Plan Commission

APPROVED PLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD The Plan Commission of the Village of Deerfield held a Workshop Meeting at 7:30 P.M. on March 23, 2017 at the Village Hall, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Present were: Mary Oppenheim, Chairperson Bob Benton Larry Berg Elaine Jacoby Jim Moyer Absent were: Al Bromberg Stuart Shayman Also present: Jeff Ryckaert, Principal Planner Dan Nakahara, Planner Public Comment on a Non-Agenda Item No public comment on a non-agenda item (1) Prefiling Conference on the Request for an Amendment to the Deerbrook Shopping Center Planned Unit Development for the Redevelopment of the Interior Mall Area Located North of Hobby Lobby to the South Wall of the Former Sports Authority Space; a Special Use for a Stein Mart Retail Store; and Pylon Sign Renovations and Revisions to the Sign Criteria for Deerbrook Gil Magnelli, AIA, LEED AP, architect, OKW Architects, commented that Stein Mart is proposing to take over the current Office Max space and the adjacent space (previously the Mattress Firm space). Office Max will be moving into a new space on the property. Stein Mart will be south of the Jewel Osco (currently under construction) and to the north of the adjacent Bed Bath & Beyond space. As part of the renovation process, the petitioners are proposing to remove the two existing entrances for the two separate spaces and create a single entrance in the center of the combined spaces. The arches over the former Mattress Firm/Back to Bed tenant spaces that distinguish between the two spaces will be removed and the façade simplified to create more of a homogenous façade that identifies that space as a single tenant. The vertical elements on the building are also going to be removed in order to simplify and refresh the look of the façade. Mr. Magnelli commented that they are also proposing to repaint the green metal cap on top of the building to white, so that it matches the Jewel Osco renovations, creating uniformity to the entire property. The petitioner is proposing window films over the windows on both ends of the tenant space, in order to create privacy for the Workshop Meeting March 23, 2017 Page 2 dressing rooms that are located on one end and cover the storage area on the other end. Chairperson Oppenheim asked when Office Max would vacate their current tenant space to allow for Stein Mart to begin its renovations. Michelle Panovich, Principal, Executive Vice President, Mid-America Asset Management, Inc., commented that initially they were talking about Office Max closing earlier; however, Office Max was concerned about retaining their employees through their transition to their new space and wanted the time lapse between vacating their current space and moving into their new space to be as short as possible. Mid-America Asset Management is working together with Stein Mart and Office Max to have Office Max close about the same time that their new space will be ready. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if the proposed Stein Mart would be moving into Deerbrook at a later stage in the redevelopment process. Ms. Panovich confirmed. Scott Griffin, Director, Store Design, Stein Mart, commented that Stein Mart is a national retailer that operates approximately 292 stores (with more in the process of opening up this year); selling soft goods, primarily women’s and men’ clothing, as well as some home good items. Stein Mart offers their products at a discounted rate. Stein Mart is excited to come back into Deerfield, and they are looking at this opportunity to grow and expand. Their goal is to keep the interior renovations of their tenant space as simple as possible. The store will have a typical Stein Mart layout with women’s apparel on the right and men’s apparel on the left; all the offices are going to be at the rear of the store. The building is approximately 33,000 square feet with a selling space of a little over 27,000 square feet. The ladies primary boutique department fitting rooms are going to be in the front corner of the store, which allows women to easily access the fitting room located at the ladies apparel section. Instead of closing off the windows at the front of the store and bricking them up, they are proposing to place a black transparent film over the windows and build an interior wall behind the windows to ensure complete coverage and privacy for the fitting rooms. The same would be done at the left corner of the store for the men’s fitting room and the returns/holds storage area. Commissioner Jacoby asked if the square footage of the proposed Stein Mart was larger or smaller than their old location across the street. Mr. Griffin commented that the new store is similar in size to their previous Deerfield location and noted that their old location may have been slightly larger as it was their old store format. Stein Mart has downsized their format to help with controls and merchandizing aspects. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that Stein Mart met with the Village’s Appearance Review Commission (ARC) earlier in the week and it seemed like a productive meeting. The petitioners agreed to place simple black film as the screening on the side windows rather than the previously proposed lifestyle pictures. Mr. Griffin commented that Stein Mart is in agreement with that request and don’t have any objections in that regard. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that Stein Mart will have to come back for a Public Hearing. Patricia Mahony, Vice President, Construction Management, Mid-America Asset Management, Inc., confirmed that Stein Mart is going to come back for the Public Hearing as soon as they are able. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that she does not see any issues with Stein Mart’s proposal, and thinks that their proposed changes Workshop Meeting March 23, 2017 Page 3 will improve the building by centering the entry and making subtle cosmetic changes to modernize the look of the building. She believes these changes will create a unifying look throughout the entire property and does not foresee Stein Mart having any issues. She clarified that a Special Use is needed due to the size of the proposed store. Mr. Magnelli commented that their proposed renovation plans are to build a new retail building in the center of the mall (the indoor mall space) where the former movie theater and TJ Maxx spaces are located. The indoor mall space is currently under demolition. The proposed scheme includes extending the entry drive to the rear of the center. Office Max is going to downsize and relocate to a 15,000 square foot space in this new retail building. ULTA will also relocate to this building as well. The new retail building will have three tenant spaces and the façade of the building is being pushed back so that it is in line with the former Sports Authority building. These changes will creating uniformity to the front of the buildings, as well as open up about 45 parking spaces in the front of the center. This will also improve the grading for that area. Currently, the ULTA building is about 4 feet below grade, but the proposed plans will raise the entire floor of the building so that it is only about 7 inches or so lower than the adjacent floor of the former Sports Authority space. There are going to be sidewalks on both sides of the entry drive to make it as easy as possible for people who park in the rear spaces to cross the parking lot to the entrances of the building. The photometric plan is still a work in progress (the petitioners are working with the ARC to come up with a final plan). The ultimate goal is to replace the metal halide light fixtures in the east parking lot to LED light fixtures to match the ones by the new Jewel store in the northwest corner. Overall, these changes will reduce the overall illumination of the footcandle levels. The light poles will match the existing poles in color, shape and height to keep the uniformity. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if the alcove in between the new building and the other building was a result of the grade change in that area. Ms. Mahony responded that there is a sewer there that feeds all the way to the back, and there aren’t any options to reroute that sewer line, which is why they decided to landscape that area. Mr. Magnelli explained that a lot of the peculiarities with the existing foundations, grading and storm sewers are results of the original construction of the mall, and their goal is to correct many of these existing issues during the renovation process. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that this is a good way to integrate the two buildings. Ms. Mahony commented that it is a way for them to keep the storm sewer, get some more landscaping in and make the elevation differences less noticeable; pointing out that the visual grade difference inside ULTA was such a flaw to the whole center. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that the landscaping camouflages the seam between the two buildings as well. Ms. Mahony commented that it’s a halfway point for the mall. There will be benches by Jewel as well as benches in this landscaped area of the mall. The front façade that faces Waukegan Road is going to have masonry and brick elements. The brick veneer is going to be the same material being used for the Jewel Osco building and the two outlot buildings (outlot buildings E & F). There are also going to be wood look panels accenting the building, which is also the same material that is Workshop Meeting March 23, 2017 Page 4 being used at the northwest end of the center. The same elements are going to be incorporated on the new pylon signs. There are also going to be accent pieces added over the store front; the color of the store front is a dark bronze (which is the predominate color of the buildings throughout the center). At the two ends, there will be an open-air trellis canopy, an architectural element that is going to be painted white (introducing that white horizontal element that appears center wide). The open air trellis canopy wraps the corner of the north façade at the rear of the shopping center with masonry continuing across the façade. There will also be a 10-foot masonry wall in the back of the building to screen the loading and service areas; the loading dock will also have the same masonry. Commissioner Benton asked how many stores would that loading dock serve. Mr. Magnelli commented that there are three at grade loading areas for the three tenants in that area: ULTA, Office Max and the vacant tenant space. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if the ninety-one parking spaces in the rear of the center would mainly be utilized by employees. Ms. Mahony confirmed. Chairperson Oppenheim asked the petitioners about their conversation with the ARC about adding ornamentation to the west facing, rear façade of the building. Ms. Panovich explained that following their conversation with the ARC they are going to come back to them with detailed drawings that reflect the natural screening that is going to be added to the area as well as the landscaping upgrade that is going to be incorporated in the parking islands. Mr. Magnelli commented that the trash enclosures would be fully screened. There will be a bench, a trash receptacle placed on that end of the mall as well as a bicycle rack added to the landscaped area between the two buildings on that end of the center. The material fixtures including the light fixtures and the LED heads on the light poles are going to match the new lighting fixtures currently being installed over by the Jewel Osco. Commissioner Berg asked if there were any restrictions on the types of materials that could be used for the trash enclosures. Mr. Ryckaert explained that there are no requirements in the zoning ordinance specifying the types of materials that are to be used for trash enclosures. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that the Village usually requests that the trash enclosures match or visually coordinate with the buildings in the area. Ms. Mahony commented that the outlot corrals are masonry because they are more visible. Mr. Magnelli commented that in the rear of the building there is existing fencing between their property and the adjacent property that also screens that area. Bill Ferguson, Senior Associate, Daniel Weinbach & Partners, Ltd., commented that they are expanding the islands at the entrance area, as well as adding more landscaping there. The additional landscaping is going to match the landscaping throughout the center with flowering shrubs, daylilies, catmint and trees, along with decorative gravel at the ends of the islands where vehicles often catch their tires and run over that area. There will be a landscaped median that will consist of trees, ornamental grasses, shrubs and more perennials. They are proposing grass on both sides of the median where the snow will be plowed. The petitioner is still determining whether they want to use mulch or lawn grass there, per their discussion with the ARC. Workshop Meeting March 23, 2017 Page 5 Mr. Ferguson noted their plan of shade trees down the middle with flowering shrubs and ornamental grasses and large perennial beds and granite cobblestone at the ends of the median. There are going to be sidewalks on both sides of the drive isle. He also noted decorative landscaping along the sides of both the buildings. The new islands will have trees, shrubs and perennials to match the existing island landscaping throughout the center. The larger islands towards the back of the property will be heavily landscaped to really enhance that area. The existing planters located across the front of the stores will be moved back to line up with the building columns. The landscaped, seating area between the two buildings will have ornamental trees, shrubs, evergreens and a lawn area with a bench, trash receptacle and a bike rack. This area will be a nice break in the façade of the building. There is also going to be an elliptical, curb raised planter with a lot of perennials and ornamental grasses, as well as some roses, to uplift that area visually. Chairperson Oppenheim asked for the width of the landscaped, seating area; commenting that it’s pretty densely planted. Mr. Magnelli responded approximately 30 feet. Mr. Ferguson explained that the trees are ornamental trees with larger shrubs in the back to create a backdrop. The evergreens are incorporated throughout to create some winter interest and flowering shrubs are placed in the front with hostas tucked in as well. This will all focus on the elliptical bed, which has ornamental grasses, roses on the side, and a bed of catmint along the perimeter. Mr. Ferguson commented that it will be very visually appealing, and it will be a nice break in the sidewalk there. The landscape treatment plan for the main intersection is very similar to the enhancements recently made on the other entrance drive; visually tying everything together, as well as screening some of the parking in the rear lot. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that there is a limited plant pallete that will survive and flourish in this type of heavily paved area. Mr. Ferguson agreed. Chairperson Oppenheim commended the wide selection of plants that they are incorporating into their landscape design for the property. Mr. Ferguson commented that he tried to break up the plants to give the landscaping some variety and focused on picking durable plants. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that shoppers take notice of the landscaping in shopping centers. Mr. Ferguson commented that there are going to be landscaped plant beds with trees in the back of the property to help partially screen the backs of the buildings, the rear parking and the trash receptacles. Luay Aboona, Principal, KLOA Traffic Engineers, commented that the proposed renovations are going to impact the traffic less than the existing conditions due to the decrease in square footage for the property. Currently the buildings are about 135,000 square feet and the net for the new building will be about 35,000 square feet. He anticipates that the reduction in the square footage will translate to a reduction in the amount of traffic generated. Mr. Aboona explained that in anticipation of these proposed renovations (and square footage reduction), the previous traffic study for Jewel Osco took into account the proposed renovations, the Jewel Osco expansion, the two new outlot buildings and the opening of the pass-through between the buildings. That traffic study concluded that there would be a reduction in traffic because of the reduction in square footage. Under the scenario of the entire mall redeveloping and being fully Workshop Meeting March 23, 2017 Page 6 occupied, the analysis showed that the access and the signals as they exist (particularly at Chestnut Street and Waukegan Road) will be adequate in accommodating the new traffic that will result from the occupancy of the vacant space as it relates to the proposed renovation plans. A pass-through between the buildings is being created to feed into the parking area in the rear of the property; this parking area is going to be primarily used for employee parking. There is also going to be parking added to both sides of the pass-through aisle; as a result, there will be a four-way intersection created there. Currently, it is a T-intersection, so there are going to be changes made in terms of the lane geometry. There is going to be a two-lane approach with a right turn lane for vehicles proceeding north, as well as a multi-purpose though/left turn lane. The inbound traffic is going to continue to be free- flow with no stop sign posted for traffic entering the property; however, there will be stop signs posted for the traffic coming from the north, south and west. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if the rationale for allowing free-flow inbound traffic was so that the inbound traffic doesn’t stack up past the traffic light. Mr. Aboona confirmed, and explained that when there isn’t a big separation between the arterial intersection and the signal it’s typical to allow free-flow inbound traffic so that it doesn’t back up. Chairperson Oppenheim pointed out that the forty-one angled spaces along the new roadway between the new building and Hobby Lobby will be backing out into free-flow traffic, and asked if that could be a problem. Mr. Aboona commented that he didn’t think it would be a problem; pointing out that although it’s free-flow traffic it’s not speeding traffic. He anticipates vehicles are going to slow down as they enter this area because they have to make the decision to go right, through or left. The design of the drive aisle with the parking on both sides will create a sense of tightness and activity that will cause vehicles to slow down as they enter the center. Commissioner Berg asked for the width of the drive isle. Mr. Aboona responded that it’s thirteen feet past the end of the parking spaces, which is not enough room for two cars to pass each other; therefore, if someone is backing out into the drive isle, inbound traffic will have to yield to that vehicle. The angled parking is not going to be the primary parking area. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that the drive aisle is also going to serve as access to the other businesses in the back of the property; and asked if it would be appropriate to incorporate traffic calming features in that area. Mr. Aboona reiterated that the design of the pass-through aisle, including the median and the parking on both sides, would be a visual queue for drivers to slow down. Commissioner Berg asked if only having stop signs stopping traffic from the north, south and west, and allowing free-flow inbound traffic, could be confusing for drivers who may assume the four-way intersection has a four-way stop for traffic coming from all directions. Mr. Aboona explained that there would be signage posted informing drivers that inbound traffic does not stop; assuring the Commissioners that it is a very typical and successful design for shopping centers. Mr. Ryckaert asked about the volume of traffic that would be going through that area during peak times for the mall. Mr. Aboona responded that their traffic study didn’t include a specific analysis of how much traffic would be going through that intersection; commenting that he didn’t anticipate that intersection being Workshop Meeting March 23, 2017 Page 7 very heavily traveled until the building to the south is constructed. Mr. Aboona acknowledged that as the center becomes more occupied there is definitely going to be more activity. He noted that that he will come up with a traffic analysis for this intersection, as well as take into account Chairperson Oppenheim’s point that traffic will use this intersection to go beyond this area. Chairperson Oppenheim agreed that a projected traffic analysis for the intersection would be useful information. Mr. Aboona explained that the current design only has one inbound lane entering the center, so they’ve increased the capacity of that approach by creating the second lane, in anticipation of the increased activity at that intersection. Additionally, he is going to look at the volumes of traffic coming from different directions to predict the traffic patterns created by the renovation, as well as the potential addition of a new retail building to the south. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if part of the entrance to Waukegan Road would be closed off if a new retail building was built. Mr. Aboona clarified that was a part of an earlier proposal but under this scenario, the Waukegan Road access would remain the same. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that the petitioner is requesting to use the previous traffic study, and not generate a new one. The most recent traffic study for this property was done during the Jewel expansion proposal in August 2015. Chairperson Oppenheim does not feel a new traffic study is necessary, since this area of the mall is largely vacant, so actual traffic counts would be nearly impossible to acquire; and the previous Jewel traffic study included the projected traffic impact of the proposed renovations. The Commissioners discussed the request to waive a new traffic study, and agreed that the previous traffic study was very thorough and concluded that the proposed renovations would not overwhelm the traffic in the area. Chairperson Oppenheim reiterated that it would be helpful to have a traffic analysis of how the east/west area will affect the entire center. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that Deerbrook was previously granted a parking variation, so that they could have less than the required amount of parking spaces per code and asked if Deerbrook was still within their variation. Mr. Ryckaert explained that with the proposed square footage reduction and the additional parking spaces, they will be reducing their parking variation significantly. Ms. Panovich commented that they’re in a much better position, especially in regards to having more customer parking by adding those spaces in the front and fixing the elevation. The parking is going to be in a more optimal area for customers. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that there was more than enough parking, and that parking was not a concern in this situation. However, she advised that if the building to the south is renovated in the future and the underground parking is eliminated then parking would once again need to be addressed. Mr. Nakahara asked if a car could make a U-turn at the west end of the new created median drive isle between the buildings. Mr. Aboona confirmed that the radius was increased at the end to ensure that a car could turn around there. Mr. Magnelli commented that there are four pylon signs along Waukegan Road (one at each Waukegan Road access) and one along Lake Cook Road. The proposed plan is to remove and replace the cladding with brick to match the rest of the buildings on the Workshop Meeting March 23, 2017 Page 8 property and keep the existing structure in place. The proposed Lake Cook Road pylon sign will have aluminum painted sign panels with a brushed aluminum accent piece at the top and black, non-illuminated letters reading “Deerbrook” over the parflex accent material at the bottom. The Waukegan Road pylon signs are going to have the same materials. The cast stone, foundation base will remain; everything from the foundation up will be replaced. The existing brick will be replaced by brick to match the other new masonry throughout the center, and the parflex accent material will be added to all the pylon signs. The Deerbrook sign will not be illuminated, but the rest of the panels identifying the businesses in the center will be illuminated. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if the proposed new signage had more panels to identify their tenants. Ms. Panovich explained that the proposed pylon signs are the exact same size as the existing ones with the same basic divisions for tenants including half panels for some tenants. She said their goal is to modernize the signage by upgrading the style and the materials to give the entire center more uniformity. Commissioner Benton pointed out that there is an existing bus stop on the north end of the drive isle and advised the petitioners to provide a space for commuters to stand there while waiting for the bus as well as potentially including a crosswalk in that location. Commissioner Berg asked if the Lake Cook pylon sign would still be surrounded by asphalt or if that area would be landscaped. Mr. Magnelli responded that a landscaped area is going to be created around there. The Commissioners agreed that the proposed pylon signage would be a visual enhancement to the property. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if the proposed signage included any variations. Mr. Ryckaert explained that no variations are proposed and commented that the proposed pylon signs would be the same size and in the same location. Mr. Ryckaert said petitioners are seeking the ability to put the tenants on any of the panels on the Waukegan Road pylon signs. The ordinance currently reads that tenants should be displayed on the pylon signage by the access drive nearest to their tenant space; therefore, the ordinance would have to be amended, rather than granting a variation each time. The Lake Cook Road pylon signage currently displays the tenants in this manner. Ms. Mahony gave two examples of their reasoning for this request: 1.) Jewel is located at the north end, therefore their pylon signage would be posted at the south end, so that customers see their signage and are able to prepare to pull into their access drive; lessening the chances that customers will accidentally drive past the access drive while trying to make a last minute determination of where to pull in, and 2.) It will also drive traffic through the center by encouraging customers to pull in on the opposite end of the center, therefore being exposed to more businesses as they make their way to their destination location. Mr. Ryckaert explained that the proposed location for the tenant names to be placed on any of the Waukegan Road pylon signs would be permissible with a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Magnelli explained that part of their request includes an entire revised sign criteria that they’re working with staff on, which includes permitting more colors to be used on signage so that businesses can use their trademarked logos and signage. Ms. Mahony commented that the existing criteria only allows for five specific colors, and they have a lot of tenants Workshop Meeting March 23, 2017 Page 9 who are trademarked, national tenants and customers recognize their branded logos and signage, especially the specific color and font of their logos, and they want to allow tenants to keep their individual looks. The Commissioners agreed that the proposed revised signage criteria made sense, and was a nice upgrade. Chairperson Oppenheim asked about their proposed timeline for the renovation project. Ms. Mahony responded that the interior of Sports Authority is currently under interior demolition; Art Van has started the request for approval processes with the ARC and the Plan Commission; the Jewel expansion project in underway; as well as the underground work for the out lot building that is going to be next to the Sleep Number. Chairperson Oppenheim recommended that the petitioners put together an update, as well as a tentative timeline for all of the renovations taking place on the property. Commissioner Moyer asked about the timeline for the Jewel Osco project. Ms. Mahony responded that their goal is to open towards the end of July. The Petitioners are going to appear before the Plan Commission for a Public Hearing on Thursday, April 27th, 2017. (2) Prefiling Conference for the Request of the Removal of the Restaurant Prohibition at Cadwell’s Corners Shopping Center for the Portion of the Shopping Center South of Pet Supply Plus to the End Units Facing Lake Cook Road Rob Costello, Principal, Torch Architecture, Inc., commented that they previously met with the Plan Commission in January with two potential restaurant tenants for Cadwell’s Corners. Currently the restaurant prohibition at Cadwell’s Corners does not allow any restaurant tenants in the center. The center has changed a lot since Fresh Thyme established its tenancy; however, the south side of the property towards Lake Cook Road has remained vacant, since the library vacated