Loading...
Minutes - 02/17/2003 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 17, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: 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 Marcia Tropinski Gerald Wolin Surendra Goel Alfred Savino Robert Kallien Member Braune moved, seconded by Member Adrian, to waive the reading of the January 20, 2003 Plan Commission meeting minutes and to approve them as amended. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. 111. OAKBROOK SHOPPING CENTER — TEXT AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL USE — SPECIALTY RETAIL PROGRAM Chairwoman Payovich said that the applicant is seeking a Text Amendment and Special Use to allow a Specialty Retail Program. At the last meeting, the Plan Commission had asked the applicant to address a list of additional items. She summarized the items as follows: • Detailed landscape plans • Additional criteria for the structures • Product details • Kiosk details • Possibility of enlarging existing or adding additional washrooms • Event standards and the hours of operation • Details on how the traffic would be minimized and controlled and pedestrians protected in and around the Professional Building. Safety was a particular concern in this area. Chuck Fleming, Vice President, General Manager of the Oakbrook Center, said they are seeking a text amendment and special use approval for the creation of a specialty retail program in the common areas of the shopping center. He introduced the following people who will be making part of the presentation this evening. Danielle Cassel, Attorney, Piper RudnickSusan Houck, Regional Manager, Retail Marketing, The Rouse Company PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 17, 2003 PC -MTG 03 FEB.doc (owner of the Oakbrook Center), Suzanne Beres, Marketing Manager, Oakbrook Center and Mary Beth Brye, Assistant Manager. He reviewed the additional material submitted. First, in the booklet entitled "Plans and Schematics" (page 12 of the case file) each area was enlarged to better view the details of where they are putting the carts /structures. There are concept drawings and material boards to show the types of materials that will be put into the structures. Second, in the booklet entitled "Standards and Procedures" (page 14 of the case file) controls the regulations and specifications that will govern the program as well as the type of uses they are going to avoid or prohibit. Booklet #12 —Plans and Schematics A2 is the area between Saks and Neimann Marcus where the Mobile Food Unit will be located. The unit will be in a place where traffic will not be obstructed. The main traffic flow will be concentrated under the cross canopies. They will not be touching any of the landscaping in this area. A3 is the Food Pavilion area, which would sit in the middle of the Professional Building turn - around. The structure is mostly made up of glass with metal and natural woods. It will have sliding glass doors to allow for entrance and exit. The doors will be able to be left open in good weather. The entire area is going to be slightly raised up by a curb. There will be three or four places for handicap accessibility. Bollards will be put around the outside to protect people sitting in that area from cars. There is currently a stop sign but they are going to add speed bumps. Traffic is currently allowed there and they have not had any problems. They are proposing to make the drive one -way, counter - clockwise, so that it would be easy to come up and go back out. Traffic will only be coming from one direction instead of two different directions. The area is wide so that there is a lot of visibility, but traffic coming from one direction would be a lot safer. Security staff will keep the area as clear as possible. The Product Introduction area is more clearly identified. The one closest to the new Bloomingdale's Home store entrance will be 24 feet in diameter, which is not a large area. It is small enough so that pedestrian traffic can travel along the front of Bloomingdales but is far enough away from the turn - around area. The two bollards currently located there will remain. The other Product Introduction area is located closer to the Williams Sonoma store. It is a much smaller area that will have tables and chairs and have presentation of products and more of an intimate, one -on -one presentation basis. The merchandise carts were moved under the cross canopy; this would allow people to still walk through the area without any impediments. The structures are made up of natural woods and samples were passed to the Commission members to examine. They match the current architecture that exists in the Center. The structures have a small canopy and wings that close down at the end of the day for security purposes. Member Adrian asked if all the carts would look the same and Mr. Fleming responded that they would. He noted that they would give the tenant some limited opportunity for self- expression looks through signage and how the product is displayed. They want the units to have a uniformly, distinctive look. Director of Community Development Kallien stated that the mall management presently does a very good job controlling the signage in the Center and asked if Mr. Fleming would have review authority for the individual signage for the carts. Mr. Fleming commented that, in the Rules and Regulations, the tenant will not only have to have the signage approved, but also the merchandising plan will have to be approved. If either were changed, then the vendor would be in violation of their lease. A4 — The Lord and Taylor and Marshall Field's area by the concourse entrance. The only items in this area are the two food kiosks, which are designed as walk -up structures. The vendor is behind a counter and the customers