Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 12/02/2019 - Purohit,1600 Oakton Street/ Sefried,228 E. Devon/ AccessoryStructures-Text AmendmentElk Grove Village Plan Commission Minutes December 2, 2019 Present: J. Glass S. Carlson F. Geinosky K. Weiner J. Morrill P. Rettberg R. DeFrenza G. Schumm L. Bacigalupo Absent: None Staff. M. Jablonski, Assistant Village Manager/Director of Communications J. Polony, Deputy Director of Community Development R. Raphael, Senior Staff Engineer N. Radcliffe, Economic Development Specialist Petitioner: T. Hammersmith, Masuda Funai (Item 3) H. Purohit, Purohit Architects (Item 3) M. Mondus, Spaceco Inc. (Item 3) D. Houser, Seefried Properties (Item 4) Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Item 1: September 16, 2019 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Rettberg moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 16, 2019. Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. Upon voting (Carlson, Geinosky, Weiner, Morrill, Rettberg, Schumm AYES, DeFrenza, Bacigalupo, Glass ABSTAIN), the motion carried. Item 2: October 7, 2019 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Geinosky moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 7, 2019. Commissioner Weiner seconded the motion. Upon voting (Carlson, DeFrenza, Glass, Geinosky, Weiner, Rettberg, Schumm AYES, Bacigalupo ABSTAIN), the motion carried. 1 Item 3: PC Docket #19-12 Petition for Rezoning 1600 Oakton Street from I-1 to B-2; Resubdividing the property from one (1) lot to three (3) lots; and associated variations. Chairman Glass read the legal notice into the record and asked the Petitioner to explain their purpose before the Plan Commission. T. Hammersmith stated that the subject property located at 1600 Oakton is approximately 7.43 acres and if the subdivision is approved, the property will be subdivided into 3 separate lots. T. Hammersmith stated they intend to develop two hotels and a restaurant/retail pad to complement the hotel uses. T. Hammersmith stated one hotel will be a Tru by Hilton with 96 guest rooms and a new 4-story building on Lot 1. T. Hammersmith stated the second hotel will be a Country Inn and Suites with 105 guest rooms, which would be the renovation of the existing building on Lot 3. T. Hammersmith stated that a height variation was being requested for the buildings on these lots. T. Hammersmith stated the restaurant/retail pad consists of approximately 9,840 square feet and has no user identified at this time, and is located on Lot 2. T. Hammersmith stated the subject property is currently owned by the Village and is subject to a redevelopment agreement between the Petitioner and the Village. T. Hammersmith stated they are requesting a change to the present zoning of property from I-1 to B-2. T. Hammersmith stated the rezoning is required to permit development of this site at its highest and best use. The prior hotel was developed under a special use permit in the I-1 zoning district. T. Hammersmith stated the planned redevelopment of the property, which includes two hotels and a restaurant/retail use, is consistent with the B-2 General Business zoning district, which accommodates retail and consumer service uses. T. Hammersmith stated this zoning would be consistent with the existing B-3 and B-2 zoning of properties surrounding the subject property. T. Hammersmith stated that in order to attract high quality hotel brands, additional vertical space is necessary to meet minimum brand requirements. T. Hammersmith stated the proposed four- story Tru by Hilton hotel would be fifty-three (53) feet tall. T. Hammersmith stated the existing three-story building to be converted to the Country Inn and Suites hotel would be forty-four (44) feet tall. T. Hammersmith stated they are seeking a variation to reduce the required parking by 73 parking spaces for Lot 2. T. Hammersmith stated they believe the restaurant/retail pad will be servicing those using the hotel, therefore the less parking will be needed on -site. T. Hammersmith stated there will also be a shuttle to service O'Hare Airport, so some of the hotel guests will not have cars. T. Hammersmith stated the next requested variation is to eliminate the required loading space for each property. T. Hammersmith stated the hotel properties will be limited service hotels, with no restaurant, only a continental breakfast. T. Hammersmith stated there will be minimal deliveries to the hotel properties and anticipates that there will be one to two deliveries per week for each hotel. T. Hammersmith stated these deliveries will be made by box trucks, not oversized semis, which will not result in congestion at the site. T. Hammersmith stated the property is a part