Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 08/09/1976 - SUPERIOR TEA COFFEE/ROUNTREE SUB/GARULLOS MINUTES ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION August 9, 1976 The regular meeting ®f. the Plan Commission was called to order at 8: 15 p.m. on Monday, August 9, 1976, in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: William Shannon, Chm. Pro Tem Leah Cummins Stanley Klyber Alvin Krasnow Thomas Hamilton STAFF PRESENT: William Wesley Gary Parrin, Administrative Asst. Warren Jacobson Thomas Rettenbacher, Building Comr. Edward Hauser (8:45) Robert Callahan, Bureau Supervisor Superior Tea & Coffee Company Representatives of Superior Tea & Coffee Company were present to petition for rezoning from B-3 to 1-2 property located at 2100 Busse Road. The building in use by Superior was first occupied by Salem International , which performed retail trade and services dealing directly with consumers . This is a permitted use in a B-3 classification. The property is presently used by Superior for servicing their own vehicles only, a use permitted in 1-2 districts . The Chairman told the petitioners that the Commission will take the testimony under advisement. The hearing adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Rountree Subdivision Plat Wesley moved to approve the plat of subdivision. Hamilton seconded the motion. All present voted 'AYE' . Garuilos Special Use Permit The Chairman mentioned that the Commission decided to reconsider the petition to better make a recommendation on a finding of fact. Commissioners Wesley and Hauser submitted summaries of the public hearing ' and their rationale for denying the petitioner's request based on the testimony presented. Both summaries are attached to the Plan Commission minutes. Wayne Silva, Attorney for the petitioner, said the summaries are full of conclusions and reflects a layman's understanding of the restaurant and liquor businesses . It is difficult to offer a rebuttal . The necessity for extra police or that the restaurant might burn resulting in a real burden to the Village are assumptions. Liquor is not a condition of the lease with McLennon. Shannon noted that the question before the Commission is if there are enough advantages to the Village from a restaurant use. Wesley added that it is difficult to convert a restaurant to another use if it fails at the location. The Village is then faced with a nondesirable condition, such as Snack-Time. The testimony presented does not merit Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - August 9, 1976 enough information to base a finding of fact. Silva said that the real "gut" question is whether or not the Commission wants a restaurant. Hamilton expressed concern for aviation safety in the Village. Planes do fall , but the FAA, City of Chicago and Airline Pilots Association won' t state concern about aviation dangers. Consequently, the Commission must take the concern upon themselves . Antenna Text Amendment Residents were permitted to present various feelings regarding the proposed height. limitation on antennae. The CB group felt that a 20' limitation would not allow sufficient antenna height to operate efficiently and would limit the distance of operation. The expense to construct a 60' tower is prohibitive to many. The CB group wants the wording "attached to a building" removed. This would allow a maximum of 60' height for an antenna, whether located on a building or a tower. For example, a building which is 28' in height would be allowed a 32' antenna on the roof. This serves the same purpose as erecting a 60' tower. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :00 p.m. Submitted by: tZ goy-' E arrin ative Assistant GEP:ms (8/10/76) c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President and Board of Trustees , Village Clerk, Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Building Commissioner, Director of Public Works/Engineering, Planning Consultant , Director of Parks and Recreation, Calkins , Centex. • FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Re : Petition for Special Use for the Southwest Corner of Intersection of Devon Avenue. and York Road - Docket 76-4 of the Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Findings of Fact The petitioner appeared before the Plan Commission in the spring of 1975 seeking the same special use for the same parcel of land. A reco_--m-nendation from the Plan Commission to deny the petition was advanced to the Village Board and eventually considered by the Judiciary, Planning and Zoning Co,--miThe record shows no formal action by the Board at that time . The petitioner now comes before the Plan Commission again, represented by new counsel. Petitioner ' s counsel indicates that the purpose o= coming before the Plan Commission once again lies in the fact that the petitioner' s earlier case , was inadequate in that it failed to present evidence concerning the economic feasibility of a restaurant at the proposed location (transcript pages 49-51) _ Counsel for the petitioner admits that the Village Board acted on a proper recommendation from the Plan Com-mission based on the paucity of evidence presented at the -former hearing (transcript page 51) . To support his case for reconsideration the petitioner now brings forth two additional witnesses , Mr . Leo Theodore,- the petitioner ' s accountant, and tie . James Papas, a restauranteur living in Lake Forest, Illinois. The direct testimony of these two witnesses consumes