Loading...
Minutes - 01/19/2004 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES January 19, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:28 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairwoman Members Trustee Director of Community Development Barbara Payovich Paul Adrian David Braune Jeffrey Bulin Surendra Goel Marcia Tropinski Gerald Wolin Stelios Aktipis Robert Kallien Member Wolin moved, seconded by Member Braune, to waive the reading of the November 17, 2003 Plan Commission meeting minutes and to approve them as amended. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. Ill. 7001800 COMMERCE DRIVE RESUBDIVISION — FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION — TWO LOTS Director of Community Development Kallien said that in the ORA Districts more than one building is allowed on a lot. In this particular case, there are two office buildings on the lot and due to ownership issues they need to put each building on separate parcels. Barbara Raffaldini, Pachter, Gregory & Finocchiaro, P.C., Attorney for the applicants reviewed the proposal. The parcel is 14.98 acres of land commonly known as 700 -800 Commerce Drive. The property has been developed and there are two multi -story office buildings and a two -level above ground parking structure. The owner wants to legally subdivide the property into two lots. One lot will contain the building known as 800 Commerce and the other lot will contain the building known as 700 Commerce and the parking structure. If the Plat is approved, the owner intends to record an operation and easement agreement that would provide for the integrated use and operation of the properties. This would allow for cross access including the various utilities. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Village Engineer Durfey has a memorandum in the case file which questions the way the setback line is drawn and it does appear not to meet the 30 foot setback requirements. Therefore, line needs to be moved so that the 30 foot setback is met. The Village Engineer has advised the surveyor of the needed changes. Village Engineer Durfey said that the Subdivision Regulations require that 6 foot side yard and 10 foot rear yard public utility easements be placed on all lot lines of a plat unless waived. The concept is for future utility use for the site. Each subdivision is different, since this is a two -lot already developed commercial site. There may not be the need for it, as there would be in a residential site. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 19, 2004 PC -MTG 04- JAN.doc 1 Ms. Raffaldini responded that they believe all the utilities are available on site and in the Operation Easement Agreement that has been drafted, it provides for common utilities so that no one loi would be cut off from any utility. She asked that the requirement be waived. Member Adrian asked Village Engineer Durfey if there was any issue, if they would recommend waiving the requirement. Village Engineer Durfey responded that there would probably not be an issue in this particular case since it is a two -lot commercial subdivision. Each lot does front a right of way, and a utility company could access the sites. If a future owner chose not to grant an easement, they would only hurt themselves. It is probably not needed here. Member Braune asked if a precedent would be set, or has this happened before on similar properties. Village Engineer Durfey said that he did not recall this type of commercial subdivision in quite some time. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in a residential development it would make more sense because a house could be torn down. However, In this case, the 700 Commerce building is approximately 5 years old and would be highly unlikely that it would be demolished soon. Both properties really max out the F.A.R. so there is very little construction that can be done on these parcels. Member Bulin questioned if the division would effect parking. Director of Community Development Kallien said that they tried to make sure that the F.A.R. was met on both parcels and provide the requisite number of parking spaces on each parcel, however, 800 Commerce may be a little shy, but there is a provision under Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance that allows for shared parking as long as the stalls are within 300 feet of the property line. The parking situation was being accommodated without the subdivision lines. They are okay with the F.A.R. and with the parking requirements. Member Wolin asked if there is a problem with the lot line cutting through the parking lot. Ms. Raffaldini said that they have provided for cross parking. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Section 13- 10- A -3 -C -4 states that a subdivision plat can be created irrespective of drive aisles and parking stalls so that this can be accomplished. Ms. Raffaldini said that the Operation /Easement Agreement provides for use of the various utilities and someone on one lot cannot cut off the other lot from using utilities, that is perpetual use for both if need be. This includes repair, maintenance and replacement. Member Wolin moved seconded by Member Bulin recommended approval of the proposed final plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The surveyor is to supply a copy of the existing easements to the Village Engineer. 2. Several drafting revisions need to be made to the plat. 3. The requirement for six (6') foot side yard and ten (10') foot rear yard public utility easements will be waived for the common lot lines. 4. Compliance with the zoning requirements for depiction of the setback lines. 5. Survey monumentation meeting Section 14 -6 -3.J needs to be accomplished and noted on the plat. 6. A note similar to the following should be added to the plat: "Ingress and Egress easement per Document No. ." This document, which needs to be reviewed and approved as part of the subdivision documentation, must state the access rights of each of the two lots against each other. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 19, 2004 PC -MTG 04- JAN.doc 2 �2�tz 7. The following note needs to be added to the plat, "Lots 1 and 2 are subject to the "Declaration of Stormwater Facilities Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" recorded October 28, 1999 as Document No. R1999- 228921. 8. No improvements will be constructed with this subdivision; it is simply splitting into two lots the existing single lot. Currently the parcel is fully developed with two office buildings and one parking structure. 