Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 03/28/1990 - COMMON OPEN SPACE ORD MINUTES PLAN COMMISSION MARCH 28 , 1990 Members Present: John R. Glass, Chairman Fred Geinosky, Secretary David Paliganoff Thomas Parker Paul Ayers Patton Feichter Members Absent: Charles Henrici John Meyers George Mullen Staff Present: Alan Boffice, Dir. E/CD Raymond R. Rummel, Admin. Assistant Others Present: Dennis J. Gallitano, Village Trustee George B. Knickerbocker, Village Attorney Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 8 : 10 p.m. Chairman Glass opened the public hearing for Docket 90-4 , a Text Amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding the definition of Common Open Space. The legal notice for this hearing was published in the March 12, 1990 DAILY HERALD. Dennis Gallitano, a Village Trustee and the Chairman of the JPZ Committee, served as the petitioner for the requested Text Amendment. Gallitano noted that the proposed definition excludes driveways and parking areas. Commissioner Geinosky inquired into why outdoor swimming pools are excluded as structures under the proposed definition. Attorney Knickerbocker, serving as Corporate Counsel for the petitioner, noted that swimming pools are technically structures under the zoning code; therefore, for swimming pools to be allowed as common open space, they must not be considered structures. i Discussion then followed as to where the new definition could be applied with respect to future development in the Village. From the audience, Tom Rettenbacher, a Village resident, stated that the proposed definition would make the existing senior citizen center a legal, non-conforming 0 -2 • use. In addition, Rettenbacher noted that recreational club houses would not count as common open space. John Porter, a representative from Meyers Property, which manages the senior complex, stated that he does not want the center to become a non-conforming use. Dennis Gallitano replied to the comments from the audience. Recreational uses other than swimming pools, will be examined on a case-by-case basis. Club houses may have other amenities and uses which could make them undesirable in common open space. Attorney Knickerbocker gave an opinion stating that, if the senior center was a non-conforming use, 500 of the entire Senior Center PUD would have to be destroyed before any legal ramifications would come into being. Knickerbocker noted that the definition amendment can be made such that it would not be applied to presently existing developments. Commissioner Geinosky moved and Feichter seconded a motion to approve the definition with an exclusion of the senior center. After some discussion, the motion was withdrawn. Commissioner Geinosky moved and Feichter seconded a motion to recommend that the Village Board adopt the Text Amendment as submitted by the petitioner and that the Village Board exempt existing Senior Citizen PUD' s from the new definition. Upon voting, all AYES. Motion carried. Chairman Glass closed Docket 90-4. Chairman Glass opened the public hearing for Docket 90-3 ; Comprehensive Plan and Official Map. The legal notice for this hearing was published in the March 12, 1990 DAILY HERALD. Dennis Gallitano representing the petitioner, updated the Plan Commission. Gallitano noted that the Comprehensive Plan Map was last updated in 1968 and that a new map is needed to better identify present unincorporated areas within the agreed upon boundaries of the Village. Chairman Glass asked if zoning is being changed by adopting the map? Attorney Knickerbocker noted that there are some legal ramifications with respect to County Zoning. Knickerbocker further noted that property can be annexed without a public hearing if the requested zoning is consistent with the map. Chairman Glass asked why the Village did not zone a mile and a half outside its boundaries as is allowed. Gallitano noted that the map follows existing boundary i • -3 • agreements that Elk Grove Village has with surrounding municipalities. Attorney Knickerbocker noted that the Comprehensive Plan only affects unannexed land and Gallitano noted that the map is consistent with the zoning philosophy of the Village. From the audience, Tom Rettenbacher asked if the adoption of this map will trigger a new thoroughfare map. Alan Boffice noted that the Comprehensive Plan is independent of the traffic map and that a new traffic map is not planned. Commissioner Parker moved and Geinosky seconded a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve the Comprehensive Plan Map as submitted to the Plan Commission. Upon voting, all AYES. Motion carried. Docket 90-3 was closed. Chairman Glass recessed the meeting at 9: 05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9: 15 p.m. Chairman Glass called Docket 90-6 to order; a Text Amendment to incorporate Ordinance 2061 into the Flood Plain regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The legal notice