Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 05/15/1996 - BOSTON MARKET ELK GROV` VILLAGE Joint Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals Meet_ng May 15, 1996 8:00 p.m. Present: F- Geinosky, Chairman C. Prochno J. Meyers C. Henrici P. Ayers K. Zizzo Absent: P. Feichter R. Guzzardi D. Paliganoff staff: S. Niehaus, Administrat-ve Assistant M. Pye, Assistant Villace Engineer S. Trudan, Building Inspector Supervisor Petitioners: Steve Young, Boston Market George Gullo, Gullo Development Corporation John Butera, Butera & Associates (Attorney) / Kevin Breslin, Attorney (Prentiss Properties) t Chairman Geinosky called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. Item A: Boston Market Rezoning and Amended site Plan Commissioner Meyers moved and Commissioner Henrici seconded the motion that Commissioner Ayers serve as Acting secretary. Upon voting, Commissioner Ayers was elected Acting Secretary and swore in the petitioners. Young stated that Boston Market was before the Plan Commission to rezone a piece of property on the Gullo Development across from Village Hall from B-2 to B-3 in order to allow the construction of a drive-thru restaurant facility on the site. In addition, Young stated that he was also seeking zoning variations from the zoning Board of Appeals(ZBA) for a reduction in parking spaces and a reduction in the amount of stacking spaces provided (shopping center site plan attached as Exhibit A) . Chairman Geinosky asked the petitioner to explain why the rezoning was necessary. Young stated that the rezoning was necessary to add an additional 5,200 square feet to the site which was necessary for their drive-thru restaurant which is bigger than the previous tenant anticipated for the subject location. Butera stated that the need for the rezoning was also predicated on the property owner's previous experience with the Village in trying to develop the site. Butera stated that it was his understanding that the village wished to see something more up scale than a fast food use. Butera stated that he felt that Boston Market was a good use for the property, however, their building is bigger and requires more B-3 zoned property. Chairman Geinosky asked the petitioner to provide a description of the Boston Market franchise. Young stated that Boston Market was more of a sit-down, family restaurant that supplied a healthy alternative to fast food. Boston Market typically operates in earlier hours and have less drive-thru traffic than do McDonald's, Burger King, and Taco Bell. Commissioner Prochno questioned as to Boston Market's specific hours of operation. Young stated that the Boston Market portion of the facility (2,800 square feet) would be open from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. on week days, and 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. The Einstein Bagel portion of the property would be open from 6 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Young stated that the dual restaurant concept was a new one being developed by Boston Market. Einstein Bagel allows them to capitalize on morning traffic while Boston Market caters to the lunch and dinner meals. Young stated that the only other similar facility in the area is located at Roosevelt Road and County Farm Road in Wheaton. Commissioner Prochno questioned as to what Boston Market would do if the property were not rezoned. Young stated that there would be a strong possibility that they would not proceed with the project as j proposed. Commissioner Prochno questioned as to what the owner planned to do with the remainder of the Outlot #2 if the rezoning was approved. - -- Butera stated that the property will still be developed and that they were already talking with some potential tenants about leasing the property. Commissioner Meyers questioned as to how firm the lease agreement between Boston Market and Gullo was. Young stated that the lease was signed and would be active subject to approval of the rezoning and zoning variations by the village. commissioner Meyers questioned as to Boston Market's interest in Outlot #2 if it was zoned B-3. Young stated that Boston Market would not be interested in that location due to its ingress/egress availability. Commissioner Henrici questioned as to why the parking and stacking variations were necessary. Young stated that there were several reasons for the variations including the fact that they did not want to purchase additional property, the diminished size of Outlot #2, and the fact that the provided parking and stacking is sufficient for their needs. Commissioner Zizzo questioned if the petitioner had looked at l other buildings or other building positions on the lot which would remove the need for variances. Young stated that Boston Market had (- looked at other possibilities, however, each required some sort of zoning variation. In addition, Boston, Market felt that this site plan worked best from a traffic and safety standpoint. Commissioner Zizzo asked what the developer's opinion of the Boston Market use and rezoning was. Butera stated that Gullo