of the Busse -Elmhurst TIF, and is labeled a blighted area. T. Hammersmith stated the variations are needed in order to attract high quality brands to the site. T. Hammersmith stated this development would improve the value of the property and tax revenue generated, and improve the surrounding properties. T. Hammersmith stated they believe there will be no detrimental impact on the health, safety, comfort, or welfare of the Village as a result of the development. Commissioner Rettberg stated the requested reduction in parking spaces from 125 to 73 is a drastic reduction. Commissioner Rettberg asked if they are anticipating if it is going to be a restaurant or a retail business. T. Hammersmith stated it is not confirmed, but they are anticipating a restaurant user would best serve the hotels. Commissioner Rettberg asked how they could anticipate not needing the 73 spaces without knowing what the user will be. T. Hammersmith stated from a design standpoint, the developable area would be at most 9,840 square feet. T. Hammersmith stated it could be less, but they use that for their basepoint on the required parking spaces. Commissioner Rettberg stated he is worried about the commercial viability of two hotels right next to each other. H. Purohit stated they do not have the data but from his personal understanding, Tru by Hilton was created to serve the millennial and younger crowd. H. Purohit stated the Tru by Hilton is cheaper than the Country Inn and Suites, while the Country Inn and Suites serves those over 35 and families, and is more expensive. H. Purohit stated in a way there is no competition between the two. Commissioner Rettberg asked if the hotels will be operated as franchises. H. Purohit stated they will both be franchises. Commissioner Carlson asked would anyone using the restaurant be able to park at the hotel. T. Hammersmith stated if the Plan Commisson were to require it, they can put in a shared parking agreement between the three lots. Commissioner Carlson stated that without knowing the tenant going into the restaurant/retail out lot, they don't know how busy it can really get. T. Hammersmith stated the shared parking agreement could be the solution, although they would prefer to keep all lots separate. Commissioner Weiner stated that since they do not know what will be going into the restaurant/retail pad, they do not know what kind of truck deliveries' it will require. Commissioner Weiner stated Elk Grove Village already has a Country Inn and Suites and asked whether having two hotels of the same brand close together will be an issue. T. Hammersmith stated they have not discussed that issue. Commissioner Weiner asked if either of the hotels will have banquet facilities or meeting rooms. T. Hammersmith stated there these hotels will be limited service hotels and will not offer banquet halls. Commissioner Weiner stated she does not approve of the current landscaping plans. H. Purohit stated the landscape plans have not yet been completed, but they will reflect the Village code requirements and that the renderings were used more to define the buildings. Chairman Glass 3 stated the Plan Commission could always defer approval the landscape plans tonight and have the Petitioner come back. Commissioner Weiner stated she would like to see more landscaping around the buildings, as this site serves as a gateway for the community. M. Mondus stated there is currently an area near the restaurant/retail pad where they have land - banked 28 parking spaces, which could be built out if necessary. M. Mondus stated that the user will likely be smaller than the 9,840 square feet and that would require less parking spaces per the Village Code. M. Mondus stated there is a lot of landscaping offered around the perimeter of the property. M. Mondus stated they can offer more foundational plantings if need be. Commissioner Weiner stated the people coming to stay at the hotel are considered guests of the community and we have residents and business people that drive past there, so it should look nice. Commissioner Geinosky asked what the order of the development is for the lots. T. Hammersmith stated the Country Inn and Suites would be first, then Tru by Hilton, and then the restaurant/retail. Commissioner Geinosky asked what type of restaurant user would be going into the property. H. Purohit stated they have been in talks with an Italian restaurant called Biaggis. H. Purhohit stated any type of family restaurant would be in the range of 6,500 to 8,500 square feet. Commissioner Geinosky said he is struggling with the resubdivision as the Petitioner does not know what type of restaurant/retail user is going in and requesting parking space variation without knowing the