Village of Frankfort Plan Commission / Zoning Board of Appeals met June 8.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
Call to Order: Chair Schaeffer called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM
Commissioners Present: Chair Nichole Schaeffer, Brian James, Dan Knieriem, Paula Wallrich, Jessica Jakubowski, Will Markunas, David Hogan
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present: Director of Community and Economic Development Mike Schwarz, Senior Planner Christopher Gruba
Elected Officials Present: Jessica Petrow (arrived at approximately 8:20 p.m. during the Olde Frankfort Mall agenda item discussion)
A. Approval of the Minutes from May 25th, 2023
Chair Schaeffer asked for discussion regarding the minutes.
Commissioner Wallrich stated that she had several changes proposed and a copy of these edits were printed off for each commissioner.
Motion (#1): To approve the minutes from May 25th, 2023 as amended.
Motion by: Wallrich Seconded by: Knieriem
Approved: (5-0, Commissioners Hogan and Markunas abstained)
Chair Schaeffer swore in members of the public who wanted to provide testimony.
B. Public Hearing, continued from May 11, 2023: 8563 Stone Creek – Maida Residence Chris Gruba presented the staff report.
The applicant Jordan Maida approached the podium. She stated that she had one correction to the staff report. She stated that this fence is behind her house not in front of her house.
Commissioner Markunas stated that it appears that there have been no changes to the fence or the plans since the last meeting.
Jordan Maida confirmed that is correct. She would like to proceed with her original request.
Chair Schaeffer asked if there were any initial questions or comments from the other members.
Commissioner Knieriem stated that he has no questions or comments.
Commissioner Markunas stated that he has no questions or comments.
Commissioner Jakubowski stated that she has no questions or comments.
Commissioner Hogan stated that he has no questions or comments.
Commissioner Wallrich stated that this is a large property and the rear yard is more than double the zoning requirement. There is no hardship.
Commissioner Hogan stated that he has no questions comments.
Motion #2: Close the public hearing.
Motion by: James Seconded by: Jakubowski Approved: (7-0)
Chair Schaeffer stated that she does not see that there is a hardship.
There was no further discussion.
Motion (#3): To recommend the Village Board approve the variation from Article 7, Section G, Part 1 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit installation of a 5’ tall decorative fence within the required 30’ front yard setback, on the property located at 8563 Stone Creek Boulevard, in accordance with the reviewed plans and public testimony.
Motion by: Knieriem Seconded by: Markunas
Denied: (6-1, Hogan voted in the affirmative)
Gruba noted that this item would likely proceed to the Village Board on June 20th for final action.
The Commission decided to reorder the agenda to review the public hearing for Sparks Coffee first and then 9232 Gulfstream Road Unit C afterwards.
C. Public Hearing: Sparks Drive-Through Coffee Shop – Hickory Creek Marketplace
Chris Gruba presented the staff report and summarized changes to the plans since the Village Board meeting.
The applicant Aliana Winkle and her architect Eric Pederson approached the podium. Aliana Winkle summarized the changes to the plan.
Chair Schaeffer asked if there were any initial questions or comments from the other members.
Commissioner Knieriem stated that he has no questions or comments.
Commissioner Markunas stated that he has no questions or comments.
Commissioner Jakubowksi stated that she has no questions or comments.
Commissioner James stated that he has no questions or comments.
Commissioner Wallrich asked Ms. Winkle if this is her first of the ten proposed locations. Alaina Winkle replied yes.
Commissioner Wallrich asked if there is any reason why the transformer can’t be moved out of the landscape bed.
The project architect Eric Peterson stated that it needs to be closer to the building.
Commissioner Wallrich asked what is the transformer size.
Eric Pederson replied that it is a standard size.
Commissioner James stated that he has no questions or comments.
Chair Schaeffer asked if there is anyone in the audience wishing to provide testimony. There was no response.
Motion #4: Close the public hearing.
Motion by: Knieriem Seconded by: Jakubowski Approved: (7-0)
Chair Schaeffer asked the other members if they have any questions for the applicant.
Commissioner Wallrich stated that there is less than a 1% slope at the far south end of the site near the public sidewalk, so that might be the perfect place to make a sidewalk connection. Steak-n-Shake provided a sidewalk.
Commissioner Wallrich asked staff how this building aligns with the existing building setbacks to the north and south.
Chris Gruba responded that they align very closely.
Commissioner Wallrich asked staff if the type of fence around the outdoor seating area matches that of the Mexican restaurant located in the same shopping center?
