Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 06/28/1978 - AMBULATORY SURGICAL TREATMET CTR DOCKET 77-20 Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Special Meeting June 28, 1978 The special meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Acting Chairman Hauser at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 28, 1978, in the Multi-Purpose Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Edward Hauser, Acting Chairman Leah Cummins John Glass, Acting Secretary- (8:40) STAFF PRESENT: Thomas Hamilton (8:20) Thomas Rettenbacher, George Mullen Building Commissioner James Petri George B. Knickerbocker, Orrin Stangeland Village Attorney Richard M. Finn, Administrative Assistant Charles L. Durham, Administrative Intern Docket 77-20 - Text Amendment: Ambulatory'Surgical 'Treatmeht Center George Knickerbocker, Village Attorney was present to represent the Village of Elk Grove Village as petitioners for a Text Amendment to Section 5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, amending the Village's B-2, General Business District, zoning classification. Knickerbocker began by noting that he had made arrangements with one of the co-owners of the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center (Dr. Jacobs) located near Northwest Hospital, to appear before the Judiciary, Planning and Zoning Committee and Plan Commission on Wednesday, July 5, 1978. Knickerbocker stated that Dr. Jacobs would appear before the JPZ Committee and the Plan Commission at separatemeetings•, to give testimony in relation to the proposed licensing for the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center (ASTC) . He noted that Dr. Jacobs' testimony would be a useful medical opinion and since he was also a member of the Illinois, Board of Directors (which regulates ASTC in Illinois) , he would be more than qualified to provide a useful discussion on the issue. Knickerbocker went on to state that the meetings were being held to serve as a fact finding venture. He added that the inquiry was being held to learn the types of operation that ASTC's are involved in and more specifically on any specific hazards that could develop because of the location of an ASTC use (i.e. commercial) . At that point, Hauser asked if the Plan Commission should operate under a timetable to reach a decision on the Text Amendment. Knickerbocker answered by noting that he would be in court shortly concerning the case and that he does not expect a decision very soon (approximately 60 days) , and therefore, he advised the Plan Commission that there wasn't a strict time constraint in reaching a decision on the Text Amendment. Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - June 28, 1978 Schmidt Farm: Preliminary Site Plan Joseph Hanlon, Attorney, Tim Selke and Larry Greichunos were present to represent the Stape Development Company. The petitioner was requesting to annex approximately 120 acres of property into the Village. The property is located north of Nerge Road and east of Plum Grove Road. Hanlon began by presenting a revised site plan for the Schmidt Farm property. He noted that the revisions were as follows: 1. Sidewalks were made five feet wide with two feet on each side with three-foot fences on both sides; 2. Eyebrows were eliminated; 3. Two cul-de-sacs abutting the park area were eliminated; 4. Improved access throughout the development. Hanlon added that the only question left unanswered on the revised site plan concerned the street access into Section 23. Hanlon continued by stating that the petitioner was willing to provide any access street the Village requested. Next Hanlon stated that they had met with Centex concerning the question of the access street. He noted that Centex had expressed a preference for a Maryland Lane access connecting the Schmidt Farm and Section 23. Luciani was present to represent Centex. Luciani noted that the street access proposed at Jersey Lane would cause the existing home in Section 22 North to be fronted by three streets. He argued that to protect the lot, it would be more preferable to provide access from Maryland Lane. Luciani stated that a further problem with the Jersey Lane access was that the intersection would not line up. At this point, Finn asked Luciani if the engineering plans for Section 23A had been approved. Luciani indicated that they had been accepted. Mullen continued the discussion by stating that the Maryland Lane access might cause a problem because of a possible lack of access for emergency vehicles. Luciani responded by noting that the Fire Chief had reviewed the site and had stated that the access was acceptable as long as the proper adjustments were provided. At this point, Selke stated that as far as they were concerned, the plat was satisfactory with either street access. He added that although the Village Board appeared to want the Jersey Lane access, it made no difference to the Stape Building Company. He requested that the Plan Commission approve the pre- liminary site plan with the understanding