Loading...
Minutes - 08/18/2008 - Plan Commission1. 2 3 El 5. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 18, 2008 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 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 Govenunent Center at 7:33 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, Mintu Sharma and Marcia Tropinski ABSENT: Member Vivek Singhal IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Wolin, Trustee and Robert Kallien, Jr., Community Development Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 21, 2008 Motion by Member Iyer, seconded by Member Knitter to approve the minutes of the July 21, 2008 Regular Plan Commission Meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS svSINIS UlNEsS There was no unfinished business to discuss. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A TIMESQUARE PROPERTIES LLC — 2121 BUTTERFIELD ROAD _ TIME SQUARE PROP LLC - 2121 SPECIAL USE -- DRIVE THRU LANE FOR RESTAURANT AND SPECIAL BUTTERFIELD -- USE -- SPECIAL DINING AREA ADJACENT TO RESTAURANT SPECIAL USES - DRIVE THRU LN - AND OUTDOOR DINING AREA Mr. Walter O'Brien, Attorney for the applicant said that at the last meeting concerns were raised regarding traffic flow so a traffic study was done that addressed the stacking of vehicles for the drive -thru and traffic on the site and in the area. Bonnie Flock, Gewalt, Hamilton, Associates, Inc. said that a traffic impact study was conducted for the proposed cafe and all data and technical analysis is VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 19 August 18, 2008 VU-01 documented in the completed traffic study. They found that they were working off of an older site plan and since then, some of the recommendations have gone away. Now the aisle widths are 27 feet, before one aisle width was 19 feet. The main concern on this project was the drive -thru and how it might stack out onto Midwest Road. They found that there is about 3 -4 minutes service time, which is longer than McDonald's, which has 1 -2 minutes. There is stacking for 8 cars to queue, but they do not believe there are going to be 8 cars because that would result in a 30 minute wait for a cup of coffee. Some of their recommendations to prevent the stacking would be to provide signage about a car length into the site at the access drive that would state, "Do Not Stack Beyond This Point." If the facility would find that they are queuing more at certain times of the day, then staff should be provided outside to take additional orders and would speed up service time and prep time; similar to what Portillo's does during those times. They do not really see that there would be a problem with stacking only because of the service time. Christopher Krupp, Krupp Architects provided the building architecture for the proposed cafe. The amount of parking to be provided is based upon the gross square footage of the building, minus storage areas, corridors, sprinkler room and exit corridor out the rear square footage is based upon 1810 square feet. The entire building is approximately 2500 square feet. The Village requirement of approximately 66.66 cars per square foot would require 27 parking spaces and the site provides 22 spaces. The current building requirement does not meet the parking requirements, providing 25 spaces. If the handicapped - parking requirement were included, since there is not one on the current site, there would be only 24 spaces. An issue raised at the last meeting was seating and how many people would actually be in the restaurant. The existing building was surveyed and there are 53 seats in the building. The proposed plan has 40 seats, which is a reduction of 13 seats and as a result the building population would be smaller than today. It did not appear that there were any huge problems getting in and out of the building previously. There was a very small cooking area in the building. Almost half of the area of the entire building in the new plan is for kitchen and storage. It would provide for much quicker service of this type. There are 16 seats provided for on the patio. Seating cannot be expanded in the restaurant. He asked the Commission to consider the improved aesthetics and the difficulties that the site presents in order to provide a nice building on a very small lot. They have made a major effort trying to satisfy an improvement in the appearance of that corner Mr. O'Brien said that in most redevelopment plans there is give and take so that there is something the Village could be proud. He understands that the Commission takes neighboring concerns very seriously when reviewing these types of requests. The petitioner did not request a parking variation in lieu of providing additional landscaping around the site. He would have suggested getting the traffic off the highways and not worry about landscaping an intersection. The intersection contains a gas station, Jiffy Lube, a small shopping center and D's Diggity Dogs, which did not have any landscaping. If landscaping were not provided on the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 19 August 18, 2008 � M� eastern edge, some parallel parking provided. At this point, the applicant has not requested a variation to the parking requirements, since he is attempting to provide off site leases to provide for the necessary parking. Although he had not yet spoken to the Director of Community Development about this, it seems there should be an alternative presentation made before the Zoning Board of Appeals to add another variation request. He would like to see the applicant protected with parking provided on the site, rather than to be held to a landlord to pay for and provide parking elsewhere. He apologized, but believed there was another position available for his client that he would like to be considered in front of the Zoning Board at the actual public hearing. Consideration before the Plan Commission is for the drive - thru and the outdoor dining area. The outdoor dining area would not impact any residents or add noise or smells. The limitation of landscaping along the south end would still have some provided and should not be a deal killer for Plan Commission consideration and did not know what the attitude would be for the Zoning Board. Director of Community Development Kallien asked that the Commissioners identify where the property was at one tune. It previously was a gas station prior to the expansion of Butterfield and Midwest Road. Over the years, there has been a taking of land from this property by the state and the county in order to widen the roads. The property is very awkwardly shaped, the boundaries parallel the