authorized in the Zoning Ordinance. The following presents the purpose of the Planned Development special use as well as various requirements of the R-4 P.D. , A-1 P.D. and A-2 P.D. which restrict or prohibit the proposed single-family development . Comments regarding the restrictions are noted as well . It is the desire of Centex Homes Midwest, Inc. to amend the restriction in such a fashion that results in a comprehensive zoning ordianance that provides development opportunity without compromising the integrity of the code. • • 1) Purpose of Planned Developments: Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance regulates Planned Development (P.D. ) . The purpose of the P.D. regulations are summerized as follows: a) To encourage a maximum choice in types of environment by allowing development that is not possible under the strict application of other sections of the Zoning Ordinance. b) To encourage the preservation of permanent open space. c) To encourage development which preserves natural vegetation and topographic features. d) To encourage a creative approach to development which results in improved design and—construction-of—aesthetic amenities. e) To encourage land uses which- promote the public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare. Planned Developments also intend to provide developments which incorporate a single type or a variety of related uses. They may consist of conventionally subdivided lots or provide for development in accordance with a land use and zoning plat keeping with the purpose of the plan. This purpose of Planned Developments is the underlying criteria for special development proposals. It sets the stage for implementing developments which are unique, desireable and affordable so long as surrounding property values remain consistant. If the proposed development was only contigent upon the Planned Development purpose it could be submitted today for consideration . The proposal meets or "exceeds each of the six items listed above. Planned Developments , however, are special uses. They must be located within a district which authorizes the use of P.D's. Only R-4, A-1 and A-2 zoning districts authorize the use of P.D's. The criteria specified in those districts present the restrictions which denies the proposal from being developed. It should be noted that the criteria in the R-4 P.D. , A-1 P.D. and A-2 P.D. appears to contradict the purpose of Planned Developments . As mentioned earlier, the R-4 P.D. , A-1 P.D. and A-1 P.D. criteria is outlined for reference in the Appendix. The conflicts between the district criteria are presented in the following sections . P-4 P.D.---Conflicts with P.D. Special Use and the Proposal : The following items summarize elements of conflict between ordianance sections and the proposed development. a) The only residential developments permitted in this district represents a combination of single-family detached and attached and multiple-family units. i ) Ordinance Conflict: Requiring a combination or mixture of three types of residential units conflicts with the P.D. purpose of encouraging a maximum choice of environment. No singlular residential use can be proposed. ii ) Proposal Conflict: Only single family detached units are desired in the proposal . To require other residential types in the proposal weakens the neighborhood's integrity. b) All single family units must be placed on a subdivided lot adhering to the R-3 district (i .e. 7,500 sq.ft. lots). i ) Ordinance Conflict: This requirement conflicts with the Planned ev oilmen Purpose which encourages flexibility in design so as to produce efficient and economic developments. ii ) Ordinance Conflict: This requirement also conflicts with the P.D. purpose by restricting the choice of environments available in P.D' S. iii ) Ordinance Conflict: This also limits the promotion of public health, confort and welfare encouraged in P.D' S. by limiting single family housing affordability. iv) Proposal Conflict: The use of larger lots in the development will create an imbalance in aesthetics . Also larger lots require more personal maintenance which is not desired by first-time home purchasers . The other result of smaller homes on R-3 lots will in essence reduce Village revenues while requiring the same level of maintenance, therefore, it would not be efficient. c) A maximum density of 5.0 DUs/AC is permitted. i ) Proposal Conflicts: As. proposed, the development has a 7.6 residential density, however, no open space surrounding the project area is included in the calculation. If an additional 1.9 acres of land allocated for open space is proposed as part of the project the resulting density would be 5.0 DU/AC. 3) A-1 P.D.---Conflicts with P.D. Special Use and the Proposal : A-1 P.D. criterial differs from R-4 P.D. in the following ways: o Single family and/or multiple family units are permitted in A-1 P.D. opposed to a combination of uses required in the R-4 P.D. o A-1 P.D. area must have 10 acres as opposed to the 100 acres required for R-4 P.D. o Construction scheduling of unit types are not addressed in A-1 P.D. as opposed to the R-4 P.D. requirement to schedule the quantity of multiple-family units so as not to exceed the quantity of single-family units. o A-1 P.D. has a maximum density of 13 units per acre as opposed to the R-4 P.D. density of 5.0 units per acre. The A-1 P.D. district is more applicable for use in zoning the property for the proposed development . Only one restriction of the A-1 P.D. prohibits the proposal . a) Single family units must be located on subdivided lots adhering to the R-3 district. i ) Conflicts: The conflicts noted in the R-4 P.D. discussion also apply here. 4) A-2 P.D.