Will County Gazette

Village of Frankfort Historic Preservation Commission met Sept. 12.

Here are the minutes provided by the Commission:

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

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

Commissioners Absent: David Hogan, Jessica Jakubowski

Staff Present: Community & Economic Development Director Mike Schwarz, Planner Amanda Martinez, Administrative Assistant Lisa Paulus

Elected Officials Present: None

A. Approval of the Minutes from August 22, 2024

Chair Schaeffer asked for questions or comments regarding the minutes. There were none.

Motion (#2): To approve the minutes from August 22, 2024.

Motion by: Morris Seconded by: James

Approved: (4- 0- 1) Abstained: Markunas

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. She then explained the role of the commission.

B. Public Hearing: 200 Locust Street – Frankfort Park District Main Park Concession

Stand/ Storage Building (Ref#106)

Amanda Martinez presented the staff report.

Gina Hassett, the Executive Director of the Frankfort Park District, approached the podium with Mike Murphy, the President of the Frankfort Falcons football program. They stated the application for the building addition is for the storage of Falcon football equipment instead of having to pay to use an off-site private storage facility. Mr. Murphy stated they did not have the stone wainscotting in the addition’s architecture plans in order to save money but can accommodate if necessary.

Ms. Hassett stated the building was formerly a concession stand but has not been used for several years. The building was also formerly used for ice rink rentals when the weather allowed, but also has been several years since it was used for that purpose. She added that the building remains as just a storage facility.

Chair Schaeffer asked if anyone from the public would like to speak on this project.

Doug Molski approached the podium. He stated he has been a resident on Cappel Lane since March of 2003. He expressed concern who would be responsible for the cost of the renovation to the structure.

Ms. Hassett replied that the Falcon Football organization is funding the cost, not the Frankfort Park District.

Mr. Molksi questioned if the Falcon Football organization pays rent to the Frankfort Park District for the use of the building since it’s on Park District land.

Ms. Hassett stated the Park District has an agreement with Falcon Football similar to other agreements that the Park District has when working with the local organizations that provide activities to Frankfort residents.

Mr. Molksi asked if the storage space will be available to other users since the building is on Park District property.

Chair Schaeffer replied it was her understanding that it will continue to be used by Falcon Football.

Mr. Molski thanked the Commission.

Motion (#2): To close the public hearing.

Motion by: Knieriem Seconded by: James

Approved: (5- 0)

Chair Schaeffer stated it is a request for major change to PUD, to expand bump out and essentially go greater than what the Code is to go from 600 to 740 square feet.

Commissioner Morris had questions regarding architecture. He asked how the building expansion will be approached.

Mike Murphy explained the building elevation/ architecture in the staff report.

Commissioner James stated if you tried to match the stone it would be hard to match if its 20 years old.

Commissioner Markunas agreed the intended use for the building is completely appropriate. Gina and her staff have always been a professional organization and really help the youth of Frankfort. He stated preferred the wainscotting on the addition to remain consistent.

Commissioner Knieriem agreed the Falcons could use the additional room and would love to support them any way we can.

Chair Schaeffer stated she would like to see the wainscotting on the building addition to match for consistency. She agreed the use is appropriate, and for the record it will not affect the impervious coverage, and she does not object the increased lot coverage of 740 vs. 600.

Mr. Murphy stated he is completely in agreement with adding stone wainscotting.

Motion (#3): Recommend that the Village Board approve a Major Change to the Main Park PUD to permit the construction of an expansion to the existing concession stand/storage building, including a modification from the maximum allowable square footage of an accessory structure, to increase the square footage from 600 sq. ft. to 740 sq. ft. for the property located at Main Park, in accordance with the reviewed plans, public testimony, and Findings of Fact, and conditioned on including a stone wainscot to match the existing building.

Motion by: Markunas Seconded by: Morris

Approved: (5 - 0)

C. Public Hearing: Southeast Corner of Sauk Trail and Linden Drive - Linden Grove – 8-lot Single Family Detached Residential Subdivision (Ref. #107)

Mr. Schwarz presented the staff report.

Commissioner Knieriem questioned what the major changes were since last time. Mr. Schwarz summarized page two of the staff report.

