Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 01/15/2003 - MOBILITY WORKS/BOND/STEAKNSHAKE Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Minutes January 15, 2003 Plan Commission Present: J. Glass,F. Geinosky, P. Ayers, E. Hauser, C. Henrici J. Meyers, D. Paliganoff, D. Sokolowski, T. Thompson Zoning Board of Appeals Present(9:00): P. Kaplan, D. Childress,J. Franke, J. Oliveto, R. Penley, R. Philips,T. Rodgers, G. Schumm, J. Walz Staff: P. Vadopalas, Assistant to the Village Manager S. Trudan, Assistant Dir.,Community Development M. Pye, Assistant Dir., Engineering Petitioner: B. Kociski, Mobility Works G. Wright, Paine Wetzel H. Gould,Building Owner, 79 Bond Street G. Pradun, Architect, GPA Architects, Inc. J. Scott, Steak`n Shake(9:00 p.m.) M. Anderson, J. Schudt&Assoc. (9:00 p.m.) Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 8:04 p.m. Item 1: December 4,2002 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Henrici moved to approve the December 4 meeting minutes as written. Commissioner Geinosky seconded the motion. Upon voting, (Glass, Geinosky, Ayers, Hauser, Henrici, Meyers,Paliganoff, Sokolowski, Thompson, AYES)the motion carried. Item 2: December 11,2002 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sokolowski moved to approve the December 11 meeting minutes as written. Commissioner Hauser seconded the motion. Upon voting, (Glass, Geinosky, Ayers, Hauser, Henrici, Meyers, Paliganoff, Sokolowski, Thompson, AYES)the motion carried. Item 3: MobilityWorks Special Use Permit—79 Bond Chairman Glass called the meeting to order and asked the petitioner to make their presentation. G. Pradun introduced himself as the architect representing Mobility Works. Pradun stated the existing building at 79 Bond Street will include two tenants; MobilityWorks in the southern portion(20,480 sq. ft.) and a future tenant in the northern portion (30,300 sq. ft.). The interior of MobilityWorks' location will include a vehicle showroom with up to 8 vehicles. The existing office area along the west of the building will be improved, including the addition of windows in the west fapade. The existing overhead door on the south fapade will be replaced with an aluminum and glass door to provide visibility into the showroom area. - 1 - G. Pradun discussed the parking lot layout,noting the southernmost row of spaces would include display vehicles, the middle parking area would be intended for employee and customer use, and spaces along the front of the building would be for customer parking. A total of three service bays would be located inside the building. Pradun stated MobilityWorks would have 5 to 8 employees, and this location will expect an average of 5 customer visits per day. Pradun explained that one option for identifying parking spaces for the two businesses in this building would be to stripe the spaces in two different colors to represent the two different owners. Chairman Glass asked for clarification on the location of entrances to MobilityWorks. Pradun noted two entrances on the south and east elevations, an emergency exit on the west elevation, and an overhead door on the west elevation. Commissioner Hauser noted that MobilityWorks requires 15 parking spaces for storing vehicles, and questioned where those spaces will be located. Pradun responded that 25 spaces are identified for vehicle storage in the parking lot, which exceeds the Village's requirements. Commissioner Hauser questioned if the Zoning Ordinance permits outdoor storage of vehicles and if these vehicles need to be screened from view. B. Kociski stated that MobilityWorks does not do body repair,but only installs and repairs the accessibility equipment such as ramps and doors. As an example,Kociski stated that if a vehicle is in a collision, it will first be taken to a body shop for repair and secondly brought to MobilityWorks to replace or repair damaged accessibility equipment. Commissioner Meyers stated he had no further questions. Commisioner Henrici stated he had no further questions. Commissioner Geinosky asked for clarification on the number of handicapped spaces required for this business. S. Trudan responded that 3 handicapped spaces are required. Commissioner Geinosky stated the petitioner should consider exceeding that requirement given the nature of their clientele, and that four spaces would be easily located in front of their business. B. Kociski stated he agreed that more spaces could be provided,noting that MobilityWorks' existing two locations each provide two handicapped spaces, which is satisfactory. Commissioner Geinosky how many parking spaces would remain for the future second tenant of this building. Pradun responded 38 spaces would