Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 07/12/1978 - BROWN PROPERTY ANNEX. AND REZONING Minutes Elk Grove Village Plan Commission July 12, 1978 The special meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Acting Chairman Hauser at 8:01 p.m. on Wednesday, June 21 , 1978 in the Multi-Purpose Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Edward Hauser, Acting Chairman Orrin Stangeland Leah Cummins, Secretary STAFF PRESENT: John Glass Thomas Rettenbacher, Thomas Hamilton (10:00 p.m.) Building Commissioner George Mullen Richard M. Finn, James Petri Administrative Assistant Preliminary Review of the Proposed Annexation and Rezoning of the Brown Property Robert Brown, the petitioner, was present to request the Plan Commission's views on a proposed rezoning and annexation. The petitioner noted that it was his intention to petition the Village for annexation of approximately five acres of property located on the north side of Devon Avenue between Salt Creek and the Commonwealth Edison right-of-way. Brown further noted that his petition for annexation would be made con- tingent on the rezoning of the front section of the subject property to B-3, Automotive Oriented District. Brown continued by stating that the rear section of the property would be zoned R-3, Residential District which would be consistent with the Village's Official Map. He noted that it was his intention to subdivide the five acre lot into two lots , so that the rear lot could be used to develop one residential unit which would be occupied by his family. At that point, the Building Commissioner stated that if the five acre parcel were subdivided, the petitioner would have to provide access into the proposed residential area. Brown responded by stating that it was his intention to provide a private driveway which would allow ingress/ egress from the proposed residential area. Brown concluded his presentation by requesting the Plan Commission to comment on the feasibility of his proposed rezoning and annexation. Glass responded by stating that the subject property appeared to be large enough to permit proper development; however, he noted that the Commission would be faced with the same problem relating to the existing residential units that were located near the proposed development. Hauser stated that before the Plan Commission could comment on any proposed development on Devon Avenue, the Commission would have to discuss the entire situation and make some type of decision about the future development along Devon Avenue. At that point, Hauser noted that if the petitioner wished to pursue the proposed rezoning and annexation, he would have to formal petition the Village for annexation. Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - July 12, 1978 Docket 77-20: Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance, Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center The petitioner (Elk Grove Village) was requesting a Text Amendment to Section 5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance to amend the Village's B-2, General Business District. Hauser began the discussion by stating that the Plan Commission's primary task was to define exactly where an Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center should be located. He noted that the Commission had to determine the zoning district or districts which ASTC's would be properly located. Mul.len added that the Commission had to develop specific criteria which would support the zoning district(s) which the Commission ultimately decided. Glass continued the discussion by suggesting that the Plan Commission review each zoning classification separately and determine which zoning district or districts would provide the best location for the ASTC use. Mullen agreed with Glass 's suggestion, however, he noted that in his opinion at the minimum the ASTC use should be permitted in the same zoning districts that permitted hospitals . Hauser acknowledged Mullen's statement and he suggested that the Plan Commission might wish to consider the ASTC use as a conditional use in one or more of the zoning districts. Hauser noted that the conditional use would allow the Plan Commission to develop specific criteria for the establishment of an ASTC use. Cummins continued the discussion by stating that in her opinion, the location of an ASTC in relation to the location of a hospital was a basic issue. Cummins further noted that she believed that the ASTC should be a special or conditional use in one of the zoning districts . She concluded by suggesting that one of the requirements for an ASTC should be that the building be a free-standing structure. G1ass .acknowledged Cummins ' statement; however, he noted that he did not feel that the proximity of a hospital to an ASTC was a central issue. Rather, Glass stated that in his opinion, the Plan Commission's specific task was to define the ASTC as a less intense use than a hospital but at the same time a more intense use than a medical clinic. Glass noted that it was extremely important to differentiate the three uses. At that point, Hauser requested the Plan Commission to decide if an ASTC would be properly located in an Industrial district. The con- sensus of the Commission was that the Village's two Industrial zoning districts would not provide a proper location for an ASTC. Hauser