Robert Guillemette, a nearby resident of Frankfort, approached the podium. He stated he was surprised to see only two houses on Sauk Trail in this development. Chair Schaeffer explained the site plan shows the lots themselves and approximate footprints and is not the final plan. The homes will have driveways. Commissioner Knieriem asked Mr. Guillemette if there was a concern with the driveways being on Sauk Trail. Ms. Martinez stated there was not a requirement or variation for driveways on Sauk Trail. Mr. Schwarz stated public works signs off on driveway locations and they are looked at closely since they’re all village streets. Mr. Guillemette said driveways to turn around would be better than backing out to Sauk Trail. Commissioner James commented that a side load garage would make backing out of a residential driveway easier.

Gary Stephen, a resident at 128 Church Street, approached the podium. He asked for clarification on if the development had a detention or retention pond. The developer, John Kerley, replied it will be a retention pond. Mr. Stephen questioned the reduction in trees. Mr. Schwarz replied the development is deficient by 2 trees on Linden Street and 2 trees on Church Street due to the number of driveways for 8 houses. Chair Schaeffer stated the developer is putting in as many trees as they can, so overall there will be a surplus. The cash in lieu will help those trees get planted.

Chair Schaeffer then swore in the rest of the public that came in after the initial swearing in at the beginning of the meeting.

Chip Krusemark approached the podium. He noted it was a dry bottom pond with the only outflow being directly to the West. He questioned if it was sheeting or underground pipe. Mr. Schwarz stated the utilities would be brought to the far side of the property. Chair Schaeffer confirmed the storm water ponds are connected to a storm sewer.

Nancy Kempen approached the podium. She stated there was a discussion of an HOA used to cover maintenance of pond, and wanted to know if the HOA would include homes from the surrounding area. Chair Schaeffer answered no, the HOA will just be the 8 houses of the new development. Ms. Kempen asked if the public grounds were for all residents of Frankfort or for just the residents of this development. Chair Schaeffer stated it was typically for the subdivision and was not intended to be a public park.

Wendy Kovach approached the podium. She asked if the homes would be built to suit. The developer, Mr. Kerley, stated the subdivision would be starting off as one spec house, then proceeding based on demand.

Kristen Kalaman approached the podium. She voiced her concern for the retention pond and asked if there was anything that can be done to prevent accidental drowning. Chair Shaeffer stated it will be a dry pond. Mr. Schwarz added the Village has stringent design standards for the edges of stormwater ponds so there will not be steep drop offs. The retention area will fill for the duration of the storm, then will empty into the storm sewer at a slow rate. Commissioner James stated the developer worked to remove a retaining wall which should provide safer grading.

Kristy Grismer approached the podium and asked when the development plans would be taking place. Mr. Schwarz stated this project would go to the Village Board within the next month or so, then they’ll vote on it, and if the project gets approved, Mr. Kerley would come back with a Final Plat of Subdivision and related Final Development Plans for Plan Commission and then Village Board review. Mr. Kerley stated if all is approved, he will be starting construction as soon as possible.

Motion (#4): To close the public hearing.

Motion by: James Seconded by: Morris

Approved: (5- 0)

The Commission was in agreement with the density, size of lots, and open space. Chair Schaeffer agreed with the elevations and architecture. She appreciated the CC&R wording about the styles, and the minimum of 3 different styles to pick from the Village’s adopted Residential Design Guidelines.

Chair Schaeffer addressed the notion of required first-floor masonry. She noted that over the past three years, the last 15 requests for non-masonry first floor building materials were all approved by the Village Board. She asked her fellow Commissioners if they wanted to entertain the thought that masonry can be optional in this PUD for the Village Board.

Commissioner Markunas stated that although a blanket variation for the overall development would require less work for staff and Village Board, he still believes we should continue to review each individual variance request as new homes are proposed. He believes it gives the Commission the opportunity to look at other materials and architecture features of the homes. It would be his vote not to have a blanket variation.

Commissioner Knieriem agreed with Commissioner Markunas. He stated when an applicant comes through, the discussion on these types of cases are typically 15-20 minutes long.

