04/17/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Council Meeting 417-00 Page 10 practically speaking, disproportionate to what is going on. But, when we had the discussion last time, I understood from Ms. Singer and Mr. Rapaszky that they were looking to adding the one row of parking because a lot of the people who use this facility are seniors and it is a far more convenient way. They are killing two birds with one stone: they are providing more parking spaces consistent with the theme of the off-street parking ordinance and they are also providing something that makes it a more functional site. It costs money to do tllat. It costs money to tear it up, to lay the parlcing area and do the required landscaping. The permit itself is finite; it is two years long. Yet, once you change the parking lot, that is a permanent change. T'he concerns in looking at the Special Use Permit is what is the long-term effects that this could have. What we understand is that it doesn't appear to present many negatives. If someone else comes along next door and says they want to the same thing, they must qualify on their own terms for the Special Use Pernut. That has notliing to do with the setback. The pexmit can control the kind of usage someone else wants to do. In this instance, it is all in front of us. A physical setback request for a variance, yes, someone else would look to this property. But, they would also have to be saying we need the parking because we have a usage that is going to generate the kind of activity and revenue that we need to provide the parldng for these people. My question is if the next time comes along, is that going to be a good or a bad thing. I don't think we can answer that right now. That is why in my memorandum I suggest this three- step approach: Look at the facts in this instance right now but realize that we may be looking at this in the future. We ought to be prepared for it and that an even longer term potential goal is whether or not we want to tinker, do we need to tinlcer with the zoning mix in Beta. I don't know the answer to that question. We may find out there is no need to change it. Unless you ask the questions and unless you go through those exercises, you are kind of doomed to dealing as we are (as I?r. Parker expressed his concern that he would like to have more time to contemplate it) so that is why I am suggesting that steps 2 and 3 are looking further down the road. In this instance, someone is comutg up and saying we have a practice. These doctors are looking to relocate. They are willing to invest over $300,000 and must sign a 10-year lease. But, all the Village is comnutling to is a 10-year Special Use Permit. In terms of the lease and the perxnit; those have notlung to do with the setback. That is the overall nature of what is going to go on in this place. From what we can see, the parking there should be more than adequate, the traffic patterns should dovetail appropriately with the way Beta looks now. By what we have seen and understand of the usage there, a lot of our senior citizens have already found NovaCare and are likely to use the tie-in facilities. I don't see any real negatives except in the abstract, something theoretical. That Special Use Permit, I suggest, is the Village's way to control the long-term impact of that overall usage. The physical setback issue has to be recognized as a change that would be a permanent change. But again, what is it that triggers it? Every case is measured on its own terrns so while it can be pointed to as precedential value, the fact remains that anyone else who comes forward is going to have other issues to surmount. My personal view is that this looks like a very good risk. There is nothing the Village has to do except pave the way and allow them to make an investment in the site. It