has no objections to Boston Market and would not pursue a lease with them if it would harm the rest of the shopping center, including the future development of Outlot #2. Commissioner Ayers expressed concern with the overall layout of the site plan and stated that he felt that the Boston Market was a more intense use of the property than what should be allowed and did not see how it would be successful if the variations were granted. Young explained that Boston Market felt that the site would operate successfully with the variations to parking (42 instead of 50) and stacking (9 instead of 12) without conflict for several reasons. Young stated that the requirement of 50 spaces is based on the ratio of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building. However, 42 spaces was sufficient parking due to the fact that Boston Market operations included a large food preparation area which takes up a major portion of the building and reduces the available seating area. In addition, Young stated that the 5, 000 square foot building would rarely be at maximum capacity due to the fact the Einstein Bagel and Boston Market have converse peak periods. Young also stated that Boston Market had an agreement with the property owner through which they would be allowed to utilize parking in the shopping center lot. Young stated that this would primarily be -used for employees. Chairman Geinosky questioned if the development in Wheaton was located in a similar manner to the proposed building. Young stated that the Wheaton building was located on the outlot of a Target on a smaller lot. Chairman Geinosky questioned the maximum number of employees which would be present at any one time. Young stated that the maximum number of employees at one time would be approximately 13 to 14. Chairman Geinosky questioned as to the peak traffic periods for the entire facility. Young stated that Einstein Bagel would have a lot of traffic in the early morning hours and some traffic during lunch. Boston Market had some traffic during lunch but was heavier during the dinner meal time. Chairman Geinosky asked the petitioner to explain the traffic Pattern of the site. Young stated that there were two points of ingress/egress to the property, located on the north side. All traffic flow will be funnelled around the site in a counter-clockwise fashion for parking and drive-thru purposes. Directional signage and striping will be used to direct motorist (site plan attached as Exhibit B) . / Chairman Geinosky questioned as to Boston Market's past experience 1 with the percentage of drive-thru versus sit down customers. Young stated that Boston Market is relatively new to the drive-thru concept. However, their past history is that sit-down/take-out customers are the majority of their business as opposed to drive-thru business. Chairman Geinosky questioned as to the physical appearance of the building. Young stated that the building would primarily consist of a beige dry-vit material with decorative signage and awnings at the front of each building (rendering attached as Exhibit C) . No neon signs would be used on the outside of the buildings. The inside of both stores will be decorated with a warmer, sit-down atmosphere. Chairman Geinosky explained to the petitioner that the subject location contained specific restrictions that were previously placed on it when Taco Bell was being considered and asked if Boston Market was willing to comply with those restrictions. Young acknowledged that Boston Market was aware of the restrictions and willing to comply. Chairman Geinosky questioned if the petitioner was willing to be sensitive to residential concerns such as lighting, garbage, noise, and odors. Young stated that Boston Market would be willing to work with the village to accommodate any resident or neighbor concerns. Chairman Geinosky questioned as to why the petitioner felt that their businesses was a good use for the property. Young stated that he felt that Boston Market would be consistent with the other uses in the downtown area, be a good neighbor, and would fulfill a community need for good, healthy food. Chairman Geinosky questioned as to the relationship between Boston Market and Einstein Bagel. Young stated that Boston Market was the majority shareholder in the Einstein Bagel corporation. Chairman Geinosky opened the Plan Commission public hearing for comments from the audience at 9:10 p.m. Joe Schloop, 737 Wellington Avenue questioned J. Butera regarding previous concerns of Sears Hardware over the size of the building in Outlot #1. J. Butera stated that Sears used to have a 3,000 square foot limit on the building on Outlet #1 but has since waived that restriction through negotiations thereby allowing the Boston Market facility to exist (5,000 square feet) . Pat Brokamp, 153 Amerst, Bartlett, owner Of Big Apple Bagels, questioned as to what type of use would be located in Outlet #2. Butera stated that conversations have been held with financial businesses regarding the property. Kay Nelson, property manager of Elks Crossing, expressed concern