9. The subdivision line is to be modified slightly to ensure there is a thirty (30) foot setback between the new property line and any building. 10. Subject to Final Engineer approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7- Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Payovich Nays: 0- Motion Carried. IV. THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY— SPECIAL USE— OUTDOOR DINING ADJACENT TO A RESTAURANT Director of Community Development Kallien said that at the present time the B -2 District is the only district that allows outdoor dining and it allows it only as a special use, which requires a review by the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. Lynn Gaede, Development Department of the Cheesecake Factory, summarized the proposal. She reviewed the area surrounding the proposed site. To the north of the site is a parking lot and garage, to the east is the Renaissance Hotel, to the south is the entrance to the Oakbrook Center and to west is more parking and a row of restaurants. The entrance to the restaurant is off of the Ring Road and the outdoor dining area will be located in the front of the restaurant. The patio will have 80 seats and service station with tile on it. All of the exits out of the patio will be exit only. The plan incorporates a walk that comes from the back by the kitchen and they agree to remove the walk so that there will not be an entrance into the patio from the sidewalk to the rear. There will be landscaping along the front of the railing. There is a decorative sidewalk that goes around in front of the patio to the entrance. The area in front of the patio will be landscaped. Oakbrook Center has asked them to add a railing at the curb to provide a second barrier which will match the decorative railing planned around the patio. She also reviewed the style of the lighting fixtures, tables and chairs. The restaurant will be located on the pad where the theater was located, but they will take up less space. There are actually two entrances to the restaurant. Member Adrian noted that there would be a lot of traffic along the Ring Road, which abuts the outdoor dining area. Member Bulin agreed and suggested the possibility of relocating the outdoor dining area to the grassy area away from the Ring Road. Ms. Gaede responded that the location of the patio is tied operationally to the inside of the restaurant as to how the food is served from the kitchen. They work really hard to have defined wide aisles so that those areas can be serviced easily. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there have been a number of discussions with the applicant on issues that go beyond the proposal before the Plan Commission. There is an agreement that additional landscaping would be added. The Village has also addressed some concerns regarding some architectural issues that could be improved. Everyone that drives to the Oakbrook Center knows that this is a very busy area. People that choose to use the outdoor dining area have to deal with that. Some people may find it to be okay to be located out there amongst the traffic and others will not. It will be a choice issue. The climate is such that the outdoor dining area may only be used 3 to 4 months out of the year. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 19, 2004 PC -MTG 04- JAN.doc 3 i/ Member Adrian said that the Cheesecake Factory has been quite successful in other areas. The Commission should trust them to determine a suitable location for this dining arrangement. Member Wolin said that the Cheesecake Factory is a popular restaurant and will have a lot of people going there. When the theater was located there, there were a lot of people in the area also. So he does not believe traffic will be an issue. From a personal preference he would not prefer to eat next to a busy road. He asked if there was a particular reason that the side by the Ring Road was the location selected for the outdoor dining. Ms. Gaede said that there is a relationship with the interior elements. They did look at different sides. In some cities it is on the sidewalk right next to a busy street and in spite of that, they love it. Other people would never go out there. They try to make the outdoor environment as pleasant as possible, but it is still an outdoor dining experience. The kitchen is sized to handle the number of seats. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Oakbrook Center has a very good program in place in terms of making sure that all of the various elements work within the Center itself. They are very conscious of landscaping, lighting and that tenants remain viable, etc. One potential challenge down the road is to ensure that people can get from the parking decks to the shopping areas. Internally, it works very well. There are adjacent uses, which would need cross - access. The members discussed several scenarios regarding egress back and forth between the Cheesecake Factory and the shopping center. Trustee Aktipis said that there exists outdoor dining adjacent to roads, but the highest traffic road within the shopping center, would be the Ring Road that would run next to the Cheesecake Factory. From the view of public safety as well as outdoor dining, he would certainly relocate the outdoor dining area to the south side of the restaurant. Although, statements were made that it was placed based upon the interior design, but perhaps adjustments could be made to place the dining in a less exposed area to the public. Member Wolin said that he raised the same question, but the Cheesecake Factory said that they have made their evaluation. The Plan Commission could tell them to revise the location or accept the plan as it is. Member Bulin said that he also agrees, however, he does not know if it is the Village's position to question their program that they use to develop the site or their operations. Member Adrian asked if there is anything that could be used besides a rail, that could be hidden in a landscape feature, such as strategically placed stone piers, so that if a car would veer off to provide an additional level of protection for the public. It would alleviate the Plan Commission's concern as far as the safety of the citizens. Ms. Gaede said that the second permanent rail that is being at the curb was at the request of the Oakbrook Center, as an additional safety feature. Member Braune said that the Plan Commission had agonized about the original location of the proposed Food Court location by the Professional Building as to whether people would be injured and that was a lower density traffic area and lower speed area than by the Ring Road. He has a concern of the protection in that area and asked what type of protection the railings would provide. Ms. Gaede responded that they are not necessarily engineered, but are built to be very sturdy. She said that it makes some sense to address the safety concerns further. She said that they could provide something that could be incorporated into the landscaping as was suggested, so that it would not be unsightly. Director of Community Development Kallien offered a number of different designs from other Cheesecake Factory outdoor dining locations and some have designs that appear to resolve some of the conflict issues. