Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 08/10/1977 - MIDWAY MOTOR LODGE DOCKET 77-5 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES ELK GROVE VI.LLAGE PLAN COMMISSION August 10, 1977 The special meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman William Shannon at 8:20 P.M. on Wednesday, August 10, 1977 in the Multi-Purpose Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue, Elk Grove Village. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: William Shannon, Chairman Thomas Rettenbacher, John Glass Building Commissioner Thomas Hamilton Robert Callahan, Edward Hauser Building Supervisor James Petri Richard M. Finn, William Wesley (10:45 P.M.) Administrative Assistant MEMBERS ABSENT- Leah Cummins Docket 77-5: Midway Motor Lodge Mr. Rettenbacher began the discussion by stating that he and Robert Callahan met with the Village Attorney on Monday, August 8th to review the information pertaining to the Midway Motor Lodge. Rettenbacher noted that Knickerbocker's interpretation of the Village Zoning Ordinance was that the Plan Commission did not possess the authority to lessen the standards for parking; however, it a:as within their authority to make the requirements more restrictive. Hamilton argued that the Plan Com- mission was authorized to recommend a shared parking plan and this is what they were considering. Rettenbacher noted Hamilton's statement and suggested that he and the Village Attorney felt that the Village Ordinance was indeed written and provided for shared parking. However, Rettenbacher argued that in Midway's situation, shared parking as stated by the petitioner was not applicable as the calculations already accounted for the shared parking under the requirements of motels, restaurants and lodges . Rettenbacher noted that shared parking was allowed when two or more facilities operated at different times , therefore requiring parking at different times . Rettenbacher reiterated that in his interpretation of the Village Ordinance, Midway did not fit in this class.ification. Hauser requested that the Village Attorney submit in writing his inter- pretation of the Plan Commission's duties and authority in matters concerning special uses . Rettenbacher noted that his figures differed from Mr. Callahan's figures because Callahan did not include the amphitheater in his calculations . That was why Rettenbacher arrived at a parking requirement of 485 and Callahan's figures came up with only 474 spaces . Hamilton readdressed the parking issue by stating that the Village Ordinance pertaining to parking was written while circumstances existed which did not allow the writers of the Ordinance to foresee the multiple uses that modern day facilities possess. Hamilton continued by arguing that he felt that the Village Ordinance (pertaining to parking) should be reviewed and updated. Hamilton continued by suggesting that it was the Commission's responsibility to require the optimal amount of parking. Hamilton noted that with the extremely high cost of land, it a:as the Commission's responsibility to require only the amount of parking that Special Meeting Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - August 10, 1977 Docket 77-5: Midway Motor Lodge (continued) would do the job. It was a waste to require more parking than a facility would ever need. Shannon suggested that he was inclined to agree with the shared parking concept because both groups of experts on parking requirements came up with lower figures for parking requirements. Shannon also noted that both figures were approximately equal . Rettenbacher argued that if the petitioner wanted to put in less parking than what the Ordinance required, the petitioner had two options : (1) Request a variation; (2) Request a Text Amendment. Mr. Callies, representing the petitioner, took issue with Rettenbacher and he stated that his interpretation of the Ordinance was that the Plan Commission possessed the authority to recommend variations for special uses as long as the finding of fact explained why the variation was recommended. Callies stressed that the Village Ordinance specifically allowed the Plan Commission to consider a shared parking request . Shannon stated that it was his understanding of the Ordinance that the Commission possessed a certain leeway when considering requests for special uses . Rettenbacher stated that the Plan Commission was an advisory group which could make any recommendation that they felt was appropriate. Shannon noted that he was not happy with the inspections and the two year period that would be required in order to determine if additional parking were necessary. Shannon suggested to the Commission that they attempt to require one set figure which they thought was the optimal parking requirement. Hauser referred the Commission to the parking figures that he obtained from Harris, Kerr, and Fostester Company. He noted that he felt 393 parking figures were not adequate; however, he was not happy with