Loading...
Minutes - 03/19/2001 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 19, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. 1l. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Members Members Director of Community Development Village Engineer Stelios Aktipis Stephen Allen Samuel Girgis Barbara Payovich Surendra Goel David Pequet Anthony Tappin Robert Kallien Dale Durfey Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Allen, to waive the reading of the February 19, 2001, Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as amended. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. 111. CHRIST CHURCH OF OAK BROOK- 501 OAK BROOK ROAD — AMENDED SPECIAL USE FOR EXPANSION OF CHURCH FACILITIES WITH ALLOWANCES TO THE 100 FOOT SETBACK ON YORK ROAD FOR AN ADDITION of A NEW PARKING LOT (PHASE B) The petitioner requested that the hearing be continued to the next Plan Commission meeting set for April 16, 2001. Member Payovich moved, seconded by Member Allen to continue the hearing to April 16, 2001. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes March 19, 2001 7 IV. YORKSHIRE GLEN OF OAK BROOK L.L.C. — 4 YORKSHIRE DRIVE — FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION — 7 -LOT SUBDIVISION Ed Resner, Eddy Resner Engineering, represented the petitioner in the request for a final plat of subdivision. They have revised the engineering drawings and details to comply with Village standards. Member Girgis said that during the preliminary review a neighbor was concerned with headlights coming into the home and asked if the matter was settled. Mr. Resner responded that the headlights would go more towards the garage doors than the living room. If the road were moved, as they were willing to do, the car lights would then be forced into the dining room /living room area of the neighbor. Chairman Aktipis asked Village Engineer Durfey whether the petitioner has provided all the necessary information that satisfies the engineering requirements. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the final plat is in substantial conformance with the preliminary plat that was previously approved. Conceptually, he does not have a problem, things can be handled, it just takes time to get all the details and meet the Village standards. Chairman Aktipis asked Village Engineer Durfey about waiving the streetlight requirement. Village Engineer Durfey said to look at the character of the area. There are no streetlights now in Yorkshire Woods, Timber Trails or Woodside Estates. This area does not have streetlights. In some of the other smaller subdivisions to south on York Road, streetlights were required. The character of the neighborhood has to be weighed versus what the streetlight might bring. Member Payovich said that it is dark on that street corner. With all the cars coming in and out of the entrance, perhaps some discreet lighting might be beneficial. Village Engineer Durfey said that a streetlight does enhance safety at an intersection. Member Payovich would be in favor of some sort of street lighting there. Mr. Resner said that it is a private street, and the types of homes that will be built will invest in significant funds in private lighting and security. It will not go without lights, the street is private with only six driveway curb cuts on the street. Member Payovich said that she drives that street every evening and with cars coming out and kids with bikes and it is dark through that area. There must be some sort of soft lighting that can accentuate that there is an entrance so people will pay attention. Mr. Resner said that he could suggest an ornamental lighting fixture that does not add glare or direct lighting into other people's homes and is a reasonable planning feature. Village Engineer Durfey noted that if a streetlight were required, the typical Village standard would be a 20 -foot high, box -type structure with 150 -watt high - pressured sodium bulb, which lights the intersection and street. A shield can be placed on it to keep the light from going into the home of the one homeowner. If the Village would like to go to something different it would need to be reviewed. He is not familiar with ornamental lights, there are many different kinds and most of them have a bulb that spills out light, whereas the box light goes down to the pavement and not into windows. However, there may be an ornamental light that may do both. Mr. Resner suggested that if it is kept as a private light, the homeowners association can maintain it and then it will not be effected by Village standards. It will be a light to meet the intent of what has been discussed this evening. Staff can review it and compare it to other locations. Member Allen said that in Brook Forest there are no streetlights. Village Engineer Durfey said that the final decision would be left up to the Village Board, because it is a subdivision requirement unless it is waived or amended by the Board. As of now, they have to put a street light system in, not just one light. Typically, the Village Board waives them, except at intersections. The current standard is that if one is put in at the intersection, it must be a Village standard light. The private subdivisions like Midwest Club, have there own ornamental lighting because they are private streets. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes March 19, 2001 2 i20� Chairman Aktipis suggested that the Plan Commission not provide for a waiver of street lighting and to let the Village Board decide. No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal. Member Payovich moved, seconded by Member Allen to recommend for approval of the Final Plat for the Yorkshire Glen of Oak Brook Subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. Each of the items identified by Village Engineer Durfey in his letter dated March 13, 2001. 2. A better representation of the wall rendering before it goes to the Village Board. 3. Streetlight requirements will not be waived. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Allen, Girgis, Payovich and Aktipis Nays: 0- Absent: 3 - Goel, Pequet and Tappin Motion Carried. V. MON AMI GABI — 260 OAKBROOK CENTER — SPECIAL USE — OUTDOOR DINING ADJACENT TO A RESTAURANT Jay Stieber, Vice President — Finance, General Counsel, Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Chicago, Illinois reviewed the petitioner's request for the outdoor dining area. This proposal for outdoor dining is similar to those previously approved for Maggiano's and Papagus. Christopher Meers, Divisional Supervisor, Mon Ami Gabi, reviewed the materials to be used. The fencing will be wrought iron going around the outside of the patio. It will fit into sleeves that go into the cemented patio. The tables are black granite with a wrought iron base and an interwoven lattice- backed chair, similar to those in the bar area. There are ten -foot umbrellas. The French doors will open into the patio area. Planters will be on the outside and they are working with Oakbrook Center on landscape materials. There will be 40 seats in the outdoor dining area. The design and operation will be such that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected. Member Girgis questioned pedestrian traffic and was advised that it is a dead -end area to pedestrian traffic. No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal. Member Allen moved, seconded by Member Girgis that the petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend approval of the proposed special use and that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected subject to the following conditions: 1. The outdoor dining area including the perimeter planter /barrier will be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted on page H of the petition file 2. The dining area will be operated in accordance with the rules of operations submitted as follows: a. The dining area may be set up between April 1 and April 15, and will be removed on or before October 15 of each year. b. The outdoor dining area will be maintained and cleaned and shall comply with all applicable requirements of the DuPage County Health Department. c. The area will be power washed at the end of the season. d. No more than 40 seats will be provided, as is reflected on the seating plans. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes March 19, 2001 3 --L (l e. The barrier system will be of metal and iron planter boxes that will be similar in design to the interior metal work and railings. They will meet or exceed the barricade standards as approved by the Village. f. The emergency egress gate will open out only and be three feet wide. g. No signage or banners will be placed in the outdoor dining area. h. On or before October 15, all equipment, including the railings will be removed and the sidewalk area will be restored to its original condition including patching or plugging holes, if necessary. A minimum of a six -foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the outdoor dining area will be maintained at all times. There will be no live music, dancing or other entertainment in the outdoor area. k. A waiter station, similar in design to the barrier planter boxes, will be installed with self - contained water and electricity to facilitate service to the outdoor tables. This station will be covered and locked during non -use. I. The up lights in the sidewalk will be deactivated for the season and covered with metal plates in place of the glass lenses. No additional lighting, except for table candles, will be provided. m. The planters will be water tight with internal drainage to allow for live greenery and seasonal flowers as approved by Oakbrook Center. n. Access to the outdoor dining area shall be through the restaurant only. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Allen, Girgis, Payovich and Aktipis Nays: 0- Absent: 3 - Goel, Pequet and Tappin Motion Carried. VI. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENT TITLE 13 of the VILLAGE CODE — REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 12 OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING The petitioner in this case is the Village of Oak Brook. Director of Community Development, Robert Kallien reviewed Chapter 12 of the Off - Street Parking and Loading on page 9c -9d of the petition file. Throughout the text of Chapter 12 (Page 3 -3o) there is a general update of the text to include clarification of vague terminology and add or delete certain language to improve readability. Section 13- 12 -1 -a (page 9c) Scope of Regulations, recommends decreasing the maximum timeframe from six months to ninety (90) days to begin construction of required parking for permits issued. This is consistent with language found in other portions of the Village code that regulates the timeframe for building permits. Building permits are good for 90 days from date of issuance, the time can be extended, but this proposed change would make the timeframe consistent for the permits issued. Section 12 -1 -D. The new language establishes the responsibilities of the Village Engineer within the context of this chapter. Previously, part of this chapter was given to the Village Engineer and the rest was given to the Director of Community Development Kallien. It is the recommendation of the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC) that all of the administrative responsibilities be given to the Community Development Department. Any new structure or parking activity that would PLAN COMMISSION Minutes March 19, 2001 4 require engineering permits, the Village Engineer would have the full authority to review and approve those plans. This helps to clarify the administration. Section 13 -12 -3. Damage or Destruction of Uses. They recommend this section be moved to the end of Chapter 12. Attorney Martens has stated that once the entire Ordinance update is completed, we will ask that this section be deleted. It really applies to issues of nonconformance and noncompliance, and those issues are handled in other chapters of the Ordinance. Section 13- 12 -3 -B. Location. This language permits required off - street parking on an adjacent parcel. The new Residence Inn Hotel was approved with this ordinance language being part of its special use. Their proposal was a little ahead of their proposed update. They are confirming the right to allow required parking to be located on an adjacent parcel if it is within 300 feet. This provision will probably only apply as part of a redevelopment proposal. Section 13- 12 -3 -C. Size and Aisles. Clarifies the parking space width for both office and hotel uses as eight- foot -six. In the original code, office uses had the ability to construct eight -foot six - inch wide spaces, while all other uses were required to be nine feet. In Oak Brook, office and hotels are complimentary to each other. The types of hotels are full service where people do not come and go all day long. The parking demand and utilization are quite similar as those required for office. Section 13- 12 -3 -D. Timing of Construction. This recommended language would permit a portion of the required parking to be landbanked or set aside for future construction when it is determined by the Village to be warranted. This could possibly come into play if there were a large redevelopment project that would mix a number of different uses. If office, retail and service type uses were mixed there may not be a need to provide all of the required parking based on the square footage of each of the spaces, because each may have spaces that do not have a peak need or requirement at the same time. In the Shopping Center, there are office uses that have peak parking generation during the day, but in the evening, there is no need, so the parking that is available is adequate for retail. If the parking is not needed, there is no reason to construct it ahead of time. Chairman Aktipis said that it makes good sense to not build something if it is not needed. His concern is how it will be triggered to add parking when the need arises. He is concerned that there may be a timing gap. He would like to see a triggering mechanism added that would review the anticipated need early on. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the parking for the entire use, would be engineered up front and planned for and would be depicted on any building permits. The Village would give them the ability to phase in the actual construction if requested. Village Engineer Durfey said that land planners in general say to minimize parking. Businesses would not want to hurt themselves by not having enough parking for its tenants and customers. The business force behind triggering needed parking spaces may be more driving than the Village force. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the 2001 York Road office building only requires 3.3 spaces per thousand square feet but John Buck wanted close to 5 spaces because their business plan required that much parking. A change in tenant could be used as a trigger mechanism. Member Allen questioned how the land would be used while it is landbanked. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it would be grass. Village Engineer Durfey added that erosion provisions of the code would require at least grass for permanent erosion control. Weeds are not an erosion control mechanism. Section 13- 12 -3 -J. Collective Provision. They are recommending additional language, which would permit the sharing of excess parking spaces to contiguous parcels. This is under the concept of sharing one's excess parking spaces for the benefit of others. The caveat is the use giving up some of its spaces would have adequate parking spaces for its parking demands. An example PLAN COMMISSION Minutes March 19, 2001 5 ,0 t. would be a hotel between two large office buildings; the hotel may need more parking spaces in the evening hours and weekends, rather than during the day when the office use requires more spaces. Member Girgis and Allen asked whether there would be a liability issue for the Village or for each of the parties. Director of Community Development Kallien said that would be best answered by the Village Attorney regarding any liability. Member Girgis said that if we allow such an arrangement there should be guidelines that address it. Member Allen said perhaps the Village should require an agreement to allow the shared parking. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there should also be notification to the Village that such an arrangement is in place. Section 13- 12 -3 -M. Repair and Service. This language prohibits automotive repair activities from occurring in an off - street parking area. Section 13- 12 -4 -A. Design and Maintenance. Surfacing. Recommends language that clarifies all new parking spaces be hard surface, except for spaces in the R1 and R2 Districts. Section 13- 12 -4 -B. Screening and Landscaping. Recommends language that requires parking lot landscaping to be maintained once it is installed. It is consistent with the Property Maintenance Code so that if something is planted they cannot just let it die off. They would be required to maintain it. This has been used with Walgreen's and the Wyndham Hotel. Section 13- 12 -4 -D. Landscape Plans. Recommends language that suggests methods of landscaping treatment being eliminated from the Ordinance. There are other parts of the Ordinance and the Public Works Standards that have more than adequate standards to address parking lot landscaping. Section 13- 12 -4 -H. Size and Aisles. Recommends language to clarify the Village requirements for parking lot striping concerning one -way drive aisles. Section 13- 12 -4 -J. Parking Structures. Recommends additional language that would require a higher standard for the architectural design and landscaping for future parking decks in the Village. Section 13 -12 -5. Off - Street Parking Areas. Recommends changes in the ordinance, which either increases or decreases the required parking for specific land uses. Section 13- 12- 6 -D -2. Parking Sign. Recommends increasing the fine amount shown on handicap parking signs to be raised from $50 to $100, which is the amount adopted by the current ordinance. The only way the Police Department can enforce the fire lanes and no parking areas is if it is properly signed. If it is not properly signed, they cannot issue tickets. Additional language may be developed which provides better standards as to where the signs and number of signs need to be located. Section 13- 12 -7 -A. Off - Street Loading. Location. Recommends language that clarifies how loading berths are to be landscaped and screened. Oak Brook now has a very good standard. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he had the opportunity in New Orleans to look at their parking decks. They were developed in such a way to believe they were actually office buildings. The Village needs to develop a standard that requires the parking deck to look more like the principal building. Maybe a percent of the exterior of the parking structure has to mirror that of the principal building. Member Girgis said that in Oak Park, on Lake Street just south of the hospital is a parking structure that looks like it is an office building and was very well done. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes March 19, 2001 6 Tl`C Director of Community Development Kallien said that keeping a high level of aesthetics with the buildings, not only benefits the community, but it also helps to maintain or increase their value. Most other communities are able to accomplish these changes through a planned development scheme that requires a review of the proposed parking deck. In this ordinance, we can require that if there is a parking deck, the exterior of the deck must be architecturally similar to the main building. Member Allen asked if there could be a design committee, so that it would have to be reviewed by the Plan Commission. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Attorney Martens and ZORC has discussed this and they are not comfortable with formulating an ordinance because there may not be the authority to enact one. Chairman Aktipis said that the Village has been successful with the nice building, but what happens if they want to build something that is not so nice. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he would speak with the Village Attorney regarding addressing the issue of design criteria, a standing committee versus some standards what else is out there. Chairman Aktipis said that a literal reading in Section 13- 12 -3 -m would suggest that you could not have an emergency road service call. Director of Community Development Kallien said that was correct, and something could be added to cover emergency service calls. For the benefit of the Plan Commission Director of Community Development Kallien said that he would discuss with Attorney Martens the issue for encouraging better design /design committees. Member Allen moved, seconded by Member Girgis, to continue this hearing to the next regular Plan Commission meeting date set for April 16, 2001. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Vll. ADJOURNMENT Member Allen moved, seconded by Member Payovich to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m. r L Director of Commu.rxrty Pe<elopment Secretary April 16 2001 Date Approved PLAN COMMISSION Minutes March 19, 2001 7