Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 08/03/1977 - MIDWAY MOTOR LODGE DOCKET 77-5 MINUTES ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION August 3, 1977 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Shannon at 7:40 P.M. on Wednesday, August 3, 1977 in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: William Shannon, Chairman Thomas Rettenbacher, Leah Cummins , Secretary (8:05 P.M.) Building Commissioner John Glass Robert Callahan, Thomas Hamilton Building Supervisor Edward Hauser Richard M. Finn, James Petri Administrative Assistant William Wesley Docket 77-5: Midway Motor Lodge Mr. David Callies, Attorney, and Mr. Stan Johnston of Draper and Kramer, were present to represent Midway Motor Lodge in their petition to establish a• motor lodge, restaurant, banquet rooms and meeting rooms. The proposed establishment is to be located south of Old Higgins Road, north of Oakton Street and on the west side of Busse Road at 80 Busse Road on SDK property. Mr. Callies began by stating that the finding of fact statement prepared by Mr. Finn was acceptable except for two points . First, the finding should state that the petitioner would be allowed to construct the motel at a height not to exceed three stories or 35 feet. Mr. Callies made mention that this agreement was made with the Commission very early in the deliberations. Secondly, Mr. Callies took issue with the loading space requirements. Mr. Johnston stated that the Village Ordinance required between four and five loading spaces and the proposed facility would never utilize all of the required loading spaces. Hamilton agreed and stated that the proposed facility should only be required to furnish two loading docks . However, each loading dock should meet Village requirements . Shannon concurred with Hamilton's suggestion and noted that the proposed development would not demand the four loading spaces required by Village Ordinance. Mr. Rettenbacher also agreed with the suggestion. Next, Hauser took issue with the finding of fact prepared by Mr. Callies . Hauser stated that the wording of Section C was misleading and he suggested that the word "chronically" be withheld. Callies stated that the word "chronically":-was used for a lack of a more dis- criptive word. Shannon with the concurrence of the Commission, directed that the word "chronically" (in Section C) be dropped. Hauser next addressed the Commission and stated that he felt that if the Commission members were concerned that 393 parking spaces were not enough, they should request more parking. Hauser contended that 393 spaces were not enough in his opinion. Shannon noted Hauser's concern but suggested that in this situation there were no exact guidelines as to what would be the optimal parking requirement. Shannon further suggested Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - August 3, 1977 Docket 77-5 (continued) that the final decision on parking would require subjective judgement by the Commission members . Glass noted that he shared Hauser's concern and he also suggested that Callies proposed parking agreement would impose a large responsibility on the Village Staff, including the mechanics of carrying out the inspections . Glass next mentioned that the findings of fact should include the specific room capacities as presented by Mr. Callies in one of the previous meetings. Cummins noted that the Village had certain standards that should be met. She suggested that if adequate parking were not supplied, customers of the proposed development would utilize nearby parking areas if Midway's parking facilities were filled to capacity. Hauser next stated that Section D of Callies findings of fact was extremely difficult to understand. Hauser argued that the 393 parking spaces shown on the original site plan should be the minimum amount of parking that be required. Hamilton agreed with Hauser and suggested that Section D be deleted from the findings,of fact. Shannon also agreed and restated that 393 spaces should be the minimum parking .requirement. Mr. Finn approached the Commission and stated that Callies ' proposed agreement would require Village Staff to perform the proposed inspections . Finn noted that the inspection would be set for peak periods of activity which would be after regular work hours . This would mean additional time and expense to the Village. Hamilton agreed and suggested that the developer be billed for the Village's expenses in performing the inspections . Mr. Callies suggested that the petitioner keep records and send affidavids to the Village with their figures. Callies noted that the Village could occassionally spot check the figures to determine their accuracy. This suggestion was not acceptable to the Commission members. However, Glass noted that any inspection schedule should be determined randomly. Wesley stated that he felt that the Village should have the ability to require the 35 additional parking spaces without any scheduled inspections or affidavits. The petitioner should' have the necessary land available for a period of two years. If during that period the Village staff felt additional parking was necessary, the Village could request it without referring to any specific inspection results. Wesley concluded by stating that he did not know of any reasonable way of policing the parking facilities. Hamilton and Shannon agreed with Wesley. Shannon further suggested that Section B, which discussed . the inspection requirements, be removed. Glass concurred with the recommendation and suggested that the other sections which referred to Section B be amended. Hauser requested that the July 25thePlan Commission minutes be amended on page 3, to explain how he arrived at his parking calculation. Hauser stated that the Village computations came to 474 parking spaces and Midway figures 393 spaces , a difference of 81 spaces . Splitting the fifference, Mr. Hauser arrived at 433 parking spaces . Glass also requested that the July 25th minutes show that the cost to Midway for supplying 20,000 square feet for additional parking would be approximately $7,000 a year. Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - August 3, 1977 Public Hearing, Docket 77-11 : Mobil Service Station The Plan Commission, acting as a Zoning Commission, conducted a Public Hearing to consider evidence-for establishment of a service station on two acres of land located at the northwest corner of Meacham Road and Nerge Road. The petitioner was requesting that the property be rezoned from R-3, Residential District, to B-3, Automotive Orientated District. The petitioner, Vale Development Company, was represented by ,Rober.t Calkins and Haro.lid Nagelberger. Mr. Nagelberger, an. Attorney, submitted a site plan and a plat of survey of the proposed development to the Plan Commission. At this point, Mr. Nagelberger turned the presentation over to Jerry Bartolai and Dennis Wong, both members of the Mobil Oil Corporation. Mr. Bartolai stated that Mobil Oil had already received a 1 ,000 gallon gas capacity from federal authorities for the proposed facility. Wong continued by stating that the approach to the facility had been checked for safe access onto the site. Bartolai noted that the facility would be company operated and it would be heavily landscaped. Mr. Bartolai also suggested that Mobil 's marketing studies showed that there is a real need for the proposed service station. Hamilton noted that the site plan showed a snack shop and he asked what type of shop this would be. Bartolai answered by stating that the shop would serve special items like milk and bread, soda pop, and other small items . Bartolai stressed that the shop would not be a restaurant. Hamilton next asked if the building had a 75 foot setback from the resi- dential area as required by Village Ordinance. Mr. Wong stated that the building met the 75 foot setback requirement. Wesley asked what the developer planned to do with the land behind the gas station which abutted the residential area. Wong stated that they planned to seed the area and construct a fence. Wesley continued by inquiring whether the developer planned on expanding the facility. Wong stated that to his knowledge, there were no such plans. Petri asked what hours the facility would be open. Mr. Bartolai stated that he was not certain; however, it would probably be open from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Petri continued by stating that the proposed fence between the facility and the homes was not enough screening and he felt that additional landscaping should be provided. Glass noted that the HouseSto the west of the proposed facility was much lower than the property in question. Glass asked how much higher the service station building would be over the nearby houses . Mr. Wong stated that the proposed building would be approximately equivalent in height to the second floor of the residential area. Glass also expressed concern over the type of lighting that the facility would utilize. Wong stated that the lights would be 10 feet high in the approach areas. Shannon asked if the petitioner would make their marketing study available to the Commission. Mr. Bartolai stated that the study would be made available. Cummins noted that the Section 22 plat did not show the subject property as residential area although the Village's Master Plan did show the property as residential area. At this point, Mr. Shannon asked if anyone in -the audience had any pertinent information or questions . Over forty area residents Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - August 3, 1977 Docket 77-11 (continued) were in attendance and approximately 12 residents addressed the Commission. The residents noted that Centex never told them about how the subject property was to be used. The residents also suggested that the service station would be a grave deviation from the Village's Master Plan. In addition, the proposed facility could cause several safety problems. One of the problems being the location of the fuel and the potential for fires. Secondly, the traffic flow might be increasingly dangerous for the children crossing the intersection to go to the Stevenson School . The area residents also questioned the need for the facility. At this point, Thomas Cormode, Regional Engineer for Mobil Oil , briefly discribed the process for servicing incoming automobiles . Upon the conclusion of' Cormode's statement, Glass asked if the petitioner intended on enclosing the trash. Cormode stated that the developer would build an enclosed dumpster. At this point, Hamilton expressed his dismay for Centex misleading the area residents on the actual use of the subject property. Mr. Cormode corrected Mr. Wong's earlier statement and suggested that an additional service isle might be added at a later date, if the market allowed it. Shannon requested that a full landscaping plan be submitted by the petitioner. A full account of these proceedings is available in the Official Transcript. Public Hearing, Docket 77-12: Convenience Shopping Center The Plan Commission, acting as a Zoning Commission, conducted a Public Hearing to consider evidence for the establishment of a Con- venience Shopping Center 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. Robert Calkins and Ha,rol-d Nagelberger were present to represent the petitioner. Mr. Nagelberger,."an,:Attorney, submitted a plat of survey and a site plan for the porposed facility. At this point, Nagelberger turned over the presentation to Mr. Lanahan, who proceeded to explain what stores would operate in the development. Lanahan noted that all of the tenants were not known at the time of the Hearing, although White Hen Pantry would be one of the tenants. Shannon asked what was the zoning of the property to the north and east of the proposed site. Calkins stated that to the north there was an area of approximately 26 acres which was zoned B-1.: To the east, Calkins stated that there existed the Roundtree Commons Development. Hamilton inquired about how the developer would handle the flood water. Ernest