Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 03/15/1995 - VICTORIA BANQUETS ELK GROVE VILLAGE Plan Commission Minutes March 15, 1995 8:00 P.M. Present: F. Geinosky, Chairman P. Feichter, Secretary C. Prochno C. Henrici P. Ayers J. McAllister R. Guzzardi Absent: D. PaliganOff J. Meyers Staff: S. Niehaus, Administrative Assistant M. Pye, Assistant. village Engineer S. Trudan, Building Inspector Supervisor Petitioners: Mario Ferraro, Victoria Banquets Vincent D. Piero, Serpico, Novello & Navigato, Ltd. Donald Novelle, Serpico, Novello & Navigato, Ltd. Gerald W. Milligan, Wright & Company Lynn Jones, Metropolitan Life, Insurance Co. F. J. Melaniphy, (Site Location Specialists) Chairman Geinosky called the meeting to order at 8: 10 p.m. Item A: Victoria Banquets Public Hearing Secretary Feichter swore in the petitioners. Chairman Geinosky asked the petitioners if the required signage was posted on the property in accordance with village regulations. Novelle stated that the signage was properly posted. Novelle presented the Victoria Banquets concept to the Plan Commission. Novelle stated that Victoria Banquets would be a full-service wedding and banquet facility which would cater to the entire northwest suburban regicn. Novelle stated that the actual building would be located on the eastern most portion of the Norhwest Point Office Park and would have three levels including various banquet rooms and restaurants. Novelle stated that the petitioners believed this to be a good location. Chairman Geinosky asked that the petitioners explain the origin of the numerous special use requests found on Exhibit 2 of their petition and how they would be used at the facility. Novelle stated that the petitioner, Mario Ferraro, had been in the catering business for several years. In that time he has received numerous requests for special services all of which are found on Exhibit 2, therefore the items have been requested in anticipation of being used at the proposed facility. Novelle stated that he could not specifically state how each special use would be facilitated due to the fact that they are still in the planning stages. Novelle stated that all the uses requested would take place on the property including the parachute landings, fireworks, and carriage rides. Commissioner Henrici asked if the architect could "walk-through" the building and explain it's design to the Plan Commission. Milligan explained that the 3 level building was similar to a split level home in that it did not actually have 3 full levels. The actual building would be 52,000 square feet and have a capacity of 1, 070 people. The building will be handicapped accessible in accordance with ADA regulations. Commissioner Henrici questioned how their concerts would work and whether they would be indoor or outdoor. Ferraro stated that concerts would be held both indoors in banquet rooms and outdoors on the lawn. He explained that the outdoor concerts would be classical, similar to the 1920 's and 1930 's when people would sit on the lawn and listen to musicians. Ferraro also stated that these concerts could be held by private audiences, open admission, or fund raising organizations. Commissioner Henrici questioned how large the carriage house in the southeast corner of the property would be. Milligan stated that it would be 1,200 square feet, enough to house the carriage equipment and two horses. Commissioner Prochno inquired as to the restaurants at the proposed facility. Ferraro stated that they would be operating a smaller restaurant with capacity of 70 people, which would be open to the general public. The restaurant would be used by potential banquet customers as well as some customers from the office and industrial park. Commissioner Prochno asked if the petitioners had any communication with Sheraton suites. Novelle stated that some communication had taken place regarding special rates for banquet customers, however no agreements had been made. Novelle also stated that Sheraton is not opposed to the construction of the facility. Commissioner Feichter asked the petitioners if they had received the staff comments dated December 22, 1994 and March 10, 1995. Novelle stated that they had received the comments and had planned to address them through final engineering prior to receiving building permits. Milligan verbally went through each staff comment and stated that the petitioners would be able to address them through revised site plans which would be submitted to staff for review as requested by the Plan commission. chairman Geinosky stressed the importance of staff review and stated that it was imperative that the petitioners have all the issues identified by staff resolved before the Plan Commission would take any action. Commissioner Guzzardi asked the petitioner why the proposed facility was the best use for the property. Ferraro stated that the location was the best place for his business because it was large enough to accommodate his needs and it would not pose problems for residential owners by virtue of its isolated location near office and industrial areas. Melaniphy, a site location specialist hired by the petitioners, stated that he had done a complete study on the proposed location and found it to be a good location due to its proximity to major roadways, shopping centers, businesses, and the airport. Commissioner Guzzardi asked if ample parking would be made available on site. Novelle stated that they currently had planned for 404 parking spaces