restaurant/retail user. Commissioner Geinosky asked if the restaurant will host weddings or parties. H. Purhohit stated they do not anticipate the restaurant/retail pad will be hosting weddings. Commissioner Geinosky asked if there are meeting rooms. H. Purhohit stated Tru by Hilton will have a very small meeting room and the Country Inn and Suites offers a family room, which is an extension of the lobby. Commissioner Geinosky asked if there is room service. H. Purhohit stated there will be no room service. Commissioner Bacigalupo stated there needs to be more landscaping improvements. T. Hammersmith stated they are open to continuing those discussions. Commissioner Bacigalupo stated he is concerned about the lack of loading space for truck deliveries, since this could result in supplies being loaded at the front entrance, blocking traffic by customers. H. Purhohit stated that there is a separate entrance for deliveries at each hotel, and the trucks would be able to utilize available parking spaces during the day when guests are not typically at the hotel. Commissioner DeFrenza asked if the Petitioner is actively recruiting tenants for the restaurant/retail pad. H. Purhohit stated they have spoken to possible tenants but have not had anything confirmed yet. Commissioner DeFrenza asked if they have any back up plans for the restaurant/retail pad. H. Purhohit stated he is not aware of any. Commissioner Morrill asked if both hotels are owned by the same franchisee. T. Hammersmith stated the intent is to have each building owned separately. Commissioner Schumm asked if the Petitioner would be purchasing the property or leasing the space. T. Hammersmith stated the franchisee would be the owner of the individual out lots. Commissioner Schumm asked if the new hotels going in will be the new owners or will the 4 Petitioner own the property going forward. T. Hammersmith stated that the Petitioners will own the property. Commissioner Schumm asked if there are two members in the LLC or managers. T. Hammersmith stated Mr. Joeche and Mr. Dave would be members with Mr. Dave being a member/manager. Commissioner Schumm stated that Elk Grove has an existing Country Inn and Suites in the same shopping center with a restaurant that puts sign restrictions on their lot. Commissioner Schumm asked if the Petitioner foresees a problem in the future with restrictions on parking. T. Hammersmith stated that with a shared parking easement, all three lots would share all benefits and burdens. Commissioner DeFrenza asked if they have a shared parking agreement, can they put in parking restrictions. Commissioner Schumm stated those restricted parking signs are not enforceable unless brought to court. Commissioner DeFrenza stated Elk Grove has a Country Inn and Suites and asked if they checked to make sure there are no restrictions with franchisees located so close to each other. H. Purhohit stated they would have not approved the location if they do not see data that supports it. H. Purhohit stated they have analyzed this situation and do not see any problems. Commissioner Weiner asked is it for sure that the hotels will be a Tru by Hilton or a Country Inn and Suites. H. Purhohit stated Sunrise LLC has approval from both Hilton and Renaissance to move forward with the hotel brands. Commissioner Weiner stated she is concerned that no one will be able to come in and operate it. Chairman Glass stated Sunrise LLC and or an affiliate could one day own it and can one day sell it. F. Geinsoky stated just north of this property is a Best Western and south is the old Motel 6 lot and is going through construction, which will probably be another hotel. F. Geinosly stated there may be a lot of competition between the hotels. T. Hammersmith stated that ownership wants to turn the blighted area into a revitalized area. Chairman Glass asked if the roof will be raised on the existing hotel. H. Purhohit stated they will be putting equipment on top of the roof, with parapet walls for screening, but will not be raising the existing roof. Chairman Glass stated he believes there needs to be a shared parking agreement without knowing what the third user will be. Chairman Glass stated he is concerned about the restaurant/retail pad as they do not know what will be going in there. Chairman Glass stated he thinks a restaurant would be best to go in there, not a retail user. T. Hammersmith stated he termed it restaurant/retail to not restrict the possibilities to go into that pad. Chairman Glass stated you want a parking variation, do not want a loading dock, and we do not know what is going into the restaurant/retail pad. Chairman Glass he would like to see the landbanked parking area maintained as green space to