Loading...
Minutes - 03/16/2009 - Plan Commission1. 2. 9 5, MINUTES OF THE MARCH 16, 2009 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Payovich in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Raju Iyer, Richard Knitter, Gopal Lalmalani (arrived 7:34 p.m.), Mintu Sharma, Vivek Singhal and Marcia Tropinski IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Wolin, Trustee, Robert Kallien Jr., Director of Community Development and Dale Durfey, Jr., Village Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, 2009 Motion by Member Knitter, seconded by Member Singhal to approve the minutes of the February 16, 2009 Regular Plan Commission Meeting as amended. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINI -sSS There was no unfinished business to discuss. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. MCDONALD' S SPRING ROAD RESUBDIVISION NO. 3 — 1120 22ND McDONALD°S SPRING ROAD STREET AND 2105 SPRING ROAD INCLUDING VACANT LAND -- NO 3 - FINAL THREE -LOT FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION WITH VARIATIONS TO FLAT - 1120 22nd ST and 2105 THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, SPRING RD — 3- LOT SUBDIV, Director of Community Development Kallien briefly reviewed the request to resubdivide the property containing two existing parcels, bounded by 22r' Street, Spring Road Commerce Drive and McDonald's Drive. One lot contains a McDonald's restaurant and the other contains parking and storm water management. It was always envisioned in the future that the property would be resubdivided to VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 8 March 16, 2009 e0l-o accommodate additional development, which is why McDonald's has brought this request to the Village. Brendan Daly, Project Manager, Bollinger, Lach and Associates, Inc., 333 Pierce Road, Itasca, Illinois, reviewed the request. The McDonald's restaurant is located on the southwest quadrant of the property and the balance is storm water management to the north and parking on the eastern half. The intent for the resubdivision is for McDonald's to split off the northwest quadrant to create a new lot in order to create a leasable lot that is separate from the rest of what they own in order to enter into further negotiations with Gibsons restaurant in order to locate that restaurant on the new lot number 3. The storm water management on the site is currently under review by the Village and will be located on the eastern portion of lot 3, The site is naturally graded as a dry pond. In the new development, there will be walls around the perimeter of the basin so that the volume that is currently in the pond is accommodated during the 100 -year storm. The eastern half of lot 3 gets deeper so that the volume is preserved. There is no change in detention volume for the new development. The pond was originally developed with the intention that the entire site would eventually be developed, so that was already taken into account when it was engineered. Director of Community Development Kallien added for the benefit of the Commissioners that about a year ago the Gibsons Steakhouse had gone through the process for outdoor dining approval on this site and the restaurant does have building permits under reviewing. What they are proposing for the subdivision fits exactly what is in currently for permits. Member Knitter questioned the parking that would be provided for Gibsons. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that parking would be provided entirely by valet parking. Gibsons worked out a parking arrangement with McDonald's regarding surface parking on the north eastern side of the property and an agreement with the owners of the parking deck located directly to the north of the property. The valet parking arrangement is required to be recorded against the property. In order for Gibsons to work it must have the parking arrangement. If lot 2 would ever be developed the agreement would have to be modified. In that event a portion of lot 2 could eventually have a parking deck located on it, the possibility of which had originally been discussed. Member Knitter asked whether it had been discussed to not subdivide the property; to leave lot 2 there and then have Gibsons lease it in order to operate a facility that would meet the parking requirements, since the restaurant does not fit on an 80,000 square foot lot. He commented among other things that the idea was dumb. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the approvals had already been acted upon by the Village Boards VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 8 March 16, 2009 Member Singhal asked if the restaurant had already been approved. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it had been approved by the Village Board and the plans are now in for pen-nits and under review. All of the necessary approvals have been obtained by the Village. The purpose now is to reconcile the engineering drawings through the Engineering Department and the building drawings are being reviewed by the Community Development Department. Member Singhal questioned what would happen if the Plan Commission decided not to approve the plat. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the Plan Commission does not have to approve the plan, but the question would be on what grounds? The proposed plat fully meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, which is the basis for all requests for subdivision approval. If the request meets those regulations, then in his opinion, the Commission is compelled to approve it. Member Singhal questioned why Member Knitter thinks it is an idiotic thing to do. Member Knitter summarized that there is a reason to have parking requirements so that someone can park on the lot. If parking is on another lot, he questioned what would happen if McDonald's should decide to develop lot 2; and then there would be a lack of parking that would require additional valet parking elsewhere. It would be good to have the foresight to plan and have parking on the site if you can, and currently it could be provided on lot 2. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that lot 2 does not have enough room to provide the required parking for Gibsons. The plat is requested as part of a legal transaction between McDonald's Corporation and Gibsons Steakhouse. For this to work, both are part of an agreement that belongs to the property. McDonald's will not be able to sell off or redevelop the property unless they can provide a parking accommodation for this use. McDonald's is the landowner and they worked out an agreement for Gibsons. Member Singhal questioned whether the Village would have a copy of that agreement, so that parking does not become an issue as it has become downtown. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if Gibsons develops as planned, they are getting the required parking from a combination of spaces that are made available on new lot 2 (owned by McDonald's) and the balance is being provided for by the parking structures located to the north in Commerce Plaza. In order for Gibsons' to operate they need to have that allocation of parking. Because there is a written agreement with McDonald's they are bound to provide that amount of parking on the site. if McDonald's ever decided to develop that property, they VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8 March ld, 2009 would be required to provide parking on lot 2, by either providing a parking structure or another arrangement. Member Singhal asked if the Director was comfortable with those agreements. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that he was. Member Knitter commented that he thought it set a bad precedent. Trustee Wolin commented that valid points were raised by Member Knitter and just like most things in life, there are advantages and disadvantages. There are some nice advantages and many people are looking forward to the development. The Village did have an opportunity to review the plan and it will be a very attractive addition to the corner. He questioned the water detention which currently takes up a good portion of proposed lot 3, which would be constructed with big walls to make it deeper and asked how deep it would be. Mr. Daly responded that the invert elevation of the outward structure would be the same. The grade goes down to the basin at an approximate 3 to 1 slope. There is a slope across the pond as well. There is positive drainage to outlet structure, which will be shifted slightly to the northeast, but will drain to its current location. As the side slopes are made vertical, you gain the wedge of volume and the wall is needed to provide for the grade change. It has been reviewed by the Engineering Department. They reviewed how the building would sit exactly upon the site to gain the proper amount of volume, so that there would be no change in the volume for storm water management as there is on the site as is provided today and was designed with that point in mind. However, it will look different, but will provide the same amount of volume. Safety measures will be put in place, such as safety rails and fence around the basin. The walls will be 8 -9 feet vertically, from the top of the wall to the bottom on the detention basin. Gibsons will incur the cost to construct the walls with the intent of complying with the storm water management requirements. Trustee Wolin questioned whether it could be specified that it would be an attractive wall and not concrete blocks; and that a safety railing and fence would be provided around it with some shrubs on the outside so that it would look. attractive. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that the plan submitted by Gibsons incorporates all of those elements. They will be using decorative block with decorative railings along with extensive landscaping so that it is a self contained element. He noted that those items are more of an engineering issue and not a requirement in order to subdivide the property. Technically the building and storm water could be built, without subdivision approval, but McDonald's feels that in order to formally lease the property to Gibsons to have a land lease in order to formalize the transaction. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 8 March 16, 2009 Trustee Wolin asked if the requirements around the storm water facility could be included as a condition on the plat. Village Engineer Durfey responded that aesthetic stipulations such as a safety railing around a detention basin are independent of the act of subdivision. Aesthetics are more of a requirement at the permitting stage. He noted that his Civil Engineer has probably already brought up the question of the railing and designed it into the project anyway for safety sake. He did not think from their own liability viewpoint that McDonald's or Gibsons' would like to have a 9 -foot wall that someone could fall over. They are going to put up safety measures to counteract that possibility. They are both high end corporate people and would not like something that would not look good either. He said that he believed all of the concerns raised would be addressed by the applicant. Chairwoman Payovich suggested that a paragraph be added to the recommendation to the Village Board repeating the things that they have been told would happen. Mr. Daly responded that they drawings have been submitted twice to the Village and those elements are already in place. Member Singhal asked if those plans would require Plan Commission approval. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that they would not. He noted that the site plan had previously been reviewed by the Plan Commission. It contained the restaurant and the outdoor dining area, which is what needed the approval of the Plan Commission for the special use request. A schematic was provided showing how the detention pond would lay out and where it would be located on the site and how the limited parking would be configured. Motion by Member Tropinski, seconded by Member Iyer to recommend approval of a final plat for the McDonald's Spring Road Resubdivision No. 3 for a three -lot subdivision consisting of 9.5878 acres, including the following conditions: 1. Variation to Section 14 -6 -3K to eliminate the requirement for side and rear yard easements. 2. Subject to final engineering approval, including all revisions included in the Village Engineer's memorandum. The Plan Commissioned reiterated the need that required detention pond safety measures, including railings and aesthetics be put in place at the time of permitting. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 -- Members 1yer, Lalmalani Sharma, Singhal, Tropinski and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 1 — Member Knitter. Motion Carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 8 March 16, 2009 B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK -- TEXT AMENDMENT — STUDY AND VOB - STUDY TO DEVELOP REVIEW TO DEVELOP PROPOSED TEXT FOR ASSISTED xExT FOR TOWN HOME AND MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMEN'rs Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Zoning Ordinance currently allows single family detached housing, primarily on large lots and has served the Village well from 1966 to the present. However, as a byproduct of the recent court case with the DuPage Housing Authority and the Forest Preserve District, as it relates to their desire to redevelop the St. Paschal's Friary into an assisted living facility, Federal Judge Zagel in the case found that the Zoning Ordinance has some holes in it. The holes primarily relate to a difficulty in being able to provide senior housing, assisted living, multi - family and other types of non - single family housing opportunities. A copy of the judge's findings, as to its direction and correlation to our zoning, has been included