Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 07/21/1999 - MICROTEL INN & SUITES/WALGREENS MEACHAM Uv ELK GROVE VILLAGE Plan Commission Minutes July 21, 1999 Present: J. Glass,Chairman F. Geinosky, Secretary P. Ayers RECEIVED C. Henrici D. Sokolowski AUG 19 1999 T. Thompson K. Zizzo VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE Absent: 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 J. Tinaglia,Tinaglia Design Group G.Haas, Attorney at Law T. Sommer,Microtel Franchiser Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m. Item 1: Microtel Inn and Suites—Special Use Petition Chairman Glass read the petition into the record and announced the Plan Commission would consider the petition of Surender Pampati to construct and operate a 47-unit Microtel motel at the northwest corner of the intersection of Higgins Road and Commerce Drive. Chairman Glass stated this hearing follows a previous hearing on this matter held on April 21, 1999, which was closed due to the existence of a parking easement on the western portion of the subject property. G.Haas explained the history of the easement and the fact that it had been vacated and recorded. Vadopalas confirmed that Village staff had looked into the matter and concurred that the easement is vacated. Haas requested that the minutes from the last hearing be entered into the record. Chairman Glass stated the planned location of a trash enclosure on a public sewer was the only remaining objection from Village staff. J.Tinaglia presented a revised site plan and noted that the trash enclosure has been relocated to the southern side of the building. The enclosure will be constructed with the same materials used in the motel and would house one or two dumpsters which would be rolled down a sidewalk for pick-up. Tinaglia noted that the relocation of the trash enclosure allowed an additional three parking spaces in the parking lot, increasing the total number of spaces from 47 to 50. Commissioner Zizzo asked the petitioner to address their setback variation request. Tinaglia stated the petitioner is seeking a reduction in the rear yard setback requirement from 15 feet to 10 feet. Commissioner Zizzo questioned if the building could be relocated to the east to eliminate the need for the variation. Tinaglia replied it could not given the remaining required setbacks. Secretary Geinosky asked if a landscape plan for the site was completed. Tinaglia replied that a detailed plan has not been completed,but the landscaped areas are shown on the site plan. Tinaglia stated a landscape plan would be prepared and submitted to Village staff in the near future. Commissioner Thompson asked for an explanation of signage on the site. Tinaglia stated a monument sign would be preferred but could consider signage on the building fagade if appropriate. Commissioner Sokolowski asked for clarification on the construction of the trash enclosure. Tinaglia stated the structure would have no roof to reduce heating of stored materials,the walls would match the motel walls, and would include a pair of locked doors that matched the trim of the motel. Sokolowski asked how many pick-ups are planned. Tinaglia stated that at least two pick-ups per week are planned. T. Summers stated that Microtel is a limited service motel that does not offer food service and that the majority of the waste would be paper products. Chairman Glass asked Village staff members if any additional objections existed. Staff indicated there are no further objections. Dennis Nudo,an attorney representing Carl Singer,the owner of 1775 Commerce Drive,stated the intensity of the proposed motel is at variance with the predominantly one-story structures in the , neighborhood. Nudo expressed concerns that the number of parking spaces planned for the motel would be insufficient and that Microtel guests would use the lots of neighboring properties when needed. Nudo stated the curb cut to the parking lot should be on Higgins Road,not Commerce Drive,to eliminate confusion for motorists attempting to access the site. Nudo stated that Microtel's testimony included the fact that a 47-unit Microtel is very small and that reducing the size any further would make it an unworkable business,and expressed concerns on the owners' future ability to maintain the building and property. Sommer stated that by Microtel's standards, sufficient parking exists in the site plan. One space per guest plus three for Microtel employees should not create any spillover. Sommer further noted that one or two desk clerks would be the only employees at any given time. C. Singer questioned what would happen if a guest with a trailer would park in the lot, taking up more than their allotted one space,or if a tractor trailer parked in the lot. Sommer stated that Microtel does not cater to the trucking market. Sommer stated that the rates charged by Microtel are relatively high in comparison to competing discount motels. He further stated that a Microtel in Joliet is operating successfully with 46 units and that 18 of the suites in the planned Elk Grove location would command a higher rate. Chairman Glass asked what Microtel's break even average occupancy was. Sommer responded 421/o, with an average daily rate of$45. Sommer stated that Microtel lowers construction costs by offering smaller lobbies and rooms that also lower heating and cooling costs. Chairman Glass asked if the petitioner knew the average occupancy rate in the area. Pampati stated it was 65 to 70%. Robert Ives,owner of the property neighboring the subject property to the west, expressed similar concerns regarding the intensity of the proposed motel. Ives stated the planned motel meets the height standards in an I-1 district,but would not comply if the property