Laserfiche WebLink
• o <br /> MINUTES <br /> ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION <br /> November 19, 1975 <br /> The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order <br /> at 8:06 P.M. on Wednesday, November 19, 1975 in the Multi -Purpose Room <br /> of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. <br /> MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: <br /> William Shannon Alvin Krasnow <br /> Thomas Hamilton <br /> Leah Cummins STAFF PRESENT: <br /> William Wesley Joseph J . Misurelli , <br /> Warren Jacobsen Administrative Intern <br /> Stanley Klyber Thomas Rettenbacher, <br /> Edward Hauser Building Commissioner <br /> Informal Presentation: 3.9 acres on Elk Grove Boulevard <br /> Howard Samotny and Bernard Gold of G-S Builders presented a <br /> proposal for the development of the 3.9 acre tract on Elk Grove Boulevard, <br /> between Ridge Avenue and Kennedy Boulevard. The parcel is presently <br /> zoned A-2. The developers proposed construction of 39 three-bedroom <br /> townhomes , with 1 ,500 square feet of living area. Additional statistical <br /> data and a preliminary concept plan are attached. G-S Builders were co- <br /> developers of Ivy Hill (single family) in Arlington Heights , builders of <br /> single family homes in the Golf Road - Route 83 area in Des Plaines, <br /> and townhomes in Chicago (Edgebrook) . <br /> During the ensuing discussion, Klyber suggested that the <br /> developers consider a public street rather than a private street for <br /> access to the townhomes . The access street, as preliminarily planned, <br /> was a paved private or public street , 28 feet curb to curb, with a 28 <br /> foot right of way. Rettenbacher pointed out that the plan did not appear <br /> to provide sufficient external parking, especially since all units would <br /> have only a one-car garage. Hamilton noted that this proposal had <br /> excessive density and that the townhomes along Elk Grove Boulevard <br /> were extremely close (25 feet, rear wall to curb) to Elk Grove Boulevard. <br /> Cummins noted that this area had drainage difficulties that would have <br /> to be considered. Shannon pointed out that the close proximity of <br /> schools to the site would be an important factor. <br /> Rettenbacher explained that the decorative fence included on <br /> the preliminary plan would not conform to the zoning ordinance. It <br /> was also pointed out that Homeowners ' Associations were not a viable <br /> solution to common open space ownership. Less density, more open space, <br /> absence of private streets , and presentation of types of buildings were <br /> suggested by the Plan Commission as improvements in the development <br /> proposal . <br />