enhance the landscaping. Chairman Glass stated he goes to a lot of hotels for work and a lot of times a truck parks in the front of the lobby near the continental breakfast to unload. Chairman Glass stated it usually takes 15-20 minutes but blocks his and others cars sometimes. Chairman Glass stated he does not see a 5 huge problem for the no loading docks for the hotels, but the restaurants are busier and he opposes the no loading dock for the restaurant/retail pad. M. Mondus stated they have a service area in the back of the retail/restaurant site large enough for a small semi or box truck to load and unload deliveries. Chairman Glass stated he would like to keep the land banked area open for landscape improvements. M. Mondus stated the parking space requirements will probably go down with the confirmed user. M. Mondus stated they are trying to balance a very unique site and make everything work. Chairman Glass stated what if we make a recommendation for it to be a restaurant and subject to come back when they have a confirmed tenant. M. Mondus asked staff if they would have to come back to the Plan Commission for a restaurant use. M. Jablonski stated that if the Plan Commission does not grant a parking variation and the petitioner does not have enough parking stalls, the Petitioner would need to come back. M. Jablonski stated if the B-2 zoning is approved but not the proposed site plan, the Petitioner would need to conform to the code or return to request a variation. Chairman Glass stated the easiest way is to come back to look at it in the future. Chairman Glass reiterated he would like to keep that land banked area for landscaping, but understands it may be needed. Commissioner Rettberg asked if they could separate the variances and not recommending the approval of the parking reduction or the loading space for the restaurant/retail use. Chairman Glass stated they could do that. Chairman Glass stated they do not know for sure what is happening in certain areas. M. Jablonski asked if the Plan Commission is considering granting the parking variation with the condition they come back with a user and a site plan. Chairman Glass stated he would not grant the variation. Chairman Glass stated if the footprint goes down then that will require less parking. T. Hammersmith asked if restaurant parking is different than retail parking. J. Polony stated restaurant parking requires 1 for 80 square feet and retail parking requires 1 per 200 square feet. Chairman Glass stated it looks like you are jamming as much as you can on the parcel. Chairman Glass stated his concern is that the hotels get built and they get sold and two years from now there is no restaurant and something different goes in there. M. Mondus stated currently the 3 lots provide 320 parking stalls and the combined required parking stalls for the code is 338. M. Mondus stated they have 30 land banked stalls and they would meet the requirement and would not need a variance if they do the shared parking easement. Commissioner Weiner stated with a larger pad, that restaurant could have a banquet room and the parking would become an issue. M. Mondus asked if the restaurant came in with a banquet, would that change the requirement for parking. J. Polony stated the code requirement for parking for a banquets hall is different than for a restaurant. Chairman Glass stated he would like more landscaping around the perimeter and the front with foundation planting. M. Mondus stated they can work with that. M T. Hammersmith asked if there will still be a push for shared parking. Chairman Glass stated it is definitely needed. Chairman Glass stated there are development like these all over Elk Grove and it is needed. T. Hammersmith stated he has concerns since two of the lots meet the parking requirements, and does not want them to encumber the lots. Chairman Glass stated we do not know what is going in on the third lot and it is needed. M. Jablonski stated staff has requested two conditions that the Petitioner addresses all comments from the November 26, 2019 memo from the Department of Community Development and that the easement provisions be approved by Village staff. M. Jablonski stated if you choose not to grant the parking variation, they will still need to meet the code. M. Jablonski stated part of the redevelopment agreement requires that those brands or equal stature to go in at this site. RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Rettberg moved to recommend approval for the following: • Petition to rezone the property at 1600 Oakton from I-1 to B-2. • Petition to resubdivide the property at 1600 Oakton from one (1) lot to three (3) lots. • Variation from Section 7-1 