was rezoned to B-3. Ives stated that no building in the area was over 27 feet high. Chairman Glass asked how high the planned motel is. Tinaglia stated 34 feet at the midpoint of the roof,28 feet at the gutter, and 40 feet at the roof's ridge. Chairman Glass asked staff if the planned parking ratio is similar to other hotels in the village and whether any parking problems have been noted. Trudan responded that the requested ratio is the same as other hotels and no problems have been noted. Chairman Glass asked staff if a curb cut on Higgins Road was considered. Pye stated that Higgins Road is considered a Strategic Regional Arterial by the State of Illinois,which would not approve a curb cut if one were available from a side street. Chairman Glass requested a description of the property neighboring to the west. Tinaglia stated that a hedgerow currently exists between the properties and could be improved with additional landscaping. Beyond the hedgerow is an asphalt driveway, and beyond the driveway is a row of parking spaces. The total distance between the buildings would be approximately 40 feet. Commissioner Meyers asked what would happen if a tractor-trailer did park in Microtel's lot. Chairman Glass stated that the parking lot design does not lend itself to truck parking,and a"no truck parking" restriction could be included as part of the special use permit. Commissioner Henrici stated that like most motels,Microtel would rarely be at full occupancy,thereby leaving additional spaces available. Commissioner Zizzo asked who Microtel's direct competition is. Sommer replied La Quinta,Days Inn, and in some markets,Hampton Inn. Sommer stated that summer is their prime business season. Commissioner Ayers moved to recommend to the Village Board approval of the special use permit with a variation of the rear yard setback requirement from 15 feet to 10 feet, subject to approval of a final landscape plan. Commissioner Thompson seconded the motion. Upon voting(Glass, Geinosky,Ayers, Henrici,Meyers,Sokolowski,Thompson,Zizzo,AYES,Paliganoff,ABSENT)the motion carried unanimously. Recess: Chairman Glass recessed the public hearing at 9:20 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:30 p.m. Item 2: Walgreens Development Proposal—Meacham and Biesterfield Brett Boyd introduced himself as the petitioner for this proposal. Boyd explained that Southeast Shore Properties is proposing to construct and operate a Walgreens store with a two-lane drive-thru pharmacy at the southeast comer of the intersection of Meacham and Biesterfield Roads. Boyd stated they are under contract for 1.89 acres,and are seeking a reduction in the required landscape berm from 50 feet to 35 feet. Boyd presented depictions of the proposed store and explained that this design is a prototype for the Chicagoland area. The structure will have a"neighborhood" feel,and the drive-thru lanes will be located on the south side of the building. Boyd stated the reduction in the landscaped berm would not be noticed from the Cambridge Homes properties as the fence on the berm can remain at the midpoint of the berm. The reduction is needed to accommodate the layout needed by Walgreens. Boyd noted that the plan satisfies all codes, and that the lighting plan could be changed to address concerns about light impact on neighboring property owners. Secretary Geinosky asked why this site is being considered since one Walgreens store is in operation at the Town Center, and a second is operating at Plum Grove and Nerge Roads. Boyd stated the location of competing businesses and spacing between stores is considered in the location decision. Boyd stated the trade area for the Walgreens at the Elk Grove Town Center ends at Route 53, and the Roselle store is not a typical design, and thus may be relocated in the future. Secretary Gemosky asked what the planned hours of operation are. Boyd responded 8:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m. Gcinosky asked if liquor would be sold at this store. Boyd stated no liquor would be sold. Secretary Gemosky requested the petitioner to explain the lighting plan. Boyd stated Village code allows 35 foot tall light poles and their plans include 32 foot tall poles. Boyd stated shorter poles and wall-mounted lights could be used on the east side of the property to address concerns about light spillover on the neighboring residential development. Trudan stated that staff concerns were not related to the pole height,but regarded glare and the visibility of bulbs from neighboring properties. C. Cupfer stated that refractors on the lenses and shields on the lights would address staff concerns, Commissioner Ayers stated he had many concerns about the proposal. Ayers stated the 50-foot berm was created to address the presence of B-3 zoned property next to a residential development. This requirement was known to the landowner and to Southeast Shore Properties before they began planning this project and that it is inappropriate to request the berm variation. Boyd stated they had discussed their plans with staff and had been directed to present their proposal once the annexation agreement was negotiated. Ayers stated the distance of the commercial activity from the residences is important and the berm provides needed green space. Boyd stated discussions with the Village began in the Spring soon after learning of the availability of the land. Boyd stated Cambridge Homes was aware of their intentions and did not object so long as the integrity of the berm is maintained. Commissioner Henrici stated the berm not only provides visual benefits,but also helps block noise from the commercial activity. Henrici suggested the petitioner purchase more land and reconfigure the site plan to eliminate the need