Chris Gruba replied that he is not sure.
Commissioner Wallrich asked about the purpose of the sidewalk located along the drive through lane curb.
Aliana Winkle explained that it is similar to Chic-fil-et where employees will take orders.
Commissioner Wallrich pointed out on the screen the potential location for a sidewalk connection to the public sidewalk along La Grange Road.
There was some discussion about the why the initial sidewalk connection was removed from the site plan based on discussion at the previous public hearing.
Commissioner James stated that he likes the inclusion of bike racks.
Commissioner Jakubowksi stated that she was out of town at the previous public hearing, but she agrees about the inclusion of the proposed bike racks.
There was some discussion about the location of the bike racks. There was consensus that they should remain close to the building.
Commissioner Knieriem asked the applicant if the building exterior will include full size brick.
Aliana Winkle replied yes.
Commissioner James stated that this is the last piece of the puzzle and fits in very well architecturally with the rest of the shopping center.
Commissioner Wallrich takes exception to the architecture and the building materials. She was with the Village during the review of the original Hickory Creek Marketplace PUD.
The intent of a PUD is to "develop with a unified design, providing contiguity between the various elements". The goal is to have center look like it was built at one time by same developer despite the reality of it being built over time. Sparks does not reflect the theme of the center and most especially the outlots. All of our commercial centers have a unified design:
Frankfort Crossings (Jewel) - during the second phase we built a sample brick wall to make sure the brick matched.
Prairie Crossing (Kohl’s) - all outlots have the same detail of stone medallions and common materials.
Frankfort Crossing (Aldi, Taco Bell) - these have the same arch and green shutters despite national branded architecture, and this is repeated across the street with dollar store.
Garden Gate (Culvers) - has the same fence design.
Hickory Creek Marketplace - all buildings have the same architecture, even the Steak-n Shake building.
Even our office centers such as President's Row have matching architecture.
The north and south facades need to reflect the arches - like Steak-n-Shake. Cultured stone is only used on Emagine (formerly Dominicks) as an anchor. The anchor is allowed distinction, but the outlots on La Grange are supposed to have similar architecture to each other. The applicant can use the limestone block on bottom and change up the brick pattern, such as stacking, herringbone, running bond, etc. This is our last outlot, so why are we changing the requirements now? The use of black window frames is an issue as all other windows are anodized aluminum. The ladder on the outside is an issue. Every other fast-food establishment has their ladder located internally. With this proposal you can see the back of the parapet, which is awkward architecture and looks like fake façade. She stated that she appreciates the incorporation of the arches along the roofline of the building. She would like a photo of the brick sample placed adjacent to the existing brick in the shopping center for comparison. She would like this building to look just like the other outlots in terms of the stone base and the window frames and colors. Prairie Crossings, Frankfort Commons, Garden Gate, the Vineyards and other centers all have the same outlot architecture. She doesn’t have an issue with the corrugated metal on the façade but doesn’t like the flat edge top. She also does not think the red vertical stripe should be approved as it should be considered as additional area of wall signage.
Commissioner Wallrich asked if staff interpreted the sign regulations to include the red vertical stripe on the façade toward the wall signage allowance.
Chris Gruba stated that staff has not interpreted the sign regulations to include the red stripe.
Commissioner Wallrich stated that the edge of the canopy top/roof should be brick instead of metal. The outdoor ladder has not been provided in any other fast-food restaurant. It’s not necessary. She likes the arch on the drive-up.
Chris Gruba asked Commissioner Wallrich about her concern about the height of the metal parapet on the north façade.
Commissioner Wallrich clarified that the height of those elements stick slightly above the parapet and can be seen from the back.
Commissioner Wallrich stated that the other outlot buildings have green awnings.
Commissioner Wallrich stated that she likes the articulation of the columns on the west side. Modifying the brick pattern would also be welcome.
Commissioner James stated that he has no comments.
Chair Schaeffer stated that she appreciates the changes to the plans. The applicant has met the intent of the PUD. She has no other comments on the site plan and elevations.
Chair Schaeffer stated that the next topic is traffic circulation.
Commissioner Wallrich stated that she agrees with the engineer that the south access should be a two-way; a landscape island should be added to identify that there is a one way exit eastbound out of the drive-through circulation lane. A south two-way access would allow more direct access for a garbage truck. If they put landscape islands around the east side of the drive-up and narrow down the one-way running east at the south side of building, people would not head west from the two-way at the south entrance. Make the east parking stalls perpendicular, otherwise if it is not a two-way, they can use the east parking to go around the building.
