Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 04/21/1999 - MICROTEL INN & SUITES ELK GROVE VILLAGE Plan Commission Minutes April 21, 1999 Present: J. Glass, Chairman F. Geinosky, Secretary P. Ayers J. Meyers D. Sokolowski T. Thompson K.Zizzo Absent: C. Henrici D.Paliganoff Staff: P. Vadopalas,Assistant to the Village Manager M. Pye, Assistant Director of Engineering S. Trudan, Assistant Director of Community Development Petitioners: S. Pampati,Microtel franchisee G. Haas, Attorney at Law T. Summer, Microtel - franchiser J. Tinaglia, Architect, Tinaglia Design Group Item 1: Annroval of Minutes Commissioner Ayers moved and Commissioner Sokolowski seconded a motion to approve the minutes from the April 7, 1999 Plan Commission meeting. Upon voting,the motion carried unanimously(Glass, Geinosky, Ayers,Meyers, Sokolowski,Thompson,Zizzo,AYES,Henrici,Paliganoff, ABSENT). Item 2: Microtel Inn and Suites—Snecial Use Petition Chairman Glass read the petition into the record. Chairman Glass stated the Plan Commission will be considering the petition of Surender Pampati for a special use permit to allow the construction and operation of a three-story,47-unit Microtel Inn and Suites motel in an I-1 Industrial zoned district at the intersection of Higgins Road and Commerce Drive. Secretary Geinosky swore in the petitioners. T. Summer introduced himself as a representative of Microtel and explained that Microtel is an economy rate motel franchise, with approximately 150 Microtels operating nationally. Summer stated that the proposed motel meets a market demand by offering 47 units of economy suites for travelers in the area. J. Tinaglia introduced himself as the architect for this proposal. Tinaglia explained that the site includes 49 parking spaces—one per unit and two for employee automobiles. He stated that the shape of the site was considered in developing the parking configuration and location of the building. G. Haas explained the petitioner is seeking a variation of the minimum required rear yard setback to be decreased from 15 feet to 10 feet. Haas stated that there are currently six other hotels/motels in the immediate area, making a motel a good use for the subject property. Commissioner Meyers noted that the submitted Plat of Survey is dated December 21, 1998 and shows an exclusive parking easement on the western portion of the property and references a document numbered "85117825". Commissioner Meyers asked the petitioner's attorney to explain the existence of the parking easement. Haas stated that the purpose of the easement no longer exists and is no longer used for parking. Chairman Glass stated that the easement may have been a Village requirement for construction of the neighboring building and vacating the easement could make the neighboring building a non-conforming use. Chairman Glass asked staff if a revised plat would be required to show the easement was vacated. Trudan replied that a revised plat would be required for approval. Commissioner Meyers suggested the hearing be closed until the parking easement was properly addressed. Chairman Glass stated that discussion of the project could continue with the understanding that no action could be taken until the petitioner presented a revised plat showing that the easement was vacated. Haas provided Chairman Glass with a letter from the existing property owner's attorney alluding to a change in ownership in 1992. Haas stated that the change in ownership made the easement irrelevant. Chairman Glass indicated that a determination needs to be made of how the easement can be vacated. Commissioner Zizzo questioned whether the architect addressed the Fire Department's concern regarding standpipe construction. Tinaglia stated the Fire Department's comments were incorporated into the plan and that the Fire Department had no further objections to the proposal. Commissioner Meyers asked staff if any objections are still outstanding. Pye stated that the site plan locates a trash enclosure in an easement for public storm sewer. Tinaglia stated that location is the only place to locate the enclosure without it being an eyesore. Pye stated it violates Village code. Tinaglia stated another location would be researched according to staff requirements. Commissioner Meyers asked the petitioner to explain water detention on the site. Tinaglia stated it would be accomplished underground through an outlet in the parking lot. Thompson asked if any engineering for water detention has yet been completed. Tinaglia stated no engineering plans had yet been completed, but would meet the Engineering Department's requirements. Commissioner Geinosky asked for further explanation of the rearyard setback variation request. Haas explained that the property has double frontage; one on Commerce Drive and one on Higgins, and that no determination has been made of where the rear yard is. Trudan noted the Fire Department defines where the front and side yards are located,and since the front entrance is on the east side of the building,the rear yard would be on the west side. Chairman Glass asked what the proposed address for the property is. Pampati stated the address would be 1881 Commerce Drive. Commissioner Gemosky asked the petitioner to explain the requested variation to locate the trash enclosure within 60 feet of the front lot line. Tinaglia stated the trash enclosure would be relocated in a revised site plan. Commissioner Gemosky asked the petitioner to explain the requested variation to eliminate the required off-street loading berth requirement. Summer explained that Microtel is a limited service establishment that could be properly served by occasional van deliveries. He stated that laundry would be done in- house and the Microtels do not require large deliveries of supplies. Summer stated that a 25-foot aisle is available at the front of the building for delivery vans. Commissioner Geinosky asked if this request was common for other Microtel developments. Tinaglia replied that it is a common request. Commissioner Geinosky asked if any marketing study had been completed and asked for explanation on why a motel is the best use of the subject property. Summer explained