for the berm variation. Commissioner Ayers stated the zoning and berm had been agreed to by the landowner and that pleading a hardship in this case is not acceptable. Commissioner Henrici questioned whether the drive-thru lanes could be repositioned to the west side of the building. Boyd stated that based on the floor plan,the drive-thru windows need to be kitty corner from the entrance, and the entrance faces the street intersection. Chairman Glass read into the record a letter from Cambridge Homes(attached)supporting the proposal so long as the residential half of the berm is not changed. Chairman Glass read into the record a letter from an anonymous resident(attached)questioning the need for another drug store in the community. Tom Schreiner(contract seller)stated that this was the second developer to deal with him on the subject property. He noted he was notified in March or April that he would have to pay for the berm, and that fact almost broke the deal. Schreiner stated he recently signed a contract with a senior living developer who also expressed concerns about the 50-foot berm requirement. Chairman Glass questioned whether the berm height could be maintained by the developer. Boyd explained the land slopes downward from Meacham to the east. The land would be filled to level the site, thereby increasing the elevation. The elevation would allow the commercial side of the berm to maintain the same pitch as the residential side and still terminate 10 feet west of the fence along the center of the berm. Boyd stated the rear of the site would be filled,and the berm would terminate with a one or two foot tall curb. Commissioner Sokolowski questioned if approval of the berm reduction request would set a precedent for future petitions related to these properties. Chairman Glass stated it potentially would set a precedent. Glass further stated the grading of the site can make this an acceptable plan and that the berm reduction can be considered if there is no deleterious effect on neighboring properties. Glass stated that considering the other possible uses for this property, it may be justifiable to grant the request. Jim Freedman, 773 Indiana Lane, stated Elk Grove currently has six pharmacies not counting Alexian Brothers Medical Center and questioned the need for an additional one. Freedman stated the building is attractive but did not see the benefit to the Village. Chairman Glass noted the berm reduction is needed to accommodate the driveway exiting the drive-thru lanes and was not needed along the entire length of the eastern boundary line. Glass stated the variation could be approved for a portion of the property as needed. After further discussion, Secretary Geinosky moved to recommend to the Village Board approval of the sign variation and approval of the variation of the required landscaped berm beginning at the point approximately 50 feet north of the south property line and tapering to approximately 35 feet at a point approximately 75 feet north of the south property line as shown on the preliminary site plan dated May 20, 1999,and to require that the petitioner present a revised landscape plan to the Plan Commission for consideration. Commissioner Meyers seconded the motion. Upon voting(Glass, Geinosky,Meyers,Thompson,Zizzo,AYES,Ayers,Henrici, Sokolowski,NAYES,Paliganoff,ABSENT)the motion carried. Chairman Glass noted a motion was needed to recommend approval of the plat of subdivision. Commissioner Ayers moved to recommend to the Village Board approval of the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision subject to resolution of staff comments. Commissioner Meyers seconded the motion. Upon voting(Glass, Ayers, Geinosky,Hemici,Meyers, Sokolowski, Thompson,Zizzo,AYES, Paliganoff,ABSENT)the motion carried unanimously. Adjournment: Commissioner Meyers moved and Thompson seconded the motion to adjourn. Chairman Glass adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Peter adopa s Assistant to the Village Manager C: Chairman and Members of the Plan Commission, President and Board of Trustees,Village Clerk,Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager,Assistant to the Village Manager, Administrative Intern,Director of Engineering/Community Development, Director of Public Works,Fire Chief,Deputy Fire Chief(2),Assistant Fire Chief,Village Attorney. July 23, 1999 �U�CF11eF TO: President and Board of Trustees IlNoe 91g99 FROM: C�ZC ��t 1 �SOFF� R. Glass, Chairman,Plan Conoission CF SUBJECT: Walgreens Development Proposal—Finding of Fact On July 21, 1999 the Plan Commission met to consider the development plans submitted by Southeast Shore Properties to construct a Walgreens drive-thru pharmacy at the southeast corner of the intersection of Meacham and Biesterfield Roads. This parcel is zoned B-3 "Automotive-Oriented Business", and adjacent to the Cambridge Homes Whytecliffe development. According to the terns of the Annexation Agreement with Cambridge Homes and Thomas Schreiner, any development on this site requires Plan Commission review. The petitioner requested two variations as follows: A reduction in the required landscaped buffer from the Whytecliffe development from 50 feet to 35 feet; and A height and area variation for a free standing sign. The proposed Walgreens building will feature two drive-thru aisles along the southern side of the building. Two access drives are planned for the site; one on Meacham Road and one on Biesterfield. A total of 84 parking spaces meet Village requirements. The petitioner testified the planned hours of operation would be 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The Plan Commission questioned whether the store would ever operate 24-hours, and the petitioner stated that one store in each of