Laserfiche WebLink
Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - August 3, 1977 <br /> Docket 77-5 (continued) <br /> that the final decision on parking would require subjective judgement <br /> by the Commission members . Glass noted that he shared Hauser's concern <br /> and he also suggested that Callies proposed parking agreement would <br /> impose a large responsibility on the Village Staff, including the <br /> mechanics of carrying out the inspections . <br /> Glass next mentioned that the findings of fact should include the <br /> specific room capacities as presented by Mr. Callies in one of the <br /> previous meetings. <br /> Cummins noted that the Village had certain standards that should <br /> be met. She suggested that if adequate parking were not supplied, <br /> customers of the proposed development would utilize nearby parking <br /> areas if Midway's parking facilities were filled to capacity. <br /> Hauser next stated that Section D of Callies findings of fact <br /> was extremely difficult to understand. Hauser argued that the 393 <br /> parking spaces shown on the original site plan should be the minimum <br /> amount of parking that be required. Hamilton agreed with Hauser and <br /> suggested that Section D be deleted from the findings,of fact. Shannon <br /> also agreed and restated that 393 spaces should be the minimum parking <br /> .requirement. <br /> Mr. Finn approached the Commission and stated that Callies ' proposed <br /> agreement would require Village Staff to perform the proposed inspections . <br /> Finn noted that the inspection would be set for peak periods of activity <br /> which would be after regular work hours . This would mean additional <br /> time and expense to the Village. Hamilton agreed and suggested that <br /> the developer be billed for the Village's expenses in performing the <br /> inspections . <br /> Mr. Callies suggested that the petitioner keep records and send <br /> affidavids to the Village with their figures. Callies noted that the <br /> Village could occassionally spot check the figures to determine their <br /> accuracy. This suggestion was not acceptable to the Commission members. <br /> However, Glass noted that any inspection schedule should be determined <br /> randomly. <br /> Wesley stated that he felt that the Village should have the ability <br /> to require the 35 additional parking spaces without any scheduled <br /> inspections or affidavits. The petitioner should' have the necessary <br /> land available for a period of two years. If during that period the <br /> Village staff felt additional parking was necessary, the Village could <br /> request it without referring to any specific inspection results. <br /> Wesley concluded by stating that he did not know of any reasonable <br /> way of policing the parking facilities. Hamilton and Shannon agreed <br /> with Wesley. Shannon further suggested that Section B, which discussed . <br /> the inspection requirements, be removed. Glass concurred with the <br /> recommendation and suggested that the other sections which referred to <br /> Section B be amended. <br /> Hauser requested that the July 25thePlan Commission minutes be <br /> amended on page 3, to explain how he arrived at his parking calculation. <br /> Hauser stated that the Village computations came to 474 parking spaces <br /> and Midway figures 393 spaces , a difference of 81 spaces . Splitting <br /> the fifference, Mr. Hauser arrived at 433 parking spaces . <br /> Glass also requested that the July 25th minutes show that the cost <br /> to Midway for supplying 20,000 square feet for additional parking would <br /> be approximately $7,000 a year. <br />