the 474 figure. Hauser suggested that the Commission should arrive at one set figure with the acknowledgement that the Village Ordinance does not specifically address the parking issue which is involved in the Midway petition. Shannon reiterated that the two sets of parking figures (which were obtained from experts) were approximately the same. Shannon noted that he would like to see the Commission recommend the maximum number that the researched figures suggested. Glass expressed a concern about the parking requirements , noting that many similar nearby facilities are constantly short of parking on Friday and Saturday nights . Glass stated that a potential problem could arise if Midway had several large activities going on at the same time. Petri agreed with Glass and he suggested that the parking requirement should be at least 428. Shannon noted that the Commission had earlier agreed to allow the petitioner to have parking on the first 25 foot easement. At this point, Hamilton made a motion to recommend a shared parking plan requiring 428 parking places . Hamilton noted that the Commission had arrived at this .figure after reviewing the following two calculations : (1) The petitioner's figure of 393; (2) The Village Ordinance (without shared parking) of 485. Hamilton continued by suggesting that the Plan • • Special Meeting Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - August 10, 1977 Docket 77-5: Midway Motor Lodge (continued) Commission did not feel that the Village Ordinance was written with the anticipation of multiple uses and staggered times on one site. Hamilton also made mention of the two sets of figures that the Commission obtained to determine the optimal parking requirement. Hamilton further stated that the shared parking plan was based on the submitted information which included no public facility in the basement. Hauser seconded the motion. Rettenbacher addressed the Commission and stated that he disagreed with the motion. He restated that he felt that the figure of 485 was the figure required by the Village Ordinance. Hamilton noted that the motion was not attempting to challenge Rettenbacher's figures . Rather, the Commission was recommending a variation in the Ordinance based on the shared parking concept which the Village Ordinance allowed. At this point, Shannon asked who was in favor of the motion before the Commission. All those present voted 'AYE' . Rettenbacher noted that a complete site plan should be submitted before the Commission sent, their recommendation to the Village Board. Mr. Callies stated that a revised site plan would be made available before the Plan Commission's next meeting. Hamilton further made a motion to recommend the Midway Motor Lodge for a special use with theaforementioned parking requirements and the following findings of fact: 1 . Said property is located south of Old Higgins Road, north of Oakton Street on the west side of Busse Road contiguous to the Village of Elk Grove and is approximately 7 acres in area. 2. Said property is appropriately located and will provide a needed service both to the Village's industrial sections and the residential sections. The site is very well designed and is compatible with Elk Grove Village Ordi- nances and Comprehensive Plan. 3. Said property shall provide a looped 12 inch water main installed around the building with proper spacing of I valves and hydrants. The drawings of the water main i shall be approved by the Village Fire Department and Engineering Department before installation. The site will be required to have two independent water sources . 4. The development shall provide an access drive off of Old Higgins Road to the parking area. 5. The restaurant and all meeting rooms shall be equipped with automatic sprinkler protection. 6. At the discretion of the Village Building Department, the i Motel area may be required to have automatic sprinkler protection. 7. The development shall provide two off-street loading spaces regulations as stated in Section 3.9 of the Zoning Ordi- nance which met the size requirements of Section 3.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. 8. The off-site retention of said property shall be approved by the Village Engineer before construction. 9. Construction of sidewalks along the right-of-way on Oakton Street and Busse Road will be required. Special Meeting Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - August 10, 1977 Docket 77-5: Midway Motor Lodge (continued) 10. All requirements of the Village's B-3 Zoning District will be required for this Special Use unless specifically stated. 11 . All the requirements of the Building Code within the fire limits are to be met by the development. 12. The popposed building (Motel area) shall not exceed three stories or 35 feet in height. 13. The proposed facility will be allowed to have parking on the first 25 foot easement. 14. Landscaping plans shall be provided to the Village at the time the building plans are submitted. The landscaping plans shall be approved by the Plan Commission. 