Loading...
S-498 - 11/23/1982 - VARIATION - Ordinances LOT 1 OF SWIFT AND COMPANY- ASSESSMENT PLAT, BEING A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 24 , TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD. PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN IN DuPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS , RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R64-26943 IN THE RECORDER'S OFFICE OF DuPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. SAID PARCEL OF LAND .HEREIN DESCRIBED CONTAINS 307 , 394 SQUARE FEET WHICH EQUALS 7. 057 ACRES. ALSO a ALL THAT PART OF VACATED SWIFT DRIVE AS VACATED PER "STREET RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT; BEING A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 24 , TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF 'THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN IN DuPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R66-4635 IN THE RECORDER' S OFFICE OF DuPAGE COUNTY , ILLINOIS. SAID PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED CONTAINS 9, 230 SQUARE FEET WHICH EQUALS 0. 212 ACRES. EXHIBIT II PERMANENT PARCEL N0. 06-24-402-003, 06-24-402-004 IJ 1.1 1 1.1 1 �i rj-j�- . ► � 'I PARKNO BASEMENT (r` EXHIBIT I Y SHAW, SWANKED HAYDEN 8t CONNELL ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS 1. C. HARBOUR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ORDINANCE NO. S 498 Page 2 Ordinance Granting Variation from Zoning Ordinance - Swift and Company - 1919 Swift Drive Section 4: That this Ordinance is limited and restricted to the property located at 1919 Swift Drive , Oak Brook, Illinois for the use of Swift and Company as herein defined, which property is legally described in the attached Exhibit II which is hereby made a part hereof. Section S : That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval pursuant to law. Passed this `� day of Npy e�.,. _ 1982 . Ayes : Trustees Congreve, imrie, Listecki, Philip, Rush, Watson Nays : None Absent: None Approved this day of N o.r 1982 . illage PresIdenft - ATTEST: Villdfe, Clerk Approved as to Form: A. Vil age ZAtforUney Published Date Paper Not Published xxxxx ORDINANCE NO. S-_498 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION XI (E) (12) (d) (8) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, ORDINANCE NO. G-60 , AS AMENDED, RELATIVE TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN AN ORA-1 DISTRICT (1919 Swift Drive) WHEREAS , an application has been filed requesting a variation from the provisions of Section XI (E) (12) (d) (8) of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance concerning the required number of .off-street parking spaces for office uses ; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on such application has been conducted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village on October 5 , 1982 and October 20,1982 pursuant to due and appropriate legal notice ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, DU PAGE AND COOK COUNTIES, ILLINOIS as follows : Section 1 : That the provisions of the preamble hereinabove set fort are hereby adopted as though fully set forth herein. Section 2 : - That a variation is hereby granted from the provisions of Section XI ) (12) (d) (8) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Oak Brook so as to allow for a reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces from 467 to 325, subject to the conditions enumerated in Section 3 of this Ordinance . Section 3 : That the variation herein granted is specifically subject to the following conditions : 1 . That the variation herein granted is granted specifically and solely to Swift and Company and only for so long as the property described in Section 4 is utilized for office purposes and is owned and controlled by Swift and Company. For purposes of this condition "Swift and Company" shall mean Swift and Company, its parent corporation (if any) , or any wholly owned subsidiary of the parent corporation. 2. That the parking be constructed substantially in compliance with the schematic plan therefore depicted in the attached Exhibit I which is hereby made a part hereof. 3. That Swift and Company agrees to construct an additional 142 off-street parking spaces upon finding by the Village that the existing parking is inadequate . "Inadequate" for purposes of said agreement shall mean any time where other parking areas not depicted on the attached Exhibit I are utilized by Swift or its employees or invitees for parking purposes in any five (5) days of any thirty (.30) day period. 4 . That Swift and Company correct existing nonconformities to conform to the applicable provisions of the Village Zoning Ordinance , including : A. Installation of screening and landscaping for off-street parking areas ; and B. Construction of loading berths . vE Of O,k 1 ' 9O i O'F O aq G p ouN .� t" �a ' VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521-2255 ?I2 990-?000 March 25, 1987 Swift Eckrich, Inc. 1919 Swift Drive Oak Brook, IL 60521 Att: Mr. Lee O'Lochmann, President Dear Mr. O'Lochmann: Attached is a copy of Ordinance 5-498 and a schematic drawing of the parking site plan for your property. You will note in the ordinance that a variation was granted from Section XI(E) (12) (d) (8) of the Zoning Ordinance by the Village of Oak Brook so as to allow a reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces from 467 to 325. You will also note that parking was to be in compliance with the schematic drawing attached. For the last five days, the Bureau of Inspections has been checking the parking conditions and find them to be in violation. Please contact this office immediately so that we can review this matter with you. r' erely, s E. Clark, ding Commissioner JEC/js Att. • I • i I I S I TMMti KOM •� ' F.SI I.M.a.a.Iw.a.31 � I C�1] .