adjacent streets as a result of some poor configuration of lot size. It is compounded by imposing a 60 -foot setback along Butterfield and Midwest Road and creates a problematic property. It most likely complied with the zoning when it was a gas station because there is a provision that allows the canopies and pumps to be located within 25 feet of the right -of -way. However, when that use changed and it became a restaurant, for all intents and purposes it became nonconforming with respect to a number of issues. In this particular case, the applicant is only adding onto the building to comply with the Health Department, which is a very important entity and in order for it to be a restaurant it has to be made larger. It is a very similar situation to that of the York Tavern. The purpose for the York Tavern having been made larger was to comply with another governmental entity, which was the DuPage County Health Department. The overall intensity of the property did not increase and the Plan Commission and Village Board guaranteed that by establishing the previous occupancy. The Village has gone through a long and lengthy Commercial Revitalization Plan process and has amended its Comprehensive Plan to promote this type of activity. He asked the Commission to remain open minded when reviewing the request. It is a problem property and has very limited development potential. The applicant has taken significant steps to make a very poor and derelict property much more pleasant and adding to the aesthetics of the area. Mario Yu, 818 St. Stephens Green resident said that he is a practicing Obstetrician and Gynecologist with his office at 1919 Midwest Road located next to subject property and has been there approximately 19 years. He had major concerns about the activity that would go on right in his backyard. He believed it would impose a danger to his patients, many of which are pregnant and bringing small children with VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 19 August 18, 2008 1 them. His concern was for blockage of the access in and out of his parking lot that would be generated by this project and a fear of the inadequacy of parking that has been proposed. Realistically if there is not enough parking provided, their customers would then park in his lot, which would cause increased in and out from his lot. He cannot foresee the safety of that happening with his patients coming in the building, especially in the winter. There is a mess at the intersection at 22nd Street and Midwest Road. In the morning, you cannot get past the red light because of McDonald's. He believed this would be creating another problem at the other end of Midwest Road if this project goes through without making necessary modifications. He welcomed the development, but thinks that they are a little overly ambitious in terms of what can be done on the small lot. Building a new restaurant on an empty lot does not meet the present day ordinances because it is too small. If further variances are allowed to permit the expansion of the activities on this lot that is already too small; then fuel is being added to the fire. He asked that the Commission understand his position. Vivien Yu, 818 St. Stephens Green, resident and she owns the building next to the subject property at 1919 Midwest Road. According to the present Village ordinances, the existing building has already surpassed the allowed land use and does not satisfy the parking requirements, if the project is permitted under a grandfather clause. The property is less than a half-acre and they are trying to add a one -way drive -thru and an outdoor cafe. If all the numbers are counted that allow for 40 inside, 18 in the outdoor dining, plus 8 -10 employees, there is not enough parking. She does not understand how someone could put in that type of investment and expect to serve people in four minutes. If the cars are stuck on a one -way driveway, they cannot back up and it would extend out to Midwest Road. It is a problem, if the people in her building would not be able to get out of her parking lot to exit onto Midwest Road. She contacted the County regarding the additional lane being added on Midwest Road and they told her that it was being added due to the high accident situation with people going in and out of McDonald's and Burger King. She requested a report. She also called IDOT and asked why Butterfield was widened at Midwest in 2006 and was told that it was a very high accident corner. The project would add traffic and make it a huge problem so that the improvements made to the roads would be erased. She welcomed the change in the corner and understands that the Village would like to see that happen, but it does not seem right to let the general public have high accidents at the corner. The applicant bought the property and knew what they purchased and should just develop the building and not have the variances they are seeking. She provided recent pictures of the area during lunchtime for the Commissioners to see. George Angelillo, 344 Trinity Lane said that there are two driveways leading into the drive -thru, When it was designed years ago, it was done wrong. The proposed building looks nice and would look much better than it does now. It would provide people another option. Traffic is a problem throughout town and taxes are low due to good businesses. Someone is always going to be unhappy about something. He VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 19 August 18, 2008 l has done work for the applicant for a long time and everything that they put their heart into, comes out nice. We need nice little projects like this in town, it helps to make it a great town, and we want to keep it going. Anyone can start a business in the Promenade and it is easy to go in with a fresh look, great landscaping, etc., but how many people truly come into town and take a property that is down and bring it back; that is a big challenge. He understands the concerns, but what about the person investing in the project and the money that goes into it. He is putting the time and effort into it and worries about that because if it does not work out, then who would feel sorry for him. He needs some support and the town should back someone who wants to do this business in town, he should be applauded and we should try to help him out. Edward Quiroz, G -Tech Communications, 2115 Butterfield Road, has been operating the business just east of the subject property for 18 years. His office does overlook the property. The traffic at the time it was D's Diggity Dogs, was somewhat considerable, especially during the lunch hour and they would