HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 09/07/1977 - MIDWAY MOTOR LODGE r .t
MINUTES
ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION
September 7, 1977
The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order
by Chairman William Shannon at 8:01 P.M. on Wednesday, September 7, 1977
in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue,
Elk Grove Village.
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT:
William Shannon, Chairman James Petri
Leah Cummins STAFF PRESENT:
John Glass Richard M. Finn,
Thomas Hamilton Administrative Assistant
Edward Hauser
William Wesley -- —
Village Attorney meeting with the Plan Commission
Chairman Shannon asked that the scheduled Public Hearing be delayed
so that the Commission could address several questions to George
Knickerbocker, Village Attorney. Shannon noted that several issues
had arisen from previous Public Hearings , and the Commission wished to
discuss the issues with Knickerbocker. The first issue that Shannon
addressed concerned the parking requirements for the proposed Midway
Motel . Shannon asked Knickerbocker if he was familiar with the problem.
Knickerbocker stated that he had discussed the issue with Rettenbacher
and it appeared that several aspects of the Midway parking requirements
were in a "grey area" of the Zoning Ordinance. Knickerbocker qualified
his statement by suggesting that normally the Ordinance would be explicit
in the numbers of parking spaces required for a facility. However, the
Midway facility which encompasses a restaurant, lounge, motel and banquet
rooms is different from a normal facility. Knickerbocker stated that
the Zoning Ordinance was specific on the number of parking spaces that
would be required for the motel rooms and the restaurant and lounge
facilities; however, the meeting rooms were subject to interpretation
since the ordinance was vague on that particular use within the overall
facility.
Shannon agreed that the parking requirements for Midway were open
to interpretation. Knickerbocker noted Shannon's comment, and Knickerbocker
state that if the Commission believed that the Zoning Ordinance was not
specific, in regard to the parking requirements , then the Commission could
base their findings on their interpretation. Knickerbocker noted that
the Plan Commission could recommend special types of conditions for Special
Use permits; however, he noted that specific aspects of the Zoning
Ordinance would govern on a general type of interpretation.
Shannon next pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance did not adequately i
define "maximum capacity". Shannon stated that the Building Commissioner
defined maximum capacity by using the square footage allowed by the
Fire Code. Knickerbocker agreed that the ordinance was vague on the
issue, but he suggested that by using the Fire Code's definition of
maximum capacity, it would be easier to defend in court. Wesley asked
if the Commission could accept the petitioner's calculations for the
i
I
I
Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - September 7, 1977
Village Attorney (continued)
maximum capacity in specific rooms if the Commission believed it was
warranted. Knickerbocker stated that if the Special Use was drawn up
specifying a lower maximum capacity, the petitioner at a later date
could challenge the lower capacity in court. Knickerbocker noted that
the Village would have a difficult time in court, because the capacity
would be set on a variety of variables and not to an accepted standard
such as the standard set up by the Fire Code.
Wesley continued h:is questioning by asking if the Village could
write the Special Use in such a way to help enforce the contract later.
Knickerbocker stated that the Village could prosecute a violator by
seeking a lawsuit; however, in any suit the court would look at the
equity from both perspectives. Shannon asked if it were possible to
set up fines for specific violations . Knickerbocker stated that any
fine would have to be based on an accepted standard such as developed
in the Fire Code. Knickerbocker noted that if a lower standard were
established for maximum capacity, a judge could very well throw out
the entire case because of the equity question.
Shannon next inquired whether Knickerbocker was aware of the problem
confronted by the Commission while they were hearing a petition for
rezoning to allow a Convenience Shoppinq, Center. Shannon noted that
the proposed development was to be located at the southwest corner of
Meacham Road and Biesterfield Road. The petitioner was requesting the
subject property to be rezoned from R-3, Residential District, to B-2,
General Business District. Shannon continued by stating that during
the Public Hearing it was established that the proposed site abutted
residentially zoned property and the Zoning Ordinance required a 75 foot
setback because of this fact. This requirement put the petitioner in a
position which would not allow him to develop the site as they had
proposed. Shannon asked Knickerbocker what steps should be taken to
alleviate the problem.
