Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 07/11/1977 - HOLLANDER'S RESUB MINUTES ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION July 11 , 1977 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman William Shannon at 8:05 P.M. on Monday, July 11 , 1977 in the Staff Conference Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue, Elk Grove Village. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: William Shannon, Chairman Leah Cummins John Glass STAFF PRESENT: Thomas Hamilton Thomas Rettenbacher, Edward Hauser Building Commissioner James Petri Richard M. Finn, William Wesley Administrative Intern HOLLANDERS RESUBDIVISION Mr. Shannon noted that Richard Hollander was present to request a variation from the easement requirement of the Subdivision Control Ordinance. At this time, Mr. Hollander addressed the Plan Commission. He stated that he had two requests : First, he asked that the Commission recommend to the Village Board that the ten foot easement required for Lot 1 be waived. He noted that this concurred with the Village Engineer's recommendation. Secondly, he asked that he not be required to show the thirty foot easement on his plat of subdivision. Hollander stated that the thirty foot easement, which would be located between the two lots , was already part of the contract between the Sambo's Corporation and himself. Hollander also added that his reason for not wanting to show the thirty foot easement on the plat was because if his agreement with Sambo's fell through, he did not want to be left with the thirty foot easement. Shannon stated that if the arrangement between Hollander and Sambo's did dissolve, Mr. Hollander could request a plat of vacation for the thirty foot easement. Wesley noted that if Hollander did not show the thirty foot easement on the plat of subdivision, the Village would have no way of enforcing the requirement if Sambo's decided they did not want the easement. Shannon noted that at the Public Hearing for Sambo's Special Use, the petitioner stated that a thirty foot easement would be constructed. Shannon continued by stating that the Plan Commission's recommendation to the Village Board was based on this condition and he therefore felt that the thirty foot easement should be shown. However, Shannon noted that it was the general consensus of the Commission to waive the ten foot easement required for Lot 1 . Shannon therefore directed Hollander to make the recommended changes and to return to the Commission when the needed changes were in order. -- DOCKET 77-5: Special Use for Midway Motor Lodge Mr. Rettenbacher stated to the Commission that the Village Attorney had told him that any variation in parking requirements for the proposed r Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - July 11 , 1977 Docket 77-5 (continued) Midway Motor Lodge should go before the Zoning Board of Appeals . It was also the Village Attorney's opinion that if the Commission approved the original site plans submitted by Midway, in effect the Commission would be granting a parking variation. Mr. Rettenbacher stated that both he and the Village Attorney were against any such action. At this point Mr. Finn stated that Chief Jenkins had contacted him earlier and stated that he retracted his recommendation for the median cuts on Oakton Street and Busse Road. The Chief indicated that upon re-examining the issue, he felt that the median cuts would probably cause more problems than they would alleviate. Next, Shannon addressed the Commission by stating that he felt the Village Zoning Ordinance did not fully relate to the Midway type operation. He noted that to his knowledge there was no section in the Zoning Ordinance that covered a restaurant, motel, and meeting rooms in the same structure. Rettenbacher argued that Section 3.96 of the Zoning Ordinance did relate to the issue. Rettenbacher further stated that the petitioner had three alternatives open to him to solve the problem relating to the parking requirements. First, they could comply with the Village Zoning Ordinance; second, they could request a variation from the Ordinance; and third, they could request a Text Amendment. Glass expressed concern over how the Commission should approach the parking issue. Rettenbacher suggested that the Plan Commission render a decision on all the issues except parking. The parking require- ments would be addressed by the Zoning Board of Appeals, at which time a joint recommendation could be made. At this time, David Callies and Stan Johnson entered the meeting on behalf of the petitioner. Shannon briefly reviewed the issues that the Commission had previously discussed. Shannon explained to Callies that the Plan Commission was not in a position to grant a parking variation. Shannon also outlined the alternatives that were available to the petitioner. Callies stated that his interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance was that the Plan Commission had the authority to recommend a shared parking arrangement. Shannon noted that this was a valid point; however, he