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