walk up to it. From these structures, they are talking about serving hot dogs, French crepes, Italian ice, bagels and sandwiches, smoothies, yogurt, fruit, muffins and probably cookies -- things PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 17, 2003 2 PC -MTG 03 FEB.doc K �� that are easy to carry. The customer then can sit at one of the benches or around one of the fountains to consume their food purchase. A5 — The Restoration Hardware /Z- Gallery area. There will not be a stage or production set. The existing trees will stay in place. The flowerbeds will remain around the building. The Product Introduction area is the area where they will do fashion shows and have larger displays. The area is about 35 feet long. There will be no structures built in the area that will be used for fashion shows, etc. There will be infrastructure built into the sidewalks for electric, but it would be capped with brass caps, so that when nothing is going on, nothing will be visible. A6 — Play Zone — Will be part of Phase 2. They do not have any drawings yet, but the material will be soft and designed for children 3 — 12 years old. Booklet page #14 — Standards and Procedures. The tab identified as "Types of Merchandise and Products" responds to the Plan Commission request for the types of products that would be available in the carts. The Food Pavilion will offer such items as: coffee, hot cocoa, hot/cold tea, soft drinks, juices, sandwiches, salads, soups, quiches, pastries, and other miscellaneous items. The Food Kiosk will offer such things as: hot dogs, French crepes, Italian Ice, bagels, sandwiches, smoothies, yogurt, fruits, muffins and cookies. The Mobile Food Unit is a self- contained portable cart that would serve convenient packaged food items such as: ice cream, beverages, popsicles, roasted nuts, popcorn, gourmet candies, etc. The Retail Merchandising Zones will feature portable Retail Merchandising Units (RMU) carrying high profile merchandise displayed in a unique and elegant setting. Some examples of these items would be: flowers, gardening accessories, kites, flags, pet accessories, hats, handbags, children's accessories, games, business accessories, stoneware, pottery, hair accessories, jewelry, sunglasses, unique gifts, and seasonal items, including fresh wreaths, ceramic eggs, fall and Halloween gifts. The Product Introduction program will offer strategic partnerships with the Center's permanent retailers, media sponsors and/or advertisers by creating product introduction through sampling, displays, and selling shows that touch residents and visitors through brand and product awareness. The types of products to be introduced are, but not limited to: fashions shows, fragrance product sampling, garden shows, "big boys toy" show, craft and fine art shows, sculpture shows, car displays, including upper end automobiles such as Mercedes, Jaguar, Infiniti, BMW, etc. To ensure the Center's standards of appropriate merchandise, the items that would not be acceptable would include items such as: gumball machines, candy vending machines, photo booths, penny machine, sticker machine, business card machine, simulator rides, arcade games, commercials, pepper spray, knives, laser pointers, carnivals, cabinet refinishing, bathroom fixtures or home appliances, air conditioning units, siding, gutter, window replacement, massage beds, and vibrating recliners or chairs. Chairwoman Payovich asked what kind of timetable the Center was looking at for implementing these two phases. Mr. Fleming said that, if approved, they would like to have Phase 1 operational by the summer of 2003. Phase 2 would depend on the success of Phase 1: and, if Phase 1 proves successful, Phase 2 would be operational one to one and a half years later. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 17, 2003 3 PC -MTG 03 FEB.doc � r1C Member Braune asked about the positioning of the carts and kiosks and questioned whether queuing at the carts and kiosks might cause pedestrian traffic flow pattern problems. Mr. Fleming said that they have looked at the issues of having people backed up in areas. However, they have been very careful in making the selection for each site. They have had a consultant help to develop the location dependent on the use of the carts. Ms. Houck said that they are also looking for some flexibility. They have done a lot of analyzing and the carts will basically be in this order and arrangement. Member Braune suggested the use of more speed bumps (maybe 1 or 2) to slow down the traffic by the Professional Building. Mr. Fleming said that they would look into that but added that unattended vehicles are not allowed, other than to assist someone into the vehicle. Member Wolin questioned that, with each different event, the Product Introduction area could look different each time. Mr. Fleming agreed and said that after each event it would be removed. Ms. Beres added that fashion shows will be on the ground. They do not want the models on a stage. Member Tropinski commented on a very well prepared presentation by the applicants. She also thought the standards and procedures booklet was very well done. She commented that the kiosks and merchandising units still look like temporary structures. She asked why they are done in green and not white. Mr. Fleming responded that the original shopping Center was done in white brick and that was done to make it look like the buildings disappear to some degree. These are temporary structures and the choice of green was selected so that it would blend in more with the landscape and have a more natural look. They want it to fit into and compliment the Center and not take away from the surrounding landscape, but they do not want them to be a part of the buildings. Member Bulin questioned the additional trash that would