continued by suggesting that the Commission had no way to determine the relationship of shared parking for the restaurant and the other components of the proposed facility. Callies suggested that the Plan Commission consider the parking in a special parking plan as mentioned in the Zoning Ordinance in Section 3.93• Hauser, referring to Callies' letter of July 7, asked how Callies arrived at the 35% figure for shared parking. Callies stated that he could have used 45% or even 50% but he decided to use 35% because that was all the development required. Wesley stated that he felt that the square footage calculations used to determine the parking requirements were penalizing a developer who was liberal with spacing requirements . Wesley asked Rettenbacher if it was appropriate to use the seven square foot calculation from the Building Ordinance and transpose it Tn the Zoning Ordinance. Rettenbacher stated that he had asked the Village Attorney about this issue and it was the Attorney's opinion that this was an acceptable practice. Wesley next asked Rettenbacher if the Holiday Inn, located in the Village, actually complied with the Village zoning requirements for Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - July 11 , 1977 Docket 77-5 (continued) parking. Rettenbacher said that it did not because it was built when the Village was operating under a different Zoning Ordinance. Hamilton stated that he felt that the petitioner was quite professional and that they were in a position to know exactly the optimal amount of parking. If the petitioner is wrong, it is going to adversely affect their business and they will be the ones paying the price. Hamilton continued by stating that it was his contention that the Village Zoning Ordinance should be tempered at certain times . Glass agreed with Hamilton, but he did note that if major parking problems occurred, the Village would be stuck with it also. Hamilton concluded by stating that he felt that the Village Zoning Ordinance did not adequately take into account all the proposed uses for shared parking as the Midway development should be entitled to. Shannon noted that he did not know how to define 'adequate parking' . Rettenbacher answered that in his opinion, Midway and Hoffman House should be made to comply with the Zoning Ordinance parking requirements . At this point, Shannon directed Mr. Calli-es to submit an application and supporting materials to Mr. Rettenbacher for a Special Parking Plan and that he would enter all the information submitted up to this point as supporting material . Rettenbacher noted that the Midway site plan indicated parking on the first 25 foot easement. Since the property was zoned 1-1 , this parking would not be permitted unless the Commission made this a condition of the Special Use. Hamilton moved that Rettenbacher be given any information that he would need to determine the Special Parking Plan. Mr. Callies agreed that Mr. Rettenbacher would be given the material he required. In addition, Hamilton asked that all setbacks, sidewalks and retention ponds be shown in detail on a site plan. Glass questioned where and what type of retention was proposed for the site. Johnson stated that at this time there were no.details available for the retention pond. Hamilton added that the Commission was interested in where and what type of retention the developer was proposing. Callies stated that this request could be made a condition of the Special Use. Wesley concluded the discussion by stating that the consensus of the Commission was to require the sidewalks which were required on the State Right-of-Way. Wesley noted that the sidewalk would be required before the facility was open. Also, Wesley stated that it was the contention of the Commission to allow the parking in the first 25 foot easement. Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 212 Shannon noted that this site was the property behind the Greenleaf Fire Station. The subdivision had been approved by the Engineering Department and Building Department. Hamilton made a motion to recommend Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 212. Glass seconded the motion. All present voted 'AYE' . • • • Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - July 11 , 1977 Nicholas - Estes Resubdivision Shannon noted that the word 'underground' had been added to the linen. Wesley made a motion to recommend Nicholas-Estes Resubdivision for approval . Glass seconded the motion. Carol Square (Wild Oaks) Mr. Rettenbacher stated that he was recently approached by Carl _ Davis in relation to the Carol Square Subdivision. Rettenbacher noted that apparently the property has been subdivided without Village knowledge or approval . Shannon directed that this entire issue be forwarded to the Village Attorney. The meeting adjourned at 11 :55 P.M. Submitted by, Richard M. Finn Administrative Intern RMF:ms (7/15/77) c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Intern, Building Commissioner, Village Engineer, Planning Consultant, Director of Parks and Recreation, Calkins, Centex.