with the possibility of a parking deck being constructed if necessary. Novelle also stated that an agreement could be reached with world Book Encyclopedia which would allow them to utilize their parking lot after hours and on weekends. Trudan stated that the actual number of parking spaces required could not be determined until the petitioners provide additional information pertaining to the size and capacity of the building, parking lot dimensions, and the various ot:2er uses proposed on the site. Commissioner Guzzardi asked about the retaining wall in the northwest corner of the property. Milligan stated that it was necessary due to a grade differential between the building level and the retention pond. Commissioner McAllister gjestioned as to the location and size of a tent on the property. Novelle stated that the tent would be located behind the building adjacent to the pool/patio. The tent would be 4,500 square feet or enough for 200-250 people. Commissioner McAllister asked about the potential of a parking garage. Milligan stated that if it was necessary, a parking garage would be constructed to provide for one additional level of parking for 150-200 cars. Commissioner Ayers questioned where the parachute landings and the helipad would be located. Novelle stated that they would take place in the parking lot. Commissioner Ayers questioned who was responsible for providing insurance for individuals who chose to parachute or conduct fireworks displays. Novelle stated that traditionally, the burden of insurance was the responsibility of bangiet customers. Chairman Geinosky questioned the time frame the petitioners were working on for construction. Novelle stated that they had hoped to begin construction in spring of 1995 and open the business within one year. If construction begins later than spring of 1995 opening of the facility would not take place until fall of 1996. Chairman Geinosky asked if the petitioners had any contact with the other companies located in Northwest Point. DiPiero stated that Northwest Point controls the placement of all businesses in the park and would have to approve the general concept of the Victoria Banquets facility before construction could take place. Jones, a representative for the property owner (Metropolitan Life) , stated that they had no objection to the proposed use and viewed it as a compliment to other businesses in the office park. Chairman Geinosky asked what the hours of operation at the facility would be. Novelle stated that the facility would be open 7 days a week from morning until night. The operation would not be 24 hours a day. The actual time of operation would be opposite from the regular hours of businesses in the office park. Chairman Geinosky asked how the petitioner would finance the development of the property. Novelle stated that discussions had been held with the Village pertaining to the Village offering some form of financial incentives to Victoria Banquets. Chairman Geinosky stated that it was his understanding that conversations had taken place between the village and the petitioner, however, the Village was not committed to any funding and did not plan to do so at this time. Chairman Geinosky questioned how the development of the property would benefit the Village. Novelle stated that the Village would benefit financially from increases in sales tax, property tax, and possibly hotel/motel tax due to increased use at local hotels/motels. In addition, the facility would contribute at least 80 additional jobs if not more. Chairman Geinosky questioned if there would be any traffic flow difficulties with the proposed site plan. Novelle stated that he did not know of any potential problems but would work with staff should any be identified. Chairman Geinosky asked how the property would be advertised. Novelle stated that a sign would be directed towards the 1-90 Tollway. In addition, signage would be placed on the building and at the entrances to the office park. Chairman Geinosky opened the public hearing up for comments from the audience. There were no comments. Novelle stated that Victoria Banquets and the property owner were very excited with the project and were interested in completing it as soon as possible. Novelle stated that he would be willing to meet with staff to address any outstanding issues which presented a concern to the Plan Commission. Chairman Geinosky closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. chairman Geinosky asked that an informal poll of the Plan Commission be taken to determine their opinion of the proposed development. After further discussion, the consensus of the Plan Commission was favorable toward the development of the property as proposed. However, the Plan Commission remained concerned over the need for the petitioners to com.)ly with staff comments and urged them to meet with staff as soon as possible. The Plan Commission also noted that no action would take place until staff concerns were addressed. Commissioner Henrici moved and Commissioner McAllister seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. Chairman Geinosky adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Scott R. Niehaus Administrative Assistant SRN/el C: Chairman and Members of Plan Commission, President and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Acininistrative Intern, Director of Engineering/Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief (2) , Assistant Fire Chief, Village Attorney, Chairman and Members 2BA