Chair Schaeffer asked the other members for thoughts on the one way versus two-way south access.
Aliana Winkle stated they were seeking counterclockwise circulation for better safety.
Chair Schaeffer pointed out that the wall sign with the arrow on the east façade should point in the direction of the flow of the drive-through traffic.
Alaina Winkle agreed and stated that they will make that change.
Chair Schaeffer asked the other members if there were any other comments on the topic of traffic circulation.
Commissioner Markunas stated that he has no other comments on traffic circulation. Chair Schaeffer asked the other members if there were any comments on loading. There was no response from the other members.
Chair Schaeffer asked the other members if there were any comments on landscaping.
Commissioner Knieriem stated that the Landscape Plan meets code so there are no issues.
Commissioner Markunas stated that there was a lot of previous discussion related to landscaping. He just wants to see landscaping added around the trash enclosure as it’s illustrated on Sheet A305, which shows more landscaping than the Landscape Plan (sheet L-1).
Commissioner James stated that he has nothing to add.
Commissioner Wallrich asked about the location of the junipers that are stated on the Landscape Plan. She can’t find them.
Eric Peterson responded.
Commissioner Wallrich asked why are we waiving the 5-foot landscape requirement between the drive aisle and the parking area when of the 12 other fast-food drive throughs in town, seven comply, two have fences for separation, two predate the ordinance requirements, and one is not next to a parking area.
Commissioner Wallrich asked why the honey locust located on the east side of the site and adjacent to the ring road for the shopping center is coming down. She would rather see that tree kept. She stated that the evergreens along the La Grange on the south end of the site are in bad shape block the view of the site. She would be open to trimming them back or removing them as long as they are replaced.
Aliana Winkle and Eric Pederson both stated that the sight visibility triangle may have been a concern when deciding to remove the 3 trees at the east side of the site, but they can take a look at it.
Chair Schaeffer asked if the lower branches of the Honey locust can be trimmed to allow that tree to remain.
Commissioner Hogan stated that he has nothing to add.
Chair Schaeffer asked the other members if there were any comments on lighting. Commissioner Hogan stated that he has no issues with respect to lighting.
Commissioner Wallrich asked staff about the color of the light poles. Will they match in style?
Chris Gruba replied that the proposed light pole heads for Sparks Coffee may not exactly match the existing light pole heads in the rest of the plaza. This is because the existing light poles in the shopping center pre-date the widespread use of LED lights and that the older “shoebox” style fixtures may have housed sodium or mercury light bulbs. Manufacturers may no longer provide the “shoebox” light pole heads..
Chair Schaeffer asked the other members if there were any comments about signage.
Commissioner Knieriem stated that he has no comments with respect to signage. The applicant and her architect took the previous comments into account.
Commissioner Markunas stated that he has no comments with respect to signage.
Commissioner James stated that he thinks these (signs) will look cool.
Commissioner Wallrich asked staff if they reviewed the Sign Code in terms of wall sign distance from the walls?
Chris Gruba replied yes.
Chair Schaeffer asked the other members if there were any comments about engineering. There was no response.
Chair Schaeffer restated the four zoning exceptions that were being requested.
Commissioner Wallrich asked if staff could include a condition that staff check the brick sample to confirm that the proposed brick and stone colors will match the existing outlot brick and stone colors. She would also like a similar condition added for lighting.
Chair Schaeffer replied yes.
Eric Pederson shared the building material samples with the PC/ZBA members. Chris Gruba stated that these conditions can be added to the Major Change motion.
Motion (#5): Recommend to the Village Board approval of a Major Change to the Hickory Creek Marketplace PUD for the proposed Sparks Coffee on Outlot 1E, in accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony, and Findings of Fact, conditioned on:
1. Subject to final engineering approval;
2. The building exterior shall reflect standard brick instead of thin brick veneer;
3. Landscaping be added around the trash enclosure as illustrated on Sheet A305;
4. A brick sample shall be submitted for staff review to confirm that the proposed brick and stone colors will match the existing outlot brick and stone colors; and, 5. Light fixture and pole details for the proposed parking lot lights shall be submitted for staff review to confirm color consistency with the existing parking lot lights;
and the Major Change to the Hickory Creek Marketplace PUD for the proposed Sparks Coffee on Outlot 1E, shall include the following exceptions:
1. Reduced trash enclosure setback of 5’ (10’ required from any lot line);
2. Relief from required 5’ wide landscape bed adjacent to drive through lanes;
3. Relief from the required sidewalk connection from the building to the existing sidewalk along La Grange Road; and,
4. Relief from the Landscape Ordinance’s requirement of installing 1 landscape island or “finger” every 10 parking spaces.
