Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 07/25/1977 - 224 DEVON ANNEX/MARATHON SERV. STATION ' • MINUTES 'ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION JULY 25, 1977 The regular meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman William Shannon at 8:15 p.m. on July 25, 1977, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 902 Wellington Avenue, Elk Grove Village. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: William Shannon, Chairman Leah Cummins John Glass STAFF PRESENT: Thomas Hamilton Richard M. Finn, Admin. Ass't. Edward Hauser Robert Callahan, Bldg. Dept. Supvr. James Petri William Wesley DOCKET 77-10 Annexation and Rezoning 224 Devon Avenue Ronald Piszczek, the petitioner, was present at the meeting to ask that the Plan Commission postpone the Public Hearing to a later date. Mr. Piszczek stated that his attorney had not finished preparing the necessary legal work required for the Public Hearing. Area residents and other concerned individuals objected to postponing the hearing. There were approximately 40 people in attendance for the scheduled Public Hearing. Mr. Shannon stated that since the petitioner was not prepared for the Public Hearing the Plan Commission would reschedule the date for the Public Hearing. Mr. Shannon told the petitioner and all those present that the Public Hearing would be held on Wednesday, September 7, 1977 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. DOCKET 77-4 Marathon Service Station Robert DiLeonardi, Attorney, was present to represent the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking to annex and rezone an existing service station located at the northeast corner of Devon Avenue and Rohlwing Road. Mr. DiLeonardi stated that the test results were available for the underground fuel tanks. DiLeonardi referred to a letter dated July 22 from the Elk Grove Deputy Fire Chief, stating that the underground fuel tanks were acceptable. Shannon noted that he had a copy of the Deputy Fire Chief's letter. At this time Mr. DiLeonardi distributed his findingsof fact report which he was asked to prepare by Chairman Shannon at the Plan Commission Meeting of June 27, 1977. Mr. DiLeonardi briefly reviewed the report. Hauser questioned the number of signs that were not in compliance with the Village regulations. Shannon stated that all non-conforming signs had been taken down except for two signs. DiLeonardi noted that Village Ordinance allowed 18-feet high signs, and the two signs in question were 20-feet high. DiLeonardi requested that a 2-foot variation be made part of the final agreement. 1 of 4 e , PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 1977 DOCKET 77-4 Marathon Service Station (continued) Hamilton moved to recommend the submitted findings of fact with the noted amendments. Petri seconded the motion. All present voted 'Aye' . (A full disclosure of the amended findings of fact are avail- able in the Manager's office.) DOCKET 77-5 Special Use for Midway Motor Lodge David Callies, Attorney, and Stan Johnson of Draper and Krammer were present to represent the petitioner. Mr. .Callies stated that he had received Mr. Rettenbacher's report concerning the proposed special location parking plan and he was quite dismayed with it. Shannon argued that to this point the petitioner had failed to supply adequate infor- mation in regards to parking,and the exact building layout. Mr. Callies questioned the occupancy rules established from the Fire Code. Callies stated that he was under the impression that this issue was resolved, and he believed that the important question was to ensure that the parking requirements be based on an acceptable occupancy limit. Shannon stated that the Plan Commission was interested in establishing the amount of parking that the proposed development would require. Shannon noted that the Village Building Department needed more informa- tion to enable them to generate figures for how many parking spaces should be required. Hamilton stated that he was under the impression that the petitioner was going to submit a special parking plan. Hamilton questioned if the petitioner did submit such a plan. Callies stated that a formal request was submitted to Mr. Rettenbacher and no additional information was requested. Wesley noted that the original site plan was lacking 55 parking spaces from what the Village Zoning Ordinance required. Wesley continued by saying that if the Commission was going to consider a special parking plan, additional information would be necessary. More specifically, how in fact would the parking spaces be shared. Wesley also noted that to this point the petitioner did not show any hardship in supplying the additional parking spaces. Callies responded by saying that this information was never requested. Wesley argued that as he recalled he had asked for the information. Callies stated that he had gathered information pertaining to recommended parking requirements. Callies quoted Laventhol and Horwath, a nationally known restaurant and lodging house consulting firm, for estimates of parking spaces required. Using Laventhol and Horwath's formula Callies noted that Midway would need approximately 362 parking spaces. Hauser noted that he had also done research in the same area and his figures ranged from 428 (maximum) to 372 parking spaces required. Hauser noted that these figures were based on formulas established by Harris, Kerr, and Forester Co. , a nationally known restaurant and lodging house consult- ing firm. 2 of 4 