remain. Commissioner Thompson stated he had no further questions. Commissioner Sokolowski stated his objection to striping the parking spaces in two colors,noting that snow would make this approach ineffective. Commissioner Sokolowski questioned if a fence could be installed to separate the parking areas of the two tenants. H. Gould introduced himself as owner of the building and stated he would have aesthetic concerns with installing a fence between the parking areas. He stated it would become a maintenance concern since motorists would likely damage the fence and cause a need for regular repairs. Gould noted that MobilityWorks will have 5 to 8 employees and would rarely use their entire allotment of 38 parking spaces. Commissioner Ayers discussed the idea of replacing the overhead door on the south wall with a glass door to provide a view of the showroom. He stated this would be a minimal improvement and that the installation of more windows would provide a more standard appearance for a vehicle showroom. B. Kociski stated he MobilityWorks could have more windows installed if required. H. Gould stated that MobilityWorks is a destination location, and they do not have a need to attract impulse buyers driving past the business. MobilityWorks customers mostly visit the site by appointment, and the typical vehicle buyer would have no interest in accessibility equipment. - 2 - Commissioner Paliganoff noted that at the last meeting, there were questions about the legal description and lot numbers that were to be addressed. S. Trudan stated the lot numbers and legal description were verified and confirmed to be correct. Commissioner Paliganoff requested clarification on how the number of required parking spaces was calculated. G. Pradun stated 8 spaces are needed inside for the showroom, 13 are needed outside for customer and employee parking, and 18 are needed for display vehicles. A total of 3 bays would be located in the shop area inside the building. Two handicapped spaces are required by the Village, and MobilityWorks will provide three. Commissioner Paliganoff stated his agreement with Commissioner Ayers' thoughts on the addition of more windows to improve the visibility of the showroom area. Chairman Glass stated the customers examining vehicles in the parking lot may create a conflict with the employee parking of the second tenant. B. Kociski stated that customers are typically shown vehicles inside the building,noting that they will know what type of vehicle to show prior to the appointment with the customer. Chairman Glass questioned if the petitioner would accept a prohibition of showing vehicles in the parking lot as a condition of their special use permit. After some discussion among the Commissioners, the consensus was that such a condition would not be practical to enforce. B. Kociski noted that the vehicles cannot be shown while parked in standard parking spaces because of the space needed to operate the accessibility equipment. Chairman Glass stated that the need to move the vehicle into the drive aisle in order to show it will create conflicts with other employees and customers. G. Pradun stated the drive aisles are planned to be 27-feet wide, which leaves adequate space for motorists to drive around any vehicle being shown in the parking lot. Chairman Glass questioned if the vehicles stored outside would need to be screened from view. S. Trudan responded that screening is not required. Commissioner Hauser noted that the original staff review addressed the potential need for screening and questioned why screening is not now required. S. Trudan stated that originally, staff approached this proposal as a standard vehicle repair business,but after learning that the work was limited to modifying and adding accessories to vehicles, it was determined that screening would not be required. Commissioner Henrici asked how long this building has been vacant. H. Gould responded approximately 1 years. Commissioner Henrici asked if any information about the future second tenant is available. Gould responded they are currently showing the building to prospective tenants, but do not have information about the specific type of business that will ultimately locate there. S. Trudan stated that designating all the parking spaces along the southern end of the building as handicapped spaces would ensure that enough handicapped spaces are available, and would also provide areas to show vehicles to customers without creating conflicts with other motorists. After some discussion among the Commissioners and the petitioner,there were no objections to this concept. The consensus was to have the two required handicapped spaces marked as such, with the remainder of these