that the construction of the Boston Market facility would decrease the visibility of stores located in Elks Crossing. Chairman Geinosky closed the public hearing at 9 :25 p.m. The Plan Commission meeting reconvened at 9:55 p.m. following the Zoning Board of Appeals portion of the meeting. Commissioners Ayers, Meyers, and Zizzo expressed a concern over rezoning a portion of the property for B-3 use due to the layout of the site and the potential conflicts which may be created in the future. Commissioner Meyers also expressed concern over the proliferation of bagel stores and stated that there may be evidence that the market for bagels is saturated. Commissioner Henrici moved and Commissioner Prochno seconded a motion to recommend approval of rezoning an additional area (5,200 square feet) for Outlot #1 from B-2 General Business District to B-3 Automotive Oriented Business District for the purpose of operating a drive-thru restaurant. Upon voting, (Geinosky, Henrici, Prochno AYES, Ayers, Meyers, Zizzo NAYS, Feichter, Gizzardi, Paliganoff ABSENT) the motion failed. Commissioner Henrici moved and Commissioner Prochno seconded the motion to amend a previously approved site plan for property located on the north side of Biesterfield Road approximately 375 feet east of Wellington. Upon voting, (Geinosky, Henrici, Prochno, AYES, Ayers, Meyers, Zizzo NAYS, Feichter, Guzzardi, Paliganoff ABSENT) the motion failed. Considerable discussion took place regarding the next step in hearing the petitioners request. Niehaus stated that he would contact the village Attorney and village Manager and determine what is the next step and inform the Plan Commission members. Item B: O'Hare West Subdivision K. Breslin stated that he represented Prentiss Properties Ltd. of Oakbrook, Illinois, who is seeking to develop a parcel of property located approximately 950 feet south of Devon Avenue just east of Busse Road. The subject property is 27. 13 acres and is currently zoned 1-2 Industrial. Prentiss Properties is seeking to subdivide the property into three separate lots for use as an industrial subdivision. Breslin stated that Lots 1 and 2 would be of comparable size (10.5 acres) and would be used for industrial warehousing buildings. Lot 3, (6.2 acres) is to be used solely for compensatory water storage. Both buildings will contain office space on the far west side of the building. Access to both facilities is accessible via ingress/egress from northbound Route 83 to a shared access driveway between Lots 1 and 2. The entire site will be regulated by recorded covenants, restrictions, and a joint maintenance agreement for the property between the owners of Lots 1 and 2 which cover the maintenance of roadways, easements, and Lot 3. There is no need for village maintenance of roadways anywhere on the property. Breslin stated that the entire subdivision was developed through close contact with staff in order to facilitate the review process. The development requires no zoning variations, rezoning, or special use permits. Breslin stated that Prentiss Properties was an affiliate of Centerpoint Properties who had recently worked with the village to develop property at chase and Lively for use by Rainbow Fish House. Centerpoint is a publicly owned company with approximately $45 million in net revenues in 1995. Commissioner Henrici questioned as to the visibility of the warehouse dock doors from the roadway. Breslin stated that the office space on the west side of each building would extend past the dock doors in order to limit visibility of the dock doors. Commissioner Henrici questioned as to the purpose of the 30 foot easement on the east side of Lot #1. Breslin stated that it was placed there to provide future access to the Sears property and alternative ingress/egress when the property to the north is developed. Commissioner Ayers moved and Commissioner Meyers seconded the motion to recommend approval of the subdivision subject to final review and approval by staff. Upon voting (All AYES Feichter, Paliganoff, Guzzardi ABSENT) the motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Prochno moved and Commissioner Meyers seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. Chairman Geinsoky adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. - Respectfully submitted, IleVL r. � v Scott R. Niehaus Administrative Assistant SRN/el C: Chairman and Members of Plan Commission, President and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Director of Engineer/Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief(2) , Assistant Fire chief, Village Attorney, Chairman and Members of 2BA i--Fill I I 11111I 1 i U I i 1 I I I I I I ll ----- --- I I ---.-- I — I I — i i I I - - - SNSfE N 6R�, n � — '-.. -----� ----____� . 6l[Si'CRr'ICID RO/�O - P2vrvn 5-2 7-4 &-3 rnTa a a� 1761., 11 5' PARKING SETBACK00 _- -R O / LOADING r ZONE 3 BOSTON MARKET w\BAGEL SHOP / ^j Z _ � 42 PARKING STALI I N 25' 14 ILDIN' SETS C 10' PARKING SETBACK I---PYLON SIGN j a.�afw"_wog •� �F\�IwYnn _ �;� 9 Mill �.y \t•`��t rl �SJbn�44a a� n 'i� �5t fF l ] •FFA ]',1. 1°1F 1F