be accumulating and how that would be handled. Mr. Fleming responded that if needed, several additional maintenance people will be assigned to ensure it is taken care of. The Oakbrook Center prides itself on its maintenance and they would not handle this any differently than they do now. Member Adrian asked how trash and spilling food will be dealt with and how will store owners deal with customers coming into their stores with food. Mr. Fleming said that most of the tenants are in favor of the refreshments being available because they believe it keeps the customer in the shopping center longer. As far as the trash is concerned, the common areas will be maintained. It may be a little more challenging, but staff will be increased depending on the workload. Member Adrian asked, if the request is approved, would there be a way to stipulate the final design of the kiosks. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if a particular type of design is desired, that would need to be established during the hearings. However, the burden could be placed on the Village staff to approve the final design concept. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 17, 2003 4 PC -MTG 03 FEB.doc Member Wolin said that if the matter went forward at this meeting, he could not vote to recommend approval. He is very concerned with the Food Pavilion area. People and the cars just do not mix. He does not see how it can be safely controlled. There were also issues on several other areas, such as the Merchandising Zones and some of the product types. He understands the need for food in the A4 area; he did talk to the retailers about it. They did not have a strong negative about it because that is outweighed by the request of their customers looking for refreshments. He suggested that the planned location for the Play Zone might be switched to the Merchandising Cart area. Chairwoman Payovich said that they have not addressed the standards for the text amendments or special use but have confined the discussions to safety issues. There are several things the Commission would still like to see: • Better design for the carts and better details for the signage to be used on the carts. • Better discussion of the location of the carts and potential customer queuing problems • The traffic report done by the consultant The members were polled as to their comfort level with moving ahead or to have another meeting to clarify the outstanding issues. At this point, the members agreed that a long motion would be required to address all of the conditions. No one else in the audience had any further questions or comments. Member Adrian moved, seconded by Member Bulin that the matter be continued to the next regular Plan Commission meeting on March 17, 2003. The following responses are needed at the next meeting. 1. Final design for the carts and kiosks. 2. Plan for the alternate locations for the kiosks and carts. 3. Professional Building - A conflict is introduced between vehicles and pedestrians. If there are some problems, what can be done to mitigate them? Although mention was made of adding speed bumps, the Fire Department is not a proponent of speed bumps because of the impact it has on their vehicles. 4. Consultant report for the internal traffic flow to ensure that the location of the carts and kiosks maintain the normal flow of pedestrian traffic. 5. Refine the list of undesirable uses. 6. Decision to be made on the Phase 2 proposal. Many details have not been provided especially where the Play area is planned. 7. Would like specific details for the area around the Professional Building. The traffic is a concern. Mixing the cars and people going in and out to get food raises serious safety questions. 8. Comments from the Police and Fire Departments regarding the area around the Professional Building. 9. Alternate colors and materials for the merchandising carts to keep the design elements and colors similar to the existing facility. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. IV. COVINGTON COURT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION — VACATION OF BICYCLE EASEMENT Carmen Giorno, President of Covington Court Community Association, 200 Covington Court, represented Covington Court. He distributed a layout of the portion of the bicycle path in question. He said that the pathway system runs through Oak Brook and one particular section of the pathway has created many problems for the residents of Covington Court. They realize that there were some issues and compromises made by the developer of Trinity Lakes; however, the Covington Court residents must now PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 17, 2003 5 PC -MTG 03 FEB.doc �-y�i live with this situation. A section of the pathway runs across three of the lots on the north end of the subdivision. They are concerned with lots 122, 124, and 125. The center lot is most adversely effected by the current pathway placement. The lot is very narrow lot; and, as constructed, the bicycle path runs almost through the center of the backyard of Lot 124. Mr. Giorno passed out photographs that show the location of the path in the backyard. There are three issues of primary concern to the residents of Covington Court. Covington Court is a gated community with a 24 -hour security guard. They have a fence around a large part of the subdivision, but were unable to completely fence in the property because of the bicycle path. If they were to fence it on the Covington Court side of the pathway, the Nayak's would loose somewhere between 16 -18 feet of their property, and they are opposed to that. The lot to the west of them where the pathway turns at the lot's corner would lose 37 feet of the lot. Security is an issue. Covington Court pays $5600 a year for security and forfeits most Village services other than police and fire protection. They maintain everything else on their own but do not have the ability to enjoy complete security. They have had intruders, solicitors and trespassers of all sorts in their subdivision. The residents feel strongly that with a gated, secure community they should feel comfortable and assured that when someone comes to their door, it is a neighbor or someone they know and not a salesman or some other type of intruder. They have had strangers fishing in the ponds in their subdivision. To get around the guards, intruders just need to stroll down the bicycle path. This is a concern that they hope is understood. Despite their best efforts and promises from the developer, they are unable to secure their "gated" community. 