Will County Gazette

Village of Frankfort Plan Commission / Zoning Board of Appeals met May 23.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

Call to Order: Chair Schaeffer called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM

Commissioners Present: Nichole Schaeffer (Chair), Brian James, Johnny Morris, Dan Knieriem, Jessica Jakubowski, Will Markunas, David Hogan

Commissioners Absent: None

Staff Present: Community & Economic Development Director Mike Schwarz, Senior Planner Chris Gruba, Planner Amanda Martinez,

Administrative Assistant Lisa Paulus

Elected Officials Present: Mayor Keith Ogle, Trustee Jessica Petrow

A. Approval of the Minutes from May 9th, 2024

Chair Schaeffer asked for questions or comments regarding the minutes. There were none. Motion (#1): To approve the minutes from May 9, 2024.

Motion by: Jakubowski Seconded by: James

Abstained: Hogan

Approved: (6-0-1)

Chair Schaeffer asked members of the audience to raise their hands if they intend to provide testimony during any of the public hearings this evening. Chair Schaeffer explained the Plan Commission’s role and how the meeting is typically conducted. There were no members of the public intending to provide testimony.

B. Non- Public Hearing: Parking Adjustment for 9500 W. Lincoln Highway (barbershop) Christopher Gruba presented the staff report.

The applicant approached the podium. He stated the property owner, Greg Iser, could not attend this evening since he is feeling ill. The applicant stated he felt the barber shop will create a diverse addition to the plaza as well as fill current vacancy to complete occupancy. The owner of the property is also looking to sell.

The applicant stated there will be a very nice buildout in this unit, and the curb appeal will be kept up on the building. He added Greg knows it helps the economic climate of Frankfort and would like to fill the space. The barbershop does the straight blade shave and feels like this barbershop would be a nice addition to the plaza. He is going to sign a 5-year lease with an additional 5-year option and is looking for a long-term tenant. The barbershop is currently operating out of Oak Lawn with an existing book of clients.

Commissioner Knieriem asked why the building is for sale.

The applicant replied Greg would like to retire. He stated Greg lives in Frankfort and is ready to sell.

Commissioner Knieriem stated he thought Greg’s son was part of the operation as well.

The applicant stated that Greg had appointed him, and that he has a local presence to head this project. He is working to help with the space.

Chair Schaeffer agreed on the straight forwardness of the matter.

Commissioner Markunas stated he would like to change the parking adjustment for the barbershop from requiring 9 spaces to requiring 5 spaces, so that all of the uses in the shopping plaza would require 79 parking spaces, and 79 spaces are provided on-site.

Chair Shaeffer stated that even though the proposed hours are until 9:00 pm and the restaurant will also be open, she presumed there would be a bell curve of customers for the barber shop in that there would be less customers later in the day.

Motion (#2): Approve an adjustment to the minimum number of required parking spaces from 9 spaces to 5 spaces to allow the existing 79 parking spaces on the property to serve the existing businesses and the proposed barbershop, in accordance with the public testimony.

Motion by: Markunas Seconded by: Jakubowski

Approved: 7-0

C. Public Hearing: 9426 Corsair Road – Triple Crown Training/Top Velocity (Ref#109) Public Hearing continued from April 25, 2024

Chair Schaeffer asked if the applicant was in attendance.

Amanda Martinez responded that the applicant is not in the audience, so they may not be attending the meeting.

Chair Schaeffer stated a late site plan was submitted to staff the night before the meeting. She stated that staff did a high-level review of what was submitted and it appeared to still have deficiencies. She stated she would like to survey her fellow commissioners on proper action since it is now the third public hearing. She asked if the Commission would prefer to vote on the project tonight or to give the applicants one more chance to get all deficiencies corrected.

Chair Schaeffer stated there has been quite a few emails from the property owner stating that they will not propose a site plan but then there is correspondence that they will make revisions to the site plan, so it has been a mix of different statements.

Commissioner Knieriem asked if the applicant cannot come into compliance due to a cost issue.

Amanda Martinez explained that the applicant may be frustrated with the special use process itself because that there was a previous baseball training facility at this location.

Commissioner Knieriem stated it is the Commission’s expectation that if you change the use you must comply with the ordinance.

Commissioner James explained a special use granted in the past doesn’t set a precedence for a special use requested today. He mentioned Roma Sports as an example, and that Roma is in an industrial area.

Commissioner Morris asked if the business was currently operating and reiterated that as far as moving forward, the expectations the Commission have set are clear. He concurred that it would be appropriate to give the applicant one last chance.

Ms. Martinez stated she does not believe that the business was currently operating since that would be a violation of the Code.

Commissioner Hogan stated that baseball training facilities typically have more than 14 people in the building at a time so it will be interesting to see if this business will really enforce that limitation on themselves. He concurred that he is amenable to giving the applicant another chance.