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a 44' building height on Lot 3; and a 53' building height on Lot 1. • Variation from Section 4-4-1 of the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the required loading spaces on Lots 1 and 3. With the following conditions: • The Petitioner shall address all comments from the 11-26-19 memo from the Department of Community Development. • The easement provisions for the Plat of Subdivision must be approved by Village Staff. • A shared parking agreement must be provided between all three lots and reviewed/approved by Village Staff • The Petitioner shall bring a revised landscaping plan for Lot 1 and Lot 3 to the Plan Commission for approval, to include additional foundation landscaping. • The Petitioner shall bring a revised site plan and landscaping plan for Lot 2 to the Plan Commission for approval. Commissioner Morrill seconded the motion. Upon voting (Carlson, Geinosky, Glass, Bacigalupo, Morrill, Weiner, Rettberg, DeFrenza, Schumm AYES) the motion carries unanimously. The meeting recessed at 8:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. 7 Item 4: PC Docket #19-13 Petition for Rezoning of 228 E Devon Ave. from B-3 to I-1 and Resubdivision of the properties at 202-228 E. Devon Ave. from six (6) lots to two (2) lots Chairman Glass read the legal notice into the record and asked the Petitioner to explain their purpose before the Plan Commission. D. Houser stated that Seefried Properties is looking to add a Oh parcel to the original 5-parcel development that came before the Plan Commission back in July of 2019. D. Houser stated that the zoning for 228 Devon is requested to change from B-3 to I-1 in order to incorporate into the original development. D. Houser stated the original use approved for the property at 228 Devon was a proposed sprinter van business but it fell through. D. Houser stated with the incorporation of this parcel, they are able to expand the buildings by a combined 18,000 square feet. Chairman Glass asked how tall the buildings are. D. Houser stated they are 32 foot clear inside the building and with precast is roughly 35 feet tall, the same as was originally approved by the Plan Commission. Commissioner Rettberg asked if the square footage of the two buildings are larger than the original approval. D. Houser stated that bringing in the 6`h parcel helped expand the buildings from east to west. Commissioner Rettberg asked if there is an estimation of truck traffic in a 24 hour period. D. Houser stated a delivery a day for each door, there are 24 doors in total. Commissioner Geinosky asked if the Petitioner had any concern regarding the conditions requested by Village staff for cross -access easements and easements for shared private utilities to be approved by village staff and retaining walls within easements to be eliminated or reduced subject to the approval of Village staff. D. Houser stated they would be able to comply with those conditions. Commissioner Bacigalupo asked for clarification of the original approval by Plan Commission, and what the change was from the previous approval. Chairman Glass stated the only change is the size of the building. Commissioner Bacigalupo stated he has concerns about the height of the building with respect to the setback from the road. Commissioner Bacigalupo stated he believed the elevation should be 1:1, and that he understood that the Plan Commission has previously approved the project but that he wanted to voice his concern. D. Houser stated most buildings have a 30 foot clear and they need that height to construct a speculative building. Chairman Glass stated after seeing the development on Devon and Tonne and how it overwhelms the shopping center, he believes the Plan Commission may have made a mistake with approving a building of that height so close to the road. 9 Chairman Glass asked with the expansion of the building, can the Petitioner move it back a little bit away from the road, maybe reducing square footage or expanding it more to the east or west. D. Houser stated that it is not just a large box --there are a lot of architectural details to the fagade. D. Houser stated the main reason they needed to purchase the parcel was due to funding issues. D. Houser stated acquiring the extra parcel helps increase the financial profit by increasing the size of the building. D. Houser stated that there were a few financial difficulties with regard to the soil condition, and the requirement of permeable pavers instead of asphalt and the need for piers to support the base of the buildings. Chairman Glass stated that he understood there are always financial impacts. Chairman Glass asked if the building can be moved back and widened. D. Houser stated he does