have overflow parking in his lot. His only concern is the traffic flow. They run a secured operation at his building and it is critical that they keep the space open and available for their clients that can come there at a moments notice. There have been trucks that have parked in his lot wanting to get into the restaurant. He believes some of those same issues would exist with the proposed development. Running it like a Portillo's style restaurant with a large kitchen to process the orders faster would be great, but it would generate a lot of traffic flow through there. He is sure that everyone knows that Portillo's operates with a very large parking lot. His concern is on how it would impact his business. He is all for development on the site and there may be other uses that could utilize that site that would make more sense. As proposed, there is just going to be too much traffic flow for that sized lot. He does not know how there would be any assurances that they could control employee parking. He has already seen employees located across Butterfield come across the street and parked in his lot. When security would see them, they would be informed that they could not park there. Those employees would actually park over by the next lot to the east. He felt concerned for those crossing Butterfield Road and cannot imagine what would happen with the development of this site as proposed. Vivian Madey, 5700 S. New England, said that she is not intimate with the design or the ordinance, but came to sFeak about when it was a hot dog stand. She used to work in Oak Brook on 22" Street for about 8 years and frequented the former restaurant. She never once remembered dealing with a traffic issue, lack of parking spaces or cars backed up. Every time she drives by that corner now, it is such an eyesore and thinks that such a wonderful building as proposed would make things look so much better. Mr. and Mrs. Savenok work very hard on the many things that they do. They developed a building on 22 °d Street (Mary Richard's) that was an eyesore and now looks very beautiful. The project should be considered and in the end, everyone will be happy and if every seat is filled in the restaurant that would be an amazing thing. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 19 August 18, 2008 Director of Community Development Kallien said that they are required to comply with the parking or provide documentation that the requirement can be met through a shared agreement. The ordinance is very clear about parking supplied from another property with excess spaces to be located within 550 feet. Absent that, they could pursue a variation to the parking requirements to be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals and if they were not satisfied, it would then go to the Village Board with a negative recommendation. Chairwoman Payovich said that the focus of the Plan Commission was for review and recommendation of the special uses for the outdoor dining area and drive -thru. Director of Community Development Kallien asked the Village Attorney if a condition could be placed upon the drive -thru. Village Attorney Sterk responded that it could, but to be careful how it would be worded. Special Use Drive -Thru Motion by Member Knitter, seconded by Member Tropinski to recommend approval of a special use for a drive -thru lane for the restaurant to be located at 2121 Butterfield Road subject to the following condition: a That the drive -thru lane be constructed in substantial conformance with the revised site plan presented dated July 21, 2008. Member Lalmalani asked if there should be a condition to prohibit stacking onto Midwest Road. He noted that it is a very busy street. Member Knitter responded that then there should be a stacking limit imposed upon banks, McDonald's, Burger, King, Costco and on everyone in the Village. He agreed that the street is very busy, but believes capitalism works. If the site ends up with too many cars that are waiting in line then people leave, which works at all the other businesses. People typically do not wait in line. A sign, tow truck or fine will not help and an employee in a parking lot is not going to resolve the issue of cars backing up. Who will be the car counter and how would it work, which is the problem he has in trying to implement something like that. If someone is trying to make a right hand turn onto Butterfield and there are several cars ahead also waiting to make the turn, do you fine the last car because you think they might be waiting to turn into the restaurant; when they really are not. They are just waiting in line to make a right hand turn on Butterfield. If there is a long line, in his experience, people will not wait, although he could be wrong. No amendments were made to the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 — Members Iyer, Knitter, Tropinski and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 2 — Members Lalmalani and Shanna Absent, 1 -- Member Singhal. Motion Carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 19 August 18, 2008 5. Special Use — Outdoor Dining Area Motion by Member Knitter, seconded by Member Tropinski to recommend approval of a special use for an outdoor dining area adjacent to a restaurant located at 2121 Butterfield Road and to be constructed in substantial conformance with the revised site plan dated July 21, 2008, ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes- 5 -- Members Iyer, Knitter, Sharma, Tropinski and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 1 -- Member Lalmalani Absent: 1 — Member Singhal. Motion Carried. B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — REVIEW OF PUBLIC WORKS voa - REVIEW OF OBJECTS CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS — OBJECTS WITHIN PARKWAYS WITHIN PARKWAYS Village Engineer Durfey said that this is a very complex issue and staff would continue to provide as much information as possible so that the Plan Commission had as much information as possible to base a recommendation. He referred to pages 29 and 30 of the case file that shows the parkway areas for two typical streets in the Village. They range from 19 to 25 feet of a grassy parkway area depending upon the street. The Plan Commission had asked staff to identify the cost to remove the boulders from the Ginger Creek and Yorkshire Woods subdivisions. The Ginger Creek streets were resurfaced and concrete shoulders installed as part of the 1994 Paving Project. Of the seven bidders, the two line items for that work ranged between $6,240 and up to $22,900, with the low bidder of the entire project bidding $17,250. In the Yorkshire Woods 