Another Height Restriction topic...

[CoastsToCoasters]

Sorry, Im just really curious about it. Youve all said its 330ft. right? Ive been told from employees and such that its a local airport that wont let us build. Well is there anywhere in the park, I mean even around it(where its possible for SF to build), like anywhere where it wont conflict with the local airport? Cant they make some sort or any kind of arrangements? Because it would be beautiful to see a giga and strata in the near or distant future sometime, I mean come on Parks will be at 500ft and us.....................208ft.

[twixmix0303]

Height isn't everything. My firend told me that Great America is the worst Six Flags park because all the other parks have more roller coasters than we do. Ughh! I said we were the best Six Flags park and that coasters aren't everything. Theming, memorable flats, there's a lot more to a park than coaster height. Although I'm not disagreeing with you, a giga would be an awesome addition to our park.

[rctfan1556]

Height isn't everything. My firend told me that Great America is the worst Six Flags park because all the other parks have more roller coasters than we do. Ughh! I said we were the best Six Flags park and that coasters aren't everything. Theming, memorable flats, there's a lot more to a park than coaster height. Although I'm not disagreeing with you, a giga would be an awesome addition to our park.

That is true. Coasters alone do not make or break the park, that is only 1 small part of the whole equation. Theming, good line up of other rides such as flats, atmosphere, staff, resteraunts, and such are all as essiential as coasters are.
Take SFMM for example, sure they are the mecca of coasters but does that mean there the best park just cause they have tons of coasters? No. With out all that other stuff I just mentioned, the park wouldn't be all that great.
Now some of you may disagree with me and thats fine, its my opinion. Just ponder this, imagine walking into a park with nothing but coasters, some resteraunts, crappy themeing, the look of the park just sucks.
Would you like that at all?

Point is, coasters are not everything when it comes to making a really great park. There are other essential ingredients that must be added to have your self a truley awesome park and I think SFGAm is a great example of that.

As for the issue on a giga or higher, I am all for it just as long as it doesn't screw up the look of the park. If SFGAm were to add one, I'd make sure it flows with the park just like everything else does. If not, then I say screw it.

As for this whole height restriction, I think it is just stupid. I mean come on, we are an amusment park. If we want to build higher then Sky Trek we should be allowed to. I can see asking Gurnee as it would only be proper but I don't think we should be held back by some airport. Heck change the flight lanes if they have to.

[diggerg56]

Changing flight patterns is easier said than done with O'Hare and Midway not that far away. I'm guessing it's one of the smaller airports like Waukegan that's actually causing the problem though.

[rctfan1556]

Changing flight patterns is easier said than done with O'Hare and Midway not that far away. I'm guessing it's one of the smaller airports like Waukegan that's actually causing the problem though.

Yeah, but still, I hate SFGAm held back by some small private airport.

[CoastsToCoasters]

Good point. Thats what I meant, that they could change their schedules or flight patterns. We shouldnt be restricted by it...A plane can make turns, take off and turn away from the park. Plus at night SF would more than definatley light up the ride so its not like it wont be visible or anything...ugh whatever! Hopefully the park will work it out someday.

[Chitown]

Don't believe any of that crap as far as airports causing restrictions on SFGAm.

O'Hare and Midway are far enough away where it isn't an issue. Waukegan airport is a regional base with small private planes and that too is about 5 miles away from the park. That airport has no say in what goes on at SFGAm.

The 330ft mandatory height limit was enacted by the village of Gurnee after the Sky Trek Tower was built. The board said nothing could exceed its height and anything over 125ft needed zoning variance approval.

[CoastsToCoasters]

And honestly, they said that in the 70's or whatever and they still have to stick to it? I mean please like what rctfan1556 said we are an amusement park, cant they see the publicity on the taller rides coming in?

Whatever, either way I find both problems stupid Gurnee should and or needs to give some leway for great america.

Sorry, I dont want to complain but whats gonna happen awhile after 330ft. comes around?

[Chitown]

Regardless, what I am saying is that the airports had nothing to do with the height restriction.

I am sure in this day and age if SFGAm wanted to build something in the future taller than 330ft, they would probably get approval. The park really in its history has not been denied anything it requests.