not think it's possible to expand east to west due to detention and flood plain. Chairman Glass asked if the above ground detention could be moved to the front. D. Houser stated a staff comment was to have a below ground detention. R. Raphael stated there is a drainage ditch in the front that staff asked to fill. D. Houser stated they will be raising the grade with soil and sidewalk in the front. Chairman Glass asked if the front of Devon will consist of parkway and sidewalk. R. Raphael stated that is correct. D. Houser stated he does not believe there will be enough room in the front of the building for any detention. Chairman Glass stated he is trying to avoid the canyon effect for this development. Chairman Glass asked the Petitioner to go back and see what changes might be made to the site plan to reduce the impact on the Devon Avenue corridor and bring an update back to the Plan Commission. The hearing was continued to a date to be determined. The meeting recessed at 9:26 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:28 p.m. Item 5: PC Docket #19-14 Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Section 3-6: B Principle Buildings and Accessory Structures; and Section 7B-3-2:C (1) Conditional Uses Chairman Glass read the legal notice into the record and asked the Petitioner to explain their purpose before the Plan Commission. M. Jablonski stated it has always been the Village's intent to not allow vacant lots to be used as track/commercial parking lots. M. Jablonski stated they have recently ran into difficulties with enforcing the code and feel that clarifying the code will allow the Village to better enforce it. M. 9 Jablonski stated the reason the Village does not want to allow commercial/truck parking within the business park is because it cannibalizes productive tax producing uses. M. Jablonski stated some people have approached the Village, wanting to tear down buildings to create truck parking lots. M. Jablonski stated this destroys productive uses that allow the Village to generate revenue from the business park, to reinvest in the business park, and to attract new businesses. M. Jablonski stated the Village has been trying to enforce this for years but have been running into difficult business owners, and would like to clarify the rules for better enforcement. Chairman Glass asked what the first text amendmnent is about. M. Jablonski stated that the reason for the clarification on principal structures is to make it clear that there must be a building for any parking lot to be associated with. M. Jablonski stated a business currently can park its own trucks at its business and not sell to other users, but this adds clarity that you have to a have a principal building that the parking is associated with. M. Jablonski stated the text amendment removing commercial parking lot as a possible use is to make it clearer that the Village does not allow any lots of this type. Commissioner Weiner asked if other businesses that have this parking will be grandfathered in, such as the VFW. M. Jablonski stated those types of businesses usually have a special location parking plan approved by the Village. M. Jablonski stated the Village is already trying to enforce this —it is not a new rule, but more of a clarification to help enforcement efforts succeed in court with cases where the owner is unwilling to comply. Commissioner Schumm moved to recommend approval of text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, which shall read as follows: Amend Zoning Ordinance Section 3-6: B Principal Buildings and Accessory Structures by deleting and replacing the title as follows: "Principal Buildings, Principal Structures and Accessory Structures"; and deleting and replacing the first sentence as follows, "Unless part of a planned development project, one and only one principal building or principal structure shall be erected on any lot of record on any conforming lot." e Amend Zoning Ordinance Section 7B-3-2: C (1) Conditional Uses Permitted by deleting "Commercial parking lots for private vehicles" from the list of additional conditional uses. Commissioner Morrill seconded the motion. Upon voting (Glass, Carlson, Geinosky, DeFrenza, Rettberg, Schumm, Weiner, Bacigalupo, Morrill, AYES) the motion carried unanimously. 10 Item 6: Adjournment Commissioner Weiner moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Morrill seconded the motion. Upon voting (Glass, Carlson, Geinosky, DeFrenza, Rettberg, Schumm, Weiner, Bacigalupo, Morrill, AYES) the motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, d� Maggie Jablonski Assistant Village Manager C: Chairman and Members of the Plan Commission, Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk 11