Walgreens' regions is designated for 24-hour operation and this location would not receive that designation. No liquor will be sold at this store. The petitioner stated that a reduction in the landscaped berm is needed to accommodate their layout and provide sufficient space for their operations. The required berm will be six feet high with an eight-foot tall fence on top. Walgreens stated the commercial side of the berm can be configured so that visually,no difference would be noticed from the residential side. From the top of the berm, it would slope downward to the west and terminate with a curb approximately one foot high. The Commission questioned why another Walgreens store is being planned given that two already exist in the area; one in the Town Center, and a second at Plum Grove and Nerge Roads. The petitioner explained the market area for the Town Center Walgreens effectively ends at Route 53, and the Roselle store is an older style that was implied may be relocated in the future. The relocation of the Roselle store would make the west side of Elk Grove Village the market for the proposed store. Several Commissioners expressed concerns about this variation request. The position of Commissioner Ayers was that the landowner and petitioner knew of the setback and berm requirement before considering this project and that it is inappropriate to request a change in the agreement weeks after signing it. The zoning of this property as B-3 "Automotive- Oriented Business"was predicated on the existence of the 50 foot setback. This opinion was shared by several other Commissioners. The Commission questioned whether the site plan could be reconfigured to remove the need for this variation. The petitioner claimed not enough space was available unless more land was acquired. Thomas Schreiner(contract seller)was present at this hearing and stated he would sell additional land to provide the space that is needed to make this plan viable while eliminating the need for the reduction of the landscaped berm. The petitioner stated they were unclear about the responsibilities regarding the landscaping of the commercial side of the berm. The Commission explained the petitioner's responsibility to provide adequate landscaping on the berm that will be constructed by Cambridge Homes. The landscape plan submitted by the petitioner did not address this issue, and the petitioner was directed to develop a landscape plan for their portion of the berm and present it to the Plan Commission for consideration. Lighting issues were also addressed by the Plan Commission. The petitioner addressed our concerns about light spilling over onto neighboring properties and the potential visibility of bulbs from neighboring yards. The petitioner explained that the lights could be shielded or provided with refractors to prevent light spill over, and the shields would prevent the bulbs from being visible from neighboring properties. In addition, shorter poles and wall mounted lights could be considered for the east elevation which faces the Whytecliffe development. Village staff will review the Lighting Plan to ensure the lights are appropriately screened. The petitioner presented an elevation design which they characterized as a"neighborhood" design proposal. This style features a parapet roof and is generally a residential styled structure, 27 feet high to the top of the parapet. The Plan Commission discussed whether the 35 foot landscaped berm would still accomplish its purpose and, additionally,was concerned that granting the setback variation would set a precendent for future proposals. It was noted that the reduction was required for the drive leading from the drive-thru lanes which curves to the north, and was not needed south of that point. Chairman Glass read two letters into the record. The first was from Cambridge Homes, expressing their support of the Walgreens proposal so long as the fence on the berm can be located 25 feet west of the Whytecliffe property and the combined height of the berm and fence remains a total of 14 feet. An anonymous letter expressing objection to another pharmacy to be located in this area was also read. One resident provided comments on the proposal. Jim Freedman, 773 Indiana Lane, questioned the need for another pharmacy since six already exist in the Village. After further discussion, and in light of these concerns, Commissioner Geinosky moved to recommend approval of the petition to the Village Board and approval of the setback variation beginning at the point approximately 50 feet north of the south property line and tapering to 35 feet at a point approximately 75 feet north of the south property line as shown on the preliminary site plan dated May 20, 1999, and to require that the petitioner present a revised landscape plan to the Plan Commission for consideration. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Meyers. Upon voting (Glass, Geinosky, Meyers, Thompson, Zizzo, AYES, Ayers,Henrici, Sokolowski,NAPES, Paliganoff, ABSENT)the motion carried. Commissioner Ayers moved to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision to the Village Board, subject to the resolution of staff comments. Commissioner Meyers seconded the motion. Upon voting(Glass, Ayers, Geinosky, Henrici,Meyers, Sokolowski, Thompson, Zizzo, AYES, Paliganoff, ABSENT)the motion carried unanimously. C: Chairman and Members of the Plan Commission, Village President and Board of Trustees,Village Clerk,Village Manager,Assistant Village Manager,Assistant to the Village Manager, Administrative Intern, Director of Engineering/Community Development,Director of Public Works,Fire Chief,Deputy Fire Chief(2), Assistant Fire Chief, Village Attorney, Chairman and Members of Zoning Board of Appeals.