2. Privacy is the next issue, particularly for the three lots in question. The bicycle path runs slightly over 20 feet to the north of the Nayak's foundation line and runs the entire length of their backyard. This basically renders their backyard unusable. It is a public walkway and cuts off a larger portion of their property. They completely sacrifice their privacy. The residents of Covington Court do not have easy access to this bicycle path unless they walk through the Nayak's private property. As a result, the pathway is not used much by the Covington Court residents 3. The primary beneficiaries of the bicycle path are the Trinity Lakes residents, yet no part of the path is on their property. When the path goes off Lot 125 and heads towards the lake and 31st Street, it runs on common property through Trinity Lakes. Despite the fact that Trinity Lakes residents have most of the benefit of it, they bear none of the burden of this pathway and none of the potential negative consequences that come along with it. As a result of these issues, Covington Court is looking for some sort of relief so that the three residents that bare the burden of the path running through their lots can enjoy the maximum amount of property available to them. The subdivision would like to fence off the area to complete the security of Covington Court. Covington Court understands the value of the pathway system but there does not seem to be a viable alternative location if the easement is vacated. What would be a great relief to them would be to relocate the path so that it lies along the property lines at the rear of lots 122, 124, and 125. The path is currently about 8 -%2 feet wide and the Safety Pathway Committee has no problem with narrowing the path to 8 feet. If it could be narrowed and moved north, it would add greatly to the size of their backyards and they would be able to install fencing to screen and protect their property. Vinod Srivastava, 102 Covington Court, said that he is also one of the board members of Covington Court. He said that the bike path is hardly used; and, if that is the case, it does not make any sense to maintain it in its current state. If a compromise can be reached, it would be a better solution for Covington Court. Raghue Nayak, 124 Covington Court, said that he is probably the most impacted by the bicycle path. He said at the Safety Pathway meeting that if they could work it out with the owners north of the property in PLAN COMMISSION Minutes M PC -MTG 03 FEB.doc February 17, 2003 Trinity Lakes, to relocate the path so that it straddles the adjacent properties, then it would be agreeable to the committee. They are presently trying to work out a compromise with the Trinity Lakes owners. Another problem they have had is that some of the neighbors have seen cars on the path because it is so wide. Director of Community Development Kallien said that, from the perspective of the Plan Commission, utilization of the path is something we cannot control. We understand that there are certain elements of the bike path that are heavily used and other areas are not. However, it is part of a pathway system that goes throughout Oak Brook and Oak Brook prides itself that it links all areas of the community. There was rationale in its creation, and there may be some impact on this particular area; but the reality is, that it is there, and there are people that benefit from its location throughout the community. Mr. Giorno said that they are sensitive to that; however, when the path was created in 1973 Covington Court was only a field and none of these problems could have been foreseen. Now an entire subdivision is affected by its location. They feel there is some strong justification for relief to allow them to compromise and improve the situation. Director of Community Development Kallien said that normally in the Village structure, the Safety Pathway Committee is very similar to the Plan Commission. That Committee's main responsibility is to maintain the pathway system and its integrity. The Plan Commission is responsible for the platting of land. This pathway was part of the approved subdivision plat with the bicycle easement and there was some rationale to it being there. The Village Board deferred it to the Committee as well as the Commission so that comments could be made and allow the applicants an opportunity to explain themselves. Tom Richardson, Safety Pathway Committee, said that the applicants have accurately represented the statements of the Committee. The Committee understands that Covington Court has some security concerns and can relate to some of their problems. They offered the most they could to deal with those issues without compromising the integrity of the pathway system. It is used by other people and they do not believe they can give it up. If the Covington Court owners can work something out with the Trinity Lakes residents whose property is involved, it would be fine with them. Member Braune asked why the path did not straddle between the two subdivisions when