Mr. Schwarz stated his opinion was the current process is black and white, requiring all 4 sides of the first floor of a home to have masonry siding, which requires a variation on a lot-by-lot basis. It would be a decision for the Plan Commission and Village Board as far as a blanket variation that would allow the developer to avoid having to go through a variation process with every home.

Ms. Martinez stated sometimes there’s a way to do that through a minimum percentage, say 30% of a house, where staff could look at the square footage of each elevation. Commissioner Markunas replied that was another topic for another day, i.e. a text amendment to the current exterior materials standards.

Commissioner Morris was not closed to the idea of a blanket waiver of required masonry materials. He asked how much time the variation requests for non-masonry added to the developer’s time. He stated he was perplexed and torn, and leaning towards a waiver for this particular PUD.

Commissioner James preferred to keep the variation with the 8 homes having to come to the PC/ ZBA. He was concerned about possibly changing the scope of the Borg Warner project.

Chair Schaeffer stated the Commission will put a close on the idea of having a blanket waiver and leave things as is. The developer, Mr. Kerley, asked for clarification. Chair Shaeffer stated the Commission is not going to recommend a masonry requirement waiver for this PUD. Mr. Kerley expressed concern that each individual home plan will then have to go through a review process and that can take additional months. Mr. Schwarz explained to Mr. Kerley that there was a suggestion to streamline the process for the proposed Planned Unit Development which would grant a blanket variation to the 8 lots in advance knowing you’re going to emulate the historic architectural styles per the Village’s adopted Residential Design Guidelines. Based on the discussion, the current exterior materials requirements would remain, which will require presenting the building elevations for each house if the first floor does not comply with the masonry materials requirements.

Mr. Kerley clarified that he would do a craftsman house and then have to come in for a variation for no masonry.

Chair Schaeffer stated each home will be on a case-by-case basis as we always do in the Village.

Chair Schaeffer discussed the garages of the homes. Commissioner James expressed his dislike on the 3-car minimum in the draft CC&R document and did not see a reason for it. A 3-car cap would be understandable. Mr. Schwarz stated it could be added as a note to the plans to make sure it’s also carried over in the covenants. He stated is because this is a request for a Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development any conditions would be included in an ordinance.

Chair Schaeffer asked if she can add onto the affirmative motions. Mr. Schwarz suggested adding to Motion 3, change the CC&R’s to state a minimum 2-car garage.

Mr. Kerley stated the side load garages will be 3-car garages.

Chair Schaeffer asked if we could condition the PUD to memorialize that. Mr. Schwarz stated to be careful with wording, any 3-car garage is essentially the side load units that he’s agreed to one on each street.

Mr. Kerley stated the ones facing the street could be 2 car or 3 car.

Chair, we are thinking we do not want to see 3 garage bays in a row facing the street, if there’s a 3-car garage, we want sideload, so that a maximum of 2 garage bays face the street

Markunas stated that he does not think that a 3 car garage would even fit facing the street.

There was additional discussion about how many garage bays should face the street and the streetscape. John Kerley stated that this wasn’t mentioned in the workshop. He stated all that was discussed was having at least one house on each street have a side load garage.

Chair Schaeffer stated yes, and now the Commission is discussing the topic of garage bays in more detail. She stated she would like to keep the new homes from having 3 garage bays facing the street as a condition of the Planned Unit Development.

Commissioner James stated that this is to keep consistency, so we don’t have 3 front load garage doors directly facing the street.

Mike Schwarz noted that another possibility if a future home buyer wants three garage spaces is to have a tandem garage, where one parking space is directly behind another, which allows space for kids’ bikes wagons, etc.

Chair Schaeffer noted that there is consensus among the members of the Commission to encourage the developer and future home builders to include other masonry design elements such as the porch column bases, chimneys, etc.

Chair Schaeffer stated that there is consensus among the members of the Commission to recommend a cash-in-lieu fee for the trees that can’t fit.

Mike Schwarz clarified that on Motion 3, the second sentence should just state the Preliminary Development Plan. Strike in line 2 the words “and Final”.