• � t i I • ` .MY NN.N� f■i r. ulwt w wrna n fin" uwwr� r rq avow &. ww•u n T" .wa.w w SM PLAN wa w�a rw 9@40W"d VMV "u uWn w wrusu. MMIBIT I (PAGE 1 OF 2) ..n••w SWO FT & COMPARAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SHAW, SWANKS. HAYDEN l CONNEIL ARCHITECTS - PLANNERS 1. C. HARBOUR - -- --- -- -- -- - 1ZSSS Z r - O r 6,q G h r O OAK BROOK FIRE DEPARTMENT 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521 -2255 JAMES E. CLARK, Chief Business Phone: 312-990-3000 April 13, 1987 MEMO TO: File FROM: Chief Clark SUBJECT: Parking - Swift-Eckrich at 1919 Swift Drive Marianne and I met with Kathy Gilligan in regard to the violation of the area parking at 1919 Swift Drive. Advised her of the ordinance and the number of parking spaces required and the violations. Suggested that they remedy the situation or go before the Village Board. JEC/j I� QE OF OAK 9 O � H G p 9CFC0UNt4`y VILLAGE O F OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521-2255 312 990-3000 March 25, 1987 Swift Eckrich, Inc. 1919 Swift Drive Oak Brook, IL 60521 Att: Mr. Lee O'Lochmann, President Dear Mr. O'Lochmann: Attached is a copy of Ordinance 5-498 and a schematic drawing of the parking site plan for your property. You will note in the ordinance that a variation was granted from Section XI(E)(12)(d)(8) of the Zoning Ordinance by the Village of Oak Brook so as to allow a reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces from 467 to 325. You will also note that parking was to be in compliance with the schematic drawing attached. For the last five days, the Bureau of Inspections has been checking the parking arkin conditions and find them to be in violation. Please contact this office immediately so that we can review this m atter with y ou. Sincerely, James E. Clark, s Building Commissioner JEC/js Att. I low & VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS November 17, 1982 654-2220 MEMO TO: Village President and Board of Trustees FROM: John H. Brechin - Village Attorney SUBJECT: Parking Variation - Swift and Company Pursuant to the direction of the Village Board given at your meeting of November 9, 1982, I have prepared the attached ordinance which, hopefully, accurately represents the Village Board's desires in regard to the text to the ordinance. The ordinance grants a variation to Swift based upon four conditions, which can be summarized as follows: 1. That the variation is specifically limited to Swift so long as they own the property and utilize it for office purposes. 2. That the parking be constructed consistent with the plans which they had previously submitted to the Village. 3. That they construct additional off street parking spaces consistent with the zoning ordinance require- ments if the existing parking becomes inadequate. 4. That Swift remedy nonconformities existing on the property concerning screening and landscaping of parking areas and the need for additional loading berths. The condition regarding inadequate parking spaces has set up a formula whereby if in any five days of any thirty day period the Village observes "illegal" parking, you could then direct Swift to construct the additional parking spaces. It is believed that this condition is the most objective that could be formulated to address the particular situation of Swift. Considered but rejected was a condition regarding the number of employees that Swift may have as a "trigger" for the construction of additional parking. This latter condition was not utilized since, Memo To: Village President and Board of Trustees November 17, 1982 Page 2 (1) it would be difficult at any one time to ascertain the exact number of employees of Swift at this property; (2) it would be difficult to distinguish between various classes of employees e.g. part time, flex time, or alternative shifts; and, (3) such a condition would not take into consideration Swift's ability for car pooling, van pooling or other devices to minimize its need for parking spaces irrespective of the number of its employees. The condition in the proposed ordinance also provides for Swift to agree to this condition. Swift has indicated its willingness to tender to the Village a letter agreement accepting these conditions and binding Swift to them. In addition to action on the proposed ordinance, the Village Board should also, as a procedural matter, take action on the other two recommendations before it on this subject concerning the zoning amendment and special use requested by Swift in the alternative. In order to finalize action on the file, it is necessary that the Village Board vote to either concur or not concur with these two remaining recommendations made by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Respectively submitted, 4JohH.�BtrecLhin JHB/sb ocou OA VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 654-2220 November 11, 1982 MEMO TO: John. H. Brechin, Village Attorney FROM: Bruce F. Kapff, Assistant to Village Manager SUBJECT: Swift & Company - Parking Variation The Village Board, at their meeting of November 9, 1982, approved the granting of a Variation to Swift & Company reducing the number of required off-street parking spaces from 467 to 325 and directed that you draft the appropriate ordinance for passage at their November 23, 1982 meeting. Their approval included the following conditions: 1) Swift & Company or its parent organization hold title and occupy the property. 2) Swift &Company agree to the construction of the additional 142 off-street parking spaces if and when the Village determines the need based on certain measurable criteria. The Village Board was unable to determine an exact measurable criteria by which Swift & Company would be required to construct additional parking, that question being left up to Staff. . In discussing this subject with Ken and Jim, it seems that a reasonable standard would be that the additional parking, or some portion thereof, would be required to be constructed in the event that persons were found to be parking either in front of the building, in aisles, or in any other areas which are not specifically marked as off-street parking spaces for a period of time equal to 25 per cent of the normal working days in any one month (5 of 20). Should you have any questions concerning the above or desire further discussion, please advise. Respectfully submitted, Bruce F. Kapff Assistant to Village Manager BFK/jr cc: Kenneth G. Carmignani, Village Manager !