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 25, 1977 DOCKET 77-5 Special Use for Midway Motor Lodge (continued) Hauser questioned if Midway had any other facilities located in a highly industrial area. Callies stated that Midway had one facility located in downtown Milwaukee. At this point Mr. Portnoy, representing SDK addressed the Plan Commission. Mr. Portnoy stated that if Midway was required to give the additional 55 parking spaces, it would require approximately an addi- tional 20,000 square feet of land. Portnoy noted that the economics of the deal might not allow the expenditure that would be required for this additional 20,000 square feet of land. Wesley stated that it appeared that SDK was not very flexible on this issue. Wesley asked if the entire deal would be off if the Village did require the addi- tional 20,000 square feet. Mr. Portnoy stated that he was not in a position to answer the question. Shannon asked where the petitioner planned on putting their loading docks. Johnson stated that two loading docks would be placed right off of the service entrance. Shannon next referred to a staff report concerning parking on the first 25-feet. He noted that if this were not allowed the petitioner would lose approximately 35 parking spaces. Callies stated that the buildings were set back far enough to allow such parking. Hauser noted that other restaurants recently allowed in the Village were also set back in the same fashion and they were not allowed to park on the 25-foot easement. Hamilton asked if the petitioner had prepared plans for the proposed retention pond. Johnson stated that they were in the process of developing the necessary figures. Johnson noted that they agreed to have wet.;detention. Shannon next stated that the final parking requirements for Midway would be of a subjective nature. Shannon directed the issue of parking on the 25-foot easement to Robert Callahan, Building Supervisor. Mr. Callahan stated that he saw no problem with allowing parking on the 25-foot easement. Hamilton argued that in his opinion the parking shown on the site plan was not adequate. He felt that the 428 figure supplied by Hauser's figures was extremely reasonable. Hauser stated that he felt the Commission should require more than 372 and less than 428 parking spaces. Glass noted that the petitioner should be required to have between 425 to 430 parking spaces. He also stated that he saw no problem with allowing parking on the 25-foot easement. Wesley stated that he felt the inflexibility of the petitioner was a serious problem. If the Village made a mistake in parking requirements the Village would have no alternatives available. Wesley concluded that because of the industry located in the Village, the requirements for parking should be the maximum. If need be, the developer could supply additional parking at a later date if it were required. Shannon agreed and stated that it was better to require the maximum parking require- ments. Callies disagreed with this and stated that he did't know if the project 3 of 4 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 1977 would remain economically feasible if the maximum parking requirements were met. Callies asked if the petitioner could structure an agreement with the Village to leave a piece of land vacant for a set period of time for additional parking if it were needed. Mr. Portnoy stated that the location of the vacant land would have to be at the discretion of the developer. Hamilton noted that a two year period would be required to see if additional parking would be required. Hauser agreed with Hamilton. Callies stated that the petitioner would agree to a two year period to begin with the date of opening. Shannon noted that an inspection schedule would have to be set up by the Building Department. Hamilton suggested that the Commission approve the original 396 parking spaces with an additional 36 spaces to be provided as part of the original development if required. The need for the additional parking spaces would be determined by inspections conducted by the Building Department over a two year period not to exceed once a month. Wesley added that the developer should be allowed to determine where the additional parking will go if it is required. Wesley also noted that Callies should explain in detail the standards to be used for determining the number of parking spaces required. He noted that this information should be made part of the petitioner's finding of fact. At this point Shannon directed Callies to prepare a finding of fact pertaining to the parking requirements. Shannon noted that the Building Department would have full discretion to determine how many (if any) of the 35 parking spaces would be necessary. Hamilton added that the inspection should be limited to once a month. He also stated that the site plan should be corrected to show the loading docks. Centex 'Industrial Park Unit No. '218 Shannon noted that both Building and Engineering had approved Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 218. Hamilton made a motion to recommend the plat for approval. Hauser seconded the motion. All present voted "AYE". Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 217 Shannon noted that this site was approved by both the Engineering Department and the Building Department. Wesley made a motion to recommend approval of Centex Industrial Park Unit No. 217. Hamilton seconded the motion. All present voted "AYE". The meeting adjourned at 12:15 A.M. Sub 'tted by, Richard M. Finn Administrative Assistant (8-1-77) 4 of 4