spaces striped the size of handicapped spaces,but not reserved for handicapped use. There being no comments from the audience or further questions, Chairman Glass asked for a motion on the petition. Commissioner Meyers moved to recommend approval of the Special Use permit to Mobility Works to modify, service, title,buy, and sell vehicles for the disabled in an I-2 Industrial district at 79 Bond Street subject to the striping of oversized parking spaces along the southern wall of the building. Commissioner Henrici seconded the motion. Upon voting(Glass, Ayers, Geinosky, Hauser, Henrici,Meyers, Paliganoff, Sokolowski, Thompson, AYES)the motion carried. Item 4: Steak `n Shake Subdivision—Meacham Road - 3 - Chairman Glass announced that the Plan Commission would conduct this public hearing as a joint hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Chairman Glass stated this hearing is a continuation of a Plan Commission meeting held in September, 2002. He explained that Steak`n Shake is seeking a variation from the Village's minimum number of stacking spaces in the drive-thru lane, and that variation needs to be considered by the ZBA. The Plan Commission will consider the Plat of Resubdivision and the site plan. Secretary Geinosky swore in the petitioners; Matt Anderson and Joe Scott. M. Anderson introduced himself as the representative of this petition and site engineer. The subject property is immediately south of the existing Walgreens store at Meacham and Biesterfield. Access to the site would be provided with a full access driveway from Meacham, to be shared with the future development of the neighboring parcel to the south. In addition,two driveways will link this site with the existing Walgreens parking lot. M. Anderson stated that the Cook County Highway Department has approved the proposed curb cut and median improvements on Meacham Road. M. Anderson stated that Steak `n Shake is a full service dine-in restaurant that includes a drive-thru service. Village code requires that the drive-thru lane include a minimum of 12 stacking spaces, and that Steak `n Shake is seeking a variation to allow the number of stacking spaces to be reduced to 8. M. Anderson stated that because Steak`n Shake prepares all its food"to order",the wait time for a drive-thru customer averages 4 to 5 minutes. He stated if 12 cars were cued in the drive-thru lane, the 12`h car would have to wait longer than most customers would be willing to wait, and that Steak `n Shake's maximum drive-thru line is 5 to 7 cars. M. Anderson asked if the ZBA had any questions. P. Kaplan questioned if the drive-thru is a new service offered by Steak `n Shake. J. Scott stated that Steak `n Shake began as a company in the 1930's and the drive-thin service was added in the 1980's. P.Kaplan stated he recently visited a Steak `n Shake during the lunch hour and noted he saw 4 cars in the drive-thru lane. John Walz asked for clarification on variation requested. M. Anderson stated Steak`n Shake is seeking a reduction in required stacking spaces from 12 to 8. A. Kreutzer referenced the meeting minutes from the September 18, 2002 Plan Commission meeting that cited background studies conducted by Steak `n Shake in determining adequate stacking spaces in their drive-thru lane. J. Scott responded that Steak`n Shake now operates approximately 400 restaurants and traffic reports and studies have been conducted in the past. Kreutzer questioned when the last study had been completed. J. Scott responded 1998 or 1999. Kreutzer questioned how often such studies are conducted. J. Scott stated periodically, as needed. Kreutzer questioned if any Steak`n Shake restaurants do not have drive-thins. J. Scott responded that a small number of downtown locations do not have drive-thrus. J. Franke asked if signage would be posted to direct customers to the drive-thru lane. M. Anderson stated that signage would be posted, and that the drive-thru lane is striped and constructed of concrete in contrast to the asphalt parking lot, which visually distinguishes its location. T. Rodgers referenced the minutes of the September 18, 2002 meeting and questioned the reference to using the drive-thru bypass lane as the loading area for the restaurant. M. Anderson stated that the Village requires an area to be designated for the loading area, and that no objections were raised about using the bypass lane for this purpose. T. Rodgers questioned the location of the dumpster enclosure. M. Anderson responded the enclosure is located at the northeast comer of the site. G. Schumm questioned what hardship would justify granting the requested variation. M. Anderson stated that the requirement to provide 12 stacking spaces is unnecessary