Loading...
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.