Motion by: Markunas Seconded by: Knieriem
Approved: (6-1, Wallrich dissenting)
Motion (#6): Recommend to the Village Board approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a carry-out restaurant use on the property located at Outlot 1E in Hickory Creek Marketplace, in accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony, and Findings of Fact, conditioned on final engineering approval.
Motion by: Knieriem Seconded by: James
Approved: (7-0)
Motion (#7): Recommend to the Village Board approval of a Special Use Permit to allow drive-up service windows associated with a permitted use on the property located at Outlot 1E in Hickory Creek Marketplace, in accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony, and Findings of Fact, conditioned on final engineering approval.
Motion by: Knieriem Seconded by: James
Approved: (7-0)
Motion (#8): Recommend the Village Board approve a Special Use Permit to allow outdoor seating associated with a permitted restaurant on the property located at Outlot 1E in Hickory Creek Marketplace, in accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony, and Findings of Fact, conditioned on final engineering approval.
Motion by: Hogan Seconded by: Jakubowski
Approved: (7-0)
Motion (#9): Recommend the Village Board approve a Special Use Permit to allow extended hours of operation (5:30 am – 8 pm, Monday through Saturday and 6 am – 6 pm on Sundays) on the property located at Outlot 1E in Hickory Creek Marketplace, in accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony, and Findings of Fact, conditioned on final engineering approval.
Motion by: Markunas Seconded by: James
Approved: (7-0)
Chris Gruba noted that this project would likely continue to the Village Board on June 20th for final action.
D. Public Hearing: 9232 Gulfstream Road, Unit C – 86 Degrees Auto Group LLC Mike Schwarz presented the staff report.
The applicants, Yaxin Yu and her husband and business partner Mufei “Murphy” Han, approach the podium. They said they would be selling used cars only.
Commissioner Markunas asked if the business is all conducted online or if people come to the location to view cars. He asked if there would be “walk-in” sales. Mr. Han replied that there are times when online customers want to visit the site to inspect vehicles before sales, and that there may also be some walk-in customers. He did note that most sales are conducted online. He said that this would be a new business for them.
Commissioner James asked if their business would require a car trailer to tow vehicles to the site. Mr. Han responded no. He added that they usually obtain most of their cars from the Manheim Auto Auction and drive them to their warehouse.
Commissioner Wallrich asked if they planned to do any auto repair or body work. Mr. Han responded no.
Motion (#10): Close the public hearing.
Motion by: Jakubowski Seconded by: Wallrich
Approved: (7-0)
Commissioner Knieriem asked if there would be any cars parked in the striped parking lot. Mr. Yu responded no.
Mike Schwarz asked the Commission for their preference for screening the outdoor storage area.
Commissioner Markunas said that he preferred mesh screening over slats and the other members agreed.
Motion (#11): Recommend that the Village Board approve the request for a Special Use Permit for automobile sales in the I-1, Limited Industrial District, for the property located at 9232 Gulfstream Road, Unit C, Frankfort, Illinois (PIN: 19-09-34-326-015-1003), in accordance with the submitted plans, public testimony and Findings of Fact, and subject to the following conditions:
1. There shall be no sales inventory vehicles displayed and/or stored in the existing exterior striped parking spaces.
2. The applicant and/or the property owner shall install mesh screening on the existing chain-link fence that encloses the outdoor storage area, prior to occupancy of Unit C.
Motion by: James Seconded by: Wallrich
Approved: (7-0)
E. Public Hearing: 15 Ash Street – Olde Frankfort Mall, Proposed Building Addition Chris Gruba presented the staff report.
Chris Tokarz, the project architect, provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Chair Schaeffer swore in the applicants Michael Shideler and Joe Napoli who arrived late.
Chair Schaeffer asked the other members if they have any questions for the applicant.
Commissioner Knieriem stated that he does not have any initial questions.
Commissioner Wallrich stated that Linden Group is one of her favorite architects. She asked the applicants if the bowling alley is staying or going.
Joe Napoli stated that it is staying.
Commissioner Wallrich asked if the second and third floor multi-family units will be condominiums or rentals.