[CoastsToCoasters]

Well at least thats a positive outcome fo SixFlags Hopefully they get that approval someday soon.

[rich12_16]

Regardless, what I am saying is that the airports had nothing to do with the height restriction.

I am sure in this day and age if SFGAm wanted to build something in the future taller than 330ft, they would probably get approval. The park really in its history has not been denied anything it requests.

Not true, I have records from 1996 to now from Gurnee city hall, The Entertainment Village was turned down...here is my source...

http://www.gurnee.il.us

1998

March 16th, 1998

Consideration of Ord. 98 - granting a variation to Six Flags Great America to allow four separate sections of a proposed roller coaster to reach heights of 202 feet; 155 feet; 141 feet; and 128 feet respectively, as recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals
-Raging Bull

But...

Also in 1998
-
November 30th, 1998
6. Consideration of Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc. and Prism Development Company, L.L.C. Planned Unit Development.


December 7, 1998
14. Consideration of Ord. 98 - granting a Special Use Permit for employee housing facilities at the Six Flags Entertainment Village.
15. Consideration of Ord. 98 - granting a Special Use Permit for a regional hotel and conference center at the Six Flags Entertainment Village.
16. Consideration of Ord. 98 - granting two Special Use Permits for hotels at the Six Flags Entertainment Village.

here are some other tall structures APPROVED,
October 7th, 1996
C. BUSINESS MATTERS
1. Consideration of Ord. 96 - granting a height variance to Six Flags Great America to allow installation and operation of a new ride 227 feet in height as recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
-Giant Drop

October 16th, 2000
F. NEW BUSINESS
Consideration of Ord. 2000 - granting a height variance to Six Flags Great America to allow portions of a proposed roller coaster to reach a height of 180 feet as recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
-V2/Deja Vu

[Chitown]

No, the Entertainment Village was eventually approved but SFGAm expired their time to build it.

[CoastsToCoasters]

Nice, good proof and sources. I would have beleived you anyway, and you went through all that to give proof

Cool info.

[rich12_16]

Instantly feels stupid...and btw...here is some new 411...

DATE: October 5, 2005
TIME: 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Gurnee Village Hall, 325 North O’Plaine Road

5. Continued Public Hearing: Great Northern Resorts, LLC
(Great Northern Resorts, LLC, is requesting to amend the terms and conditions of the AutoNation Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Lots 1 and 6 (i.e., the 30 acres located south of the Commonwealth Edison right-of-way, west of Nation’s Drive, north of Grand Avenue and east of the Illinois Tollway (I-94)) as follows: (a) to reduce the maximum Floor Area Ratio permitted for that portion of property in Lot 1 lying within the C/O-2-PUD (Office and Research) District from 0.76 to 0.50; (b) to permit certain departures and exceptions to the PUD/Village Lighting Code; (c) to permit certain minor changes to the previously approved PUD for a hotel, water park, convention center; (d) to permit minor changes to previously approved special use permits for outdoor seating areas in conjunction with restaurants, an outdoor swimming pool, a water park amusement establishment, and an arcade; and (e) to permit certain departures and exceptions to the PUD signage standards. The Plan Commission may also consider such other relief as may be necessary or desirable in connection with the applications. In conjunction with the foregoing, Great Northern Resorts, LLC also is proposing an amendment to the terms of the AutoNation Planned Unit Development, which is generally located south of the Commonwealth Edison right-of-way, west of Dilley’s Road, north of Grand Avenue and east of the Illinois Tollway (I-94), to eliminate the maximum overall Floor Area Ratio for the Commercial/Business Parcels within the AutoNation PUD.)

Proposed site plan...(including key lime cove indoor water park)
http://www.gurnee.il.us/plan_comm/pc_ag ... ve9-27.pdf

[RagingBullFan]

And honestly, they said that in the 70's or whatever and they still have to stick to it? I mean please

Ok, so then on that basis, the Goverment can decide it doesn't want to follow the Constitution because it was signed way back in the '70's (18th Century. ).

In terms of going above the 330 Ft. while it could be done it would have to be done quite carefully, as the neighbors to the park ( Along the access road to the employee lot ) would complain a storm if they felt the noise from it would be bad. They complained about V2 and Déjà Vu, they even complained about the removal of Shockwave and the noise that it made. So even if Six Flags were to propose a tall ride, it would have to either make sure its on the other side of the park, or try to appease the residents that would have to live next to it.

