HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 01/18/1978 - BOLGER REZONING Mi nutes
Elk Grove Village Plan Commission
January 18, 1978
The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order
by Chairman Shannon at 8: 17 p.m. on Wednesday, January 18, 1978 in the
Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue.
MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT:
William Shannon, Chairman Charles Henrici ,
Leah Cummins, Secretary Deputy Fire Chief
John Glass Richard M. Finn,
Thomas Hamilton Administrative Assistant
Edward Hauser Thomas Rettenbacher,
James Petri Building Commissioner
William Wesley (10: 30 p.m.)
Docket 78-1 : Bolger Rezoning
The Plan Commission, acting as a Zoning Commission, conducted a
Public Hearing to consider evidence for the establishment of a Convenience
Shopping Center at the southeast corner of Rohlwing Road and Biesterfield
Road. The petitioner was requesting that the subject property be annexed
into the Village contingent on the property being rezoned fo B-2, General
Business District. The Village's Comprehensive Map indicates the property
to be zoned R-3, Residential District.
Charles Byrum, Attorney, and Terrance Bolger, Realtor, were present
to represent the petitioner. Mr. Byrum began the presentation by sub-
mitting a proposed site plan to the Plan Commission. Byrum stated that
the subject property was approximately 1 .2 acres in size and it was
presently zoned C-4, Commercial District by the County. He noted that
the Village's B-2 zoning and the County's C-4, Commercial District zoning
were very similar. Mr. Byrum continued by briefly explaining the site
plan. Byrum noted that in addition to the rezoning request, the petitioner
was requresting two variations : First a variation with respect to the
distance between the proposed structure and the easterly and southerly
lot lines; and secondly, a variation with respect to the construction
of the parking spaces a distance of eight feet to the north of the northerly
line of the proposed structure on the subject property.
Mr. Byrum concluded his presentation by stating that the property
to the south of the subject property was zoned R-5 by the County. Directly
to the east the property was zoned R-3 by the Village. However, he
stated that it had recently been brought to his attention that somewhere
to the south of the subject property there existed a strip of land of
approximately one acre which was zoned C-4 in the County.
At this point Mr. Bolger approached the Commission and stated that
in his opinion, the subject property was an excellent location for a
Convenience Shopping Center. He noted that as Elk Grove Village continues
to expand, the intersection of Biesterfield and Rohlwing Roads would
become a major thoroughfare and it might become the "hub" of the entire
Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - January -18, 1978
Docket 78-1 : Bolger Rezoning (continued)
Village. Mr. Bolger stated that he would be the owner and manager of
the proposed facility. He also noted that the proposed Convenience
Shopping Center would be constructed very similar to the one he built
in Rolling Meadows . He concluded by stating that the proposed facility
would economically benefit the entire area including the Village by
creating an excellent tax base. He noted that the Village would receive
approximately $14,000 each year through sales tax benefits and approxi-
mately $2,746 a year in property taxes .
Before the Commission members began their questioning, Chairman
Shannon explained that the Plan Commission would only consider the
rezoning request. He noted that the petitioner's two other variations
would be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals . However, the
Zoning Board of Appeals would only consider the variation after the
Village Board made a decision concerning the rezoning and annexation
of the subject property. Mr. Byrum stated that he was previously
informed of the procedure and that the petitioner would comply.
Glass began the discussion by noting that the proposed site plan
indicated that the driveway around the structure and the loading dock
would be using the same area and the Village Zoning Ordinance did not
permit the joint use. Bolger stated that he was not aware of the
Village restriction; however, he would make arrangements to comply.
Glass next asked if the petitioner intended on installing sidewalks
along Biesterfield Road and Rohlwing Road. Bolger stated that there
was space for the sidewalks; however, he did not believe that he should
install them until they went somewhere.
Cummins continued the questioning by asking what type of screening
the petitioner intended on providing on the south and east sides of the
property. Bolger stated that he would provide landscaping and a fence
if the Village requested.
Petri asked why the petitioner placed the proposed building on an
angle with the remainder of the property. Bolger stated that the apparant
angle was caused by the property line.
Next, Wesley asked how long the petitioner owned the property.
Bolger stated that he purchased the property in 1973. Wesley continued
by asking if the petitioner could economically develop the property
using a smaller structure. Bolger stated that anything smaller than
what was proposed would be economically infeasible.
Hamilton began his questioning by asking why the petitioner was
requesting the two variations . Mr. Byrum stated that the two variations
were necessary in order for the petitioner to feasibly develop the
property. Byrum noted that the Village's Zoning Ordinance maintained
a strict parking requirement/ and that was a contributing factor in the
petitioner's reason for requesting the two variations.
