ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, August 30, 2011 – 5:30 p.m.

Chamber Room – Countryside City Hall

AGENDA

1. Call to order.

2.Roll Call:

Ald. Sean McDermott, Chairman

Ald. James Jasinski

Ald. Bob Pondelicek

Treasurer Steven Jasinski

Adm. Gail Paul

3. Approval of Minutes – August 25, 2011. (to be distributed prior to meeting)

4. Consideration of an alternative site plan.

5. Other business.

6.Adjourn to executive session for the purpose of discussing real estate.

COUNTRYSIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2011 – 5:30 P. M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS – CITY HALL

Ald. Sean McDermott, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. He called the Roll of those physically present:

PRESENT: Ald. Sean McDermott, Chairman, City Admin. Gail Paul,Ald. Robert Pondelicek, Ald. James Jasinsk.,

ABSENT: Treas. Steve Jasinski.

ALSO PRESENT: City Atty. Peck, Ald. Michalczyk, Zack McConnell.

Approval of Minutes

The first order of business was approval of the Minutes of August 25, 2011. Ald. Jasinski moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Ald. Pondelicek and carried by unanimous voice vote.

Consideration of an Alternative Site Plan

City Admin Paul stated that another developer was interested in the property while the City was working with Bradford. Once Bradford was out of the picture, Ms. Paul met with them again; they have done other developments for Harley and are familiar with their requirements however their alternative site plan was not available until last Thursday. Mr. McConnell has incorporated their design into alternative site Plan B. The current Plan A is a combination of Concept A2 and A4 as discussed last week. Plan B is a compilation of the developer’s original site plan combined with modifications included by Lakota in keeping with known guidelines.

Mr. McConnell went through the comment sheet relative to Plan B – (attached as part of the exhibits herein). After thorough review, they noted several disadvantages inherent in Plan B. They provide for three restaurants on LaGrange facing onto a water feature. There is no dedicated parking for the restaurants; parking restrictions are different for commercial vs. dining. Parking is separated by the central drive aisle.

Item A – the right in – right out needs to be located further south as indicated by the green arrow; the curb cut is too close to Bally’s.

Item B – the parking is dedicated to the restaurant on the west side of the main access drive – no one will use that parking lot – disconnected from main use.

Item C – detention area shown here does not match architects drawings – supplemental areas would be needed.

Item D – does not properly align with the intersection design and would not be approved.

Item E – Rider’s Edge now has an E-W orientation and extends beyond the property line of HD.

Item F – parking shown provides retail parking — 4 spaces/1,000; vs. restaurant parking requirement -10 spaces/1,000.

Item G – has two dedicated entrances into the commercial site – the location is incorrect and would create two drives plus the existing drive into HD.

Those are the major concerns with the plan; it doesn’t match up with the proposal. The fatal flaw is parking for the restaurant, which would make it unsuccessful.

Chairman McDermott thanked Mr. McConnell for the presentation. Committee members were in general agreement that Plan B is too fragmented – the water feature is chopped up. There are problems with the concept. Ald. McDermott agreed; he suggested enhancing the water feature with additional landscaping to help make it a unique experience for drivers coming down LaGrange Road. Ald. Pondelicek stated that other businesses that are semi-committed don’t fit into Plan B. The consensus of the committee is to remain with Plan A. Everyone is in agreement – to include the traffic signal for easy access into the Plaza as part of Phase 2. Mr. McConnell stated that engineering for Phase 1 will continue as planned; they will determine a definite road boundary for Phase 2. Atty. Peck and Ms. Paul will contact Bally’s to discuss property issues. Ald. Jasinski stated that when final plans are completed they should provide space for semi-truck parking, loading, refuse, etc. Mr. McConnell assured him that it will be included.

Other Business

Ms. Paul stated that developers interested in the old hotel site always inquire about a traffic signal at 57th St. She discussed plans involved in moving the signal from 58th to 576h with Mr. Fitzgerald. A traffic study may not warrant a light at 57th St; the light was put in at 58th St. as a public safety due to the fire station. Without the fire station, it is a three-way light, as opposed to 57th St., which would be a four-way light. There is a possibility of getting the state to approve moving that light to 57th St. It does meet safety requirements of 1/4 mile. It would be a great benefit to any business seeking to locate there.

Ms. Paul stated that McDonald’s has advised the City that they will be doing a complete renovation of their facility – possibly opening the door to different access points – they could have a left-only exit at 57th St. to LaGrange Road. Suggestion made to defer the question to the Ward Aldermen. After discussion, the committee agreed to proceeding with a traffic study by KLOA to see if a light at 57th St. is feasible.

Adjournment

There being no further business to discuss, Ald. Pondelicek moved to adjourn to Executive Session under Section 2Ac of the Open Meetings Act for the purpose of discussing real estate, seconded by Ald. Jasinski and carried unanimously.

Chairman McDermott declared the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

ALD. SEAN MC DERMOTT, CHAIRMAN