in the case file. Single - family detached homes are allowed as a permitted use in the R -1, R -2, R -3 and R -4 Districts. The R -3 and R -4 Districts allow for a hybrid of single - family housing as special uses. The R -3 District also an age restricted development with single family cluster type housing, with common land between the houses. In the R -4 District Briar-wood Lakes has a number of units that are linked side by side and are allowed only as a special use. There is no zoning available that allows for townhomes in any of the districts. There is no zoning that would allow for multi - family structures, such as a condominium development that would be linked vertically and side by side. As part of the Clearwater development there was an element that allowed for a 17 -story condominium project, which was approved as part of a special use as part of a mixed use development, but due to the poor economy the developers are not going forward with it. The Oak Brook Club would fit the category of stacked housing, but it was annexed into the Village and zoned R -1. Zoning for townhomes and multi- family /apartment uses are lacking. There is a reference to "nursing home" as a special use in two of the commercial districts and "housing for the aged" is allowed as a special use in the Institutional District. However, there is no zoning reference to senior housing, which could be defined as independent living, assisted living or congregate care. This became very apparent as the DuPage Housing Authority case went through the court. The goal is to try to fill in the gaps and really address some of the Judge's issues. A lot of the deficiencies could be taken care of by providing better definitions of what "nursing homes" and "housing for the aged" are and to allow them in a couple of other districts as special uses. The greater challenge is dealing with townhome and multi - family, which may be difficult to find an existing zoning district to place these types of uses in. It may not be appropriate to take the R -3 District and decide to allow apartments, because it may have a lot of impact on the existing subdivisions. Providing a new zoning category may be the appropriate way to allow these types of housing opportunities. If a developer were able to secure land, they could apply for a zoning change and would be required to address the LaSalle Factors in order to VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 8 March 16, 2009 obtain a particular zoning. Some of the factors would be the impact on surrounding land uses. Most things migrate to the locations that can best accommodate them. The language is something that has been lacking in the ordinance. Member Singhal asked if there was any existing land available that could be identified to allow the special zoning. Director of Community Development Kallien noted as an example, that the Oak Brook Club is currently zoned R -1 and is nonconforming, so there is no opportunity to expand the existing buildings by building up or expanding out. Instead of being deemed a nonconforming use under the R -1 zoning, it may be appropriate for it to belong in the new category and would then provide the safeguard that if there were some significant damage done to any of the buildings, it could be properly rebuilt. He also noted that specific parcels do not need to be targeted in order to create a new zoning district. Trustee Wolin noted that the Village has been required to make the change in the Zoning Ordinance, there is no other choice. The Village is under an obligation to create a new zoning district, but it is not under any obligation to change any of the currently zoned land, as it has designated. The Oak Brook Club may request to change to the new zoning district after it has been created. He questioned whether it made sense to add some of the proposed uses as permitted uses in some of the commercial districts. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that the consultant reviewing the Planned Unit Development proposal has suggested that in a large development project, like Clearwater, the Village would have the right to approve a mixed use development, regardless of what is approved through this text amendment. Additional discussion and material will be provided at the next Plan Commission meeting. Motion by Member Knitter, seconded by Member Singhal to continue the hearing on this matter to the next regular meeting of the Plan Commission. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 — Members Iyer, Knitter, Lalmalani Sharma, Singhal, Tropinski and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. OTHER BUSINESS A. REVIEW PLAN COMMISSION DISCUSSION ISSUES Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed some of the discussion items: VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 8 March 16, 2009 e!WA-,� OTHER BUSINESS PLAN COMMISSION DISCUSSION 7. • Implementation of the Commercial Revitalization Plan — they have many of the implementation tasks in a separate document and are in the process of waiting for the consultant to further clarify them so that they can agree and determine the potential funding sources, timeframe, etc. and will share it when completed. • Traffic Issue problems — Route 83 and 22"d Street. There are plans to upgrade 22nd Street and the Village is also looking to upgrade north York Road from 22"d Street going north. • Friary Property — Trustee Wolin commented that the purchase of the property was considered, but the funds are not there. The DuPage Housing Authority has indicated that they would like to do something with the property. Member Knitter commented that there may be some stimulus money available to convert it to something beneficial. • Recruiting large tenants into Oak Brook with high speed internet capabilities. • Question of whether annexing adjacent properties would be beneficial to Oak Brook -- the land adjacent to Avenue Loire in Chateau Woods was studied for the purpose of annexation. As a result the need for increase in services without any tax gains. There has been discussions regarding the property north of I -88 at York Road • Defined duties of Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals to eliminate duplication of the two hearing bodies. Both boards contribute positively to development cases; it may not be necessary to have both involved in the same project and may be an ongoing discussion. • FAR increases — After the implementation of the PUD Ordinance and signage, may review districts to determine that there are correct FAR's to facilitate redevelopment. Motion by Member Knitter seconded by Member Singhal to continue the discussion at the next regular meeting. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Knitter seconded by Member Iyer to adjourn the meeting at 8:44 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, Di or of Co unity Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 8 March 16, 2009 ADJOURNMENT