that the location is close to O'Hare airport that creates sufficient demand for economy suites for travelers. He further stated that the property's exposure to Higgins Road and the Tollway make this property desirable for the Microtel company. Summers explained the room costs would be between 45 and 60 dollars per night,making Microtel competitive with surrounding motels/hotels. Commissioner Geinosky questioned the staffing need for the motel. Summers stated that a desk clerk and manager would be the two regular employees on-site. Approximately three maids would service the motel during the day when the building would be minimally occupied. Commissioner Geinosky asked the petitioner to describe the landscaping plan. Tinaglia described an existing hedgerow along the western property line and a landscaped island in the center of the proposed parking lot. Commissioner Sokolowski questioned who owns the hedgerow. Tinaglia stated it is located on the property line and is not certain of ownership. Summers stated the Microtel company has its own landscaping standards to meet. Tinaglia stated a revised plan would comply with Village ordinance and meet Microtel requirements. Commissioner Geinosky asked the petitioner to explain ingress and egress on the site. Tinaglia stated the driveway would be on Commerce Drive,bringing traffic into a looped parking lot. Commissioner Geinosky requested an explanation of the franchiser/franchisee relationship with Microtel. Summers stated the franchiser supplies training and marketing resources to the franchiser, and the franchiser pays a fee and percentage of royalties for a twenty-year period. Commissioner Ayers commented that the subject property appears small for the proposed use,and questioned what parking accommodations are planned for guests visiting Microtel's customers. Summer stated that a shuttle van to O'Hare airport is being considered to transport people to the motel. Summers further commented that one parking space to one customer is a common ratio for Microtel, and their limited service establishment is unique in its ability to function on the space provided by the subject property. Commissioner Sokolowski questioned whether the proposed motel could be scaled down to a smaller building with fewer rooms. Summer replied that removing one bay would eliminate a portion of the building and six rooms. Summer stated he would not recommend this reduction to a franchiser because such a reduction would make the motel financially not viable. Commissioner Sokolowski asked if a 47- unit development was small or typical as compared to other Microtels. Summers answered that this is a relatively small development, with 60 units being the norm for Microtel. Commissioner Thompson noted that Microtel's development brochure indicates that one to one-and-a- half acres is needed as a land requirement,yet the subject property totals only 0.96 acres. Summers stated that the ideal property would be over an acre in size,but Microtel feels the subject property is appropriate for this development. Commissioner Thompson questioned where snow would be plowed and stored on the property. Tinaglia stated that sufficient snow storage space exists in greenspace around the perimeter of the property and in the landscaped island in the parking lot. Commissioner Glass opened the meeting for comments from the audience. Robert Ives introduced himself as the owner of the neighboring property to the west. Ives stated the parking easement on the subject property was originally implemented to serve a property to the south. Ives stated that 70%of the buildings on Commerce Drive are office uses, and the size of the proposed building does not conform with the one-story buildings in the area. He further noted that the other hotels/motels described by the petitioner are not in the immediate area and that only one is two-stories in height. Ives stated that traffic on Commerce is currently low volume but high-speed, as commuters use Commerce as a cut-through to avoid the intersection of Busse Road and Oakton Street. Ives suggested the driveway be moved further west and away from Higgins to improve traffic safety in the area. He noted that landscaping of businesses along Commerce Drive is attractive and that Microtel should meet the standards set by existing property owners. Ives questioned why Microtel is not seeking a rezoning to a commercial classification rather than a special use permit. Mr. Patel introduced himself as the owner of the Days Inn across the street from the subject property. Patel stated the area is inundated with hotel rooms,that the Days Inn is not currently at 100%occupancy, and that no additional competition in the area would be desirable. Haas stated the proposed motel use is currently allowed in the I-i zoning district as a special use and never considered pursuing a rezoning of the property. Haas stated it is common for like businesses to cluster around each other to compete for market share. Chairman Glass requested a description of signage on the property and how motorists will be directed to the entrance on Commerce Drive. Tinaglia responded that a sign would be placed on the building and would work with staff to meet Village standards and comply with code. Chairman Glass directed the petitioner to revise the site plan to show a new location for the trash enclosure, to settle the parking easement question and provide a revised plat of survey once the easement is vacated, and submit a landscape plan to the Village. Item 3: Adjournment Commissioner Meyers moved and Commissioner Ayers seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. Upon voting, the motion was unanimously approved. Chairman Glass adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Pet�� Vad"opal&Z---I Assistant to the Village Manager C: Chairman and Members—Plan Commission,President&Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager,Assistant Village Manager,Assistant to the Village Manager, Administrative Intem, Dir. of Engineering&Community Development(2), Dir. of Public Works,Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief(2),Assistant Fire Chief, Village Attorney, Chairman and Members—ZBA