Joe Napoli replied that they intend to plat the residential units as condos but may ultimately rent them. The commercial tenant spaces will be leased.
Commissioner Wallrich stated that it is their choice on owner versus rental but not having unit owners can mean losing control over property maintenance.
Commissioner Wallrich asked the applicants if they have drafted any rules about balcony usage.
Michael Shidler stated that the covenants are basic at this point but staff reviewed the draft and added some comments about usage and storage.
Commissioner Hogan stated that as condos there would be an HOA. Chris Tokarz replied that this is correct. Each balcony will also have sconce lighting. Commissioner Wallrich stated that grills, lawn furniture, etc. are all concerns.
Chris Gruba stated that although the Village has not typically enforced conditions, covenants and restrictions, specific elements or regulations of the CC&R’s could be added as conditions of approval of the Special Use Permit for the PUD as a way to allow enforcement by the Village.
Commissioner Wallrich stated that she agreed.
Commissioner Wallrich asked about the transformer location.
Chris Tokarz stated that the location of the transformer is really a discussion for ComEd.
Commissioner Wallrich suggested that Chris Tokarz check to see if the Village’s franchise agreement with ComEd provides any direction on the transformer location.
Commissioner Wallrich asked the applicants about the location of parking for residents.
Michael Shideler stated that they have had discussions with other property owners and would like to secure an off-site lease for resident parking.
Commissioner Wallrich asked the applicants about the location for the mailroom and package drops.
Chris Tokarz stated that this will be somewhere within the common area of the building.
Commissioner Wallrich asked if there will be rooftop screening for HVAC mechanical units.
Chris Gruba stated that the applicant provided manufacturer specifications for several types of rooftop screening but he defers to the applicant as to which of these types they are choosing.
Chris Tokarz stated that the mailroom and package drop area will probably be in the loading area vestibule. They also have storage in the basement if necessary.
Commissioner Wallrich asked if the building will include bike storage and where this would be located.
Chris Tokarz replied that the bike storage would be within the basement as it is very large.
Commissioner Wallrich asked the applicants to confirm that only one of the residential units doesn’t have a balcony.
Chris Tokarz stated that is correct.
Commissioner Wallrich asked if they will allow pets in the residential units. Michael Shideler replied yes.
Commissioner Wallrich stated that she has concerns about what Breidert Green will look like if pets are allowed.
Commissioner Wallrich asked the applicants if all of the existing businesses would remain open during and after construction.
Michael Shidler replied yes, they are doing their best to accommodate.
Commissioner Wallrich asked if there would be any artificial plants in the landscape planters.
Michael Shidler replied no, there will be all live plant materials with annual color.
Commissioner Wallrich asked if there will be any potted plants in the right-of-way on Kansas Street.
Chris Tokarz replied yes, at the corners. Once the design for the outdoor seating is finalized, the planters will match.
Commissioner Wallrich stated that it is a beautiful building, but she is worried about the balconies.
Chris Gruba displayed the slide with the HVAC mechanical unit screening details.
Chris Tokarz explained that they usually go with metal screening with a custom color to match their rendering.
Commissioner James stated that it is great to see the evolution of the project and plans. He added that it is great to have future residents living there and enjoying their balconies. The size of these units are reasonable. He wants the applicants to confirm that the path around the building will be ADA accessible.
Chris Tokarz replied that it will be fully accessible.
Commissioner Jakubowski stated that the building looks great.
Commissioner Markunas stated that he likes the removal of the rooftop deck. He also had a concern about the width of the pathway adjacent to the outdoor dining.
Chris Tokarz confirmed that code will be met.
Michael Shideler stated they actually shifted and narrowed the location of the outdoor dining to accommodate ADA circulation, which is seen on the Architectural Site Plan but not on the Landscape Plan.
Commissioner Knieriem stated that the building looks great and every time they come back it gets better.
Commissioner Schaeffer thanked the applicants for listing to the PC/ZBA feedback.
Chair Schaeffer asked the applicants if this project is approved, when do they anticipate construction.
Michael Shideler stated that it is hard to predict but they will do everything they can to avoid the Fall Fest dates.
Chair Schaeffer asked if the other members if there should be any conditions to be added if the applicants elect to have rental versus owner occupied residential units.
Commissioner Wallrich suggested that the concerns can be stated in the minutes.
Commissioner Markunas stated that he prefers a condition over statements in the minutes.
Commissioner Wallrich asked the applicants if there is any desire to restrict smoking on the balconies.