only nine pages of the transcript, pages 5-14 . The accountant, Air. Theodore, estimated that the highest gross sales on a yearly basis would be $360, 000; that Elk Grove Village ' s share of the sales tay: would be approximately 1% of sales , or $3600 (transcript page 8) . While 1.1r . Theodore commented on the location of the proposed restaurant vis-a-vis other restaurants and businesses in the area (transcript page 7) , he later stated that he has not made a market study concerning the feasibility of the restaurant and that his prime interest is that of a CPA, namely historical recording of finances and book:.eeping (transcript page 2 5) . The witness Papas stated that he owns and operates six restaurants located respectively in Vernon Hills, Northlake , North Riverside Mall, Aurora , Elkhart , Indiana, and South Bend, Indiana. His restaurants specialize in family dining . While Mr . Papas stated how he provides for a children ' s menu in his restaurants and maintains prices low enough for a secretary in an industrial park to eat, his comments relevant to the proposed use were quite limited. He stated that family restaurant traffic is very heavy in general throughout the country and that people are going to eat out more now than ever before because of the increased expense of groceries . As for other restaurants in the market area, he noted only two restaurants on York Road north of Irving Park, The Maitre D ' Restaurant on Higgins Road and the Holiday Inn on Route 83 . He made no mention of the several restaurants located six to eight blocks north of the proposed site in the vicinity of York Road and Higgins . While he made general comments concerning the amount of businesses in the area, he showed no specific familiarity with our Industrial Park and was totally unfamiliar with the Sears Fashion Center recently completed south of- Devon Avenue , a short distance from the proposed site (transcript pages 9-13) . Examination by the. Commissioners In response to specific questions from the Plan Commission, the following additional facts were developed. Because of his preference for renting his land to Mr. Garuilos , McLennan, the owner of the property, has obtained a court order evicting Sam Horner' s Hot Dog Stand (transcript page 21) . 21he petitioners will not provide parking for nor do they intend to cater to the many trucks servicing the Industrial Park, as Mr . Horner did (transcript page 22) . Mr. Garuilos was chosen by the McLennans from among several different bidders for the restaurant on the basis of Mr . Garuilos ' willingness to personally build and finance the restaurant without any participation by the McLennans , the owners of the lard (transcript pages 26-32) . McLennan ' s only interest is in collecting the rent on a 25-year lease for the property. Garuilos testified that he will operate the restaurant from 6 : 00 A.M. until midnight or' 1 : 00 A.M . (transcript page 26) . Although his attorney had earlier indicated that the restaurant would be built with or without -2- _f IP. P a liquor license, Air. Garuilos states that he could not economically operate the property without a liquor license (transcript page 42) . He expects to make most of his profits after 5 : 00 P .M. (transcript page 43) , at which time people would come for cocktails from the Industrial Park and from numerous locations inside and outside of the Village . The restaurant will be open on Sunday (transcript page 43) . The restaurant will have 200 to 250 seats with 88 parking spaces . Conclusions A special use involves permission by a zoning authority to allow the owner to use his property in a manner contrary to the zoning ordinance . Special use is necessarily subordinate to the Village ' s comprehensive plan and as such must be scrutinized in great detail . Clearly , the burden is on the petitioner to establish that the public welfare , the public ' s health and the public ' s convenience will be better served by the requested special use than by the predominant zoning classification . Furthermore , to support a grant of a special use there must be presented substantial evidence to allow a zoning board to make specific findings of •fact estab- lishing that the standards are met by the petitioner. Finally, the "public interest" which must be considered in granting a special use includes not only the interests of adjacent property owners, who in this instance are predominantly industrial., but also the interests of the municipality in general , since it is the municipality and all of its citizens which must provide the services necessary for the maintenance of any use . We find that the petitioners have failed to carry their burden in establishing that the grant of the special use requested serves the public interest or convenience. The present petition must stand on its own merits , and the sparse evidence put forth by the petitioner in the form of two witnesses and nine pages of testimony can hardly allow this or any other commission to make the findings of fact necessary to sustain a grant of a special use . The petitioner appears to have waited more than a year between its initial and most recent approaches to the Board . He relies partially on the change in circumstances resulting from his o�•an eviction by court order of the present tenant, Sam Horner ' s Hot Dog Stand. This Commission should nct be required to ' take judicial notice of a stale record created more than a year ago and under different circumstances. -3- PPPPP