Chair Schaeffer stated she believes the applicant feels singled out since there are other properties in the industrial park that are non-conforming. She explained that when an applicant comes for a special use, staff and the Commission look at all the code requirements and the applicant must meet them.

Motion (#3): To keep open and continue the public hearing to June 13, 2024. Motion by: Jakubowski Seconded by: Markunas

Approved: 7-0

D. Workshop: 20091 S. La Grange Road – Chick-fil-A

Amanda Martinez presented a summary of the staff report.

Chair Schaeffer stated the workshop was designed to walk through larger projects that have a lot of moving pieces to be ready for public hearing. She added the Commission does not specifically take testimony on workshops.

The applicant, Joe Vavrina, approached the podium. He commended Amanda Martinez for doing a great job. He stated he has been assisting with the proposed development, working on changes for some of the requested modifications, and that he looks forward to discussing with the Plan Commission.

Chair Schaeffer thanked the applicant for being here this evening. She stated the project was a big deal for the Village.

The Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed use is appropriate. The Commission discussed the proposed hours being earlier for serving breakfast, and the Commission agreed that the operating hours are appropriate.

For outdoor seating, Chair Schaeffer asked for clarification on the 225 square feet of outdoor seating. The applicant stated it would likely be closer to 500 square feet with the handrail and fencing components.

Amanda Martinez stated she would like to confirm that square footage before the public hearing so that the parking calculation is clear.

Chair Schaeffer stated the site plan shows 76% impervious coverage, which is over the 70% allowable impervious coverage. She asked the applicant if permeable pavers for the patio would help mitigate some of that.

The applicant stated Chick-fil-A has tried the paver patios, but there have been problems with the pavers functioning properly over time due to the weather of the Midwest. He stated they are making sure it doesn’t create a maintenance issue in the future for the business owner.

Commissioner Hogan asked if the applicant could reduce impervious in general if they did not prefer to use pavers.

The applicant stated they are working to fit service models into this plan, and they are squeezing everything they can out of this site plan. He added that the subject property needs to meet the parking requirements to have an agreement with the plaza.

Commissioner Markunas asked how many square feet the project is over as far as impervious surface.

Amanda Martinez stated that Chick-fil-A is proposing 2,000 square feet more of impervious surface than the current Steak’n Shake, and it is already over 2% than what is allowed by the B-3 district. The Village Engineer is looking at storm water and thinks Sparks Coffee was a bit under impervious coverage and Chick-fil-A is a bit over, but she’s looking at the original overall shopping center development plan to confirm.

Commissioner Jakubowski stated she thinks the impervious is due to the traffic pattern. She added she has seen other places where they’ve had to close and readjust their site because of traffic control.

The applicant stated the proposed drive-through lane is a newer model where it’s a full 2 lanes to really increase service so you don’t see backups into the parking lot.

Chair Schaeffer asked if the applicant is meeting the requirements for the setbacks for landscape or if the pavement was encroaching.

Amanda Martinez stated the applicant is maintaining the landscape setback requirement. She added that Chick-fil-A is also maintaining the 5-foot pavement setback.

Commissioner Knieriem questioned where the extra 2,000 square feet of impervious would be going.

The applicant stated the additional impervious square footage is probably at several different areas that lead to the 2,000 square feet, not one specific area. If needed, the applicant offered to provide an overlay to compare Steak’n Shake to the Chick-fil-A to show changes.

Commissioner Knieriem stated his concern would be the existing impervious is going to take additional water, and with a curbless gutter, he would like to see the overlay of where that is.

Chair Schaeffer stated since this is a PUD and the storm drainage is all tied together, if Sparks Coffee in the plaza was less square footage and Chick-fil-A is more, it may work out. She added if the storm sewer can handle the impervious area and the Village Engineer ok’s the conveyance of the storm water, it may be acceptable.

Commissioner Knieriem asked if the existing structures would all be torn down. The applicant replied yes.

Chair Schaeffer addressed the topic of the drive-through canopy and its setback. She asked if the canopy can be adjusted. She asked if the canopy is located in the right-of-way.

The applicant stated the only way the drive-through canopy can be adjusted is if would be to remove the outdoor seating. He added the canopy is 30 feet from the right-of-way and the building itself doesn’t encroach the required front yard setback.

Commissioner Markunas asked about the setback for Sparks Coffee. Christopher Gruba stated Sparks Coffee met the 125-foot road centerline setback.

Chair Schaeffer stated Sparks Coffee had a much skinner building on a much bigger lot, and they flipped the orientation.

Commissioner James stated the Chick-fil-A site plan is designed to maximize the parking, maximize the guests, control the traffic, etc.

Commissioner Markunas asked if it was possible to move the outdoor seating to the front of the building.

The applicant stated they would need another ten feet to move the outdoor seating to the front of the building.