Knickerbocker noted that he was aware of the situation and he
stated that the Plan Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals should
handle their specific area of interest separately. Knickerbocker suggested
that the Plan Commission act upon the information presented during the
hearing and send their recommendation to the Village Board. Upon receiving
the recommendation, the Village Board, if they wished to pursue the
authorization of the rezoning, could direct the Village Attorney to
prepare an ordinance. Once this action was made a meeting for the
Zoning Board of Appeals could be set up to consider the 75 foot setback
variation. Directly before the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, the
Attorney would submit an ordinance to authorize the rezoning. Upon
approval from the Village Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals would
conduct their meeting within a few days and rendertheir decision pertaining
to the 75 foot setback variation.
Next Shannon asked if Knickerbocker was aware of the right-of-way j
problem on Devon Avenue extended as it related to the Lancer Corporation's
proposed annexation. Knickerbocker stated that he had briefly looked at
the issue and he noted that it appeared that the petitioner was the one
who should settle with the County and the State. The petitioner should
also submit a title report on the entire property including both County
and State rights:ofrway. Knickerbocker concluded by stating that he
I
i
A
Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - September 7, 1977
Village Attorney (continued)
would like to do more investigating on the issue before making any
detailed comments. Shannon asked if Knickerbocker would report any
information he might obtain. At this point Shannon concluded the
meeting between the Plan Commission and the Village Attorney.
Docket 77-10: 224 Devon Avenue Rezoning
John Summerfield, Attorney and Ronald Piszczek were present to
represent the petitioner. The petitioner was requesting that the property
located at 224 Devon Avenue be annexed into the Village. The annexation
would be contingent on the rezoning of the property from R-3, Residential
District to B-3, Automotive Orientated District for the establishment
of a repair garage and equipment rental garage.
Mr. Summerfield began his presentation by presenting a plat of survey
to the Commission. Summerfield continued by stating that the petitioner
was ready to facilitate any efforts to fulfill the Police and Fire
Departments ' suggested requirements concerning the proposed development.
Summerfield also noted that because of the large volume of traffic on
Devon Avenue, the proposed facility would be well located. He also
suggested that the petitioner was aware that the minimum Village lot
requirement for the front yard was 20 feet greater than the proposed
lot size. Finally, Summerfield noted the Engineering Department's
report concerning the subject property and he stated that the petitioner
was willing to pay his share for the extension of the sanitary sewers
and water mains to serve the property. However, the petitioner requested
that the Village absorb the remainder of the expenses and recover the
money with recapture agreements when the neighboring properties annexed
to the Village.
At this point, Summerfield turned the presentation over to Piszczek,
who briefly described the layout of the proposed facility. Piszczek
stated that landscaping would be provided between the proposed development
and the residential areas. Piszczek further noted that the facility
would have six work days and the parking would be in the front of the
building. Piszczek continued by stating that to the rear of his property
was an easement owned by Commonwealth Edison and on both sides of the
facility there were several houses . Piszczek concluded his presentation
by stating that the property was presently zoned residential although
he purchased it for the reason of develop;hng it as a repair and equipment
rental garage.
At this point, Summerfield told the Commission that the petitioner
had met with several owners of nearby properties to discuss the possibility
of approaching the Village to annex the entire area, However, Summerfield
noted that no conclusions or agreements were made at the time of the
Public Hearing.
Hauser ment;iioned that the Police report stated that the subjtect
property was incompatible with the present uses of the adjacent properties .
Hauser asked what the petitioner intended to do to rectify the minimum
front yard requirement. Summerfield stated that the petitioner would
seek a variation from the requirement.
Glass continued the questioning by asking how many people would be
employed by the proposed facility. Piszczek stated that there would be
approximately six employees . Glass next asked how tall the structure
Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - September 7, 1977
Docket 77-10: 224 Devon Avenue Rezoning
would be. Summerfield stated that the facility would be approximately
15 feet high. Cummins expressed interest in the intended use of the
property located immediately across the street. Summerfield state that
they were informed that it would be commercially developed. Cummins
noted that the proposed development might be considered spot zoning.
Hamilton, referring to the Zoning Ordinance, stated that B-3 Zoning
required 75 foot side yards if the property abutted residential zoning.