Commissioner Markunas asked in affirmative Motion 3(D) whether each historic home style would alleviate the exterior first-floor masonry materials requirements?

Mike Schwarz replied no. As discussed earlier, if a future home does not comply with the exterior first-floor materials requirements, then individual variations would be required.

Motion (#5): To recommend to the Village Board an amendment to the Future Land Use Map in the Your Frankfort Your Future 2040 Comprehensive Plan to change the designation of the subject property from “Public Institutional/Utility” to “Single-Family Detached Residential”.

Motion by: Morris Seconded by: James

Approved: (5- 0)

Motion (#6): To recommend the Village Board approve the Preliminary Plat of Re subdivision for the Linden Grove subdivision, in accordance with the reviewed plans and public testimony, subject to any necessary technical revisions and conditioned upon preliminary engineering approval.

Motion by: James Seconded by: Morris

Approved: (5- 0)

Motion (#7): To recommend to the Village Board to approve a Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development, including the Preliminary Development Plan for Linden Grove Subdivision, in accordance with the reviewed plans, Findings of Fact, and public testimony with the following conditions:

a. Preliminary engineering approval must be obtained.

b. Any sections of public sidewalk damaged during construction must be replaced.

c. A bench shall be installed within the common outlot as illustrated on the Preliminary Plat of Re-subdivision.

d. All residential lots shall be developed to reflect the architectural elements of one of the six architectural styles listed on pages B-5 through B-7 of the Downtown Frankfort Residential Design Guidelines, Appendix B of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and that each home shall incorporate a masonry element, such as a chimney or porch kneewall, and there shall be no less than 3 house designs in the entire subdivision.

e. The developer shall make a one-time cash payment to the Village of $1,000 for 10 caliper inches of preservation trees removed and not mitigated on-site. And with the following modifications from Village requirements:

a. To increase the residential net density from the required 2.25 units/acre to 2.83 units/acre.

b. To reduce the required usable open space from the required 20% to 0%.

c. To waive the requirement for a tot lot.

d. To reduce the required lot depth for Lot 3 from the required 150’ to 136.90’.

e. To reduce the required lot depth for Lot 4 from the required 150’ to 130’.

f. To decrease the required number of street trees along Linden Drive from the required 13 canopy trees to 11 canopy trees.

g. To decrease the required number of street trees along Church Street from the required 14 canopy trees to 12 canopy trees.

Motion by: Markunas Seconded by: James

Approved: (5- 0)

D. Non-Public Hearing: 121 Ontario Street –RWR Subdivision (Ridgeworth Roofing) (Ref#108)

Mike Schwarz notified the Commission that the applicant could not attend, but this evening’s agenda would just be a re-subdivision to consolidate two lots.

The Commission agreed to proceed with the non-public hearing.

Mr. Schwarz stated the applicant has requested to withdraw the variation requests from the application on September 5, 2024, subsequent to the publication of the required legal notice of the public hearing.

The variations were for the size height and materials of the accessory building Also, a Special Use Permit for outdoor storage had been requested to bring the existing outdoor storage into compliance, but staff noted that this request is not necessary, as the property is zoned I-2 General Industrial District and which allows outdoor storage by right subject to the required screening. Therefore, this evening the Commission would be just reviewing the plat.

Motion (#8): to recommend that the Village Board approve the Preliminary and Final Plat of RWR Subdivision, which is a consolidation of Lots 3 and 4 in the Johnson’s Addition to Frankfort Subdivision, subject to any necessary technical revisions prior to recording.

Motion by: Markunas Seconded by: James

Approved: (5- 0)

E. Public Hearing: 20805 S. La Grange Road – Social 45 (Ref#109)

Mr. Schwarz presented the staff report.

Commissioner Markunas asked staff if the Commission should approve the Special Use Permit. He asked if the Special Use Permit follows the property, and would it be granted to the next individual occupying the space.

Mr. Schwarz replied yes, the Special Use Permit does run with the land, but it has to be utilized within 6 months or it expires. At the Village Board level, they would consider any necessary modifications to the existing liquor license.