due to the nature of Steak `n Shake's operation. - 4 - The long waits make a line of 12 cars impractical,because no customers would wait that long for their order. M. Anderson stated that the alignment of their drive-thru lane is such that a line of 12 cars would block the main drive aisle in their parking lot. J. Oliveto asked if a sign could be included in the dnve-thru lane communicating the approximate wait time for customers. J. Scott stated Steak `n Shake does not provide that type of service, and that crews are directed to increase their pace if a line does form in the drive-thru lane. D. Childress stated he had no further questions. P. Kaplan questioned if any existing Steak `n Shake restaurants have 12 stacking spaces. M. Anderson stated that the most stacking spaces are at a Steak `n Shake in Naperville that has 10 stacking spaces. P. Kaplan asked that the Plan Commission ask any questions at this time. Commissioner Thompson asked if the westernmost drive aisle between Steak `n Shake and Walgreens would be one-way. M. Anderson stated that it is designed to be one-way for southbound traffic. Commissioner Sokolowski asked for the average wait time in the drive-thru lane. M. Anderson responded 4 or 5 minutes. Commissioner Ayers questioned if the shared drive aisle along the southern portion of the site was straightened as requested by the Plan Commission. M. Anderson presented the preliminary site plan in comparison to the current site plan to demonstrate the aisle had been straightened as requested. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned the hours of operation of the dirve-thru lane. J. Scott responded the drive- thru lane will operate 24-hours per day. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned if the hours would be reduced given the proximity of the residential neighborhood to the east. J. Scott responded the manager would be responsive to any complaints that neighboring property owners might have, though none are expected. J. Scott stated that a Steak `n Shake restaurant was built next to residential homes in Downers Grove with no complaints or problems. Commissioner Hauser stated he had no further questions. Commissioner Meyers stated he had no further questions. Commissioner Henrici questioned if any other modifications to the site plan had been completed. M. Anderson responded that no other modifications were done. Commissioner Henrici noted that the Landscape Plan will still need to be presented to the Plan Commission for approval. Chairman Glass read two letters opposing the proposal into the record. Chairman Glass asked if anyone in the audience had any questions. Sal Giglio,720 Easton Lane, asked if the petitioners provided a copy of a traffic study or have any evidence one was completed to justify the requested variation. M. Anderson stated he did not bring a copy to this hearing but would be happy to provide one to the Village if needed. S. Giglio questioned why a drive-thru is being considered for this restaurant. J. Scott stated the industry and most food customers require it, and that market demand drives the need for drive-thru lanes. - 5 - S. Giglio asked if eliminating the drive-thru lane would be a cost-saving measure for the restaurant. J. Scott responded that the labor cost for serving drive-thru customers is less than the cost of serving customers in the restaurant. S. Giglio questioned if the 5-minute wait average applied to each drive-thru customer or to each order. J. Scott responded the wait is an average of 5-minutes per customer. S. Giglio questioned how Steak `n Shake would prevent customers from honking their horns in the drive-thru lane. J. Scott responded that Steak`n Shake cannot control the behavior of customers,but would work to eliminate the causes of any disruptive behavior. S. Giglio asked where the garbage would be stored. M. Anderson stated the dumpster is located at the northeast corner of the site within a masonry surround with the gate facing west. S. Giglio asked if Steak `n Shake would install landscaping on the berm. Chairman Glass explained that Steak `n Shake will need to return to the Plan Commission with a Landscape Plan, and that the Plan Commission intends for this site to be heavily landscaped. S. Giglio questioned why the drive-thru lane is permitted on this site when it is prohibited on the sites to the south. Chairman Glass explained that this property was zoned B-3 years ago, which permits drive-thru lanes. This property was already zoned when the surrounding properties were annexed and rezoned by Cambridge Homes. S. Giglio questioned why the drive-thru is permitted to operate 24-hours per day. Chairman Glass stated there is no code that regulates