Ternovits„the development's architect, stated that the flood water would be handled in the parking area. Wesley asked what relation the new Fire Station had to the proposed development. Lanahan stated that the subject property abutted the Village Fire Station. Wesley next asked when the proposed develop- ment would be completed. Lanahan stated that they would like to occupy the buildings sometime in the spring (1978) . Wesley questioned Lanahan as to his intent to place a restaurant in the facility. Lanahan stated that ;.there were no such plans . Petri asked if the developer was prepared to supply a full land- scaping plan ofithe site. Mr. Ternovits stated that this wouj-d be done. Plan Commission Minutes - 5 - August 3, 1977 Docket 77-12 (continued) Petri also noted that the loading docks location did not appear to be realistic. Glass expressed the same concern and stated that the 26 feet that were showing on the site plan did not allow much turning space for the incoming trucks. Lanahan answered this concern by stating that the site plan only represented a concept and it was not the final arrangement. At this point, Mr. Rettenbacher addressed the Plan Commission and stated that it had just come to his attention that the subject property was abutting residential property, and therefore the Village Zoning Ordinance required a 75 foot setback. Mr. Rettenbacher noted that the proposed site plan did not provide for the required setback. Calkins stated that he was not aware of the 75 foot setback and he asked which direction the petitioner should take to relieve th,i•S problem. Shannon stated that a variation would be required and he directed the petitioner to apply for a variation to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Shannon noted that once this problem was resolved, the petitioner could continue the hearing with the Plan Commission. At this point, the Public Hearing was adjourned. A full account of the proceedings is available in the Official Transcript. Public Hearing, Docket 77-9: Arlington Heights Nursery The Plan Commission, acting as a Zoning Commission, continued the Public Hearing held on July 18, 1977, concerning the petition to rezoning the property located at 1250 South Arlington Heights Road. The petitioner was requesting that the subject property be rezoned from R-1 , Residential District, to R-3, Residential District. Charles Matthies was present to represent the petitioner. Matthies began his presentation by stating that he had removed one of the lots that was presented in the first site plan. Matthies also stated that the proposed road had been moved over so that it would not interfere with owners of nearby property. Glass asked how wide the driveways would be at the curb. Robert Jessen, Architect, stated that the driveways in this area would be 16 feet wide. Glass next asked what the petitioner did with Lot #1 . Jessen stated that Lot #1 had been moved back five feet. Wesley asked how many models the petitioner planned on using in the proposed development. Matthies stated that they would be using five different models . Referring to Lot #1 , Mr. Re,t.te.nbacher stated that if the petitioner wanted to place the driveway on Arlington Heights Road, the petitioner would need a Cook County permit. Matthies stated that Lot #1 would probably face the developer's road and a County permit would not be necessary. Rettenbacher readdressed the concern expressed by the Engineering Department by stating that the driveways in the cul-de-sac area were extremely close. Matthies in reply to this concern stated that he could enlarge the lots in the cul-de-sac area if he were required. Shannon noted that the main concern of the nearby residents was that they did not want to be in constant view of a sea of houses. Matthies argued that his proposed lots were larger than most in the area. Hauser expressed concern over the sewage problem in the general area. 4. • • Plan Commission Minutes - 6 - August 3, 1977 Docket 77-9 ( continued) Hauser made reference to the recent sewage problem and asked if the petitioner was aware of any potential problem. Matthies stated that he was not made aware of any sewage problem. Shannon requested that the Village Engineer respond to this question and also contact MSD and get a response from them on this issue. At this point, the Public Hearing was adjourned. A full accounting of these proceedings is available in the Official Transcript. William Wesley left the meeting at 1 :05 A.M. Preliminary Plat for Lancer Corporation Neil Hunter was present to represent the Lancer Corporation in their request to annex 40 acres into the Village. Hunter began his presentation by making reference to the second preliminary plat that was before the Commission. Hunter noted that the right-of-way on Meacham Road was increased from 30 feet to 50 feet (from the centerline) . Mr. Hunter also stated that he had received communication from the state committing the state to extending Roose Lane if Meacham Road is relocated. Shannon noted the changes on the plat and suggested that the only major problem was that there was only one egress-regress into the entire development. Hamilton shared this concern and further suggested that getting back into the development by way of Roose Lane was going to be almost impossible during the peak traffic periods . Cummins noted that Lot #9 was in the flood plain and Lot #1 had three frontages. Hamilton asked Hunter if Stevenson School was made aware of the proposed development. Mr. Hunter stated that he believed that one of the Lancer employees had talked to a Stevenson School representative. Pastel Subdivision Shannon noted that both the Building and Engineering Departments had approved the Pastel Subdivision. Hamilton made a motion to recommend the plat for approval . Glass seconded the motion. All present voted 'AYE' . The meeting adjourned at 1 :30 P.M. Submitted by, Richard M. Finn Administrative Assistant RMF:ms (8/9/77) c: Chairman S Members or 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.