Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 01/04/1978 - LANCER CORP Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission January 4, 1978 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Shannon at 8: 15 p.m. on Wednesday, January 4, 1978 in the Multi-Purpose Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: William Shannon, Chairman Edward Hauser Leah Cummins, Secretary STAFF PRESENT: John Glass Thomas Rettenbacher, Thomas Hamilton Building Commissioner James Petri Richard M. Finn, William Wesley (10:00 p.m.) Administrative Assistant Lancer Corporation: Preliminary Plat Mr. Hunter was present to represent the Lancer Corporation in their request to annex 34 acres into the Village. Mr. Hunter began the discussion by noting that he had submitted a new preliminary plat to the Village according to the Plan Commission recommendations dis- cussed at an earlier Commission meeting. Shannon stated that the Commission had received staff reports concerning the preliminary plat and he asked Hunter if Lancer would comply with the Fire Department' s request to change one of the street names. Mr. Hunter stated that they would make the required change. Hamilton continued the questioning by asking if Lancer was planning to annex the 6 acre leave-out which would be used for the Elgin-O'Hare right-of-way. Hunter stated that Lancer did not intend on annexing the 6'acres into the Village at the present time. Hunter did note that they would attempt to annex the 6 acres at a later date, at which time they would bring a legal suit against the State over the State' s right to require the right-of-way for the proposed Elgin- O'Hare Expressway. Rettenbacher stated that Lancer was planning on utilizing one of the existing structures for a temporary office building. Hunter agreed that Lancer would probably request the ability to use several of the existing structures currently existing on the property. Rettenbacher noted that the utilization of the existing structures could be handled in an annexation agreement. Glass asked if Lancer planned on developing the 6 acre leave-out if they successfully obtained a vacation of the subject right-of-way. Hunter responded that upon obtaining a vacation for the property, the Lancer Corporation would attempt to integrate the six acres into the proposed development. Hunter noted that they would probably extend Patricia Court into the leave-out area and develop approximately ten additional units. Glass next inquired how long it would take to complete the proposed development. Hunter stated that Lancer would build approximately 50 units per year and he noted that they were planning on selling some of the lots to different developers. Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - January 4, 1978 Lancer Corporation: Preliminary Plat (continued) At this point, Cummins moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat. The recommendation was made contingent on Lancer complying with the Fire Department's request for the street name change, and that the disposition of the existing structures should be worked out to the satisfaction of the Village officials . Hamilton seconded the motion. All present voted 'Aye' . Docket 76-6: Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance - Antennae At the August 23, 1976 Plan Commission meeting, the Commission voted to deny the proposed Text Amendment concerning antennae. The Commission concluded their motion to recommend denial by stating that the Commission would obtain zoning ordinances from the surrounding communities and review alternative approaches to zoning for antennae. The Commission also suggested that the petitioners redraft the proposed Text Amendment into a more comprehensive ordinance. Mr. Harbin and Mr. Fulton were present to represent the interests of radio communication enthusiasts . Mr. Harbin began the discussion by noting that his group had submitted a variety of information con- cerning antennae heights to the Plan Commission. Hamilton inquired whether the petitioners had submitted a proposed ordinance. Shannon stated that they did not submit a new ordinance, although they had made a recommendation. Shannon continued by noting that Fulton had submitted a recommendation on March 16, 1977 on behalf of the organized CB and Ham operators. The recommendation stated that a new paragraph F be added to Section 5. 23, entitled "Accessory Structures and Uses Permitted in All Residential Districts". The proposed section was written as follows: F. Non-commercial broadcasting and receiving antennas may be erected to a height of 80 feet above ground level . Shannon next asked if it were plausible to establish separate antennae heights for the CB operators and the Ham operators . Rettenbacher responded by noting that in his opinion separate antennae heights would not be a workable situation. Rettenbacher stated that if two different antennae heights were permitted, the Village would be put in the difficult position of enforcing the requirement. Rettenbacher continued by stating the current ordinance requires a building permit for any antennae which is under 35 feet high. Any proposed antennae which would be over 35 feet high must apply for a Special Use Permit and present the appropriate information before the Plan Commission during a Public Hearing. Shannon noted Rettenbacher's statement and he stated that he felt that it was fair to allow the Ham operators to erect higher antennae than the CB operators, since the Ham operators required the additional height. Rettenbacher stated that the lot sizes in the Village had a direct relationship to an acceptable antenna size. Hamilton stated that if the Village allowed additional heights for antennae, many of the CB operators would disrupt the residents of the Village by abusing the CB equipment. Hamilton argued that the Commission should leave the current regulations as they currently appear in the Village's Zoning Ordinance. Hamilton noted that the current ordinance Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - January 4•, 1971 Docket 76-6: Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance - Antennae (continued) provided the CB and Ham operators with the ability to request a Special Use. Hamilton concluded by stating that the existing ordinance also provided for the protection of the neighboring residents . Glass asked if it was acceptable to allow antennae 35 feet high when free-standing or 20 feet above the roof of the structure (house) . Hamilton stated that Glass's suggestion seemed to be workable. Hamilton suggested that the antennae could be 20 feet higher than the structure (the antenna would not have to be attached to the structure) , or a total of 35 feet .high. Rettenbacher noted Hamilton's suggestion and he stated that a person with a large house could have a very high antenna which could disrupt his neighbor who owned a smaller house. Hamilton argued that the Village was designed with the same type of houses in each respective section and therefore Rettenbacher's suggested problem would be very minimum. Hamilton continued by noting that under