1999 Paving Project, of those seven bidders, the two line items for that work ranged between $4,300 and $17,541.56, with the low bidder bidding $4,300. On page 34 of the case file is a memorandum from Village Attorney Stork. In the memorandum, he noted a few cases in Illinois wherein the courts have examined the liability of a governmental entity for injuries that occurred within its parkway. • In a 1999 case with the Village of Oak Park, he noted that the court stated, "A municipality's duty of care with respect to parkways is not as stringent as its duty of care with respect to sidewalks. A municipality's duty of reasonable care does not extend to customary parkway conditions, even where such conditions could be characterized as slightly dangerous... a municipality's duty does extend, however to protecting pedestrian from unreasonably dangerous conditions." • There was a case in 2005 with the White Sox and the city, where the city could not be held liable for customary parkway conditions even if the conditions were slightly dangerous. In this memorandum Attorney Stork states that, "these cases support that the safety VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 19 August 18, 2008 standards for parkways are less than those standards for other public property, such as streets and sidewalks. Certainly, the Village could argue that the boulders and other parkway items are customary parkway conditions, not requiring the Village to exercise reasonable care for maintenance or monitoring. However, the Village would most likely not be able to argue successfully that it did not have actual or constructive notice of a potential safety issue with an item placed in a parkway, since the Village has already devoted significant time and consideration to the issue as demonstrated by the previous memos and meetings concerning this subject. ...Finally, while the Village may ultimately prevail on any personal injury suit brought as a result of an injury caused by an object located in a parkway, the Village would almost certainly be named as a defendant in such a lawsuit, and would therefore incur legal expenses in defending itself " Attorney Sterk commented that the memorandum summarizes the state of the law in the State of Illinois. The more that that the Village allows private property owners to put objects in the parkway and on public property, the more likely it would be subject to liability in the event of a lawsuit. People that use the sidewalks are intended users of the sidewalks so they are to be reasonably safe. The intended user of a street is an automobile and it is expected to be reasonably safe for them. The parkway is kind of a no man's land and it is difficult to give a definitive rule on it because there are things in the parkway that municipality's put in, such as trees and fire hydrants, both of which are real hazards to automobiles. Those are recognized items and have been in parkways for hundreds of years and every town has them, and is not a concern from a liability standpoint. When the Village allows private property owners to put objects into the parkway that can be hazardous to the public in the event of an automobile crash, the town is opened up to a liability. In the letter from Sue Garvey Attorney from IRMA, she waffles on the issue whether the town would have some coverage. If residents are allowed to put large objects in the parkways and someone gets hurt there is no doubt that the Village would get sued. The Village may be sued if someone hits a tree, but the Village may have coverage there. The more that a resident is allowed to put ornamental objects into the parkway, the more likely it is that someone could get hurt and the Village sued. Village Engineer Durfey reviewed in detail the result of,, the surveys in his memorandum on pages 35 -35.a of the case file. Copies of the survey results are on pages 35.b -35.d. Pages 35.e to 35.x of the case file have letters and copies of Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreements used by Rolling Meadows, He noted that Attorney Gosslear had mentioned in her letter that there can be a hold harmless agreement, but it is only as good as the insurance backing it up. The resident may not have the deep pockets required should there be a lawsuit. Rolling Meadows plugged that hole by saying that an annual endorsement must be provided on the property owner's home insurance policy. Member Knitter questioned whether the hold harmless agreement was worth anything to the Village. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 19 August 18, 2008 10-�� Village Attorney Sterk responded that it might be a worthless exercise, because the agreement is only as good as the insurance. He questioned who would survey all of the boulders in the parkway and keep track of the hold harmless agreements along with the insurance policies including the rating of the insurance company, the deductibles, etc. Village Engineer Durfey referred to page 31 of the case file regarding property damage due to obstacles in the roadway between July 19, 2006 and April 7, 2008; there were 10 mailboxes, 14 trees and grass and 12 walls and fences. There was a similar report from January 1, 2005 and July 16, 2006 that reported 21 mailboxes, 7 trees and grass and 6 to walls and fences, so over time damage has occurred. Village Engineer Durfey reviewed his memorandum dated May 14, 2008. The first item for the Plan Commission would be to set goals as to what the Village is trying to accomplish. Before generating policies, decisions should be made concerning what is trying to be accomplished. What concern or concerns should be addressed? 1. Should a goal be to reduce the severity of accidents if a vehicle leaves the roadway? If a vehicle left the roadway and struck a large boulder, people inside the vehicle probably would sustain more injuries than would have occurred if the boulder had not been there. This is very possible since some of the boulders weigh tons as opposed to pounds and are essentially ini movable. 2. Should a goal be to reduce the Village's liability if a vehicle leave the roadway? 3. Should a goal be that Village - -owned parkways be relatively clear and uncluttered? 4. Should a goal be that space and access is available for the construction and maintenance of utilities and JULIE utility locates/ 5. Should a goal be to reduce the amount of damage to private objects if construction or maintenance is needed and minimize residential complaints about restoring their private objects? 6. Should a goal be the Village allowing residents the opportunity to place items within the parkway? 