the property. Mr. Castello explained that there is no longer a high demand for tenant spaces by retail users in today’s market. Recently, Cadwell’s Corners has received more interest from restaurant users than retail users; however, there is a stigma attached to the center due to the prohibition on restaurants, which ultimately scares away potential restaurant users. Cadwell’s Corners ownership talked with Village staff, and initially decided to start the Special Use process with their two potential restaurant users (Brunch Café & Firehouse Subs); however, it became increasingly difficult for those restaurant users to commit to the lengthy and expensive process, knowing that their Special Use may not be approved. Ownership met with Village staff again with a proposal to partially remove the restaurant prohibition only on the south side of the property at Cadwell’s Corners. The petitioners are confident that partially lifting the restaurant restriction (ultimately allowing more flexibility in the center) will assist in attracting tenants to the center. He noted that by engaging one or two restaurant tenants, it would allow ownership to attract more retail tenants into the center. Workshop Meeting March 23, 2017 Page 10 The petitioners are requesting the removal of the restaurant prohibition to allow up to three tenant spaces in the reconstructed atrium space that fronts Lake Cook Road (Area B on site plan), and for up to two restaurants to be allowed in the tenant spaces in Area B facing Waukegan Road. The potential restaurant users would have to conform to the Fresh Thyme delivery and service schedule for the rear alley, as well as follow the zoning requirements for the C-2 District. Deerfield Zoning Ordinance requires any restaurant user over 3,000 square feet to apply for a Special Use permit. Mr. Costello acknowledged that there was a concern that the entire center would be occupied by restaurants if the restaurant prohibition were completely removed for the entire center and the tenant spaces that back up to the neighborhood located directly behind the center were of a particular concern. The petitioners would be willing to compromise with the Village on the amount of tenant spaces and the particular area that restaurants would be permitted to occupy in the center. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if the petitioners would be willing to compromise to only having the restaurant prohibition lifted on the southern end spaces, facing Lake Cook Road, if the prohibition for the entire proposed area was not approved. Mr. Castello clarified that their proposal was comprised of removing the restaurant prohibition south of the Pet Supplies Plus store (including up to two tenant spaces facing Waukegan Road, and up to three tenant spaces facing Lake Cook Road). Commissioner Berg asked if there are currently two open tenant spaces facing Waukegan Road and three open tenant spaces facing Lake Cook Road. Mr. Castello responded that the tenant space-facing Waukegan Road is currently one large open, vacant space; and the tenant space facing Lake Cook Road was recently renovated and can be divided into three tenant spaces or left open as one large tenant space. Chairperson Oppenheim asked for clarification that the petitioners are only requesting permission for up to two restaurants facing Waukegan Road. Mr. Castello confirmed that their request is for two restaurant spaces facing Waukegan Road. Ownership would divide the space based on tenant needs. Any potential restaurant tenants in the shopping center would have to follow the C-2 Zoning restrictions, including applying for a Special Use if the restaurant use is over 3000 square feet. Chairperson Oppenheim explained that the restaurant prohibition in Cadwell’s Corners has existed for over thirty years, and it was originally approved as a response to neighbors’ concerns because part of this development is contiguous to residential properties. During recent renovations to the center, with the addition of the Fresh Thyme grocery store, neighbors were very concerned to any perceived threat to their safety or wellbeing, which included concerns about noise, smells and rodents that may be a result of a food establishment. Chairperson Oppenheim indicated that there may be a negative response from neighbors, especially since the specific users are unknown at this time. She noted that the fear of the unknown is lessened if the potential restaurant users being considered for tenant spaces in the center are known. Having the restaurant prohibition completely lifted in the proposed area, with the potential of five food vendors occupying that one area, could raise a concern with the neighbors. Mr. Workshop Meeting March 23, 2017 Page 11 Castello assured the Commissioners that ownership understands the neighbors’ concerns, which is why their request only includes removing the restaurant prohibition in the south area of the shopping center that is adjacent to the church and not adjacent to any residential properties. He also pointed out that the center would not be able to accommodate all restaurant tenants from a parking perspective. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that restricting the restaurant uses to the south of Pet Supply Plus, a fair amount away from all the residential neighbors, arguably makes a lot of sense, and is a very realistic spot for food service. She commented that potentially having five restaurant establishments in that one area is a lot to ask for. Commissioner Moyer commented that potentially having five food vendors in one restricted area can result in a restaurant dense area that resembles a food court pointing out that having that many restaurants in one area could also compromise the success of their individual tenants. Mr. Castello reiterated that although their request is for a maximum of five tenant spaces to potentially be occupied by restaurant uses, ownership does not have any interest in filling that entire area with all food tenants. Ownership is trying to attract more retail tenants by allowing food tenants into the center. Chairperson Oppenheim explained that her fear is that if the Village approved up to five restaurant uses in that area, (C-2 Zoning for that area would allow restaurant uses under 3,000 square feet as Permitted Uses) the Village wouldn’t have any control over five small restaurant uses (Permitted Uses) from occupying that area. Mr. Sean Devine, New Castle Properties, commented that the reality is that five restaurant uses would not be successful in that dense of an area. From their perspective, their request to allow up to five tenant spaces to potentially be occupied by restaurant uses is more to have the flexibility and give potential restaurant uses an option of the size and location of their tenant space on the south end of the center. This flexibility ultimately gives ownership the opportunity to appeal to more potential tenants by having the ability to cater to their specific tenant needs. Ownership does not want to limit restaurant uses to the tenant spaces facing Lake Cook Road, because they want to have the flexibility to offer the southern tenant spaces facing Waukegan Road as an option as well. Brunch Café is an example of a potential restaurant use that was interested in the tenant space facing Waukegan Road, but not the tenant space fronting Lake Cook Road. Mr. Devine commented that if it were deemed necessary by the Village, ownership would rather agree to a number limitation rather than a size limitation for the restaurant uses; as an example: having a stipulation that no more than three restaurant uses can occupy the center at one time. Commissioner Benton explained that the first restaurant that was located in the center was a dinner restaurant at the north end and employees would be in the back of the restaurant after hours until late at night. He also commented that a restaurant like Bruch Café would be a much better alternative, as it has very reasonable hours, and should not cause a disturbance with the neighbors at the south end; and stressed that it would be very important to have all restaurants in the center conform to the same delivery hours as Fresh Thyme. Mr. Castello confirmed that all restaurant users would have to conform to the same delivery hours as Fresh Thyme. Chairperson Oppenheim Workshop Meeting March 23, 2017 Page 12 commented that in order to remove the restaurant prohibition there may need to be stipulations such as setting a maximum number of restaurants that can occupy the center at one time or a maximum square footage of tenant space that can be occupied by restaurant users or limiting restaurant use to the tenant spaces facing Lake Cook Road. Mr. Ryckaert agreed that there could be stipulations with the removal of the restaurant prohibition at the south end of the shopping center. Commissioner Berg commented that it may be better to limit the square footage of tenant space than can be occupied by restaurant users rather than limiting the number of restaurant users, in order to avoid three large restaurants going into the center, rather than five smaller restaurants, which may circumvent the Village’s intentions in creating these stipulations. Mr. Castello explained that the two potential restaurant tenants that Cadwell’s Corners had earlier in the year (Brunch Café and Firehouse Subs) may very well come back if the restaurant prohibition is removed for the proposed southern tenant spaces. He pointed out that the tenants backed out of the process because of the stigma attached to the restaurant prohibition. He stressed that if the prohibition is lifted, and Brunch Café comes back as a potential restaurant user, having a square footage limitation for each restaurant uses may cause Brunch Café to back out once again. Brunch Café was proposing a 5,000 square foot space. He also pointed out that per the C-2 Zoning restrictions, any potential restaurant use over 3,000 square feet would have to request a Special Use, so the Village would still have to approve larger restaurant uses. Commissioner Berg asked if Brunch Café would have taken up most of the southern tenant space facing Waukegan Road. Mr. Devine confirmed that Brunch Café would have taken up 5000 square feet of the 8000 square feet of the southern tenant space facing Waukegan Road. Commissioner Berg asked if the petitioners are still in negotiation with Brunch Café. Mr. Devine responded that Brunch Café is currently evaluating the location and are taking a step back due to the uncertainty created by the restaurant prohibition. Mr. Castello further explained that there is a lot of work involved in going through the Special Use process, and there was no guarantee that even if Brunch Café completed the entire process that their business would be approved as a use. Commissioner Jacoby asked if Brunch Café ever met with the neighbors. Mr. Castello responded that ownership decided to postpone their meeting with the neighbors, since Brunch Café was not willing to continue the process at this time until their chances of being approved were more promising. Mr. Costello added that Brunch Café would consider returning to Cadwell’s Corners as a potential restaurant tenant contingent upon the restaurant prohibition being removed. Chairperson Oppenheim agreed that it made sense to postpone Brunch Café’s Special Use process at this time, since the petitioner is hesitant due to the restaurant prohibition in the center. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that in her opinion, limiting the number of restaurants in the center rather than limiting the square footage that can be occupied by restaurant uses would be better received by residents; her thought being that having two or three large restaurants would bother residents less than having five smaller restaurants. She commented that she does not think the volume of a few larger Workshop Meeting March 23, 2017 Page 13 restaurants would bother residents as much as having the center occupied by many smaller restaurants. Commissioner Jacoby agreed. Mr. Devine reiterated that there would not be five restaurant uses in the center at one time, and ownership would be willing to agree to specific stipulations on how many restaurant uses can occupy the center at any given time. Commissioner Berg commented that the Commissioners need to determine if the restriction should be lifted, and if so, where exactly the restriction should be lifted. Chairperson Oppenheim commented the petitioners request is to remove the restaurant prohibition in any of the tenant spaces south of the Pet Supplies Plus store. Commissioner Benton commented that the petitioners are in agreeance that all restaurant users would have to conform to the same delivery times as Fresh Thyme. Chairperson Oppenheim agreed that the delivery times would have to be consistent. Mr. Devine confirmed that all tenants who receive deliveries in the east alley would have to abide by the same delivery times as Fresh Thyme. Chairperson Oppenheim pointed out that delivery traffic would increase with the addition of any tenant, but especially restaurant uses. Commissioner Benton commented that the trucks used for restaurant deliveries are likely much smaller than the trucks used for Fresh Thyme deliveries. Chairperson Oppenheim advised the petitioners that having information on the size of the delivery trucks, and highlighting the fact that the delivery trucks are going to be smaller, would definitely help their case. There was a discussion amongst the Commissioners about if the ordinance would need to state the specific delivery times for the restaurants. Mr. Ryckaert explained that the ordinance that states Fresh Thyme’s delivery times pertains to Fresh Thyme. Commissioner Benton pointed out that the other businesses in the center (such as the mattress store) do not have specific delivery times to adhere by. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if there has ever been an issue with the other businesses delivery times. Mr. Castello responded that the mattress store opened prior to the Fresh Thyme and does not have to follow the same delivery restrictions. The Commissioners agreed that any restaurant users in Cadwell’s Corners should have to conform to the same delivery times as Fresh Thyme. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that following their discussion, the Plan Commission may certainly be amenable to lifting the restriction, but it would have to be just for the requested southern portion (the portion south of Pet Supplies Plus). Commissioner Berg commented that it is important to legally define the portion that would be approved to be occupied by restaurant users. Mr. Ryckaert commented that he had spoken to the Village attorney about legally defining the area, and he agreed that legally defining the area by a metes and bounds description is acceptable. The existing area south of the Pet Supplies Plus store would be described in a metes and bounds description so if the Pet Supplies Plus tenant space changed in the future, there wouldn’t be a loophole that would allow restaurant uses to occupy part of that tenant space as well. There was a discussion amongst the Commissioners about whether or not to include a stipulation that restaurant uses cannot be adjacent to residential properties in the ordinance. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that she does not Workshop Meeting March 23, 2017 Page 14 think the ordinance needs to state that restaurant uses cannot be contiguous to residential properties, since the proposed southern portion where the restaurant prohibition is requested to be lifted, is a reasonable distance from residential properties. The Commissioners and the petitioners all agreed that legally defining that area was very important. Chairperson Oppenheim advised the petitioners that it was important to address the increased number and size of the delivery trucks that would accompany restaurant uses, since delivery trucks would have to access the north drive and then continue east to access the loading areas, which are located very close to the residential properties. Chairperson Oppenheim also advised the petitioners that it would be helpful to have information on any potential restaurant tenants for their Public Hearing, because it would help to eliminate the fear of the unknown. She added that if the neighbors have an idea of the specific restaurant uses that are interested in the property it may help alleviate fear. The petitioners asked if they should meet with the neighbors prior to the Public Hearing. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that the petitioner will have to send notification of the Public Hearing, and any neighbors interested in voicing their concerns or support will be invited to speak at that time. She noted that the petitioner should be prepared to address neighbor concerns at that the Public Hearing. She added that if the restaurant prohibition is lifted, any if there is a restaurant user that will need a Special Use because of its size; the neighbors will again be able to voice their concerns. Commissioner Berg asked if there are any reports on violations of delivery times for Fresh Thyme. Mr. Nakahara responded that according to the Police department records the reported complaints of delivery time violations for Cadwell’s Corners were minimal. Mr. Ryckaert explained that the Public Hearing would be to amend the ordinance for the Cadwell’s Corners PUD. If the prohibition is lifted for the specific area, the C-2 Zoning District restrictions for restaurant uses will apply to that southern portion of the center. The Petitioners are going to appear before the Plan Commission for a Public Hearing on Thursday, May 11th, 2017. There being no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Mary Glowacz