/James E. Clark, Building Commissioner i F ' �uu VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 654-2220 November 5, 1982 MEMO TO: Kenneth G. Carmignani, Village Manager FROM: Bruce F. Kapff, Assistant to Village Manager SUBJECT: Swift & Co. - Parking Variation (1919 Swift Drive) Swift & Co. has made application to permit the conversion of their existing building at 1919 Swift Drive from a research and development to primarily an office use. Specifically, they have requested variations from Sections XI (E) (12) (d) (8) and XIV (B) (54) to permit a reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces from 6 to 325. For a complete analysis of the specific Village standards involved, I wou refer you to my memo of October 1, 1982. The Zoning Board of Appeals, at their October 5 Regular Meeting which was con- tinued on October 20, 1982, voted to recommend denial of these requested variations for the reasons stated in their letter of October 29, 1982. Respectfully submitted, Bruce F. Kapff Assistant to Village Manager BFK:jr vu E OF OAK BROOK 6 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK LU1NO1S 654-2220 October 29 , 1982 President & Board of Trustees Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 RE: Swift & Co. - Parking Variation (1919 Swift Drive) Dear President & Board of Trustees: The Zoning Board of Appeals at its October 5, 1982 regular meeting which was continued on October 20, 1982 considered the petition of Swift & Co. for a Variation from the provisions of Section XI (E) (12) (d),(8) concerning the re- quired number of off-street parking spaces for office uses, and a Variation from the provisions of Section XIV (B) (54) concerning the method of com- puting floor area with respect to required off-street parking spaces to permit a reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces from 467 to 325. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommends to the President and Board of Trustees denial of the requested Variations for the reasons that: 1) No showing of genuine hardship had been made as required by the Variation procedure, and 2) To grant this Variation would set a precedent for other properties in the ORA-1 Zoning District. This recommendation was made on a motion by Member Hodges, seconded by Member Savino and approved on a Roll Call Vote of four (4) ayes: Members Hodges, Reynolds, Savino, Acting Chairman Muschler; one (1) nay: Member Fullan; two (2) absent: Member Crouch, Chairman Baroni. Respectfully submitted, Arthur Muschler, Acting Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals BFK/AM/3r VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 20 1982 (Continuation of the adjourned Regular Meeting of October 5, 1982 I CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Secretary. MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Joseph W. Fullan George A. Hodges Arthur Muschler Barbara F. Reynolds Alfred P. Savino MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Claybourne A. Crouch Chairman Gene J. Baroni ALSO PRESENT: Trustee William R. Watson Village Attorney John H. Brechin Assistant to Village Manager Bruce F. Kapff II SWIFT & COMPANY - VARIATION, TEXT AMEREMENTS & SPECIAL USE (1919 Swift Dr. ) Mr. Dave Gooder, Attorney for the applicant, entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit A - Aerial photograph of the Swift/Windsor Drive area Exhibit B - The first floor of the Swift Building showing proposed uses Exhibit C - Second floor of Swift Building showing proposed uses Exhibit D - Basement plan of Swift Building showing proposed parking Exhibit E - Proposed surface parking plan, without a parking structure Exhibit F - Proposed surface parking plan, with a parking structure Exhibit G - The credentials of Mr. Donald M. O'Hara, Senior Associate, Barton- . Aschnan Associates, Inc. Exhibit H - Parking Demand Study of selected buildings in Oak Brook conducted by Barton-Aschman in September and October, 1981 Exhibit I - Report entitled "An Approach to Determining Parking Demand" by Robert J. Boyland and Neil S. Kenig in conjunction with the Planning Advisory Service Exhibit J - Report entitled "Traffic and Parking Study" for the Hinsdale Office and Health Care Park prepared by Metro Transportation Group, dated April 1982 Exhibit K - Aerial photographs of actual parking taken April, 1981 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -1- October 20, 1982 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -2- October 20, 1982 II SWIFT & CCMPANY - VARIATION, TEXT AMENIAENTS & SPECIAL USE (1919 Swift Dr. ) Continued Mr. Gooder stated that the building at 1919 Swift Drive was built in 1968 and used for research and development purposes. Swift & Company has made plans to move their corporate headquarters from their current location on West Jackson in Chicago, to the Swift Drive location. He further stated that this application is in the alternative, with the first part being for a variation from the Village's parking standards to permit the reduction of required parking from the required 467 to 325. The primary basis for this Variation is on Swift's contention that there will be no more than 300 employees occupying the Swift Drive location. Mr. Gooder further characterized their parking requirements as follows: Assuming a maximum employee force of 300, statistics indicate that approximately 10 per cent would be absent from the facility at any one time due to travel, absenteeism or illness. This would reduce parking demand to 270 spaces. Statistics further indicate that there are approximately 1.15 occupants per car which would further reduce the parking requirement down to 235-240. Swift & Company further contends that they would have no more than ten visitors at any one time and, therefore, their total parking demand would be in the range of 245-250. Mr. Gooder