Hamilton noted that the site plan indicated that the driveway
which was behind and on the side of the proposed structure was only
15 feet wide. Hamilton asked if the driveway was wide enough to
accommodate large trucks . Bolger stated that the driveway would not
be large enough for large trucks; however, he noted that in his opinion
smaller trucks would be able to negotiate the 15 foot wide driveway.
Hamilton next asked if the petitioner intended on placing a bicycle
Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - January 18, 1978
Docket 78-1 : Bolger Rezoning (continued)
rack somewhere on the property. Bolger stated that he would provide
the bicycle rack if it were required; however, he noted that in his
opinion it would be a useless effort since kids normally do not utilize
such facilities . Hamilton continued by asking if the petitioner knew
if the necessary right-of-way on Biesterfield Road and Rohlwing Road
was property dedicated. Byrum stated that he did not know if the proper
right-of-way had been dedicated for the two roads. Shannon stated that
he shared Hamilton's concerns and he requested that the Village staff
investigate the right-of-way question.
Hamilton concluded his questioning by asking how the petitioner
planned on handling water detention. Bolger stated that the parking
lot would be used for detention purposes .
Shannon began his questioning by asking the petitioner what would
happen to the proposed landscaping along Rohlwing Road if Rohlwing
were widened sometime in the future. Bolger stated that the proposed
landscaping shown on the site plan was actually within the State right-
of-way and therefore if Rohlwing Road was ever widened the landscaping
would be removed.
Shannon continued by asking what affect the proposed use would
have on the abutting residential property. Bolger stated that it was
his opinion that any home which immediately abutted a commercial site
would lose some value.
At this point Shannon noted that the Deputy Fire Chief was present
and that he wished to address the Commission. Deputy Chief Henrici began
his presentation by stating that the proposed site plan indicates a
15 foot drive on two sides of the building and with parking within 8 feet
on the third side. Henrici noted that the 15 foot drive in back of the
building would be totally inadequate for fire apparatus movement. He
also stated that the 900 turn at the southeast corner of the building
would be physically impossible to maneuver with a fire truck of any size.
Deputy Chief Henrici noted that the Fire Department had set up
artificial driveways of 15 feet, 20 feet, and 22 feet, each with the
900 angle and it was the Fire Department's opinion that a minimum of
22 feet would be required for proper accessibility. Henrici concluded
by stating that the 900 corner and the 15 foot driveway would create
conditions which would make it physically impossible for the Fire
Department's engines to get through.
Shannon asked if there were any other comments or questions
pertaining to the rezoning. Mr. Zirco stated that he owned the property
which abutted the petitioner's property and he noted that he was against
the proposed landscaping (shrubbery) along his property because it would
interfere with the farming of his land. Mr. Zirco also stated that he
was not aware of any strip of land that was zoned C-4 in the County. Mr.
Byrum stated that he was not certain of the location, although he would
make the information available to the Plan Commission once he found out.
At this point Shannon concluded the Public Hearing. A full account
of these proceedings is available in the Official Transcript.
Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - January 18, 1978
Rohlwing Grove Unit No. 4
Shannon stated that the Engineering and Building Departments had
reviewed and approved the Rohlwing Grove Unit No. 4 Subdivision. Shannon
noted that the Fire Department had reviewed the Subdivision and recommended
approval contingent on the fulfillment of the following requirements :
first, that the paved roadway be constructed to a minimum of 44 feet
back of curb to back of curb; and, secondly, that the cul-de-sac area
pavement be constructed to a minimum radius.
Cummins made a motion to recommend approval of the plat contingent
on the fulfillment of the two requirements specified by the Fire Department.
Hamilton seconded the motion. All present voted 'AYE' .
Shannon noted that the Commission's recommendation did not address
the question concerning the length of the cul-de-sac. He stated that
the Village Board would consider the variation along with whether the
cul-de-sac would be accepted as a dedicated street.
Docket 78-2: McLennan Rezoning, Lot 14, Elk Grove Industrial Park
Robert Minutes, Attorney, Esper Petersen and Dan Foster were present
to represent the petitioner. The petitioner was requesting that a
narrow strip of land located on Lot 14 of the Elk Grove Industrial Park
Unit No. 3 be rezoned from 1-1 , Restricted Industrial District to 1-2,
General Industrial District. The rezoning request involved a narrow
triangular strip of land 9.26 feet wide at Katherine Way to the east
property line for a distance of 300 feet and a width of 0.34 feet.