Hamilton stated that it appeared that the subject property did abut
residentially zoned property and therefore the 75 foot side yards would
be required. Yet Hamilton noted that in reality the size of the property
would not allow the required 75 foot side yards. Hamilton did question
if the 75 foot side yards were required if the abutting residential
properties were unincorporated. Shannon noted Hamilton's concern and
he requested that Finn obtain an answer from the Building Commissioner.
Next Wesley asked how long the petitioner owned the property.
Piszczek stated that the property was purchased approximately nine
months earlier. Wesley next expressed concern over the location of the
property in relation to the flood plain. Summerfield stated that the
flood plain was located to the west of the property, and he further noted
that there was no major flooding problems on the site.
Shannon stated that the petitioner would deal directly with the
Village Board in regard to the petition's request for the Village to
expend funds for the extention of water and sewer lines . Shannon
continued by asking what hours the proposed facility would operate.
Piszczek stated that they would operate from 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.
Shannon next asked if the petitioner intended on changing the grading
of the property. Piszczek stated that the grading would only be
changed upon Village requirement. Shannon continued by stating that
the proposed facility appeared to be located in' a mixed zoning area.
He also suggested that the width of the lot was a concern to him.
Cummins concluded the questioning by asking the petitioner if
anyone had encouraged him to purchase the property because of known
expectations of rezoning. Piszczek stated that no one had influenced
his decision to purchase the property by making inferences to his
chances of rezoning the site.
At this point the Commission concluded their questioning and
Shannon asked if anyone in the audience had any questions or statements .
There were approximately twenty residents present and they submitted
a petition to the Commission against the proposed facility. The
petition was signed by thirty-five residents and the basic contentions
were: (1) The present service station located at Devon Avenue and
Arlington Heights Road operated by the petitioner is not clear nor
well kept; (2) the proposed facility could cause traffic problems
and accidents ; and (3) the noise created by the facility would be an
unwanted burden to residents living on either side of the development.
Upon the conclusion of the residents ' presentation, Shannon closed
the Public Hearing. A complete account of these proceedings is
available in the Official Transcript.
Docket 77-17: Regency Square/PerriaGrove Phase II
Howard Good, Attorney, was present to represent the petitioner.
Bob Brodley and Ben RoaanskV, present owners of Phase I of Regency
Square, were also present along with Thomas Humes and Larry Dohrer,
i
Plan Commission Minutes - 5 - September 7, 1977
architects for Phase II . The petitioners were requesting a special use
to establish a multi-family dwelling under the Village's A-2 District.
The proposed facilities would be constructed by two different developers .
The first plan was for the development of the south half of the tract
by Elk Grove Development Associates . The second plan was for the
development of the northern half of the tract by Branco Development
Company.
Mr. Good began his presentation by presenting sketches and booklets
to the Commission members . The booklets contained information concerning
the proposed development. Good noted that the new development proposal
was a reduction of 194 units from the original development plans submitted
in 1970. Mr. Brodley continued the presentation by stating that he and
several partners purchased the two existing Regency Square buildings
last December. Brodley continued by suggesting that it was thei,r belief
that the proposed low-rise structures would be much more economical .
Mr. Brodley made reference to the change in the multi-family market
and he concluded that the original development plans were no longer
economically feasible.
Mr. Dohrer stated that the proposed development would have 17
units per acre, while the A-2 Zoning District allowed 20 units per acre.
Mr. Humes briefly described the proposed facilities and he noted that
they had designed several clusters of small complexes with green areas
between each.
Wesley began the questioning by asking if the petitioners had
calculated the density of the proposed facility. Brodley stated that
they did do the calculations and all the information was submitted to
the Building Department. Hauser inquired whether the land that was to
be dedicated to the Village was the same parcel as agreed to in the
first agreement reached in 1970. Brodley stated that it was the same
parcel . Hauser continued by asking why the Village should give the
petitioner a waiver from the 50 percent open space requirement. Hauser
noted that the petitioner only showed 26.8 percent open space. Mr.
Good stated that the parking area was not computed in the percentage
and if it were accounted, the petitioner would have 48% open space. Mr.