stated that the proposed parking plan, as shown on Exhibit E, would provide for 330 parking spaces, of which 239 would be on the surface and 91 would be in the basement. He stated that the specific hardship was the requirement to build a decked parking structure at a cost of $800,000-$1 million to build the required number of parking spaces of 467. In conjunction with this Variation, he stated that if the Village of Oak Brook were to grant their request, Swift would be willing to reserve sufficient space on site adequate to construct the entire 467 spaces if same are needed in the future, as a condition of the granting of the Variation. Mr. Richard Green, Vice President of Swift & Company, reiterated that there would be no more than 300 employees at this facility, with between five and six visitors on a daily basis. In response to Member Reynolds, Mr. Green stated that the only obstacle in the way of Swift's relocation to Oak Brook is their concern about the excessive cost in providing for required parking. Acting Chairman Muschler questioned the $1 million cost for adding approximately 137 extra spaces. Mr. Gooder noted that a parking structure would actually contain more than 137 spaces, since it would cover an area which would have otherwise had surface parking. TONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -2- October 20, 1982 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -3- October 20, 1982 II SWIFT & COMPANY - VARIATION, TEXT AMENDUN S & SPECIAL USE (1919 Swift Dr. ) (Continued) Member Savino questioned the reliability of the projected cost for construction of the parking structure, since one letter stated a half million dollars and now the estimate is closer to $1 million. Mr. Gooder stated that the half million dollar figure was only preliminary, and that the $1 million figure is based on more accurate information from Barton-Asch-nan which indicates that the construction of a parking structure in Oak Brook would tend toward the high side range of $4500-$7500 per parking space. In response to Member Hodges, Mr. Green stated that the current corporate office space at 115 West Jackson is comprised of four floors of 20,000 square feet each, occupied by approximated 214 employees. Mr. Gooder stated that when such unusable areas as the open atrium and lobby are subtracted from the total square footage, only approximately 96,000 square feet in the Swift Drive facility should be considered as usable space. Member Hodges suggested that Swift might, at some time in the future, desire to put more than 300 employees in this facility for economic reasons. He further questioned the number of additional people which could, potentially, be located in this building. Mr. Green stated that Swift has no current plans to locate more than 300 employees here, and that only if the current plans were totally redesigned, could they locate, perhaps, ten more employees. Mr. Gooder further noted that the proposed 330 spaces as shown on Exhibit E would provide additional parking in the event that more than 300 employees were in the building in the future. Member Hodges asked Mr. Gooder whether or not he considered the cost to meet a zoning standard as being a hardship for purposes of obtaining a Variation. Mr. Gooder stated that since there is no need for the additional parking, based on Swift's projections, there is no reason to spend the additional money for construction of a parking structure. Member Hodges stated that, in his opinion, the specific cost to meet a zoning regulation is not a hardship which would justify the granting of a Variation. He further noted that this particular hardship, as suggested by Mr. Gooder, would pertain to any number of sites in Oak Brook. Mr. Gooder commented that most other sites have sufficient surface area on which parking could be located without the need for construction of a parking structure. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -3- October 20, 1982 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -4- October 20, 1982 II SWIFT & COMPANY - VARIATION - TEXT AMENDMENTS & SPECIAL USE (1919 Swift Dr.) (Continued) Member Reynolds stated that the obvious problem is conversion of an existing building from a less to a more intense use, and that she would request that the Village Attoreny define "hardship" for purposes of obtaining a Variation. Village Attorney Brechin stated that the question of hardship revolves around the three questions of location, proposed use, and the specific zoning restrictions. He stated that it is a uestion q of fact as to whether the combination of the above three items make the use of this particular property uneconomic. In response to Acting Chairman Muschler, Mr. Green stated that the atriums are not presently in the building, but are part of the proposed renovation. In response to Member Reynolds, Mr. Green noted that none of the parking spaces will be reserved for upper level executives. Mr. Patrick Shaw, Architect, reviewed the proposed Building Plans and revised Parking Site Plans. He also noted that certain major areas, as the cafeteria, open atrium and lobby, will not be generating any additional employees, however, based on the Village's ordinance, must be included in the computation of required off-street parking spaces. In response to Member Reynolds, Mr. Gooder stated that Xerox Corporation is located in the two buildings to the North and Northwest of the site with Penwalt to the West and the Illinois Credit Union League located to the South. To the East is the Tri-State Tollway. In response to Member Reynolds, Mr. Shaw stated that the majority of interior walls will be fixed as opposed to moveable partitions. Mr. Donald O'Hara, Barton-Asckznan, made the following comments: He stated that Oak Brook's standards best relate to new, unoccupied buildings where the exact number and type of occupants are unknown, in which case the use of a specific number of parking spaces per thousand square feet of floor area is the best approximation. With Swift, however, they know that there will be no more than 300 employees, and fran his experience, that knowledge is a better predictor of parking space requirements than a set standard. He reiterated that the 330 parking spaces, comprised of surface and basement, would easily handle the estimated need for 250 spaces, comprised of employees and visitors, and still allow for substantial growth. In response to Member Hodges, Mr. O'Hara stated that he relied on an estimate fran Swift & Company for the estimated number of visitors to this type of development, and that no independent study was performed by his firm. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -4- October 20, 1982 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -5- October 20, 1982 II SWIFT & CCMPANY - VARIATION, TEXT AMENDMENTS & SPECIAL USE (1919 Swift Dr. ) Continued He further stated that he would recammend a standard of 3.0 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of net area which excludes non-generating areas. In Oak Brook's terns, this would be approximately one per 375 square feet of rg oss area, or 2.6 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of gross area. Member Hodges suggested that the Village would then be more lenient than a majority of Chicago suburbs if we were to adopt such a standard. Mr. O'Hara stated that in 1981 and 1982, his firm surveyed 2 million square feet of office space in the Village of Oak Brook and concluded that the average actual parking ratio was only 2.33 with only one building, the Butterfield Office Plaza, being over his rec miended 3.0 standard, as noted in Exhibit H. Member Reynolds inquired as to the status concerning the existing non-conformities as listed on Page 3 of Bruce Kapff's memo of September 17, 1982. Mr. Gooder stated that all five items which currently are in non-conformance will be corrected as a result of either of the proposals as shown on Exhibits E & F. General discussion followed concerning a report prepared by Bill Balling in 1976 with respect to a report prepared by Barton-Aschman in 1975. Mr. Gooder noted that the report prepared by Metro Transportation Group (Exhibit J) concluded that, on an average basis, the existing ten buildings in the Hinsdale Office Park call for an average of 2.3 parking spaces per 1000 gross square feet of floor area. Member Reynolds suggested that those buildings are primarily sales offices which would have a lower parking de-nand. Mr. O'Hara countered that, in his firm's. survery of 17 million square feet of office buildings, a similar figure was noted and that those buildings were not all sales in nature. Acting Chairman Muschler noted that there were no members of the audience expressing either approval of objection to the requested Variation. The Zoning Board determined that it would be best to hear the applicant's case for the Text Amendment and Special Use prior to taking any action on the Variation request. Mr. Gooder stated that the Text Amedment applied for would create a Special Use category which would permit the construction of 30 per cent less than the required number of spaces on the condition that Swift would install the additional 30 per cent at some time in the future when the Village might determine that same would be ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -5- October 20, 1982 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -6- October 20, 1982 II SWIFT & COMPANY - VARIATION, TEXT AMENEME'MS & SPECIAL USE (1919 Swift Dr. ) (Continued) required. He further stated that the Special Use would be limited to Swift & Ccmpany. He also stated that his client would like to withdraw the other alternative Text Amendments which would have modified the method of calculating required off-street parking. i Member Reynolds inquired as to why the original request was for a 40 per cent reduction, when Swift would only request a 30 per cent reduction. Mr. Gooder stated that his intent was to have the standard consistent with the requirements of the ORA-3 Zoning District. Mr. O'Hara made reference to a procedure used in the Village of Schaumburg which involved the land banking of sufficient area to construct additional parking spaces which the applicant, in that case, felt were not needed. He stated that that applicant was able to justify not needing those spaces after the entire building had been leased and actual usage could be determined. Acting Chairman Muschler noted that there were no members of the audience expressing either approval or objection to the requested Text Amendment or Special Use. There being no further discussion, a motion was.made by Member Reynolds, seconded by Member Hodges that the Zoning Board of Appeals reccnnend to the President and Board of Trustees adoption of the Text Amendment to Section X (B) (2) substantially in conformance with Exhibit A to Mr. Gooder's letter of September 28, 1982 regarding the Zoning Amendment Request, with certain changes to that Exhibit such that the proposed Amendment read as follows: "(2) Special Uses (f) if the owner shall demonstrate that (a) it is reasonably probable that his use of the property will require up to 30 per cent less parking than Section XI would require and that (b) he has reserved adequate land area to permit him to satisfy the full requirements of Section XI then he may construct such reduced parking up to a 30 per cent reduction as is justified by the circumstances. The Village shall have the right to determine that the existing parking is inadequate and shall have the right to direct, at such time, that the land banked area be used for additional parking." "(7) Off-street loading and off-street parking: As in Section XI of this Ordinance subject to the provisions of Subsection (2)(f) of this Section X (b) ." The Zoning Board further reccmrends that the Village retain the right to attach any and all necessary conditions to the granting of the Special Use Permit. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -6- October 20, 1982 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -7- October 20, 1982 II SWIFT & COMPANY - VARIATION, TEXT AMaM-MUS & SPECIAL USE (1919 Swift Dr.) (Continued) ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: (5) Members Fullan, Hodges, Reynolds, Savino, Acting Chairman Muschler Nays: (0) Absent: (2) Member Crouch, Chairman Baroni MOTION CARRIED. . . . . . . . . A motion was made by Member Hodges, seconded by Member Savino to recommend denial of the requested Variation for the reasons that: 1) no showing of genuine hardship had been made as required by the Variation procedure, and 2) to grant this Variation would set a precedent for other properties in the ORA-1 Zoning District. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: (4) Members Hodges, Reynolds, Savino, Acting Chairman Muschler Nays: (1) Member Fullan Absent: (2) Member Crouch, Chairman Baroni MOTION CARRIED. . . . . . . . . A motion was made by Member Reynolds, seconded by Member Fullan that the Zoning Board of Appeals reccmTend to the President and Board of Trustees the issuance of a Special Use Permit, as permitted under modified Section X (B) (2)(f) , which would allow the construction of 30 per cent less parking than required under Section XL persuant to the following two conditions: 1) Swift & Ccmpany or its parent organization hold title and occupy the property. 2) Swift & Company agree to the construction of the additional 30 per cent parking if and when the Village determines the need. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: (5) Members Fullan, Hodges, Reynolds, Savino, Acting Chairman Muschler Nays: (0) Absent: (2) Member Crouch, Chairman Baroni MOTION CARRIED. . . . . . .. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -7- October 20, 1982 0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -2- October 5, 1982 IV SWIFT & COMPANY - TEXT AMENDMENTS, SPECIAL USE & VARIATION (1919 Swift Drive) At the request of tLe petitioner through its attorney, David M. Gooder, a motion was made by Member Hodges, seconded by Member Fullan to continue the public hearing on this matter to October 20, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. in light of the fact that only four (4) members were present. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: (4) Members Fullan, Hodges, Muschler, Savino Nays: (0) Absent: (3) Members Crouch, Reynolds, Chairman Baroni MOTION CARRIED. . . . . V ADJOURNMENT I A motion was made by Member Fullan, seconded by Member Savino to adjourn the October 5, 1982 regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to October 20, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. I VOICE VOTE: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED. . . . . The October 5, 1982 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was adjourned at 7:50 P.M. Respectf submitted, Job H. Brechin, Temporary Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals Approved ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes -2- October 5, 1982 A v G v . VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 654-2220 October 1', 1982 MEMO TO: Zoning Board of Appeals • FROM: Bruce F. Kapff, Assistant to Village Manager SUBJECT: Swift & Company - Parking Variation (1919 Swift Drive) APPLICATION IN GENERAL Swift & Company, represented by their attorney, David Gooder, has made application to permit the conversion of their existing building at 1919 Swift Drive from a Research and Development to primarily an Office use. Their specific application is for a Variation from the provisions of Section XI (E) (12) (d) (8) concerning the required number of off-street parking spaces for office uses and a Variation from the provisions of Section XIV (B) (54) concerning the method of computing floor area with respect to required off-street parking spaces to permit a reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces from 467 to 325, a reduction of 142 spaces or a 30 per cent reduction. VILLAGE STANDARDS You have in your file a memo from Building Commissioner Clark dated August 19, 1982 which states that 465 parking spaces are required for the proposed renovation of this building. Following further discussion with that department, Staff has determined that 467 spaces would be required based on the following calculations: Office Space 118,088 Sq. Ft. @ 275 Sq. Ft. = 429 Spaces Research & Development 27,312 Sq. Ft. @ 800 aces.Sq. Ft = 34 Spaces P i Loading Docks 4,000 Sq. Ft. @ Min. Standard 4 Spaces Total 467 Spaces It should be noted that the above calculations assume the exclusion of both of the mechanical rooms (8,000 square feet) on the first and second floors. Although definition 454 in the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically exclude such areas, the Building Department, in the past, has made the inter- pretation that mechanical rooms are not.part of "the structure's primary and permanent working area". SWIFT & COMPANY - Parking Variation (1919 Swift Drive October 1, 1982 Page 2 DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED 1) Plat of Survey,received August 31, 1982, shows existing building and parking layout. Various items on this Plat show existing non-conforming items which are further discussed on Page 3 of my September 17, 1982 memo to the Plan Commission. Mr. Gooder stated at the September 20, 1982 Plan Commission meeting that all of these existing non-conformities will be taken care of if this Variation is approved by the Village. 2) Site Plans, received August 2, 1982. a) Sheet IA is one proposal which would provide for approximately 330 total spaces comprised of 239 on the surface and 91 in the basement. b) Sheet 1B would provide for approximately 492 total spaces comprised of 239 in a parking structure, 162 on the surface, and 91 in the basement. 3) Two letters from David Gooder (July 30 and September 28, 1982) which provide justification for this Variation. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION I would also refer you to my memo to the Plan Commission of September 17, . 