the existing ordinance a homeowner with a two-story structure could not erect a suitable antenna because of the limitation of 35 feet. Rettenbacher suggested that another possible solution would be to recommend that the court reporter be dispensed with during Public Hearings for Antennae Special Use Permits. Rettenbacher noted that this action would save the petitioner $100.00 and the total cost for the Public Hearing would be $50.00. Hamilton argued that he did not believe that the cost of the Public Hearing was the main problem. Shannon asked if it would be plausible to recommend that antennae not be permitted to be higher than 20 feet above the home or a maximum of 35 feet. Glass stated that he agree with such an amendment to the ordinance and in fact he could recommend only 10 feet allowance above the home. Fulton noted the Commissioner's statements and he stated that if the Commission amended the ordinance in the direction that they were discussing, then in effect a person with a 14 foot house could erect an antenna 20 feet above his home, for a total of 34 feet. Fulton noted that this was actually one foot less than what the current ordinance permitted. Shannon noted Fulton's comment and he stated that the Commission did not intend on recommending an ordinance which allowed everyone the right to erect 60 foot high antennae. Shannon noted that the visual aspect of the antennae was an important issue. He stated that in his opinion there was a direct relationship between the height of the antennae and the height of the respective house. At this point Hamilton recommended that the proposed Paragraph F of Section 5.23 read as follows: "Non-commercial broadcasting and receiving antennae may be erected to a height of not more than 35 feet above the ground or 20 feet above the roofline of the principle structure. If the antennae is separate from the structure, the antennae shall not be within the side yard nor shall it be within 20 feet of any property line. The antennae must also be within 10 feet of the principle structure (house) : Hamilton noted that the above recommendation attempted to tie the height of the antennae to the height of the structure, thereby provided a shield from the antennae. Glass stated that Hamilton's suggestion seemed to be reasonable and fair. Glass also noted that it allowed the residents an ability to control their neighborhood. Fulton stated that Hamilton's Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - January 4, 1978 Docket 76-6: Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance - Antennae (continued) recommendation had both negative and positive aspects ; however, he noted that it was better to have some type of action. The concensus of the Commission was to have staff draw up a finding of fact based on Hamilton's recommendation. Docket 77-11 : Mobile Service Station The petitioner, Mobile Corporation, was requesting that the property located at the northwest corner of Meacham and Nerge Roads be rezoned from R-3, Residential District to B-3, Automotive Orientated District, for the establishment of a self-service gas station. Shannon began the discussion by noting that if the Commission recommended denial of the requested rezoning, they should review the possible alternative uses of the subject property. Glass noted that the property was definately suited for some type of commercial use; however, he noted that he questioned whether it was advisable to rezone the property to B-3. Wesley stated that he felt that Centex had created their own problem by causing the high elevation of the subject property. Wesley noted that the high elevation of the property was very important and Centex did not bring the 7 foot grading difference to the Commission's attention during their discussion of Section 22. Cummins stated that in Indiana she had observed several commercial establishments which were designed like beautiful homes so that they fit into the residential areas . Cummins noted that the arrangement was much more than landscaping and it might be a workable situation. Wesley noted Cummins comment and he stated that it was a good thought for the future. Rettenbacher stated that whatever was built on the subject property, the structure would still be the highest point in the area. Glass agreed with Rettenbacher's observation; however, he noted that lighting in another use might not be as objectionable. Cummins stated that in her opinion a B-3 zoning for the subject property was totally objectionable. She suggested that arrangements be made for Centex to come to a Commission meeting and discuss possible B-2 uses for the subject property. Cummins insisted that she wanted something that would be aesthetically acceptable. At this point, Wesley made a motion to recommend denial of the petitioner's request for rezoning. Glass seconded the motion. All present voted 'Aye' . Shannon requested Finn to prepare a finding of fact to be submitted to the Commission before their January 18, 1978 meeting. Docket 77-20: Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center The petitioners (Elk Grove Village) were requesting a Text Amendment to Section 5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, to amend the Village's B-2, General Business District. Wesley began the discussion by stating that it was his feeling that the Commission should act on the ASTC as quickly as possible. He noted that the Commission should focus on restrictions which could Plan Commission Minutes - 5 - January 4, 1978 Docket 77-20: Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center (continued) be related to a zoning interest. Wesley continued by suggesting that he believed the free-standing requirement had some merit. Rettenbacher suggested that the Commission investigate the possibility of requiring an emergency entrance for the ambulance at the AST Centers. Hamilton agreed with Rettenbacher's suggestion and he further suggested that the Village require an outside ramp for the ambulance. Wesley stated that the Commission might be able to require that the uses permitted in AST-, Centers not be allowed to be maintained with any other medical uses . Hamilton stated that he did not feel that they could justify such a requirement. At this point, Shannon stated that he would like to call a special Plan Commission meeting to continue the discussion on the AST Center. It was the concensus of the Commissioners that the Commission meet at a special Plan Commission meeting on Monday, January 9, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 224 Shannon noted that the Building and Engineering Departments had reviewed and approved the plat. Wesley made a motion to recommend approval of the Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 224. Hamilton seconded the motion. All present voted 'Aye' . The meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m. Subm' ed by: m A07, Richard M. Finn Administrative Assistant RMF:ms (1-9-78) c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Building Commissioner, Village Engineer, Planning Consultant, Director of Parks and Recreation, Calkins , Centex.