Loading...
Minutes - 05/18/2009 - Plan Commission1. ►A 3. 5, MINUTES OF THE May 18, 2009 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON JULY 20, 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, Members Richard Knitter, Gopal Lalmalani, Mintu Sharma, Vivek Singhal and Marcia Tropinski ABSENT: Member Raju Iyer IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Wolin, Trustee and Robert Kallien Jr., Director of Community Development APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 20, 2009 Motion by Member Knitter, seconded by Member Singhal to approve the minutes of the April 20, 2009 Regular Plan Commission Meeting as amended. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. The agenda was modified and New Business was heard before Unfinished Business. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSTNESS A. GO ROMA (FAST FRESH ITALIAN LLC) — 3041 BUTTEFIRELD ROAD, GO ROMA - 3041 BUTTERFIELD - SUITE 117 — SPECIAL USE — OUTDOOR DINING AREA ADJACENT TO SPECIAL USE - A RESTAURANT OUTDOOR DINING AREA Director of Community Development Kallien briefly reviewed the request. The Village had recently become aware that an outdoor dining area existed at the Go Roma restaurant. At the last meeting a request was processed for the Labriola Cafe and if this request were approved, there would be five (5) outdoor dining areas at the Promenade. Toney Seavers, General Manager of the Go Roma restaurant, provided an overview and background of the request. He said that they were seeking approval of a special use for Go Roma to allow an outdoor dining area that would be located on the north side of the restaurant. They have been a tenant at the Promenade since February of VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9 May 18, 2009 2007 and were of the understanding that their lease allowed the use of the existing outdoor patio area to provide a unique and comfortable outdoor dining experience for their patrons. The patio had been operating successfully and without incident, complaints or issues in 2007 and 2008. When the Village informed them that they were in violation of the Zoning Ordinance they ceased operation of the patio by putting up a sign and communicating to their guests that the patio could not be used until they were in compliance. It was never their intention to be a problematic neighbor or to violate any local ordinance. They were acting based on information outlined in their lease agreement. They are attempting to provide the public with services and amenities that are consistent with the quality of the upscale service environment for which Oak Brook is known. Most restaurants in Oak Brook and the surrounding communities are providing this service to the dining public. Without this option they would disappoint many of their patrons that have come to enjoy this very popular amenity. They would also be at a disadvantage with other outdoor dining establishments in the area. Summer months are their busiest time of the year and not having outdoor dining would negatively impact their business and customers. Approval of the outdoor dining area would positively impact their business without causing any negative impacts on the public welfare, surrounding properties or the neighborhood. He asked for a favorable decision on the request. Trustee Wolin noted that he drove by the location and it appeared to be a natural area for the requested outdoor dining. He did not see any issue and thought it made a lot of sense. Director of Community Development Kallien commented that when the Promenade was first proposed, the developer established a cap for restaurants based on the availability of parking. As the restaurants were actually developed, there was room available for additional restaurants, which is the reason for these recent requests for outdoor dining areas. If they had anticipated there were going to be more than three (3) restaurants, the number of outdoor dining areas could have been increased at the time the Promenade was initially approved. Member Lalmalani asked how come it took two years to find out that Go Roma was in violation with the Zoning Ordinance. Director of Community Development Kallien said that a complaint had never been received and originally the dining area did not have fencing. The Promenade had been approved with certain areas throughout the development designed for seating and it was the impression from staff that it was just one of those areas. When the Village was notified that it was being operated as an outdoor dining area, it was inspected, which is why they are now seeking this request. The Promenade management was amazed that it was not in compliance with the approved regulations. It was not a sinister act, but an unintentional oversight. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 May 18, 2009 Mr. Seavers responded that they had been a tenant since 2007 and that existing seating had been provided by NAI Hiffinan and was located there at that time, which their customers did use. Over the summer of 2008 they added some portable fencing and flowers in order to make it look more like a patio area. Hiffman never told them they could not do it and they were not aware that they were in violation of any local ordinances. When they were told they were in violation, they ceased its operations immediately. It was not their intention to do anything that would violate the ordinance, but when they saw the seating was already located there, they did allow their customers to utilize it. Director of Community Development Kallien commented that if the department had more field inspection staff they could do a better job checking for violations (currently there is one person). Member Knitter said that the area is located very close to the approved Kona Grill outdoor dining area and you really would need a trained eye to know one use was approved and the other was not. Member Singhal questioned whether the current plan as requested would be any different from how the dining area was previously operated. Mr. Seavers responded that they would operate the patio during the same timeframe as the other outdoor dining areas at the Promenade. They are attempting to provide the public with a service that their customers have become accustomed to. Their management staff is trained and certified in food service sanitation and Basset training. The only change would be that the gates would open out from the seating area and they would add planters with flowers. Member Knitter questioned whether they would be using space heaters. Mr. Seavers responded that they have not and did not anticipate the use of space heaters. Member Sharma asked whether the food was served or was it self service. Mr. Seavers responded that the patrons order the food and it is then served to them at their table. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Motion by Member Knitter, seconded by Member Lalmalani to recommend approval of the request from Go Roma restaurant located at 3041 Butterfield Road to permit an outdoor dining area adjacent to its restaurant, subject to the following conditions: VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 May 18, 2009 0 1. The development of the outdoor dining areas shall be in substantial conformance with the revised plans as submitted and approved. 