[Shockwavegirl]

Well as for the constitution...they change it ALL the time....that's what all those ammendments are.

But yes, the residents of Gurnee complain A LOT, they complained the year Giant Drop was built that it made to much noise, so the Village of Gurnee restricted it's use past midnight....no matter if there are people in line or not. (although, they never complained about the clickity clack and squeaking of Eagle and Viper.......hmmmm...anyways) But I have my own opinions on that.....if you don't like the noise......DON"T MOVE NEXT TO AN AMUSEMENT PARK..unless they lived there already when it was built...but those folks are going to be nearing or passing retirement soon and getting on in years, so in about 20 years or so the residents shouldn't be able to complain about anything. It's like moving by train tracks, or an airport...you gotta expect the noise. And looking at old arial photos of the park when it first opened...there weren't a LOT of houses nearby as their are now, so in essence it really was most of those peoples choice.

[rctfan1556]

As far as I'm concerned, the heck with those people. Its their own fault that they are living next to an amusment park and they have to deal with the concequences. As SWG said, if you live next to an amusment park then your going to have to expect noise, if you don't like the noise, then move. I don't see why we have to appease those people when its their own fault that they are living there in the 1st place.
This is worse then the airport thing that came up in this topic.

[haydawg149]

maybe they should just pick up all of there coasters and move . . .

[Chitown]

Yes, the neighbors that live right by park property put up a stink everytime a coaster over 125ft is proposed but remember that the village hasn't turned down the park yet so it's really not an issue.

[Carlo]

The Village is very good to Six Flags. Residences do complain, but the village does not stop Six Flags. The reason why is if Six Flags looses money then they loose money on tax revenue. They make over 1 million dollars a year on tax revenue from SFGAM.

[CoastsToCoasters]

Seriously now the GP care when a new rollercoaster is built....what do they want....more height and more speed, that brings more people, they bring more $$$ Thats seriously all my friends care about. Like I told my friends to go to great america to try the new coaster for 2004 (ragincajun) and when I told them it wasnt tall nor fast they quickly lost their interest. So a new tall coaster would be a nice addition.

As for the noice issue on taller rides, the tracks can be filled with sand to reduce the roaring noise, are people worried to look out their window and see a 300ft+ coaster? I would be greatful to be in that position, like what do they honestly expect? I just hope they dont get turned down if they do such a proposal.

[twixmix0303]

Well, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Gurnee residences complaining, because I really don't care as long as everything is getting approval. You can't blame them for complaining, they're only voicing their opinion and you also have just as much right to do so.

[mschulz5]

Judging by attendance figures, the GP could generally care less when a new coaster is built. The amusement industry has finally realized that kid's areas and waterparks are where all the money is at, hence the new waterpark this year, the new waterpark attractions next year, Great Adventure's new kids area coming next year, Paramount King's Island's new kids area coming next year, etc. etc.

I wouldn't be suprised if SFGAm doesn't get a coaster for a while.

[CoastsToCoasters]

You know youre absolutley correct, because I went to Fright Fest yesterday and my one friend and I got into this arguement about new rides. He said that they should build more coasters...I agreed at first and I told him the height restriction and what not. He said that theres too much kids around so I told him that families are where all the money is. He said that things should only be built for us and the kids could ride em when theyre older! So hes like they should build a huge rollercoaster for us. I said I would love to see a new big coaster but I want it to go along with some kids attraction and/or section. He just didnt seem to understand. So we dropped it and came back to this topic (height restriction).

[rich12_16]

New Indoor Water Park Info: G. NEW BUSINESS
11/7
1. Approval of Ord. 2005- authorizing the execution of a Fourth Amendment to PUD Agreement, amending a Special Use Permit, ratifying a Special Use Permit for an amusement establishment, ratifying a Special Use Permit for an arcade, ratifying a Special Use Permit for an outdoor pool, approving preliminary plans (including a Preliminary PUD Plat), and approving departures and exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance PUD Signage Standards and PUD Lighting Code, all for the 30.2-arce property located at the northeast corner of I-94 and Route 132.