Rowanski noted that the 30 feet which surrounded the buildings was also
not calculated. Hamilton contended that the Zoning Ordinance excluded
the parking area and the 30 foot building envelop from the open space
calculations .
Cummins observed that the proposed height of the structures was
2� stories and therefore the Zoning Ordinance would require elevators
since they would be higher than two stories. Dohrer suggested that the
design of the buildings was such that an elevator was not needed.
Hamilton stated that he did not feel that 17 units per acre was
an optimal amount and he would like to see a much lower number of
units per acre. Hamilton continued by asking where the petitioner
planned on having water retention. Dohrer stated that they would tie
into the existing system and that they did not intend on having
additional retention on the site unless the Village required it. If
there was a need for retention, Dohrer noted that they would use the
parking area.
Wesley next asked what type of ownership arrangement existed for
Regency Square. Brodley stated that there were two partnerships involved
and it was their intention to operate the development under one business
concern. Wesley asked if the proposed facilities would have any subsidizing.
Plan Commission Minutes - 6 - September 7, 1977
Docket 77-17: Regency Square/Perrse Grove Phase II (continued)
Brodley stated that there was no federal funding involved and there
would not be any subsidizing of the units .
Glass began his questioning by asking how long the original
agreement for the development of Regency Square was in effect. Dohrer
stated that he was not certain although he felt the agreement was in
effect for a five year period. Glass noted Dohrer's statement and
Glass suggested that since the development was not completed within
the allowed five year period, the petitioner in effect had no claim to
the A-2 Zoning. Rettenbacher stated that the five year period referred
to the length of time the developer had to turn over the streets to
the Village. Rettenbacher noted that he was not prepared to answer
how long the original Special Use was in effect. At this point Shannon
directed Finn to :investigate the terms and length of the original
agreement.
Glass next asked how wide the existing streets were. Dohrer
responded by stating that all the streets met the Village specifications.
Glass continued by asking if there were sidewalks in existence. Brodley
stated that at present there were none, but they would be put in.
Glass concluded his questioning by asking how far the proposed buildings
would be from each other. Mr. Humes stated that there was 30 feet between
each facility.
Cummins asked the petitioner what the development schedules for the
facilities would be. Brodley stated that both the north and south
sections would begin this year and be concluded within twelve months .
Cummins noted that the Zoning Ordinance required that a Speci:al Use be
applied for by only one owner. Finn responded to Cummins ' 'question by
stating that the Village had directed the petitioners to jointly apply
for the Special Use because of the existence of the original agreement
reached in 1970.
Shannon concluded the questioning by the Commission members by
stating that the development of the property should take into account
the landscaping that would be necessary. More specifically, Shannon
noted that screening should be placed between the proposed development
and the residential area.
At this point Shannon noted that several residents were present
and he asked if they would like to make any statements or observations .
The residents expressed two concerns : First, they expressed concern
over the flooding problems which could be created by the proposed
development and, secondly, the residents felt that Redwood should no
longer be used for emergency uses since the proposed development
allowed for more than one access into the property. Upon these points
being brought out, Shannon concluded the Public Hearing. A full
disclosure of this.:Hearing is available in the Official Transcript.
Winston Grove Section 23
Steven Bilheimer and Russel Schlatter were present to represent
Centex. Bilheimer noted that Centex had prepared a revised plat of
subdivision based on their meeting with the Elk Grove Park District.
Bilheimer stated that the revised plat reflected nine less houses .
Wesley asked what elevation Centex planned on developing the
abutting commercial properties . Bilheimer stated that Centex would
develop the elevation for the commercial property at the same time
that the elevation was developed for the residential area. Rettenbacher
Plan Commission Minutes - 7 - September 7, 1977
Winston Grove Section 23 (continued)
noted that the corner lots did not allow for any additional building
room and this was a problem.
At this point, Shannon stated that the Commission would take the
subdivision under advisement.
The meeting adjourned at 1 :00 A.M.
Subm•i tted by,
6;;,. /V
��- �-
Richard M. Finn
Administrative Assistant
RMF:ms
(9/19/77)
c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President & Board of
Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager,
Administrative Assistant, Building Commissioner, Village Engineer,
Planning Consultant, Director of Parks and Recreation, Calkins,
Centex.