2. The perimeter barriers will be permanent and constructed In accordance with the plans submitted. 3. The restaurant will be responsible for maintaining and cleaning the outdoor areas and shall comply with all applicable requirements of the DuPage County Health Department. 4. The outdoor dining areas will be operated in accordance with the following' rules of operation: a. A maximum of 26 seats may be provided in the outdoor dining area. b. The emergency egress gates shall open out only. c. Access to the outdoor dining area shall be through the restaurant only. 5. Comply with all other applicable rules and ordinances of the Village of Oak Brook. 6. Add the provision "Not withstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all Village Ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically varied or waived." ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Knitter, Lalmalani, Sharma, Singhal, Tropinski and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 Absent: 1 — Member Iyer. Motion Carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TEXT AMENDMENT — STUDY AND vos -TEXT FOR MULTI - FAMILY REVIEW TO DEVELOP PROPOSED TEXT FOR ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENTIAL TOWN HOME AND MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS DEVELOPMENTS Director of Community Development Kallien said that over several meetings the Plan Commission reviewed the request to amend the text in the Zoning Regulations relative to non single - family development and development that deals with senior housing, etc. The Code does not have provisions for town homes or apartments, which the Judge in the DuPage Housing Authority case ruled as being exclusionary. There are holes in the Code relative to where senior housing can and cannot be and modifications and recommendations are needed there as well. An analysis of how neighboring communities handle senior, multi- family and town home housing was provided. At the present time there are four residential zoning districts and they all provide for single - family. R -3 and R -4 districts provide for some limited type developments, such as Briarwood Lakes and Forest Gate. There is nothing in the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 May 18, 2009 Code that allows for vertical stacked units or a horizontal linkage between units. He suggested the creation of an additional residential district, R -5. It is in the same format as the existing districts, providing for permitted and special uses, lot area, bulk, and height requirements. He did not intentionally identify where this district would have relevance. That would be up to an applicant to request the type of zoning and meet the requirements as to whether it would fit, or create a burden on adjacent properties, etc. Member Singhal questioned whether there should be a determination as to where the new district would fit into specific areas of the Village. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that to change the zoning on a property to the proposed R -5 would require a request for a map amendment. They would be required to meet the LaSalle factors and surrounding neighbors would also have the opportunity to comment on the proposal. After a public hearing the Village Board would render the final decision. He noted that because a district would be created would not mean there would be a high 'likelihood that it could apply anywhere. There could be issues of spot zoning or over building a particular property if it were a small lot. It can sometimes be difficult in a community that is built out. Trustee Wolin questioned the Friary scenario. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that a problem with the Friary was that it was owned by the Forest Preserve District and because of that it was very difficult to relinquish the ownership of that land. They are also very specific as to what they will or will not allow on forest preserve property. Under those unique circumstances, they believed there was an opportunity to allow another county organization (DuPage Housing Authority) to potentially utilize their land through a lease agreement, without giving up ownership. Prior to becoming forest preserve property when it was privately owned, such as by the Friary, and the zoning had been R -3, had they wanted to pursue an assisted living development, they could have requested different zoning in order to accommodate that. The Judge determined that the Village Code did not mention any of the specific uses (assisted living, etc), but also lacked the district from which to make a request. Additional recommendations need to be made in terms of locations in the Code where other opportunities would be available for senior housing, assisted living, congregate care, etc. For example, the B -3 District or one of the office districts may be able to include the, language as a special use so that those uses could be allowed without going through the rezoning process. Trustee Wolin questioned what other things should be included in order to appropriately address the Judge's order. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that not only should VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 May 18, 2009 another district be created, but current tenninology revised in the Code text. The Code references "nursing homes, homes for the aged, etc." and does not refer to assisted living. If our Code had referred to nursing homes as assisted living, the Judge may have felt better, but he commented that the Code was silent to that type of use. A matrix was provided in the case file that identifies each of the zoning districts and the allowable residential uses. Nowhere does it mention townhouses, multi - family or apartments. The proposed R -5 district addresses what is missing for residential uses. Someone had inquired about the Oak Brook Club, which is zoned R -1, single- family with a minimum lot area of 2 acres. The property was annexed into Oak Brook in the 1980's and was built in DuPage County. It has maintained the R -1 zoning, which was the default zoning twenty -seven years ago. If the R -5 District is created, there may be a request at a later date to actually rezone the Oak Brook Club, which is currently non - conforming. If something disastrous should happen to one of the buildings, because of its non - conforming nature, the Village would not be in a position to automatically issue permits as it relates to the process for non- conforming structures in the Code. Nonconforming uses that exist are allowed to continue, but cannot be expanded and if destroyed, they may be required to revert back to the underlying zoning district. Whatever is created should have applicability to the Oak Brook Club. At the time of annexation the Village Board, at that time, knowingly made the decision to zone it as R -1. The Master Plan refers to the area as being brought in as non - conforming and it was not meant to create other opportunities for similar type development. If