1982, starting on Page 2, which contains a discussion on office parking standards from other jurisdictions. Respectfully submitted, Bruce F. Kapff Assistant to Village Manager BFK/jr 1 t - (9) Schools (a) Commercial or Trade, Music, Dance and Business -- One parking space for every 250 sq. ft. of floor area, or part thereof. (h) High: One parking space for each six students plus one for each faculty member and one for each other full time employee. c. (1) Bowling Alleys -- One parking space for every 200 sq. ft. of floor area, or part thereof. (2) Health Salons and Skating Rinks -- Commercial -- One parking space for every 100 sq. ft. of floor area, or part thereof. (3) Parks, Playgrounds, Outdoor . Recreation and Indoor Recreation -- One parking space for every 10,000 sq. ft. of area. (4) Swimming Pools -- Commercial -- One parking space for every 75 sq. ft. of surface water area when filled. (5) Golf Courses -- 100 parking spaces for every 9 holes plus 11 parking spaces for each hole not included in a set of 9 holes. d. (3) Banks and other Financial Institutions -- One parking ' space for every 250 sq. ft. of floor area or part thereof. (4) Barber Shops and Beauty Parlors -- Three parking spaces for each operatorss chair. (S) Furniture and Appliance Stores; Motor Vehicle Sales Establishme '_�, and Establishments for repair of Household Equip-,.:,ant and Furniture -- One parking space for every • __� 200 sq. ft. . of f:.00r area, or par . . thereof. (10) Restaurants -- not including drive-in establishments One parking space for every 100 sq. ft. of floor area, or part thereof. (11) Theaters, except Open Air Drive-Ins. -- One parking space for each 2. 5 seats. SECTION 11: Section XIII.D. of Ordinance No. G-60 , as amended, is hereby amended to delete the phrases "Two Dollars" and "Fifty Cents" from the lest line thereof and to add. in their place the phrases "Ten Dollar: and "One Dollar" respectively. SECTION 12 : Section XIV.B. 4. , 76 and 89 of Ordinance No. G-60, as amended, are hereby amended, and Sections XIV.B. 63. 2 and 155. 1 are hereby aJded, to rear' as follows B.4. Adjo-,Ing - touching, as distinquished from lying near 63.2 Health Club the meetin(I place of a group of persons organizer for tho purpose of improving the general condition of their h,-alth through exercise. i J 19� 0_� C. (1) Bowling Alleys - - One parking space for every. 200 sq. ft. of floor area, or part thereof. (2) Health Salons and Skating Rinks - - Commercial - - One 4 a. R parking space for every 100 sq. ft. of floor area, or part thereof. (3) Parks, Playgrounds, Outdoor Recreation and Indoor Recreation - - One parking space for every 1 , 000 sq. ft. of area. (4) Swimmin,g, Pools - - Commercial - - One parking space for every 75 sq. ft. of surface water area when filled. (5) Golf Courses - - 100 parking spaces for every 9 holes plus 11 parking spaces for each hole not included in a set of 9 holes. d. (3) Banks and other Financial Institutions - - One parking space for every 250 sq. ft . of floor area, or part thereof. (4) Barber Shops and Beauty Parlors - - Three parking spaces for each operator' s chair. (5) Furniture and Appliance Stores ; Motor Vehicle Sales Establishments, . and Establishments for Repair of Household Equipment and Furniture - - One parking space for every 200 sq. ft. of floor area, or part thereof. (8) Offices - - Business , Professional, Administrative and Public (other than medical and dental clinics and offices of phsicians and dentists) - - One parking space for every 250 sq. ft. of floor area, or part thereof. (10) Restaurants - - not including drive-in establishments -One parking space for every 100 sq. ft. of floor area, or part thereof. (11) Theaters , except Open Air Drive-Ins - - One parking space for each 2. 5 seats. SECTION 12: Section XII . B. 7 (a) 3 of Ordinance G-60, - as amended, is hereby amen e y the addition of the phrase "except signs" at the end of the first sentence in said Subsection. SECTION 13: Section XII .B. 7 .b of Ordinance No. G-60 , as amended, is hereby amended by the addition of the following subsections (3) through (5) thereto: (3) The Use or display of signs wh ch do not conform to the provisions of this section shall cease and terminate in ..accordance with the following schedule : Original Cost of Sign Amortization Period 0 — $2,000 6 months $2,001 - $5,000 12 months Over - $5,000 18 months (4) The above amortization period shall begin upon passage of this ordinance as to existing nonconforming signs , or any later Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which causes a previously conforming sign to become nonconforming but only as to such nonconforming sign. v 0 a w Ix V I LI_AC r OF OAK B R.00 - ,a 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS September 13, 1976 654-2220 TO: Village President: and Board of Trustees SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to Parking Restrictions contained in Ordinance G-60 Gentlemen: The summary analysis which follows, contains irform.11,:ion which co:-npa-res the existing parking schedules contained in Ordinance G-60 and the 1975 parking reco,mendations as prepared by Barton-Asci�nan and 1`ssociates. In making the staff r::cor nendat .c ns on park ;,.g as contained in the 'Third Redraft distribute last week., the follmdng assLUnptions were made: , 1. Because of the intensity of traffic in Oak Brook, where there was a difference between G-60 and the Barton-Aschman Study, the more restrictive would govern. 2. To assist in uniform acL-:iinistration. of the Ordinance, the more clear parking schedule would generally be used over the more complex rectuire_;:ents. 3. Since the Barton-Aschman Study was made in 1975, general trends in parking requirements, (e.g. greater use of compact cars, increased auto use for specific facilities) would b : incorporated in their analysis. Bascd on these assumptions and our Staff analysis the following recomrren- dations t i ere made USE HOW G-60 is HOW B-A is PROPOSED MORIP RESTRICTHT, MORE RESTRICTIVE TEKT REVISION 1. Hotels .5 spaces per employee No 1 spy- per 100 Square feet Sales and Dining- 2. Multi-Family 330 more restrictive No Septciiiber 13, 1976 Page 1,wo USE HOW G-60 is HOW B-A. is PROPOSED MORE RESTRICTIVE 1,10RE RESTRICTIVE TEXT REWISION 3. Single-Family Identical requirements No 4. Single-Family 100% more restrictive NO (attach-d) 1. Theaters, Avds SOomore .restrictive Yes 2. Churches 29% more restrictive Yes 3. College/University Student: 256 more �o restrictive Fmp: 1 space/2 employees 4. Clubs/Lodges More uniform schedule* Yes S.