the hours of operation for businesses. S. Giglio stated that the existing fence on the berm between the subject property and the Whytecliffe subdivision is not tall enough and is in regular need of repair. He questioned if the Whytecliffe homeowners association would be permitted to replace the fence with a taller fence at their cost. Chairman Glass stated they would be permitted to replace the fence,but would need to petition for a height variation. Bruna Morrison, 728 Easton Lane, questioned if the parcel is appropriately sized for a restaurant and if the lack of land area caused the need for the stacking space variation. J. Scott responded the site area is 1.07 acres, and the average site for a Steak `n Shake is 1-acre. Tom Roberts,708 Easton Lane, questioned the species of plantings that would be planted on the berm. Chairman Glass responded that the Plan Commission will insist that the Landscape Plan include significant evergreen screening as well as deciduous plantings, and that the Commission is aware of the homeowners' desire to have the site well landscaped. T. Roberts questioned the expected times for garbage pickup, and asked if Steak `n Shake would ensure no pick ups earlier than 7:00 a.m. J. Scott stated that the pick up times depend on the specific route,but would make an effort to have the pick ups later in the day. T. Roberts requested that Steak `n Shake be sensitive to food delivery times in addition to garbage pick up times. Hitesh Patel,712 Easton Lane, expressed concerns about cooking odors that would impact the Whytecliffe subdivision. J. Scott responded that Steak `n Shake utilizes a ventilation system that captures grease-laden air and stated the odor would not be noticeable. J. Scott stated that he knows of no odor complaints regarding Steak `n Shake restaurants. - 6 - Kamal Patel expressed concerns about late-night traffic and asked how many customers would travel to the restaurant after 9:00 p.m. J. Scott responded that on average, Steak `n shake restaurants experience 11%of their business after 9:00 p.m. K. Patel stated Steak `n Shake should not be permitted to operate on a 24-hour basis. Chairman Glass stated the Plan Commission has no control on hours of operation. Michelle Hennings, 724 Easton Lane, stated that Steak `n Shake buildings are typically very brightly lit, and questioned if the exterior lighting would be reduced at this location. J. Scott responded that Steak `n Shake is sensitive to the proximity of the neighboring homes, and did modify features of its exterior lighting to minimize impact on neighboring property owners. Jagdish Shah stated that the Whytecliffe subdivision is a small, exclusive community and expressed concerns about odor. He stated that 25% of the Whytecliffe residents are vegetarians and would find the cooking odors objectionable. Tom Schreiner introduced himself as the landowner, and summarized the history of development at this location, and stated that he is currently in discussions with Aldi about developing the last of his vacant commercial parcels west of the Whytecliffe subdivision. There being no further questions or comments, ZBA Chairman Kaplan asked for a motion on the variation request. J. Walz moved to recommend approval of a variation to reduce the minimum number of stacking spaces in the Steak `n Shake drive-thru lane from 12 to 8. D. Childress seconded the motion. Upon voting (Kaplan, Childress,Franke, Oliveto, Penley, Phillips,Rodgers, Schumm,Walz, AYES)the motion carried unanimously. Plan Commission Chairman Glass asked for a motion on the subdivision and site plan. Commissioner Geinosky moved to recommend approval of the Steak `n Shake plat of resubdivision and site plan subject to staff approval and subject to Plan Commission approval of the Landscape and Screening Plan. Commissioner Meyers seconded the motion. Upon voting(Glass, Geinosky, Hauser,Ayers,Meyers, Henrici, Paliganoff, Sokolowski, Thompson, AYES)the motion carried unanimously. Item 3: Adjournment There being no further questions or comments, Chairman Glass asked for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Meyers moved to adjourn and Commissioner Paliganoff seconded the motion.Upon voting, (Glass,Geinosky, Hauser, Ayers, Meyers,Henrici, Paliganoff, Sokolowski, Thompson, AYES)the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Peter J. Vadopalas Assistant to the Village Manager C: Chairman and Members of the Plan Commission, Mayor and Board of Trustees,Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager,Assistant to the Village Manager, Administrative Intern,Director of Engineering/Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief(2), Assistant Fire Chief,Village Attorney. - 7 -