Chair Schaeffer stated an email was submitted to Mr. Schwarz and staff on Sunday, therefore it did not make it into the agenda packet. The individual is the owner of an office building to the north on Colorado Avenue and would like his comments read into the record. Chair Schaeffer read the letter.

Motion (#9): To close the public hearing.

Motion by: Knieriem Seconded by: Morris

Approved: (5- 0)

Chair Schaeffer discussed the hours of neighboring businesses.

Commissioner Morris asked the applicant what drives the request in the business model for the extended hours.

The applicants, Dan and Joe Evans, approached the podium. They stated they were the only spot in Frankfort that has the space for banquet facilities and believed they were filling a need in the area. They added if their business closes at eleven o’clock, they are ushering people out before they would like to on weekends.

Commissioner Morris asked when the kitchen currently closes. Joe Evans stated 10:00 p.m. Mr. Schwarz stated he believed within the Liquor Code you must have kitchen open until an hour before the business closes.

Commissioner James stated Buffalo Wild Wings is open until midnight. He asked the applicant why the neighbor who submitted an email was having issues with parking. Joe Evans stated they can police the parking better, there may be a person here or there, but did not believe it to be an issue. He added their patio overlooks that area. Dan Evans stated tonight was the first-time hearing of this complaint, and they had not previously been made aware. Commissioner Markunas asked the applicants in the future to please work with the neighbors if they are approached.

Commissioner Knieriem did not have an issue with the extended hours of operation. He concluded the business was not right next to a residential building and would like to see the business succeed.

Motion (#10): To recommend that the Village Board approve a Special Use Permit (Amendment to a Special Use Permit granted by Ordinance No. 2863) to extend the permitted business closing time from 11:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. limited to Fridays and Saturdays, in the B-2 Community Business District, for the property located at 20805 S. La Grange Road (PIN: 19-09-22-100-051-0000), in accordance with the public testimony and Findings of Fact.

Motion by: James Seconded by: Knieriem

Approved: (5- 0)

F. Non-Public Hearing: 23259 Sunburst Point – Mahalick Subdivision

Amanda Martinez presented a summary of the staff report.

Commissioner Knieriem asked the applicant what the purpose for the consolidation was.

The applicant stated she wants the lot to look like a continuous yard and wants to put a fence in. America’s Backyard has given her a quote and adhered to the Village of Frankfort guidelines and she would install a 4-foot fence. She stated there is a house located diagonally from her, and they put a fence around that lot as well.

Commissioner Markunas asked if the vacant lot would be improved once the lot is consolidated and fence is installed.

Applicant stated she’s been working with a landscape company to put in the required street trees and place sod on the vacant lot.

Commissioner Knieriem confirmed the sidewalk has been completed through the unfinished yard and property. The applicant replied yes.

Chair Schaeffer stated typically when an applicant consolidates lots, there is an easement that’s reconciled. She asked the applicant why they preferred to not vacate the easement at this time.

Applicant stated there is nothing she wants to build on the vacant lot especially because of the grade difference. She stated she is satisfied with the current lot situation.

Johnathan Cross, the applicant’s representative and land surveyor, stated that he believes that the sanitary sewer goes through the subject easement. He added that if there were no known utilities in that easement area, they would have also recommended to vacate the easement at this time.

Chair Schaeffer stated if the applicant does not vacate the easement and would like to build anything on it, it would be built at the homeowner’s risk. For example, if a utility company needed to perform work within the easement area, it would be at the applicants cost to remove the obstructions. The applicant agreed that she is aware of this risk.

Mr. Schwarz added it can be costly for the homeowner to relocate any underground utilities and it can also be time consuming to obtain signatures from the utility companies on Plats of Vacation.

Chair Schaeffer suggested to the applicant to make the future buyers of the property aware of this easement.

Ms. Martinez stated it’s not impossible for the next person to come through with a Plat of Vacation. Additionally, the Village would not allow a structure on the easement until the easement was proposed for vacation or abrogation.

Motion (#11): To recommend that the Village Board approve the proposed Mahalick Subdivision, which consolidates Lots 41 & 42 in the Five Oaks of Frankfort (Phase One)

https://cms9files.revize.com/frankfortil/Minutes%209.12.24%20Signed.pdf