the new district would be adopted and the Oak Brook Club sought to pursue it, there would be a district that could be requested. Member Lalmalani asked what changes would make the Judge (from the DuPage Housing Authority case) happy. What else would need to be done? Director of Community Development Kallien responded that some type of avenue would need to be created that would allow for townhome, multi- family and higher density condominium provisions. Also, to properly create opportunities for elderly type housing, this would include assisted living, congregate care, independent living, etc. With the exception of references to nursing homes, which may not be located in the right category, there are no provisions for these in the Code. Language may need to be modified in some of the districts. Every town has this type of district; Oak Brook does not, which makes it the anomaly. Oak Brook is rather low density, so whatever is created must be provided in an area where the density would fit the neighborhood. It would be irresponsible to recommend a zoning district that would allow 100 units per acre; such as what would be allowed in the city of Chicago or another big city. It would also not make sense to allow apartments, but then to allow them to be developed as only 3 units per acre. A VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 May 18, 2009 balance to provide for these other types of uses, but identify characteristics in terms of setbacks, ultimate height, ultimate density, so that it actually fits well into the community. The structure height for these types of uses is proposed to be 50 feet, which is the maximum structure height for a single - family home. The exception to that would be a development such as Clearwater that was created as a mixed -use project allowing a maximum height of 184 feet. The determination was made from the maximum height of the office towers on 22" d Street and Route 83, and the fact that it was a mixed use project. Trustee Wolin said that the numbers proposed in the R -5 District is very similar to what exists at the Oak Brook Club, which has very scenic landscaping and contains about 320 units among its buildings. Member Knitter commented that if an R -5 District were created, it would be nice if it worked with what exists at Oak Brook Club so that it could be zoned that way, and in turn may comply with the Judge's direction. He questioned if the Oak Brook Club meets the proposed setback requirements. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he would bring the Oak Brook Club plat to the next meeting. It provides underground parking and green space. Trustee Wolin questioned "home occupation." Director of Community Development Kallien responded that use is allowed in all of the residential districts and is limited to a percentage of use allowed within the home. Trustee Wolin questioned why the proposed uses would be listed as special uses and not permitted uses. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that through the special use process, elevations, landscape plans, etc., would be provided so that they could be reviewed with much more specificity than under straight zoning. Member Singhal questioned which areas of the Village would fit into the proposed R -5 classification. Member Tropinski commented that some years ago there was a proposed development for multi - family homes that would have been located on Harger Road. The residents in the neighborhood fought it and the property was ultimately bought by the forest preserve district. There may be other opportunities such as that in Oak Brook. Director of Community Development Kallien said that along Harger Road there is VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Comrnission Minutes Page 7 of 9 May 18, 2009 the Tuscan Woods Subdivision. It backs up to I -88 and Harger Road. The developer sought to build 6 single- family homes, which made sense at that time. If the land were vacant, due to its proximity, the proposed R -5 District may have been appropriate. The Village has difficulty in identifying any specific site because it is built out. The way the language will be structured, it would really be up to an applicant to prove their case. The language would satisfy a number of criticisms that the Judge raised in the court decision because he came to the conclusion that by excluding that type of use in our Code, Oak Brook made the decision that the use did not fit. By creating a district, the Village goes a long way with dealing with some of the legal issues. We do not want to be in a position that if some entity asks for some type of use, the Village would not have the language to accommodate them. Simon Sheers, York Woods resident, questioned whether having pre - assigned or identified areas that might be suitable for the proposed R -5 district, might negate any argument from a future applicant. If the Village had some areas that would be considered suitable, it might avoid future controversy from an applicant to change zoning. If the Village set aside a specific area then it could determine that another area would not be suitable. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that he would try to have some sites identified at the next meeting. Member Lalmalani asked what areas would not be suitable for R -3. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he would try to have a map available, but the Village needs to keep this matter moving forward. Member Tropinski said that typically some ordinances are generalized, because the more restrictions that are in place, the harder and more complicated it becomes when it is applied for. As the R -5 District is proposed, it leaves a lot of flexibility on the creativity of the owner to provide the information. The Commissioners are not qualified to say what specifics must be required to apply. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if some of the approvals are attached to a special use process then the Village has the latitude to ask for specific things. He asked the members to call or send questions. Member Knitter moved, seconded by Member Singhal to continue this item to the next regular meeting. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Knitter, Lalmalani, Sharma, Singhal, Tropinski and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 Absent:l — Member. lyer. Motion Carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 May 18, 2009 6. OTHER BUSINESS BOTH USI✓R T3USINESS 7 A. REVIEW PLAN COMMISSION DISCUSSION ISSUES The Commissioners, discussed adding items for discussion at future meetings. Member Knitter suggested that at a future meeting he would like to see the roles and responsibilities of the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals defined so that it could be efficient, or more effective as to who does what. There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Singhal, seconded by Member Knitter to adjourn the meeting at 8:39 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, Dir ctor of munity Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 May 18, 2009 e]E Plan Commission Discussion Issues ADJOURNMENT