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 19, 2004 PC -MTG 04- JAN.doc 4 Ms. Gaede said that although, it may seem simple to move things around, there are integration issues with the inside of the restaurant and there are some issues in terms of the way that they want the patio to relate to the entrance. They want the patio near the entrance. They would rather try to address the issues and concerns by enhancing the barriers. Member Goel said that the main concern of the Plan Commission is that a vehicle could veer into the seating area without protection to the public. He suggested an easier solution would be to install some high strength cables that could be strung around the area and hidden with some vegetation. Dining being located near high density traffic is a question of personal preference. He said that the Cheesecake Factory had gone through a lot of considerations when they decided on the location of the outdoor dining and for the Village to make a snap decision to relocate it, does not seem fair. Member Bulin said that he thought IDOT had some safety standards on high use roads and pedestrian separation; to what level do you create the safety. Village Engineer Durfey responded that he was familiar with guidelines for pedestrian ways and clear zones, but he is not aware of a specific case like this that [DOT would have information. Member Tropinski suggested that they stipulate that whatever barrier is used would withstand the impact of a car traveling at the posted speed limit. Member Goel said that we need to remember that the traffic is parallel to the railing. For a car to plow into the railing, it would have to go almost perpendicular to. If it veers off, it may brush against the railing and then veer off. The chance of a vehicle going into that area is not very high in his opinion. Member Braune said that a car could be deflected into it and the potential exists that a car could be hit on the ring road. Ms. Gaede responded that she understands the concerns, but she is not exactly sure what it is that they are supposed to being complying with. Trustee Aktipis said that as a Village we must be responsive to the needs of the corporate residents, we do have a flexibility to approve or deny based on whether it makes goods sense for the Village or not, so we cannot be completely hesitate in terms of saying what we like or do not like, because we do have that responsibility. Restaurants view outdoor dining as an important compliment to the other services and many people like dining outdoors. He said that they would be missing an opportunity not to have that area at a level where it would attract additional business. If the architect reviews the situation, adjustments could be made that would allow a much more attractive and safe outdoor area on the south side of the building rather than next to the highest traffic area. It could beneficial to everyone to give that more consideration. Member Wolin asked the status of the building's construction. Ms. Gaede said that they were hoping to start soon on the foundation. Outdoor dining is a varied experience and they would be happy to create some barrier that would provide a level of safety, but she is not quite sure what that standard is and whether it exists, so if the Village could come up with a description of something they could work with they could satisfy the safety concerns. Member Tropinski said that as an architect, in her opinion, if the Cheesecake Factory had to redo all of their plans, it could set them back engineering wise at least 3 months and at a substantial cost. They would have to redesign the building. At the same token, there are sidewalk restaurants in other towns, downtown, Maggiano's, etc., and they do not have big barriers to protect people. If the Village could give them a guideline for the railing to withstand a certain amount of pressure and establish a guideline for barriers, it would be a prudent precaution protecting the people dining. There are standards with IDOT in terms of highway barriers as to PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 19, 2004 PC -MTG 04- JAN.doc 5 what those pressures should be that would withstand a highway guard rail, which might be excessive for the purpose here. She said it would be a happy compromise, rather than to redesign the entire facility would be a burden financially and time wise. The members were polled regarding whether to consider whether to continue the matter or move it forward with conditions. Member Braune said that he was inclined to work with the Cheesecake Factory to come with an aesthetically pleasing structural wall along the road. Members Adrian and Bulin agreed. Members Tropinski, Goel and Wolin agreed and added that it should have an engineered safety barrier. Member Wolin added that the additional landscaping should be provided and he is also open to a concrete fence or bollards, which would both be attractive and safe. He added that management has not made the best decision in terms of the restaurant layout and would be in everyone's best interest if the building could be repositioned Member Adrian said that he appreciates Member Wolin's point, but this is the business that the Cheesecake Factory is in and they are successful in what they do. He believes they put a lot of time and effort into the design plan. He does not believe they should be told how to design a building. The Plan Commission found that that the petitioner has satisfied the standards for approval of a special use as follows: 1. The Oakbrook Center property is zoned B -2 Regional Shopping Center District in the Village. 2. The Village permits outdoor dining arrangements as a special use in the B -2 zoning district. 