Ppl/ The permitted use as a restaurant poses a substantial burden for the Village . Specifically , a restaurant -operation requires diligent police surveillance to insure adherence to both vehicle and criminal statutes of the state and village . It requires substantial attention from the fire department due to the high incidence of fires in restaurant establishments . It requires constant surveillance by the public health department to insure that proper procedures are followed in storing and handling food. Each of these concerns and burdens would be aggravated in the case of the petitioner ' s proposed establishment. The petitioner admits that he cannot operate profitably without a liquor license and that his principal profits will come after— the 5: 00 P .M. closing of most factories in the Industrial Park . The Spruce Inn , a liquor selling restaurant establishment only six blocks north of the proposed site has a very high incidence of police calls in comparison to the Industrial Park in general, ' requiring on the average approximately one squad dispatched per week according to the police department. The "public interest" must bear this cost. Also aggravating the burden on the Village is the fact that the proposed establishment is on the eastern limit of the Village ' s industrial Parr adjacent the O"Flare rilirpvrt complex, so that there is no adjoining municipality in the proximity of the proposed site which could share or assist in the surveillance . . of the immediate area. That responsibility would fall entirely on 'our municipality. The benefits which might accrue .to the Village from the grant of such a special use , on balance, fall far short of the burdens . The, only benefits even suggested by the record are a maximum potential sales tax revenue of $3600 per year and the availability of an additional restaurant to serve the eastern regions of the Industrial Park . These benefits, standing alone, are of dubious weight in view of the location_ of the - restaurant at the extreme edge of its own market area (the O 'Hare runway complex occupies all of the land to the east of the proposed site) . Because of the scale of the Industrial Park, few, if any , Park employees can reach a restaurant without the use of a motor vehicle , and adequate restaurant facilities are available within six to ten blocks north of the proposed site as well as within one to one and a half miles south of the proposed site, less than a three minute trip by automobile. The testimony provided by the two witnesses are void of expert opinion based on a market survey as to the economic feasibility . of a predominantly nighttime restaurant at the proposed location . Also to be considered is the fact that the major industrial residents in the immediate area, such as the Sears Fashion Center employing 1400 persons, provide adequate cafeteria services for their own personnel . I -4- In summary, the petitioner has failed to meet his burden of establishing a net benefit and convenience to the Village . Since the petitioner relies for his profits on his nighttime trade , much of which comes From outside of the Industrial Park , his intention to provide a "convenience" for the Village residents is of questionable value . When the inconvenience to be suffered by the Village police , fire and health departments is added to the balance, it is clear that the public interest of the Village of Elk Grovedone an injustice . With the high incidence of crime in our Industrial Park, even during the daylight hours when most companies are self-policing, it ill-behooves the Village to court a petitioner whose offer of daytime services to the Industrial Park is contingent upon his catering to outsiders during hours in which the available surveillance is at a minimum. One final concern* .should be noted. The petitioner, by law, is the land owner. Since the special use runs with the land it is the land owner that the Village must look to for cooperation in maintaining the special use as a net asset 1 to the N7411 _rge vei- ihic inctanron� the henPfiria1 lana owner, McLennan, has virtually divorced himself from the "special user" , save for the collection of his monthly rent on a .25-year lease . Both the construction and maintenance of the building are the responsibility of the tenant. Should we encourage land owners to profiteer from afar in an area of zoning, the special use , where the interests of the community require close surveillance and cooperation between the land owner and the municipal departments? We think not. It is also noted that the- petitioner,' McLennan, will suffer no undue hardship from a denial of his request . While Mr. McLennan replied from the audience that he expects a. generally better return from the lease for a restaurant than he would get from a factory building on the same parcel, there is nothing in the record to indicate that he could not profitably develop the land for its intended use , namely as an industrial site (transcript page 36) . -5- .? 117 GZ,�, Lf�-GU _.-fir-fc''' -e✓ - - - - - --- -- - - . __ _ _J `',U�• 1 //'1,�� ��1..'-G'L�G�Lt�' — �i'LLZL� l/lt!�'G� .�' .�' �✓�J%��G[� UI��fLCLL✓LLzC:v�_�C.L�'���,._._---�. G 0- d'��i�- G �?,G ✓�/f.LG —. -,/;/t-L% . ,CX�'"1�_G'-�/.�L["I _L�LC.I�/ -- r� �1,c?titer c'`.' — - -- --- - — ------- ----------- - -- i ✓GcLJ!f4 .C�' G:✓ .L� Cr' . --- i � �%�-u.c� CL�.�..�ZC.�.�' C�-L(:� Gam•�� �� <c`L`��/.GZ�yC..�'LL.�L'G� � - _. =Z% ✓lClE, — �:. C•GfCf� C tic � �c'J �G�C &:(C. �G�--CG%.rL/•''