7. Should the goal be a combination of all or some of these, and which ones and to what extent. 8. Are there any other goals? Village Engineer Durfey recommended that the Plan Commission begin its deliberations by discussing what the goal should be and coming to a consensus on the goals before moving on. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 19 August 18, 2008 Larry Whitlow, 3007 Avenue Loire said that the residents have never been told why this issue had been brought up and what started it. In over 50 years, there has never been a lawsuit involving anything in the parkway. His mailbox was knocked over twice over the past winter, and he puts it back up. It did not require a police report. Trees are the big problem and he submitted an article regarding tree crashes. In part, the article stated, "Trees are the most common fixed object collisions, though poles seem to be a very close second. Trees are involved in 8 percent of all fatal crashes." The Village probably has 50 to 100 times as many trees in the parkways as there are boulders. If removing the boulders would be required, then the trees should be removed as well. This process has been a waste of a lot of peoples time and labor, having been before the Commission several times, it is ridiculous. In regard to the expense to remove these objects, about 8 years ago the Village wanted to move the boulders on his property and the cost was about $7,000 - 8,000; and today it would be closer to $15,000- 20,000. There are thousands of trees in the parkway, if there is a problem everything including all the trees, should be removed from the parkway. Gary Kronen, 408 Luthin Road said that after attending the last couple of meetings, he was struck by some of the comments made and representations that were made and by what was not made. It may or may not be a complex issue. It appears that some communities allow things and others do not. The issue appears to be clearance. The minimum was 18- inches and most places have 5 feet. Oak Brook has between 19 -25 feet, which seems to be out of line with what is reasonable in most communities for parkway clearance. If we had reasonable clearance, most of the items that are now located in the parkway would not be. The Village Engineer was asked to present the number of incidents, lawsuits and costs to the Village. It appears that the majority of the issues where damage has occurred are to mailboxes and trees, which are allowed. It also appeared that there had been no cost to the Village for any of this. Any attorney or insurance company is going to provide the worst -case scenario. It is clear that the Village cannot stop anyone from filing a lawsuit. Besides boulders, there are other issues such as new construction. There can be topographical issues, such as in his case where a retaining wall, if it is necessary you cannot have a wall stopped in the middle because it will cross a line. He urged that a common sense approach and exemptions approved when necessary because there are many shades of gray with this issue that need to be taken into consideration. Gregory Culis was asked to speak on behalf of Mr. Cantore, 160 Forest Trail. The property is beautiful and many town because of insurance companies and lawyers micromanage their property. They take away the beauty and the things that make it so pretty. Mr. Cantore has had the property for over 40 years, before the curbs were installed and there was a small column of stones about 15 -18- inches high stacked up on the side and they are not a danger to people and may or may not violate the ordinance. On behalf of Mr. Cantore, he requested the Village use common sense VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 19 August 18, 2008 Andy Savenok, 17W300 22nd Street, Oakbrook Terrace, said that they have addressed the drive -thru issue. Taking four minutes to serve a customer is unrealistic. They are going to have the best point of sale system in the industry. Although you could say they are going to have a system like McDonald's, but they are not going to have traffic like McDonald's. Some of the neighbors have suggested that they should develop the property, but should not have the variances. He saw a disconnection in that because if approval is granted for the drive -thru they are limiting the number of people that would park in the lot. If they develop and do not have a dnve -thru, then the parking lot would be crowded, which would address the issue that the neighbors are passionate. The neighbors also suggest that there is an expansion of the roadway because of the high volume of collision in the intersection. The drive -thru is going to have a right turn in from Midwest Road onto the property, which would alleviate cars from entering the intersection. Collisions happen due to poor drivers, not this development. Marcia Hosler, resident said that the proposal did not concern her a lot, but she questioned if the project could be developed as a restaurant without a drive -thru. No one else from the audience spoke. In response to some of the comments, Mr. O'Brien said that the project is not viable without the drive -thru, because you cannot invest that amount of money on a 40 -seat restaurant. Expert testimony was provided regarding the traffic and that a back up would not occur on Midwest Road as a result of the drive -thru and that has not been refuted by any other expert testimony. Member Knitter said that there was not a heightened pork chop that would allow a right turn only in from Midwest Road, not allowing anyone to enter left from Midwest Road. He asked if the applicant would be willing to add one on the site. Mr. Savenok said that it would be added to the site plan; it was a recommendation of the traffic study. Member Knitter questioned how cars on Midwest Road could see a sign prohibiting stacking when it is located inside the parking lot. Ms. Flock responded that there are two inbound lanes coming in from Midwest Road and cars would also be able to go around. During peak hours, no one would be able to make a left turn movement from Midwest Road because of the stacking coming in from Midwest Road. During off-peak hours, that movement could be made. As far as traffic generations, this restaurant is not a McDonald's. Determinations are made by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) book manual, which does surveys on facilities like this nationwide and those are the numbers used. McDonald's has its own category for trip generation and are VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOK Regular Plan Conu`nission Minutes Page 6 of 19 August 18, 2008 typically a lot larger than this cafe. Member Knitter