3. The Oakbrook Center also has approved the outdoor dining arrangement proposed by the Cheesecake Factory. 4. The Cheesecake Factory proposes an 80 seat outdoor dining arrangement that will be available between April 1 (setup) and October 15 (removal). 5. The Cheesecake Factory has submitted has submitted a list of conditions that will also be followed and are part of case file. 6. The outdoor dining arrangement proposed by The Cheesecake Factory is consistent with previously approved special uses for other outdoor dining arrangements. Member Adrian, seconded by Member Braune that the petitioner has satisfied the applicable standards required to recommend for approval a text amendment as stated above subject to the following conditions. 1. The Cheesecake Factory submit detailed structural engineered plans integrating physical improvement/measures consisting of a portion of wall, bollards and wrought iron fence, which would protect outdoor dining patrons as well as pedestrians using the walk next to the restaurant to protect them from vehicles using the ring road. 2. Adhere to all conditions outline in pages contained in pages F -F2 of the case file. 3. Revise the site plan eliminating the connection between the outdoor dining area with the walkway, which runs along the south side of the building. 4. That every effort be made to incorporate landscaping along with the safety barrier. 5. Oakbrook Center approval of the proposed design change. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7- Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Payovich Nays: 0- Motion Carried. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 19, 2004 PC -MTG 04- JAN.doc j�6 V. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENTS — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE — CHAPTER 15 — TREE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS Director of Community Development Kallien summarized the work done on the proposed tree preservation regulations. A number of communities with tree regulations were identified so that the Commission could review them. Oak Brook has special needs and circumstances, and just because another community enacts an ordinance that does not necessarily mean that it fits in Oak Brook. If we are going to regulate the issue of tree preservation we need to be able to answer the 8 questions on page 13 of the case file. How far is tree preservation going to go and what is its basis going to be? For example, if someone cuts down one tree, must it be replaced with another tree, or is an equation created that for example, for every 30 -inch tree that is cut down, must they provide some many cumulative inches of multiple trees in its place; or is tree preservation going to be limited to required front or side yards, or over the entire property. We must determine how far we are going to go with this. The answer to those questions will lead us to actually putting together the ordinance After answering those questions, we may determine that the original ordinance presented addresses the issues. We can either, use that ordinance, start from scratch, or modify an existing ordinance to create what we need. Personally, he said that Oak Brook is a developed community and very lucky that we have significant amounts of vegetation. There is a history of people planting a lot of trees and maintaining them. If we are going to enact some type of tree preservation we need to determine where it is really needed. It is not our intent to create some regulations that are so onerous that things people were doing to this point are not good enough anymore. It must have some flexibility to allow people to continue the vegetation of their property. The thing that precipitated this discussion was the trees removed by the Forest Preserve District property. We need to do something so something like that would not happen again. Having regulations in place would have provided for some back up. Member Wolin said that he spent some time reviewing the ordinances and was surprised at the wide variation for similar communities. He thought that Lake Forest was too detailed, but Lincolnshire was good. Member Bulin said that Wilmette and Winnetka are currently in the process of revising their tree ordinances and they are similar communities. Member Adrian said that he was driving past the property at 3308 Midwest Road and there are some large diameter oak trees on that property, and the ordinance enacted will affect that property. The large oak and maple trees are the issues. Director of Community Development Kallien said that as it currently stands, the Village only has authority to regulate trees is in the public right of way. The Public Works Department oversees the tree planting program and diseased trees are removed as needed. The examples presented for the proposed tree regulations would affect some last remaining trees are removed. The regulations would not only impact virgin pieces of property, but properties that would be redeveloped. Joe Perri, 137 Saddle Brook, said that he does not believe that there should be a restriction prohibiting someone from building what they want in the footprint of the house, but perhaps restrictions should be placed in the side yards and front yards. If someone is putting in a pool or accessory structures in the rear yard then some replacement trees should be required. However, someone should not be penalized for removing trees in the footprint of the house. The area surrounding the house would be the biggest impact. If there is a house demolished and a larger one in its place, some of the other towns require replacement trees be planted. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 19, 2004 PC -MTG 04- JAN.doc ---��-777 -¢1� L Director of Community Development Kallien said that he would try to contact Wilmette and Winnetka and try to find out what they are doing that is unique for their circumstances and will prepare a report. He said that there is some legitimacy to enact some regulations. Member Wolin moved, seconded by Member Bulin, to continue the matter to the February 16, 2004 Plan Commission meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. Vl. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. Vll. ADJOURNMENT Member Braune moved, seconded by Member Bulin to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Director of Cq' munit evelopment Secretary 2- I L^ - c) Date Approved PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 19, 2004 PC -MTG 04 -JAN. doc 8