There was a brief discussion among the members about the potential to add a condition that would prohibit smoking on the private balconies but there was no consensus.
Michael Shidler stated that is what staff provided and they used this as an example. Chris Gruba stated that the Village board can add or take away from the conditions. There was some discussion about adding the CCR’s as a condition.
Michael Shidler stated that they prefer more control over the balconies versus less. Chair Schaeffer asked if there was anyone in the public who wishes to speak.
Charlie Kaminsky approached the podium. She stated that she owns the property to the south. She stated that this is magnificent. But she needs to have the Village look at adding more parking. She owns a parking lot for her tenants that show allows the applicants’ tenants to use. Parking demand does mean that you have a successful downtown. Please pay attention to parking. Maybe Michael Shidler can obtain parking leases on other nearby properties.
Mike Cartolano approached the podium. He stated that he believes it is the job of the PC/ZBA to make sure there is sufficient parking in the Downtown. This is a great project, but the Village needs to make sure that 18 additional car spaces are accommodated for the proposed residential units. Also, the recently approved the building for 7 N. White Street took away parking.
Deborah Hardwick approached the podium. She stated that she has lived in town since 1986. She has watched everything change along Kansas Street. She stated that the property at 7 N. White Street was always meant to be developed. She is glad that it didn’t go two stories even though it should have been two stories. She thinks the proposed residential tenants will park in the public spaces and there should be a timed parking restriction on Kansas Street. She realizes that PC/ZBA does not control parking but maybe some type of parking sticker or permit should be utilized. It’s public information that the bowling alley is going to close. If that changes over to something else, would they have to come back here?
Chris Gruba stated that the project involved the creation of a new PUD. PUD’s are approved conditioned upon “the approved plans and public testimony”. If the bowling alley was removed after approval of the PUD, which would change the floor plans, the applicant may need to return to the PC/ZBA and Village Board to obtain approval of a Major Change to the PUD. However, this question may require consulting the Village attorney to be absolutely certain
Commissioner Hogan stated that on the first-floor plan behind the restaurant there is some type of event center.
Chris Tokarz stated that this is a banquet room for the restaurant tenant. Michael Shidler stated that the use of this space could change.
Lea Riley approached the podium. She stated that she lives at 30 W. Bowen Street. The bowling alley is a rare gem and wants it on record that the bowling alley is a historic thing. All her kids had parties at the bowling alley, and it is a relic in town. She asked about the balconies and what will be on them.
Chris Tokarz explained that they will be metal balconies with decorative rails and will have a steel channel floors with no openings. They have a solid bottom.
Lea Riley asked if there will be electrical outlets on the balcony.
Chris Tokarz said that the Code requires electrical outlets at all balcony doors.
Lea Riley stated that she wants it on record that parking is a big thing downtown. Adding people and businesses will require more parking and there should be a dedicated parking lot for these uses.
Marie Smith owner of the Frankfort Bowl approached the podium. She stated that the bowling alley is staying open. She stated that the AMS 8230 machines are not being made anymore. There are no mechanics to maintain these machines. At some point there will be no parts to fix these machines. When they start breaking there will be no more putting them back together again. She fixes them herself. Her mechanic states these machines cannot last another 20 years.
Commissioner Wallrich stated that her father in-law used to work up there and maybe they could go back to hand-setting the pins.
Lea Riley asked about the existing drainage along the south side of the building. Michael Shidler stated they are going to fix the drainage issues.
Lea Riley asked if new parts could go into the old machines.
Mary Smith replied no.
Kristin Sch(?) likes the project. She is concerned about parking. The Village should consider time-limited parking. She wants to work with Michael Shidler and Joe Napoli on the timing of the construction.
Motion (#12): Close the public hearing.
Motion by: Knieriem Seconded by: Jakubowski
Approved: (7-0)
Chair Schaeffer stated that she would like to go through the staff report topics.
Chair Schaeffer asked if there were any comments on land use. There was consensus that there were no issues.
Chair Schaeffer asked if there were any comments on the Site Plan. There was consensus that there were no issues.
Paula Wallrich stated that on Page 6 the residential unit size has a discrepancy with Page 3 for Unit 304.
Chris Gruba stated that Unit 303 is proposed at 970 square feet and Unit 304 is proposed at 945 square feet.
Chris Tokarz stated that stated the square footage figures are gross square footage. He added that walls could change to flip-flop a one bedroom to a two bedroom, etc.