questioned whether they recommended a right turn in and out only from the site from Butterfield Road. Ms. Flock responded that the left turn movements on Butterfield could be stacked within the westbound left turn lane, which is very common. It is not the most desirable, but vehicles are outside of the through movements. Essentially, it has its own left turn lane coming into the site. She would not recommend that type of restriction. Member Knitter questioned whether a letter had been provided from the EPA regarding the site cleanup. Mr. Savenok responded that one had been provided to the Village. Member Sharma asked what would happen if someone were stuck in the drive -thru lane. Peter Savenok, 1877 S. Orchard Road, Wheaton, Illinois, applicant and owner of the property responded that the drive -thru serving time would be one minute. The preparation of the food is 3 -4 minutes. If one car pulls up to the drive -thru and orders, they will wait 3 -4 minutes to get the food from the time they place the order. Cars do break down and should it occur, they would have to deal with it. Mr. O'Brien said that although Oak Brook's ordinance does not deal with stacking at a drive -thru fast food facility, neighboring Oakbrook Terrace does. In their relatively new ordinance, it says as follows, "drive -thru six (6) stacking spaces for the first window plus two (2) stacking spaces for each additional window." There have been studies that have been done to determine the normal amount of stacking required to service out of a drive -thru facility. Although Oak Brook does not have it defined, between the expert testimony and a neighboring community, one can determine what is reasonable. It will not create a back up onto the street and no expert testimony would say that. Mr. Savenok is not going to invest his money into a situation that would not be productive for him; otherwise, he would be foolish to invest his money into the project. Member Lalmalani raised the concern for adequate parking, particularly during peak hours. If the coffee and products are very good, then it will be very busy. Once the business is fully operational, he could envision a problem with traffic. The parking is inadequate for people that would be there. He read in the materials that the shared parking that was anticipated is no longer available. He questioned where the cars would go, including those for the employees. During the peal. hours there would not be adequate parking. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD. Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 19 August 18, 2008 Mr. O'Brien responded that D's Diggity Dog lasted many years with 25 parking spaces. The drive -thru takes pressure off of the sit down portion of the restaurant, it does not add to it. Chairwoman Payovich requested information regarding the leased parking that was going to be obtained. Mr. O'Brien responded that it was still in the process. They are in negotiations at this time and would be the subject matter of the public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. If they do not have that type of lease to cover adequate parking, they would not be able to obtain a building permit. The other alternative would be to request a variation to reduce the requirement. Member Knitter questioned whether they looked at adding a second floor that would not have eliminated any parking spaces. Mr. Savenok said that they did, however it was cost prohibitive. It would have required an elevator and handicapped accessible so it was not feasible. The extra area that was added by the requirement of the Health Department did not remove any existing parking spaces. It was his understanding that the public health overrides Village ordinance. Beside the drive -thru, the landscaping was not existent. Mr. Krupp noted that he has been on the site a number of times, and quite honestly, no one can park in those spaces. With the drive -thru, cars could not be parked there because they would essentially be located in the driveway. The expansion required by the Health Department removes three (3) spaces. If a second floor were added the economics and the efficiency of the kitchen are impinged on greatly. Parking and landscaping along the east side of the building requires more landscaping, which eliminates parking spaces. If some of the landscaping is eliminated, they would have room for 3 -4 more cars that could be intended as employee spaces and would not really be for customers. Member Iyer asked if a car wanted to make a left turn on Butterfield going westbound, would a separate lane be provided to make the left turn Ms. Flock responded that the width of the access drive is 24 feet, which provides for one inbound and one outbound lane, so there would not be an exclusive lane for the turn, they would have to wait. Chairwoman Payovich asked if the Village Engineer had any comments to provide on the parking or traffic issues. Village Engineer Durfey responded that he read the report, but he is a civil engineer not a traffic engineer so he cannot speak to the details of the report, but reading the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 19 August 18, 2008 report, no red flags popped up. He agreed with the Director of Community Development Kallien that it is making the most of a less than desirable situation. He does not have any significant issues with the plan. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the property is zoned B -3. As mentioned, there are other uses that can be located there as long as they conform to the footprint of the building. Some uses are allowed by right and could be issued a permit, such as a cocktail lounge, a kennel, an employment office, etc. Some of the uses could generate a lot of traffic and would not need to be approved by the Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals or the Village Board; they would just need to apply for a building permit. Some of the uses could have a far greater impact than what is proposed. What is being proposed is very similar to what currently exists, except for the inclusion of a drive -thru. Over the years, drive -thrus have really changed the restaurant business. The McDonald's on Midwest Road may be rebuilding in the future and if so, the structure would be considerably smaller than what currently exists. They would add an additional drive -thru lane because so much of its business is through the drive -thru. This applicant has made every effort to comply with all of the regulations, such as adding green space where there is none. The reason some of the parking spaces are being eliminated is because they did not comply previously. Some