Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2005

Home

Page 2 -- January 10, 2005~ Sped'd-Use Permit-- Restaurant wants new drive-through window : City council denies permit based on traffic concerns Citation: Novak v. City of Geneva, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, No. 02 C 5220 (2004) ILLINOIS (11/19/04) -- Novak applied for a speciat7 use permit to allow for the operation of a drive-through window at b2s Wendy's restaurant. In the. district in which the restaurant was located, special uses were allowed if they did ndt significantly increase traffic congestion. After several heatings, the special-use permit was allowed, but with several conditions. Novak submitted new evidence of traffi'c counts at another Wendy's location, hoping to have the city council lift the special-use conditions. The city council refused to do so. Novak sued, arguing the city council"s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. DECISION: Judgment in favor of the city council, The city council's decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The special-use permit required Novak to show the use would not substan- tially or unduly increase traffic, traffic congestion, or the on-street parking demand in the restaurant's immediate vicinity. In an attempt to establish comphance, Novak submitted late-night car counts from the West Chicago Wendy's location. While the car count at the West Chicago Wendy's location had some predictive value, Novak did not establish that this was a comparable property, making the estimated traffic flow some- what unreliable. Although the minimal data submitted by Novak suggested the increase in traffic would not be Feat, the court determined even a relatively small number of cars and especially trucks could cause a large disturbance in a residential neighborhood. Consequently, the city council's decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the special conditions were enforced. see also: Klaeren v. Village of Lisle, 781 N.E. 2d 223 (2002). see also: Chicago Heights v. Living Word Outreach Full Gospel Church & Ministries Inc., 749 N.E. 2d 916 (2001). Variance -- Seawall and boathouse violate lake structure regulations Owner claims equal protection rights violated Citation: Hyatt v. Town of Lake Lure, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal& No. 04-1t02 (2004) The 4th U.S. Circttit ~ottrt %t' Appeals has j~trisdicrio~ over Ke~m~cky, 96 © 2005 Qumlan Publisntn9 Group. Any reproduclior~ is prohibited. For more information piease call i$17) 542-0048,