Mr. Minutes began the presentation by submitting a plat of survey
of the subject property to the Plan Commission. Minutesstated that
Lot 14 of the Elk Grove Industrial Park currently had double zoning.
He also noted that the petitioner could not subdivide the lot because
of the double zoning and therefore he was prohibited from building.
Minutesconcluded his presentation by stating that it was the petitioner's
intent to resubdivide the property once the rezoning was approved.
Shannon began the questioning by asking how the lot came to have
double zoning. Mr. Foster stated that the problem developed because
of a minor surveying error. Foster noted that the property currently
had 30,000 square feet zoned 1-2, while the remaining 1 ,200 square
feet was zoned 1-1 .
At this point Cummins made a motion to recommend approval for the
requested rezoning from 1-1 , Restricted Industrial District, to 172,
General Industrial District for the triangular strip of land located
on Lot 14 of the Elk Grove Industrial Park. Glass seconded the motion.
All present voted 'AYE' . A full account of the proceedings is available
in the Official Transcript.
Docket 76-6: Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance - Antennae
Shannon began the discussion by stating that he had received a
letter from Mr. Harbin concerning the Plan Commission's deliberation
for the Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for antennae. Shannon
noted that in his opinion the Plan Commission had looked at all of
the different variables involved in the antennae issue, including the
Plan Commission Minutes - 5 - January 18, 1978
Docket 76-6: Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance -
Antennae (continued)
CB and Ham Radio operators' proposals . Shannon concluded by stating
that the Plan Commission was concerned with achieving a fair arrangement;
however, he stressed that the Commission also had an obligation to the
other residents who lived throughout..the Village.
Clark Fulton stated that his group was not completely satisfied
with the wording in the Plan Commission's proposed Text Amendment;
however, he noted that he would support the proposed amendment so that
he would have the opportunity to approach the Village Board concerning
the antennae issue.
Hamilton stated that he felt that the Village's ordinance pertaining
to antennae heights was already liberal and the proposed Text Amendment
would make the ordinance even more liberal . Hamilton concluded by
stating that he believed the Plan Commission had responded to the
community's needs. Shannon noted Hamilton's statement and he stated
that if a person wanted to erect an antennae which would be higher
than that allowed by the proposed Text Amendment, the person had the
option of requesting a variation with a Special Use.
Glass stated that his original recommendation was to allow
antennae to be 35 feet high when free standing or 20 feet above the
roof of the house. Glass noted that in order for the antennae to be
allowed to be 20 feet higher than the roof; the antennae would have to
be attached to the house. Hamilton argued that Glass 's interpretation
was not what he understood at the previous Commission meeting. Hamilton
stated that he felt the radio enthusiasts should be allowed to place
the antennae in their backyard while at the same time be allowed to
have their antennaeeither 35 feet high or 20 feet higher than the top
of their home. Hamilton argued that if the Text Amendment were approved
as he proposed, it would create an incentive for homeowners to place
the antennae in their backyards and thereby reduce visual pollution.
Hauser disagreed with Hamilton by stating that he did not believe it
would change the visual impact in any manner.
Shannon noted Hamilton's statement; however, he argued that Hamilton's
proposal would not allow a person with a smaller house to erect as high
an antenna as a neighbor who owned a larger house. Shannon stated that
the Building Department would be faced with a difficult enforcement task.
Shannon concluded the discussion by stating that the Plan Commission
would take the issue under advisement.
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.
Wesley began the discussion by stating that he had received the
ordinances adopted in Coco Beach, Florida and Akron, Ohio, pertaining
to the regulations for Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Centers. Wesley
continued by stating that he believed that the Ambulatory Surgical
Treatment Center's use should be placed into the same zoning classifica-
tion as a hospital . Wesley further suggested that the Ambulatory
I
Plan Commission Minutes - 6 - January 18, 1978
Docket 77-20: Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance -
Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center
(continued)
Surgical Treatment Center be in conjunction with a hospital with no
structure separating the hospital and the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment
Center.
Shannon noted Wesley's suggestion and he agreed that it was good
planning to require the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center be placed
in the same zoning district as hospitals. Glass asked if a medical
Clinic would remain in the present zoning classification. Wesley stated
that medical clinics would remain in the same zoning; however, hospitals
would be redefined as full service facilities designed primarily for
overnight care and of the type required to be licensed by the State.
Cummins noted that she had contacted Arlington Hieghts about the
Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center that currently existed in that
community. Cummins stated that Arlington Heights placed the Clinic
in an institutional district.
At this point, Shannon noted that the Commission would continue
the discussion at their next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.
Submi ted by,
Richard M. Finn
Administrative Assistant
RMF:ms
(2-1-78)
c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President & 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.