continued by asking the Commission members if an ASTC would be properly located in one of the Village's Business Districts . Rettenbacher commented that during the previous Plan Commission meeting, Dr. Jacobs had stated that a shopping center would not provide the privacy that would be required by patients who would be served by an ASTC. Glass also noted that a business district would generate a large volume of traffic which could prevent proper ingress/egress into an ASTC. He concluded by stating that the Village's B-1 , B-2 and B-3 zoning districts would generate a large volume of noises and would not allow for the proper health requirements that would be needed by an ASTC use. The consensus of the Plan Commission was that the Business Districts as defined by the Village Zoning Ordinance were not good zoning districts Revised Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - July 12, 1978 Docket 77-20 (continued) for an ASTC use. (Petri and Mullen dissented on this decision. They noted that the ASTC use could adapt to the B-1 and B-2 districts. ) At that point, Hauser asked the Commission if an ASTC would be a good use in an A-1 or A-2 district. The consensus of the Plan Commission was that both the A-1 and the A-2 districts would not lend themselves to an ASTC use. Glass continued the discussion by stating that the ASTC use should be permitted in an 0-T, Office Transitional District and the Residential Districts (R-1 , R-2, R-3) with a special use requirement. Hauser agreed with Glass's statement and he noted that by establishing a special use requirement, the Village would retain the ability to set up special conditions which would ensure that the ASTC use would be located in a proper location. Rettenbacher noted that he had several problems with allowing an ASTC use in a Residential District with a special use. He suggested that he would prefer to see an ASTC use placed in one of the Business Districts. Glass noted that the Zoning Ordinance allowed hospitals in an 0-T, Office Transitional District and in all of the Residential Districts with a special use. Glass suggested that the Plan Commission recommend revising the Zoning Ordinance to allow hospitals in 0-T, Office Transitional Districts only with a special use while still allowing hospitals in Residential Districts also with a special use. Glass continued by stating that the ASTC use be zoned in the same zoning districts as a hospital . The consensus of the Plan Commission was to agree with Glass's suggestion. Hauser acknowledged Glass 's suggestion and he stated that since the Commission had determined the zoning districts that the ASTC use should be located; the next step was to define the key terminology. Hauser noted that the ASTC use could be defined using the State's definition. Hauser continued by stating that he was having a difficult time defining a Medical Clinic and differentiating it from the definition of an ASTC. Hamilton suggested that the Commission define hospitals and ASTC's in two separate definitions and everything that was not included in the two definitions would be considered a Medical Clinic. Glass noted Hamilton's suggestion. However, he stated that in his opinion, the Commission needed to define hospitals , ASTC's and Medical Clinics using separate definitions . Hauser agreed with Glass and he suggested that the ASTC use be differentiated from both a Medical Clinic and a hospital . Hauser continued by suggesting the following definition for hospitals : "A full-service facility designed primarily for comprehensive medical and surgical treatment and overnight care, of the type required to be licensed by the State of Illinois." Hauser also suggested that the Commission define the ASTC by utilizing the State definition, as follows : "ASTC means any institution, place or building devoted primarily to the maintenance and operation of facilities for the performance of surgical procedures. Such facilities shall not provide beds or other accommodations for the overnight stay of patients." At that point, Rettenbacher suggested that the Plan Commission consider the definition of a Medical Clinic submitted by the Village Attorney during the Public Hearing. The definition of a Medical Clinic was presented, as follows: "Shall mean a medical facility used for Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - July 12, 1978 Docket 77-20 (continued) offices of more than one physician for the examinations and treatment of patients , which physicians may be associated together or practicing independent of each other, while sharing the facilities and equipment thereon, and shall not include a facility devoted primarily for the purpose of surgical procedure." Schmidt Farm: Preliminary Site Plan Hauser stated that during the Plan Commission meeting held on July 5, 1978, the Commission had voted to approve the 120 acre Schmidt Farm preliminary site plan. Hauser noted that staff had prepared a findings of fact as requested by the Commission. After a brief discussion, the Plan Commission recommended that the findings of fact be sent to the Village Board. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Sub ' ed by: 10" Richard M. Finn Administrative Assistant RMF:ms (7-18-78) c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President & 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.