credit must be given to the applicant for trying to meet as many of the regulations as possible. Trustee Wolin commented that the proposal would not be an easy decision for the Plan Commission and everyone would probably agree that the proposed building would be a substantial improvement over D's Diggity Dogs. A number of concerns have been made regarding the parking spaces and the drive -thru. It looks like it could really only accommodate 6 cars, because by allowing 8 cars would really block the entrance and exit in the parking lot, which would cause cars to back up. In order for it to work, the stacking should be reduced to 6 and have the sign prohibiting stacking past that point. During the rush hour an employee may need to be out there directing the cars. The consultant did recommend a designated drive - thru lane, which is a good recommendation. Mr. O'Brien said that the applicant has agreed to all the points made in the traffic study and if the Plan Commission thinks they are reasonable, then they would agree. During the noon hour they could have someone taking orders and telling cars they would need to park if they were going to stay. Six (6) cars would be a realistic number. Mr. Krupp questioned the plan being reviewed, which was July 10, 2008 and noted that the plan had been revised and dated July 21, 2008, which shows that it had been substantially widened, through the drive -thru lane. He noted that there is sufficient area for the cars, and it should be noted that the order area is significantly ahead of the pick up window, so you actually order long before you get to the window. The food is prepared quickly enough so that there will not be a long wait. There is also VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 19 August 18, 2008 space past the window should an order get delayed, which would allow the car to move forward to the service door to have food delivered to a car that has moved forward. There is also adequate space for that and for another car to move around it as well. A revised plan was copied and passed out to the members. Submittal of these documents had not been delivered for inclusion in the case files. Member Tropinski commented that in her work, she has dealt with the firm of Gewalt Hamilton and they are extremely reputable. No red flags were raised in their report and based upon their reputation she is very satisfied. Member Sharma said that she drove by the lot and she is confused because it looks much better on paper than when you go to the site. She felt that it might be a little too much for the small space. Mr. Savenok noted that it might look different on paper from the site itself because not all the property lines may be seen on the site. The plans presented are accurate. Eight cars could fit in the drive -thru lane, if they need to. The traffic study was done to prove that it is a good situation and will help the corner as well. He understood that it is hard to comprehend, however, very competent people have drawn the plans. Mr. Krupp commented that the paving on the site today does not come close to the property line. There is between 4-6 feet more than what the existing pavement shows. The proposal actually has a small retaining wall because of the grade changes between the two properties on the south end of the lot. It is strategic to their business that the drive -thru operates efficiently. Should a car stall there is sufficient area to move a car. From the ordering position to the window is about four car lengths, so the order is placed long before you get to the window. If it is a very large order, those are the types that would be moved out of the lane off to the side and have the food delivered to a vehicle. Chairwoman Payovich noted that the traffic engineer, the architect and the Village Engineer appeared to be comfortable with the drive -thru plan. Mr. Savenok said that if you are a customer and it takes 10 -1 S minutes to receive the food, you probably would not come back again. It is in his best interest to see that the food is delivered fast and it will be delicious. Chairwoman Payovich asked if anyone had any issue with the outside dining area. None of the commissioners had an issue with the outdoor dining area. Member Lalmalani said that his main concern was adequate parking during peak hours. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 19 August 18, 2008 when reviewing these restrictions. Oak Brook is a beautiful community and it has been testified that there have not been any lawsuits. Mr. Cantore's concern is that this would be taking away some of the beauty of Oak Brook and create a plastic community. He asked that the Village please use a common sense approach and do not take away some of the beauty that is Oak Brook. Member Tropinski said that some safety should be a consideration. She lives off Harger Road and there are some boulders there at the entrance of the subdivision that she finds that to be a hazard. People try to miss the boulders by making wide turns, into oncoming traffic and in a snowstorm that can be a problem. A lower boulder cannot be seen sometimes, but a tree is more readily seen and somewhat avoided. In the articles that she has seen in the paper, some of the accidents that happen with trees sometimes involve drunk drivers. Some people in her subdivision seem to believe that adding the boulders would keep people from driving or parking on the grass. Some things need to be addressed in terms of safety. Some boulders that are placed to protect a mailbox is another thing, some that are just sitting in the landscape is inappropriate and could be a safety hazard. Member Knitter questioned if that initiated the issue, based upon boulders not being able to be seen while driving in the winter. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the 1994 Ginger Creek Paving Project involved the addition of concrete shoulders. At that time, the Homeowner Association President said that as part of the project they wanted the ugly boulders moved from the side of the road. The boulders were one issue. Over time, other issues have popped up. In Saddle Brook, a property owner installed 4 to 6 square monuments in the front of the home behind the curb line, without a permit. In York Woods a row of plants, trees, evergreens, boulders, and grasses were installed within the parkway. Over time things started to pop up, such as trees that were not the right species and the Village is responsible for maintaining parkway trees. When the policy was first created, they tried to get a handle on all the issues and some uniformity on Village property, including maintenance, safety and aesthetics. Member Tropinski commented that safety for emergency vehicles should be a consideration. On some of the smaller streets, if there were boulders on the grass how would someone pull over to allow access to emergency vehicles? She would be in favor of adopting an ordinance that would deal with safety for some issues. Chairwoman Payovich questioned whether anyone had been physically hurt in any of the incidents reported by the Police Department. Village Engineer Durfey said that the statistics provided by the Police Department did not include any injuries. Chairwoman Payovich asked what his department's goals were. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 19 August 18, 2008 Village Engineer Durfey responded that currently if there is something in the parkway, his department does not even look at it. When the policy was first instituted, there were several complaints and the Village Manager directed them to put the policy on hold and not to enforce it. It has been a number of years since then and more things have popped up into the parkway and Village staff has not done anything about it; so it has gotten worse since the policy started. It is up to the Village as to whether they want some type of control, liability, restraint, openness or anything goes. Therefore, it is up to what the Village wants; whatever the Village wants the policies are generated to do that. Right now, there is no policy and anything goes; is that what is wanted. If so, that would be the answer. Member Iyer asked how the situations would be addressed for items that have been in place for 30 -40 years. Village Engineer Durfey responded that "grandfather" is an item that would be discussed later. When the policy was first adopted his staff started sectioning the Village. If they noticed boulders, they would notify the property owner. Some complied right away and moved them back onto their property line, others ignored the notices. Public Works moved some of the boulders at a cost to the Village. Some complained to the Village Manager and then we came to the dilemma that the Village is in now. On the streets with no curbs where there is a shoulder and stone, if there is a boulder, then for a vehicle to park would take up a lane of traffic. This becomes somewhat of a hazard, depending on the number of cars for emergency responders to get around. Typically a car is parked off the traveled way to leave it open for vehicular traffic. Member Sharma agreed that the Commission should identify the goals before proceeding to the next step. A common sense approach to safety should be a goal. Member Knitter agreed that safety, along with aesthetics and uniformity, which are broad goals to attempt to address. He said that he has a more difficult time on where the line is drawn between a tree, mailbox or a boulder. He has a more difficult time with its implementation. Chairwoman Payovich questioned whether there was a difference in liability depending upon the size of a boulder. Attorney Sterk responded that you cannot say that there is no liability to the Village in any event, because a court of law would decide that ultimately. The smaller the hazard or obstruction and the less frequent the hazard or obstruction the less the Village is to have liability. If someone would hit a boulder in the parkway and there are injuries and a lawsuit, the Village would be named as a defendant in the case. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 19 August 18, 2008 Member Lalmalani noted that has not happened in the last 50 years. It is a very complex issue and it is partly a balancing act. There has been no documentation on lawsuits and it sounds like a mountain is being made out of a molehill. Some conunonsense approach is really needed; is there really an issue or is an issue, being made out of a nonissue. He would hate to see some of the beauty of Oak Brook changed, but agreed that rules need to be made perhaps for future construction. Village Engineer Durfey said that what makes Oak Brook beautiful is subject to interpretation. In the 1994 paving construction project in Ginger Creek, the association requested the boulders all be removed from the parkway, because they were not deemed to be beautiful. Others love the boulders so that is somewhat of the quandary. Member Lalmalani said that the issue should not be taken to an extreme to bulldoze all of the boulders. He understood the legal ramifications, but a common sense approach is needed. 'There are some boulders that have created no harm over the last 50 years, so why should that be upset. He thought that a balance should be struck instead of being completely uniform. Village Engineer said that those issues could be fine -tuned as the Commission goes along. The_ initial policy took some of the common sense issues into account. It was deemed that boulders less than 8 inches were less of a risk to cause any additional damage due to the ability of a car to go over it. Mr. Kronen said that from a common sense approach most people want things to be safe so that no one gets hurt. The issue is what is commonsense about drawing the line. He lives on Luthin Road where there are no curbs. The majority of the traffic is the people that live on the road. When there are visitors people park into the parkway to keep the street clear and typically, the cars are parked 3 -4 feet into the parkway in order to get the cars off the road so that it is clear for traffic. Five feet clearance as many communities have seems to be the norm, but Oak Brook has 19- 25 feet, which seems to be outlandishly ridiculous. Something along 4 -5 feet seems to be reasonable to accomplish goals for safety to get people off the road if they need to park their car and would accomplish the safety goals. Marcia Hosler said that she lives on Merry Lane, which is a very wide street and makes a big difference. A lot depends upon intention and sometimes she notices just a single boulder at the edge of something, with the signal not to ruin the grass. However, there have been beautiful boulders worked into landscaping. You can spend a fortune on grass, but trees are beautiful. Member Iyer motioned, seconded by Member Sharma to continue the review to the next regular Plan Commission meeting on September 15, 2008. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 18 of 19 August 18, 2008 6. OTHER BUSINESS OTHER I3UStNESS 7. There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Lalmalani, seconded by Member Dyer to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien irector f Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 19 of 19 August 18, 2008 ADJOURNMENT