Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 01/09/1985 - HAMPTON INNS SPECIAL USE • • Minutes ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION Date: Wednesday, January 9, 1985 Location: Council Chamber Municipal Building 901 Wellington Avenue The meeting was called to order at 8:18 p.m. by Chairman Glass. Members Present: Members Absent: John Glass, Chairman George Mullen Leah Cummins, Secretary Fred Geinosky Dave Paliganoff Clark Fulton Orrin Stangeland Staff Present: Robin Weaver, Administrative Assistant Docket 84-14: Petition for Special Use Hampton Inns Rick Wendy related that there was no update on discussions regarding removal of the existing billboard on the property. He assured the Commissioners that every avenue was being researched. Clark Fulton inquired as to whether the petitioner was planning on obtaining business from the tollway. Ed Forester stated that the feasi- bility studies were based on business from the immediate area and from the nationwide reservation system. The sign near the tollway would be to secure national name recognition for the motel chain. Jeff Crane noted that an independent study by a national accounting firm which evaluated this site location rated it as one of the best ten sites studied for Hampton Inns in the country. The study indicated that the area economy and growth were excellent. Ed Forester explained that Hampton Inns plans on tapping into the huge training needs of the area. He detailed that many area firms have consolidated their training programs to this area and will therefore require motel accommodations for those employees it brings into the area to receive training. On the topic of parking stall size, Ed Forester stated thatsince approximately 40% of their customers will arrive from O'Hare without . cars, the parking lot would never be full. Commissioners reiterated their concerns about parking stalls with widths less than ten (10) feet. Orrin Stangeland stated his objection to a ninety-five (95') foot sign next to the tollway. He said he felt it would not benefit Elk Grove Village directly or indirectly and that a sign at that height would be obnoxious. Leah Cummins asked what happens to hotels in bleak economic times. According to Ed Forester, usually the lender takes over the facility and hires a management group to operate it. Jeff Crane noted that as this will not be a full service motel, it would weather hard economic times better than most motels. Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - January 9, 1985 Docket 84-14 (continued) Dave Paliganoff asked for an explanation of how the reservation system will increase occupancy. Ed Forester referred to the fact that Quality Inns have 18% greater occupancy due to their reservation system; Hilton has 12% more; Ramada has 15-16% more, and that Holiday Inn has an even greater percentage. He noted that when the Holiday Inn at O'Hare was dropped from the reservation system, the occupancy rate dropped 30%. In response to Dave Paliganoff's question, the petitioner stated that the number of rooms would not increase at a later date. If the market exists, Hampton Inns would prefer to construct an additional one within five or six miles. Dave Paliganoff moved that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Special Use in an I-1 Restricted Industrial District, the variation to permit front yard parking, the reduction in the number of required loading spaces to one(1) , and a sign variation to permit the erection of a sign with a sixty (60') foot height. The motion was seconded by Clark Fulton and passed unanimously (Mullen, Geinosky absent) . The Plan Commission recommends denial of the request for a parking stall size variation. Docket 84-10: Petition for Text Amendment Docket 84-11: Petition for Rezoning (17 acres on Busse Road) A new site plan was submitted by the petitioner which moved the easternmost retention pond south and the office building further north. John Glass inquired as to why the petitioner would provide 834 parking spaces when only 710 spaces were required. Jim Maros stated that he believes that he will have sufficient customers to utilize them and that he doesn't want to discomfort his customers. Discussion followed relating to parking and traffic patterns. Commissioners noted their concerns about the curve into the drive-up facility being too sharp. The petitioner agreed to move the access further north to soften that curve. The petitioner also agreed to install barriers in some parking locations to prohibit "cut through" traffic and increase pedestrian safety. These changes will be made to the site plan and submitted for staff review prior to Plan Commission review on January 16, 1985. Leah Cummins moved that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the text amendment as set forth in Exhibit 2 of Docket 84-10 with correction (attached) . The motion was seconded by Clark Fulton and passed unanimously (Geinosky, Mullen absent) . John Glass requested that the Village Attorney review the placement of 5.6-A. Leah Cummins moved that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the rezoning request for the 17 acres known as Boulevard, Corp. tied to the site plan as amended January 9, 1985. The motion was seconded by Dave Paliganoff and passed unanimously (Mullen, Geinosky absent) . The Plan Commission scheduled a Rezoning Hearing on February 20, 1985 to consider a request to rezone the 22 acre site at the northwest corner of Meacham and Biesterfield Roads to B-2 and B-3. Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - January 9, 1985 John Glass informed the other Commission members that the Village Board, in Committee of the Whole, would be discussing the possible extension of Biesterfield Road on January 15, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Robin A. Weaver Administrative Assistant ms Attachment c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President, Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Building Commissioner, Village Engineer, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Village Attorney, Park District, NWMC, Centex. 12/28/84 TEXT AMENDMENT FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN B-1 , B-2 AND B-3 ZONING DISTRICTS The Text Amendment consists of (i) an Amendment of the last paragraph of Article 2, Section 2. 1, (ii) an amendment to Article 4 , Section 4. 3 , (iii) the addition of subsection K to Article 4, Section 4 .42, and (iv) the addition of a new Section as Article 5 , Section 5 .6-A: Amended Last Paragraph of Article 2, Section 2. 1: Planned developments may be established within the R-4 , A-1, A-2 , B-1 , B-2 and B-3 districts by special use procedures described in Article 4 . Amended Article 4 , Section 4 . 3: 4 . 3 LOCATION. Planned development is authorized as a special use in the following zoning districts: R-4 , A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2 and B-3 , subject to the standards therein set forth. New Article 4 , Section 4 . 42 , Subsection K: K. The preliminary land use and zoning plat for a planned development within a B-1. B-2, or B-3 District shall be acconipanied by a preliminary landscape plan and a pre- liminary lighting plan for the site, to serve as a basis for a final landscape plan and a final lighting plan to be approved by the Plan Conmission prior to the time a building permit is issued for the construction of any principal building on the site. If the planned develop- ment is built in phases, separate final landscape plans and lighting plans may be approved for each phase. New Article 5, Section 5.6-A: 5.6-A SPECIAL USE (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) . Special use may be granted for the B-1, B-2 or B-3 District or any combination thereof (planned development) and may include in the same buildings or in separate buildings uses which are permitted uses and special uses within the O&T Office/Transitional District and may include uses for the warehousing and distribution of goods, products and supplies. Any use for the warehousing and distribution of goods , products and supplies shall be without limitation as to area devoted to such use , but shall be an accessory use to one of the other uses (B-1, B-2 , B-3, or O&T Office/Transitional) permitted within the planned development, and if such B-1, B-2, B-3 or 0&T use consists of a business. engaged in whole, or in part, in the warehousing and distribution of goods, products and supplies , the accessory use may include such activity. For any planned deveiopment within the B-1 , B-2 or B-3 District or combination thereof, the planned development procedure set forth in Article 4 shall be followed and the following standards must be met by the Developer : A. The tract of land must be under single ownership and/or unified control, having not less than fifteen (15) acres or be a parcel adjoining an existing area which has already been placed under the planned development procedures . B. The uses proposed in the planned development must be of the type and so located as to exercise no undue detrimental influence upon surrounding properties.. C. The planned development need not be subdivided into lots, and in such event, a single entity shall be responsible for maintenance and improvement of any common open space, private streets , parking areas and other facilities intended for private use and which are not publicly maintained, and such entity shall have a right to impose a legally enforceable lien for the cost thereof. D. The dimensions , bulk and area regulations for all Zoning Districts as required in Section 5. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance as set forth in the schedules contained on Pages 27 and 28 shall be applied to the total area within the planned development, as one lot, for the specific District in which the planned development is located . -2- E. If more than one principal building is included in a planned development located in a B-1 , B-2 or B-3 District, then the minimum distance between principal buildings shall be the greater of: (1) the height of the taller building , or (ii) twenty-five feet. F. All buildings shall have a reasonable means of access to a dedicated street within the planned development or to a private drive within the planned development which is designed and constructed to meet the regulations of the Subdivision Control Ordinance as to street width, and materials (but not necessarily regulations as to right-of-way or other improvements such as curb, gutter , light, street trees or sidewalks) of the Village of Elk Grove. -3-