Chair Schaeffer asked if there were any comments on the Floor Plan. There was consensus that there were no issues.
Chair Schaeffer asked if there were any comments on the architecture.
Commissioner Wallrich asked about the wrapping of the addition to the existing building. Chris Tokarz stated there is quite a bit of detail depicted on the Building Elevations. Chris Tokarz showed the members the material and color samples.
Chair Schaeffer asked if there were any comments on the topic of parking.
Commissioner Wallrich asked about the 2016 Sam Schwartz Parking Study.
Chris Gruba explained that he provided a map attached to the staff report that updated and corrected some minor numerical errors for existing parking numbers in the 2016 Sam Schwartz Parking Study.
Commissioner Wallrich asked staff if the parking study finding would change based on the numerical errors that he discovered. Was there a net loss of existing parking?
Chris Gruba stated that there was about a 5 space net loss based on the corrected counts.
Commissioner Wallrich stated that it would be good to note this in the minutes.
Commissioner James stated that it would be in the best interest of the applicants to find parking spaces to lease for their future residents.
There was some discussion about any potential condition about parking.
Mike Schwarz stated that if there is a future Plat of Condominum to allow for the sale of the proposed multi-family residential unit, a condition could be added regarding residential parking to be provided off site within a specified time frame, such as prior to occupancy of the first unit.
Chris Tokarz stated that unlike the 7 N. White Street project, which doesn’t yet exist, this project has a building that already exists. They are just adding to it and the 2016 Sam Schwartz study took this into account.
Chair Schaeffer asked if there were any comments on the Landscape Plan. There was consensus that there were no issues.
Chair Schaeffer asked if there were any comments on the lighting. There was consensus that there were no issues.
Chair Schaeffer asked if there were any comments on the signage. There was consensus that there were no issues.
Chair Schaeffer asked if there were any comments on the fencing for the outdoor seating. There was consensus that there were no issues, but that the style, height, and color should match that of Fat Rosie’s, Francesca’s and Trail’s Edge.
Chair Schaeffer asked if there were any comments with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. There was consensus that there were no issues.
Motion (#13): Recommend to the Village Board to approve the Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development, for the Olde Frankfort Mall Addition, in accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony, and Findings of Fact, and conditioned on:
1. Subject to final engineering approval;
2. Revising the Landscape Plan to match the Site Plan (Sheet P-2);
3. That the outdoor seating fencing shall match the height, design and materials of Fat Rosie’s, Francesca’s and Trail’s Edge;
4. That any sections of public sidewalk damaged during construction shall be replaced;
5. That the landscape planters include live plant material only; and
6. That there shall only be outdoor seating furniture on the balconies; and
The proposed Olde Frankfort Mall Planned Unit Development shall include the following exceptions:
1. Front Yard of Kansas Street shall be landscaped; none proposed (Article 6, Section C, Part 3 (g)(1));
2. Corner Side Yard of Ash Street shall be landscaped; none proposed (Article 6, Section C, Part 3 (g)(2));
3. Corner Side Yard of White Street shall be landscaped; none proposed (Article 6, Section C, Part 3 (g)(2));
4. Minimum 10’ Corner Side Yard setback required from Ash Street, with 3’ 8 ½” proposed (Article 6, Section C, Part 1);
5. Minimum 10’ Corner Side Yard setback required from White Street, with 0’ proposed (Article 6, Section C, Part 1);
6. Minimum 5’ Side Yard setback required from the south property line, with 0’ proposed (Article 6, Section C, Part 1);
7. Maximum building height of 35’ is permitted, with 45’ 4” proposed (Article 6, Section C, Part 1);
8. Relief of all required off-street parking for a building within the H-1 zone district (Article 6, Section C, Part 3 (g)(6));
9. Relief of all required off-street loading (Article 7, Section B, Part 4); and, 10. Light levels exceed 0.5 foot-candles along all property lines (Article 7, Section E, Part 3).
Motion by: Markunas Seconded by: Wallrich
Approved: (7-0)
Motion (#14): Recommend to the Village Board to approve a Special Use Permit for a full-service restaurant with liquor sales for Tenant 01, in accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony and Findings of Fact.
Motion by: James Seconded by: Jakubowski
Approved: (7-0)
Motion (#15): Recommend to the Village Board to approve a Special Use Permit for outdoor seating associated with a permitted restaurant for Tenant 01, located within the rights-of-way of both Kansas Street and Ash Street, in accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony, and Findings of Fact, and conditioned upon obtaining a lease agreement with the Village for use of public right-of-way for outdoor dining.