15. Maximum capacity of each of the facilities shall be, as follows : A. Dining Room (including private dining rooms) . 260 B. Total Lounge Area (include bar area) . . . . . . . . . 260 C. Amphitheater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 D. Three meeting rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 each 16. There shall be no more than 183 Motel rooms . 17. The revised site plan will be submitted to the Plan Commission, showing the additional parking and the placement of the building. Hauser seocnded the motion. Shannon requested a vote on the motion. All present voted 'AYE' . Lancer Corporation: Preliminary Plat Mr. Hunter was present to represent the Lancer Corporation in their request to annex 40 acres into the Village. Hamilton noted that a poten- tial problem existed if there were plans to extend Devon Avenue. Hunter stated that the status of the Devon Avenue extension was uncertain, although he noted that the Lancer Corporation had inquired to both DuPage and Cook Counties . Hamilton suggested that since the Devon Avenue extension was uncertain, the Plan Commission should be guided by the Village Master Plan. Hamilton further noted that with the extension of Nerge Road, the need to extend Devon Avenue would be at a minimum. In essence, Hamilton argued that the Nerge Road extension would take the place of the Devon Avenue extension. Hauser agreed with Hamilton, although Hauser argued that the Village should get a commitment on the Devon Avenue extension issue before any definite action is taken. Hauser continued by suggesting that the need to extend would still be necessary if the Elgin-O'Hare is abandoned. Hamilton agreed with Hauser's point. Hamilton asked Hunter how much land was being made available for the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway. Hunter stated that Lancer would supply approximately 1 .23 acres . Hauser asked if the Lancer Corporation would consider donating money to the Village instead of donating the proposed park land. Mr. Hunter noted that a portion of the proposed park land was unbuildable and also the park land was considered to be an asset to the entire development. Therefore, Mr. Hunter concluded that Lancer would be against the proposal . i I • • Special Meeting Plan Commission Minutes - 5 - August 10, 1977 Lancer Corporation: Preliminary Plat (continued) At this point Hauser readdressed the issue of egress-regress from Roose Road. Hauser noted that if a signal was put on Nerge Road, it would be unlikely that one would be placed at the intersection of Roose Road and Meacham Road. Hauser's basic concern focused on the problem of getting into and out of the proposed development during peak traffic periods . Rettenbacher noted that the State required a minimum of a half mile between signals. Shannon stated that the Village should make sure that the State would provide an access road from Roose Road to Meacham Road if Meacham was ever relocated. Glass stated that Lancer should tell the potential home buyers about the off-ramp from the proposed Elgin-O'Hare Expressway. Glass noted that the off-ramp would be very close to many of the proposed homes. Hauser asked if Lancer would be willing to work with a consultant hired by the Park District to establish dry detention. Hunter stated that he would like to know the basic specifics involved; however, he noted that he had no objection to the proposed general condition. Hamilton, referring to the possible extention of Devon Avenue, suggested that Lancer eliminate Lots #8, #9, #10, #11 , #12 and #13. In this way, Hamilton suggested that the land could be used for an access to the Devon Avenue extended. Hamilton argued that the land should be kept open till future trends could be established. Shannon stated that he did not feel that the Devon Avenue extension would ever become a reality. Hauser continued the questioning by asking Hunter if Lancer would consider moving Lots #1 , #2, #3, A, #5, and #6 to the other side of the proposed open space area. This would place the six lots next to Lots #7 and #8. In this way, Hauser suggested that Lancer could revise the plat and include two access roads into the development. Mr. Hunter agreed that Hauser's proposal was well worth further investigation. j Shannon concluded the discussion by stating that the small "jet-out" I on Lot #21 should be removed. Petition for Rezoning: 1250 South Arlington Heights Road I Mr. Shannon briefly noted that he would like the Plan Commission to reach a decision on the petition of Charles Matthies . Shannon suggested that the Plan Commission meet at 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday, August 17. Shannon further requested that Matthies supply a revised j plat showing a larger cul-de-sac as Matthies proposed during the Public j Hearing. i The meeting adjourned at 11 :25 P.M. i I Su ted by, Richard M. Finn RMF:ms Administrative Assistant (8/15/77) i