Chair Schaeffer asked about the east side of the building for possible outdoor seating instead.

The applicant stated that’s where the pick-up window and other indoor operations are situated.

Chair Schaeffer addressed the accessory structures and the setback for the trash enclosure. She stated this was one of the requests to modify and asked if there was anywhere to optimize.

The applicant stated if you look at the parking lot, maybe at the exit of the drive-through lane, but honestly this is the best and only location for it.

Commissioner Markunas asked what the screening would look like for the trash enclosure. The applicant replied there is an evergreen screening the trash enclosure.

Commissioner Markunas stated this location for the trash receptacle would be the most acceptable for the refuse truck to access it. He asked why the applicant was requesting an 8-foot-tall trash enclosure and not a 6-foot-tall trash enclosure.

The applicant stated there is a storage room attached to the trash receptacle area and there is a roof on it. For everything to be consistent, the structure from a design standpoint would be uniform so it functions as one unit. Where the dumpsters sit is above grade as well, so it would be higher than typical.

Commissioner Markunas stated he did not see it being an issue lowering it to 6’. He asked the Commission for thoughts.

Commissioner Knieriem asked Commissioner Markunas if he was asking to make the dumpster enclosure height 6 feet and the storage building attached 8 feet.

Chair Schaeffer stated she would rather have uniformity and would allow for a taller wall for the trash enclosure. She added she did not think 2 extra feet would adversely affect the aesthetic or be out of scale with the building.

Commissioner Knieriem agreed and asked if there was lighting around the trash enclosure. The applicant stated there is a light inside the actual dumpster area.

Commissioner Knieriem stated that would help not bring any attention to the trash enclosure. He asked why the enclosure was raised above grade.

The applicant stated the enclosure is raised above grade for better drainage and a cleaner aesthetic. What they found is that a trash enclosure will drain across an apron, after a while it looks grey and dirty. With the raised trash enclosure, the water that falls goes out the back and drains through the landscaped area.

Chair Schaeffer noted that the maximum size of a trash enclosure is 144 square feet which had not been changed during the Zoning Ordinance text amendment for accessory structures. The Commission unanimously agreed that the modification to increase the size was not out of the realm.

Amanda Martinez asked if the Commission was amenable to the proposed parking stall widths for the 2 ADA parking spaces. Chick-fil-A is 1 foot short in width, but there is one diagonal walkway space in between the two vehicle spaces.

The applicant stated the proposed parking stall widths comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act. He added that typically, no one is parked in that middle area allowing patrons to navigate with extra space. He stated that he could make the revision, but it would add to the impervious area and take away from the landscaped area.

Chair Schaeffer stated there is a buffer area so there is no issue. The Commission agreed. Chair Schaeffer asked if having 49 parking spaces complies with the parking requirements.

Ms. Martinez stated that the parking for the proposed restaurant complies, but the applicant is requesting modification through the PUD for the parking that is associated with the outdoor seating. She added that the outdoor seating parking requirement is a new requirement that was codified in the past few months amid Chick-fil-A working on their site plan.

Chair Schaeffer stated the Commission could discuss the request for a parking modification when the outdoor dining square footage is confirmed. Chair Schaeffer asked about the drive-through window.

The applicant stated for taking face-to-face orders from customers, they’ll have team members at the order point as well as the drive-through window. The proposed window opens as a door to deliver orders quicker.

Chair Schaeffer stated that staff suggested that the dual lanes merge into one lane at the drive-through window. She asked what the Commission thought of the dual lanes. The commission agreed dual lanes were preferred.

Ms. Martinez discussed architecture and building elevations. She stated there were no modifications and she is currently awaiting samples for the other materials listed on the building elevations.

Commissioner Markunas complimented the applicant on their job working with the existing aesthetic of the plaza and finding a brick color to match the surrounding buildings.

Commissioner Hogan asked what building material the canopy is made of. The applicant replied metal in a dark bronze color.

Chair Schaeffer thanked the applicant for wrapping the columns in brick.

The applicant stated there are heaters and fans for the winter and summer outside the building positioned directly for staff underneath the canopy.

Commissioner Markunas asked about the color for the fans and heaters. The applicant replied bronze.

Commissioner Knieriem asked about screening for the drive through area.

Ms. Martinez stated staff requested that the applicant provide additional evergreens where the menu board facing the right-of-way. There currently is an existing evergreen covering the former Steak’n Shake menu board that Chick-fil-A plans to preserve.

Commissioner Markunas asked if a customer is not directly in front of the menu board will they be able to see the menu.

The applicant stated he can look into it.

Michael Schwarz stated that two years ago the Village updated the Sign Regulations relative to drive-through facility menu boards and the Municipal Code now requires light sensing technology to automatically dim down the screens during cloudy or low lighting conditions , but he suggested Commissioner Markunas may have been referring to privacy screening similar to what many people have on their mobile phones.