it was put in originally. Mr. Richardson responded that Trinity Lakes was developed first and the path was in place so they did not have to give it away. The developer of Covington Court left it in place. The developer said that there was not an issue of building on the narrow lot. He understands the frustration of the purchasers of the lot since it is narrower than the other lots and the bike path is close, but this was something that was created many years ago when Covington Court was developed. Mr. Giorno said that the Covington Court property was owned by the Franciscans prior to its development. The pathway was first built at the time of the development of Trinity Lakes, almost 30 years ago, and the area was not developed. The thought of encroaching onto the property in Trinity Lakes was not necessary and was not an issue. There is the belief that the Franciscans were agreeable to the location of the path. Raghue Nayak, 124 Covington Court, said that most of the intruders come in from their lot. They did not know this when they purchased the lot. They understand the path is necessary, but would like to move it further from his home and fence the area. Carl Manofsky, 107 Covington said that when they looked into this issue he walked in the back of the Nayak's house and you could readily see into the back of their house, which gives them no privacy. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes N PC -MTG 03 FEB.doc February 17, 2003 Member Braune questioned the amount of the total easement and was told it is 15 feet entirely on the Covington side. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the pathway is located entirely on the Covington side. There is support for moving the path to the north and reduce the width to 8 feet. Chairwoman Payovich asked if they have met with the Trinity Lakes Homeowners Association. Mr. Nayak said that they have met and they are waiting for their answer. Member Tropinski said that it is not clearly noted on the Site Plan where the bike path comes in. Some discussion ensued regarding the easement and the very narrow back yard. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the plan does not clearly depict what exists on the site. The path is not built along the property line, it is built so that there is space between the path and the rear property line. Within the easement, there is an 8 - %foot wide pathway of asphalt. If the two subdivisions and all affected residents reached an agreement to move the easement to straddle those properties, they would come back before the Boards, a new easement agreement would be applied to both subdivisions, and a new plat would be recorded. An arrangement would have to be made as to how the path would be constructed, because the Safety Pathway Committee would not become financially involved in its removal and relocation. Member Adrian moved, seconded by Member Bulin to recommend opposition of the request to vacate the bicycle path easement, but recommend the following: 1. Allow the petitioners to relocate the existing bike path to the northern most edge of the subject parcel's property line. 2. The bike path is to be relocated at the homeowners' expense or the Covington Court Community Associations expense. 3. Reduce the width of the bike path to 8 feet. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6- Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Tropinski, Wolin and Payovich Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Goel Motion Carried. V. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK - ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT - TEXT AMENDMENT- TITLE 13 of the VILLAGE CODE- CHAPTER 13 -3 -6B -ACCESSORY USES - CHAIN -LINK FENCE REGULATIONS Director of Community Development Kallien summarized that chain -link fences are allowed almost everywhere in the community (approximately 34 lineal miles). There are some very good examples of chain -link fence and others that make you wonder how they happened. The Board's direction is to significantly limit the future utilization of chain -link fence material. People who have existing chain -link fences would be allowed to repair and maintain them. Instead of chain -link, they would be asked to use an alternate type of system; however, there is hope that this change would raise the bar. Member Braune questioned if certain areas were more contentious than others. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 8 PC -MTG 03 FEB.doc February 17, 2003 Trustee Savino said that there are certain areas where people feel it would be an advantage to have it, such as along the border of the Village. However, he has not heard anyone object to not having it. This issue has been around for about 1 -%2 years. The consensus of the Village Board is that it be greatly limited in its future use. After considerable review, it is now before the Plan Commission. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there is also the feeling that there would always be an appeal process and that if someone felt they needed one, that they could seek a variation. Many of the subdivisions do not allow fencing outside of the perimeter of the subdivision. Trustee Savino added that there are alternatives to chain -link fence such as wrought iron, aluminum, etc. The issue with chain -link is the aesthetics and it is believed that there are better fence materials available. Member Braune moved, seconded by Member Tropinski that the matter be continued to the next regular Plan Commission meeting on March 17, 2003. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. Vl. ADJOURNMENT Member Wolin moved, seconded by Member Adrian to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes N PC -MTG 03 FEB.doc Director of Co mu evelopment Secretary March 17, 2003 Date Approved February 17, 2003