Input From Village Officials |
Village officials have remained non-committal about the petitions filed by Anthem Memory Care, leaving only their previous actions, comments and decisions involving other petitions that have come before the Planning and Development Commission and Board of Trustees to offer an idea of how this all may turn out...
|
Significant Variation Issue in the Past
On April 1, 2013 the Planning and Development Commission held a public hearing to discuss petition #2013-14 - Request for Parking Variation @ 5433 West 95th Street, JenCare Neighborhood Medical Center Oak Lawn LLC, petitioner.
Here are a few comments made by a village official during exchanges with representatives from JenCare as noted in the minutes from that public hearing...
Here are a few comments made by a village official during exchanges with representatives from JenCare as noted in the minutes from that public hearing...
"Mr. Deetjen expressed deep concerns for the location citing impact, public safety and welfare of the community. Mr. Deetjen asked if the property located at 87th Street in Oak Lawn was looked at. Mr. Deetjen continued that the exterior of the proposed location is in need of attention, material was peeling on facility, pylon sign would not be acceptable in today's standards, and added they must do better. Chairman Gray asked for additional comments. Mr. Timmerman stated JenCare has looked at other locations; the location on 95th Street west of S.W. Highway where the old Halloween Store was located, however that petition is not on the agenda until the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Timmerman stated they have been looking at locations since December of 2012."
"Mr. Marcunis pointed out that this meeting was to approve a parking variance. Mr. Marcunis expressed JenCare is a national company looking to increase its presence in the Midwest. They have indicated financial security and would be a valuable tenant for Oak Lawn. Mr. Deetjen answered he appreciates comments made by Mr. Marcunis. However, there has been no dialogue regarding the site plans, landscaping. What does the landlord propose for the improvements? He further expressed that a 57.1% is significant. Mr. Deetjen asked if this is the highest and best use of the property. Mr. Deetjen stated this is constructive criticism; Oak Lawn is currently working on a 95th Street Corridor Plan; its intention is to define the vision for the future for Oak Lawn. He added that more dialogue and information needed to obtain a clear answer for this facility. Mr. Marcunis explained this is identical to the parking variance scheduled for the next meeting. Mr. Gallagher indicated any recommendations from this meeting and the following meeting on April 15, 2013 will go to the Village Board on April 23, 2013."
The minutes from the Planning and Development Commission public hearing held on April 15, 2013 (along with several others) are not available on the official Village of Oak Lawn website. As a result, what transpired remains somewhat a mystery but ultimately JenCare settled for an alternate location within the village that was apparently suggested by village officials. The petition for that alternate location was eventually approved by the Board of Trustees on May 14, 2013. Oddly enough, this alternate location required an even greater parking variation than their first choice / preferred location did. That issue also forced JenCare to obtain additional off-site parking a block and a half away to ensure they had adequate parking at this alternate location.
Fast-Forward to present day 2016
Anthem Memory Care has filed petitions seeking a 71.9% parking variation and a 637.5% density variation. No folks, that is not a typo. Anthem Memory Care is asking for a special use permit to build an approximately 43,000 square foot two-story commercial facility that will have a unit density almost 6.5 times than what is allowed on a 2.28 acre site located in a PUD/R-1 zone.
Furthermore, the proposed facility will require a variation for signage since residential areas are limited to signs for sales or leasing of a residential property. That variation will be significant to say the least, assuming Anthem Memory Care seeks to install signage similar to what is used at their other locations and not just a 4x4 post with a swinging metal realtor's sign.
And finally, the front yard variation being sought by Anthem Memory Care is related to the proposed facility's proximity to a 100-year floodplain. Just move it five feet north (and now another eleven feet east as per the latest site plan revision) and the flooding concerns are magically resolved. And if it doesn't work, it will be the fault of the MWRD combined with an uncontrollable act of god.
Despite these SIGNIFICANT variations being sought by Anthem Memory Care there have not been many concerns raised by current village officials. There is a need for neutrality in the petitioning process, yet most comments from village officials have been directed at the taxpaying residents of the single family homes in the area that are questioning the location of the proposed facility and the impacts that it will have on their single family residential neighborhood.
If neutrality works both ways, then it is not the job of village officials to tell the residents why this proposed facility is a good thing, but rather it is Anthem Memory Care that needs to answer those questions. Yet, they cannot even answer a question about what their 34-point facility search criteria entailed, what their patient assessments (intake and follow-up) entail and how many staff (and of what type) will be assigned on any given shift. Just lots of vague and changing/different answers to some rather direct questions.
Furthermore, the proposed facility will require a variation for signage since residential areas are limited to signs for sales or leasing of a residential property. That variation will be significant to say the least, assuming Anthem Memory Care seeks to install signage similar to what is used at their other locations and not just a 4x4 post with a swinging metal realtor's sign.
And finally, the front yard variation being sought by Anthem Memory Care is related to the proposed facility's proximity to a 100-year floodplain. Just move it five feet north (and now another eleven feet east as per the latest site plan revision) and the flooding concerns are magically resolved. And if it doesn't work, it will be the fault of the MWRD combined with an uncontrollable act of god.
Despite these SIGNIFICANT variations being sought by Anthem Memory Care there have not been many concerns raised by current village officials. There is a need for neutrality in the petitioning process, yet most comments from village officials have been directed at the taxpaying residents of the single family homes in the area that are questioning the location of the proposed facility and the impacts that it will have on their single family residential neighborhood.
If neutrality works both ways, then it is not the job of village officials to tell the residents why this proposed facility is a good thing, but rather it is Anthem Memory Care that needs to answer those questions. Yet, they cannot even answer a question about what their 34-point facility search criteria entailed, what their patient assessments (intake and follow-up) entail and how many staff (and of what type) will be assigned on any given shift. Just lots of vague and changing/different answers to some rather direct questions.
Slight Rewind to May 10, 2016
Village officials helped preserve the integrity of a R-1 single family neighborhood by petitioning for the re-zoning of a single lot from R-3 to R-1. That particular lot measures .3 acres (not quite 1/3 of an acre in case you missed the decimal point) and it is the last home on the south side of 92nd Street, roughly 140 feet west of the commercial corridor on Cicero Avenue. Given these recent efforts in undoing what appears to be a case of spot zoning, one would find it almost logical there would be strong opposition to a special use permit petition that is seeking to allow 2.28 acres of land located roughly 550 feet west of Central Avenue (a busy, yet not truly a commercial corridor) to be turned into a commercial development in what is otherwise a single family neighborhood area.