Chair Schaeffer addressed the topic of the colors for the umbrellas for the outside seating and stated that staff suggested neutral colors.

Commissioner Jakubowski stated she did not think the Commission should challenge the umbrella color. She stated the Village has colored umbrellas all over town.

Commissioner James agreed.

Chair Schaeffer asked if there would be Chick-fil-A logos on the umbrellas.

Mike Schwarz stated the Sign Regulations prohibit business names, logos, and slogans on patio umbrellas.

Commissioner Jakubowski asked if the applicant would be amenable to all black fencing.

The applicant agreed.

Chair Schaeffer stated the rooftop mechanical units will be screened and asked the applicant to confirm if all the roof access is inside the building.

The applicant replied yes to both questions.

Commissioner James asked if the building material would be thin brick.

Ms. Martinez stated there is some verbiage that says “veneer” then says “modular” on the architectural plans. She added that the applicant should only be keeping the “modular” verbiage.

Chair Schaeffer addressed the landscaping topic. She asked if the other outlots in the plaza have a berm.

Ms. Martinez responded that some outlots appear to be flat within the required 25-foot landscape setback.

The applicant stated if they did implement a berm, they would have to cut down the mature existing trees.

Commissioner Knieriem asked where the employees would park their vehicles.

The applicant stated all employee parking is on site, typically in the northern parking spaces that are furthest from the building.

Commissioner James asked the applicant if the operator of the business notices most days the parking lot is maxed out, would employees park somewhere else.

Commissioner Morris asked how often that typically occurs.

The applicant stated the parking lot does not max out not as much as it used to, especially post covid. He stated most people use the drive-through instead of dine in.

Commissioner James asked if this location would have a play area.

The applicant stated this one does not have a play area. The company looks at demographics including if there are enough families in the area.

Ms. Martinez asked the Commission if they were in agreement with parking islands width, area, and quantity. The Commission agreed they are amenable to the parking islands width, area, and quantity.

Chair Schaeffer asked about the landscaping next to the access point. She stated sometimes when you turn out of the lot, it can become hard to see.

The applicant stated any plantings would be below the level of sight so drivers can see clearly.

Chair Schaeffer discussed lighting. She stated she was amenable to the 23-foot lighting. The commission agreed.

The applicant stated he would propose a white light pole but needs to confirm that they can order the white light fixture for the top.

Commissioner James stated that the Chick-fil-A flagpole was 50 feet originally and had reduced to 25 feet.

The applicant stated the proposed flagpole was standard Chick-fil-A size.

Chair Schaeffer asked if all the photometrics at the lot lines comply and if the menu boards maximum illumination meet code.

Ms. Martinez stated yes, the photometrics at the lot lines comply. She added that the applicant is working on determining the menu board illumination.

Chair Schaeffer addressed the topic of the signage on the building.

The applicant stated there was no longer a freestanding sign proposed for Chick-fil-A, so the signage on the building would be the only identification. If the applicant was to reduce the height of the signage to 3.5 feet, it would be less visible.

Ms. Martinez stated the icon component of the wall signs adds slightly to the height of the signage due to the Chicken head image on the letter C of Chick-fil-A.

Commissioner Markunas asked about other buildings in the plaza and how they comply with the tenant signage requirements.

Christopher Gruba stated he did not think that the other existing buildings proposed signage with variations.

Chair Schaeffer asked about the scale of the signage. She added that she is more amenable to have the signage scaled to fit building.

Commissioner Markunas stated he has a difficult time with applicants not meeting signage requirements. He added he does not know why the applicant cannot meet the signage requirements because it’s a brand-new slate. The signage requirements are a standard the Village of Frankfort has. He stated this is now going to be the last building other than Sparks Coffee. He added the Commission had made a lot of previous businesses in the plaza change to fit the mold, and he would like to not change that for the last business that is proposed to come in.

The applicants stated if you drive along La Grange Road, the existing vegetation is pretty mature, which limits the visibility of the proposed building.

Chair Schaeffer suggested to the applicant to choose what scale of lettering for the wall signage and decide which of the proposed signs the applicant would consider removing from the building.

Commissioner Hogan agreed with the size of the signage to match the scale of the building. He added the applicant wouldn’t oversize the logo or signage to risk aesthetics of the building.

Chair Schaeffer confirmed that the height of the menu boards are being reduced to comply with the Sign Regulations.

The applicant agreed.

Ms. Martinez addressed the topic of the window decals. The wording has been outlined, but measurements are needed that include the space in between each line of text. She stated the applicant is aware of the requirements.

Chair Schaeffer asked the applicant how he felt about the direction that was given. The applicant stated that he understood the feedback and thanked the Commission.

https://cms9files.revize.com/frankfortil/PC-ZBA/PC%20Minutes%205.23.24%20Signed.pdf