for this public hearing was published in the March 12 , 1990 DAILY HERALD. Alan Boffice, speaking for the petitioner, noted that this matter involves development in flood plaines. The Village adopted this ordinance into the Municipal Code in August, 1989 , in order to be eligible for national flood insurance and permit control. Now, the Village board is asking that the ordinance be referenced in the Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance is a model ordinance which was developed by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Water Resource Division of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) . Discussion followed on the definition of a Flood Plain. Commissioner Geinosky moved and Ayers seconded a motion to recommend that the Village Board incorporate Ordinance 2061 into the Zoning Ordinance. Upon voting, all AYES. Motion carried. Chairman Glass closed Docket 90-6. Chairman Glass called the public hearing for Docket 90-5 to order; a Text Amendment to Coin-Operated Amusement Devices. Notice for the public hearing was published in the March 12, 1990 DAILY HERALD. • -4- Dennis Gallitano, acting as the petitioner, noted that the Text Amendment was initiated in March 1989, when the Elk Grove Bowl requested additional Coin-Operated Amusement Devices. Since then, the Alcapulco Bar has also requested additional games. The proposed Text Amendment has three significant changes. First, it allows the definition of accessory uses to be expanded from five to ten coin-operated amusement devices upon the review and approval of the Village Board. In addition, recreational uses have been identified such as roller skating Rinks. Finally, Coin-Operated Amusement Devices would be allowed in B-2 and B-3 zoning classifications as well as in B-1 districts. Attorney Knickerbocker reported that two non-conforming uses will also have to be addressed. First, the VFW hall has coin-operated amusement devices although it is located in a residential zoning classification by virtue of a Special Use permit. Second, the Midway Motor Lodge has coin-operated amusement devices although it is located in an industrial zoned classification by virtue of a Special Use permit. The Plan Commission should consider whether coin-operated amusement devices should be allowed in industrial and residential areas as a Special Use. Commissioner Geinosky inquired into the addition of roller skating rinks as recreational uses. Knickerbocker replied that roller skating rinks are a logical place for coin-operated amusement devices and that the Plan Commission may wish to include other types of uses. Discussion followed. Chairman Glass recessed the meeting at 10 : 12 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10 : 15 p.m. I Commissioner Paliganoff asked what control the Village has over Coin-operated Amusement Devices. Knickerbocker noted that the Village controls these devices through licenses. From the audience, Tom Rettenbacher stated that the proposed Text Amendment should be passed. From the audience, Cynthia Harvey, an attorney representing Joe Serfecz who is the owner of the Grove Mall, questioned the Plan Commission. She expressed concern over the following: A) allowing coin-operated amusement devices within 300 feet of a liquor establishment; B) pending litigation between her client and the roller skating rink company; C) whether or not the public will have an opportunity to review any requests for additional coin-operated devices; and, D) who will determine whether the principal use of a facility is changed. Harvey asked that roller skating rinks be stricken as a recreational use until after the litigation. I 0 -5- 0 From the audience, Bruce Logan, a Village resident and an attorney representing United Skates of America, encouraged additional coin-operated devices as an accessory use. From the audience, John Porter, who is representing the Senior Center, asked that a roller skating rink not be constructed next to the Senior Citizen Center. Dennis Gallitano replied that the roller skating rink dispute is a private litigation matter and should not enter into the Plan Commission' s discussion. Commissioner Parker moved and Paliganoff seconded a motion to approve the first part of the petitioner ' s request. After further discussion, the motion was withdrawn. Chairman Glass stated that he had several concerns. Why five ( 5 ) versus ten ( 10) devices; are there any additional recreational uses; and, what to do about the existing non-conforming uses. The public hearing on Docket 90-6 was closed. The meeting adjourned at 11 : 25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Raymond R. Rummel Administrative Assistant rh C: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President, Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Director of Engineering and Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief , Deputy Fire Chief, Village Attorney, Park District