Motion by: Markunas Seconded by: James
Approved: (7-0)
Motion (#16): Recommend to the Village Board to approve a variation to waive all required off-street parking associated with the existing building and proposed addition, in accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony, and Findings of Fact, and conditioned upon the applicant working with staff to locate two (2) decorative bicycle racks off-site from the subject property.
Motion by: Markunas Seconded by: Jakubowski
Approved: (7-0)
Motion (#17): Recommend the Village Board approve the Preliminary/Final Plat of Resubdivision for 15 Ash Street, in accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony, and Findings of Fact, and subject to any technical revisions prior to recording and conditioned on final engineering approval.
Motion by: James Seconded by: Markunas
Approved: (7-0)
F. Public Hearing: 15 Ash Street – Grounded Coffee
Chris Gruba presented the staff report.
Chair Schaeffer asked if there were any initial questions or comments from the other members.
There was no response.
Motion (#18): Close the public hearing.
Motion by: James Seconded by: Jakubowski
Approved: (7-0)
Motion (#19): Recommend the Village Board approve a Special Use Permit for outdoor seating associated with a permitted restaurant on the property located at 15 Ash Street (for the business located at 19 Ash Street), in accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony and Findings of Fact, with the condition that if the outdoor seating area is replaced with a building addition, this Special Use Permit will become null and void.
Motion by: Markunas Seconded by: Knieriem
Approved: (7-0)
G. Workshop: 240 Oak Street – Musard Residence Rear Addition
Mike Schwarz presented the staff report.
The applicant, Lara Musard, approached the podium.
Chair Schaeffer ask the Commission for general comments.
Commissioner Wallrich asked about the location of the tree that was referred to. Schwarz responded that it in the back yard adjacent to the sunroom.
Ms. Musard said that her father would be moving into the house addition and that he’s not disabled but he is getting older. She said that she wanted to preserve the house’s mid century architecture by placing the addition as proposed. She mentioned that her husband is disabled and that they’ve been at the house for 11 years. She said that the house addition would eventually be for her mother when the time comes.
Commissioner Knieriem asked the applicant if she uses the garage for parking cars. The applicant responded yes.
Commissioner Knieriem said that he drove by the site and happened to run into the neighbor that lives behind the applicant’s house, to the west. He asked the neighbor if they had any concerns about the Musard’s house addition and they responded that they weren’t concerned.
Commissioner Markunas said that he did not have any concerns about the proximity of the addition to the rear yard and side yard.
Commissioner James said that he thought that any addition to the house anywhere on the property would likely require a variation unless it was a very narrow addition. He said that the addition could possibly be placed at the southwest corner of the house instead. Ms. Musard responded that such location of the addition would enclose the kitchen area.
Commissioner Wallrich asked if the addition were placed in the southwest corner, that access to the new living area would have to be through the kitchen. The applicant responded yes.
Commissioner James asked staff if the house addition could one day turn into a separately rented apartment unit. Schwarz responded that the addition, as proposed, is still considered part of the house as one single-family dwelling. Commissioner Wallrich said she had the same concern, that if the house were sold, would the new owners rent out the house addition as a separate dwelling unit.
There was some discussion as to whether the existing alley behind the house could be vacated since it’s grassed and not paved. The applicant expressed an interest in vacating the alley and selling half to each abutting property.
Commissioner Wallrich said that there is an alley study that was conducted by the Village. Schwarz said that per State law, a public hearing must be held to vacate the alley and that an appraisal would need to be obtained before any potential sale of Village property.
Commissioner Wallrich asked if the two lots to the north of the applicant’s property are both owned by the same person. The applicant responded yes.
Commissioner Wallrich asked if the vacant lot immediately to the north is a buildable lot. Commissioner Jakubowski said that she may have sold the house to the north as a real estate agent and that the vacant lot is not buildable. Schwarz said that variations would be required for lot width and area to allow the vacant lot to the north to be buildable.
Commissioner Wallrich said that she’d like to include in the Findings of Fact that staff illustrated that there would be no other conforming location for the addition to be placed.
Chair Schaeffer asked that staff investigate options for vacating the alley, but that the sale could be at a later time and not connected specifically to the proposed project.
https://files4.1.revize.com/frankfortil/PC%20Minutes%206.8.23%20SIGNED.pdf
Alerts Sign-up