---Conflicts with P.D. Special Use and the Proposal : A-2 P.D. criteria differs from the A-1 P.D. only in that a maximum density of 20 units per acre is permitted as opposed to the A-1 P.D. district maximum density of 13 units per acre. The A-2 P.D. district conflicts with the proposal and special use criteria in the same fashion as the A-1 P.D. C. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS The following amendments are suggested solutions to implement the proposed single family development and resolve conflicts within the Zoning- Ordinance. 1) R-4 P.D.• The R-4 P.D. appears appropriate for a zoning classification in that it would reflect a transition between the existing R-3 area and the A-2 and A-3 areas located to the north. The following suggested amendment would be necessary, however, to adopt such a zoning district. a) Permit either a singular or a mixture of residential types. It could be that multiple family uses are possible only -if single family uses are proposed, however, it should permit only single family uses if so desired. b) Permit lot areas less than the R-3 regulations if various other provisions are met . Such provisions may include aesthetic considerations , building separation, building setback, lot coverage, etc. c) Density considerations based on product type may be considered. Evaluation regarding density of the proposed concept relates to maintaining a 5.0 DU/AC density assuming the allocation of open space from R-3 areas to the newly proposed single-family area is acceptable. Revising the density limits could consider aesthetics, and development amenities as well as product type. 2) A-1 P.D. and A-2 .P.D.: These districts require a smaller area of development and permits greater densities associated with development. They are appropriate for use because of the lesser restrictions. The following suggested amendments would be necessary, however, to adopt such a district. a) Permit lot areas less than R-3 regulations if various other provisions stated in R-4 P.D. suggestions are met. 3) Subdivision Control Ordinance: Conflicts between this ordinance and the proposed single family development would have to be addressed. The following considerations for amendments would be applicable to a Planned Development. a) Permit local , public street rights-of-way to be less than 60 feet in width. b) Permit cul-de-sac end rights-of-way to be less than 100 feet diameter. c) Permit block length to vary depending on site design and drainage considerations . This may result in blocks longer than 1200 feet which is stipulated in the code as being a maximum length. d) Permit lots which are .less than 60 feet wide or 7,500 sq.ft. in area. e) Permit side lot lines- which are not necessarily perpendicular to, or radial to the public street right-of-way. f) Permit sidewalks to be located on one side of local or cul-de-sac streets . g) Permit public utilities to be located within easements adjoining public streets. All of these revisions should be conditional . Use of the amended criteria should be based on approved site planning considerations and not be detramental to the future residents or surrounding property values. APPENDIX ZONING CLASSIFICATION REQUIREMENT SUMMARY R-4 P.D. Permitted uses are a combination of single-family detached and attached and multiple family units at a maximum density of 5 units per acre provided the following conditions are met: A. The tract of land must be 100 acres or be a parcel adjoining an existing planned development. B. The tract must be eligible for a P.D. as determined by the Village Plan. C. Proposed uses must be of a type and location to not detrimentally influence surrounding properties. D. All detached single family units must be on lots which adhere to the R-3 district requirements . E. Areas not subdivided must meet certain criteria including: 1) Provide 50% open space. 2)_ Recognize a 15' setback from streets . 3) Provide a separation of 16 feet for one story buildings. 4) Provide separation of multi-story buildings equal to their height. 5) Permit no more than 8 attached units in a building. 6) Maintain a maximum building height of 60 feet. 7) Provide that the quantity of multiple family units constructed does not exceed the quantity of single family units unless 2 of the total single family units are constructed. 8) Appropriately convey open space ownership to an approved owner. 9) Restrict the commercial coverage if such an area is proposed. A-1 P.D. Prmitted uses are multiple-family and/or single family units at maximum density of 13 units per acre and meet the following provisions: A. The tract of land must be 10 acres or adjoin an existing planned development. B. Follow all of the R-4 P.D. provisions except A and E-7. A-2 P.D. Permitted uses are multiple family and/or single family units at a maximum density of 20 units per acre and meet the following provisions: A. The tract of land must be 10 acres or adjoin an existing planned development. B. Follow all of the R-4 P.D. provisions except A and E-7.