that they would provide whichever street access the Commission decided. Hamilton stated that he could not see any significant difference between the two access streets from a planning standpoint. Glass agreed but added that the Jersey Lane access might be better for emergency vehicles while the Maryland Lane access might provide greater safety for school children. Hauser then noted that he thought there would be a significant difference in traffic flow between the two proposed accesses since more traffic would come through Jersey Lane. Next, Hauser asked the petitioners why there had been a jog proposed for the pedestrian walkway. Hanlon indicated that a bad lot would be created without it. Hamilton next stated that he thought the proposed jog would be dangerous. Hauser then asked who would maintain the proposed crosswalks. Hanlon responded by stating that they could turn the property over to the Village or a Homeowner's Association could be formed to maintain the sidewalk areas. • • Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - June 28, 1978 Glass noted that it was his opinion that fences should be installed and turned over to the property owners to be maintained. He added that his concern was that without the fences the lots might be used as cut-throughs to the park area. Mullen asked what type of fence was being proposed. Hanlon replied by stating that the petitioner would provide a three-foot wood fence. Glass noted that shrubbery would work just as well as fences. Glass then asked if the petitioner would sod the abutting two feet on both sides of the proposed sidewalks. Selke indicated they would be willing to sod the abutting two-foot steps. At this point, Hamilton stated that he would like to see a 10-foot R.O.W. for the sidewalk. He added that he would like to have the property line for each lot end right at the edge of the sidewalks. Stangeland stated that he would like to see the jog in the walkway removed. In addition, he stated that he felt the sidewalks should be five feet wide with two feet of buffer on each side. Next, Hauser stated that he would like to see the lots abutting the park and detention areas squared off to eliminate unusable areas. He then asked if these changes would affect the 10% land donation requirement for the park and detention areas. Selke responded by stating that the areas could be squared off and if it caused them to take away from the 10% land donation, the petitioner would provide a cash substitute. Next, Hauser noted that before the Plan Commission could approve the preliminary site plan, the Commission would have to be furnished with recommenda- tions on certain points. Hauser stated the points for consideration were as follows: 1. Recommendations from the Village Engineer and Superintendent of Streets concerning the sidewalk easements within the development. 2. Recommendations on which one of the two access routes would be most beneficial to the Village. 3. Recommendations concerning the elimination of the unusable areas caused by the pointed corners found by lots abutting park and detention areas. Rohlwing Grove Unit No. 1, Special Parking Plan The petitioner was present to request that the Plan Commission consider a special parking plan for the parking lot located in the Rohlwing Grove Shopping Center. Hauser began the discussion by asking Finn .if he had talked to the Police and Fire Departments concerning the proposed parking plan. Finn replied by stating that both the Fire and Police Departments agreed that the plan was poorly designed but both indicated that any changes made would not significantly change the situation. Mullen next stated that it was not the Commission's concern over the traffic flow problems that might emerge due to the parking lot design. Mullen then made a motion that Special Parking Plan be approved. Hamilton seconded the motion with an amendment that a directional sign be included with the plan. Mullen concurred. Glass noted that he objected to the plan because of its poor design. At that point, Hauser called for the vote. Voting AYE: Hauser, Hamilton, Mullen and Petri. Voting NAY: Glass. Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - June 28, 1978 Gullo Annexation and Rezoning - 4 Acres 0-T 'District; 5 Acres I-1 The petitioners were requesting that approximately four acres of a total nine acre parcel of land located east of Carroll Square, t•J'est of Stanley Street and south of Oakton Street be rezoned O-T, Office Transitional District. Finn began by explaining his meeting with the petitioner concerning the request to allow the 0-T use. Glass responded by making a motion to recommend 0-T zoning for the Gullo property as requested by the petitioner. Hamilton seconded the motion. All present voted AYE. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Submitted by: Charles Durham Administrative Intern CD/sf (7/14/78) c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Building Commissioner, Village Engineer, Planning Consultant, Director of Parks and Recreation, Calkins, Centex.