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.