- Gyrs/Sta"1;,MS More uniform schedule No 6. Hospitals More uniform schedule* Yes 7. Library/Art 50% more restrictive Yes Gallery 8. Sanitar3Tp/ More uniform schedule* Yes Aged Care 9. a. Trade Schools More uniform schedule Yes b. High Schools Students: 15% more restric- Yes tive Employees: 1 space each employee C. Nursery Schools More uniform schedule No 1. Dowling Alleys More uniform schedule* Yes 2. Health Salons/ More uniform schedule Yes Skating Rinks - 3. Parrs/Playgrounds More uniform schedule' Yes w t September. 13, 1976 Page Three USE I-1911 G-60 is =H9WB-A PROPOSIM A10RE P.ES'lT. "GIVE TF?:T TJ:tIISI01' Pools More uniform schedtde* Yes Golf Courses More tmiform, schedule Yes 1. Auto. laundries 25% more restrictive-use Aio 50% more restrictive- capacity 2. Auto. Service lore uniform schedule No stations 3. Banks 17% more restrictive Yes _ 4. Barber Shops/ 20% more restrictive Yes Beauty Parlors S. Furniture/ 50% more restrictive Yes Appliance Stores 6. ASanuf./Fabric/ 25% more restrictive No Processing 7. Medic-1/Dental More uniform schedule Yes Clinics S. Offices, Bus. loo more restrictive Yes and Professional 9. Public Utility, Identical Requirements Trans., Govt. Uses 10. Restaurants More uniform schedule# Yes 11. Theaters 35% more restrictive Yes 12. Warehouse More uniform schedule Pdo 13. Other Bus. No analysis No and Professional Regional Shopping No analysis No Respectfully Submitted, nendations based upon Barton-Aschman s , , idy art J Pluming Advisory Service (PISS) y on parking, as prepared by Neil Kenig Willia..m R. Balling Robert Boylan. Assistant to the Village Akinager k# try 1 9 7 Addend= y , act of some of the more typical The summary below cites e. :r�p7 c s of the imp chat ;es whic - �:ould result from the proposed text �-; ,enclments. This analysis jjas prepared from bureau of inspection records. Parking Spaces j Actual Rem. Pro osed - Christ Church of Oak Brook 10 715 314 @1/2.5 Church, auditorium, Faculty Employee 596 1/5 1/5 1/I x'12 duty 240/1200 42/210 20/20 20/20 12 02.5 480/120U 84/210 . . Great America Savings Loan 82 28 32 8000 0 1/300 floor area . Gazebo 27 13 2,600 @ 1/300 floor area McDonald`s 126 59 236 seats 0 1/4 seats 1S0 407 . 255 440 Cinema 11U0 Seats 0 1/5 seats approx. Ginger Creels Office Park 396 387 425 106,360 0 11275 floor area r LORD, BISSELL & BROOK 115 SOUTH LA SALLE STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603 (312) 443-0700 LOS ANGELES OFFICE CABLE:LOWIRCO CGO 3250 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD TELEX:2S-3070 LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90010 DAVID M.GOODER 2222 Kensington Court (213)487-7064 (312)443-0293 Suite 110 TELEX:I8-1135 654-0561 Oak Brook, IL 60521 September 28, 1982 I 0y Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, IL 60521 M1N S I-PA ILN Re: 1919 Swift Drive Zoning Variation Request Gentlemen: My client, Swift & Company, urges that the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Board of Trustees give first attention to Swift' s application for a zoning variation, to permit Swift to provide a minimum of 325 parking spaces rather than 469 as required in the Zoning Ordinance. This requirement would impose a hardship by requiring it to expend $800 ,000 to $1,000, 000 to build a parking structure to provide 145 parking spaces which its officers , employees and visitors do not need and will not use. The requested variation would make it possible for Swift to provide all necessary parking by adding basement parking of 91 spaces to the surface parking now existing which would be modified to meet all set-back, design and landscaping requirements . Such a variation more than satisfies all the require- ments of the Zoning Ordinance. It is clear that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The expenditure of up to $1,000 ,000 needlessly would make it impossible for the property to yield a reasonable return. i Furthermore the evidence will 'clearly establish that: (1) The condition upon which the petition is based - the need to build a $1,000 ,000 parking structure to pro- vide unneeded parking - would not be applicable generally to other ORA-1 property. LORD, BISSELL & BROOK • Vi*age of Oak Brook • September 28, 1982 Page Two (2) The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvement in the neighborhood. Indeed the eli- mination of the parking structure will be a benefit to the area. (3) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of . light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the danger of fire, or other- wise endanger the public safety, or diminish or impair property values . (4) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to make more money out of the property. (5) The hardship has not been created by Swift. Under these circumstances Swift urges that the vari- ation be granted. Swift further does not oppose the grant of the variation subject to the following conditions: (a) The variation shall continue only so long as Swift, an affiliate, parent or subsidiary thereof holds title to the property and the building is occupied by one or more of them; and (b) Swift agrees to install such additional parking, in- cluding if necessary the construction of a parking deck, as future use .of the building by 'it, an affiliate, parent or subsidiary, may make reasonably necessary. It is urged that under these circumstances a variation be granted to reduce the minimum required parking spaces to 325 . Such a variation has the unanimous support in principle of the Plan Commission. R spe tfully submit , David M. Gooder DMG:pg • LORD, BISSELL & BROOK 115 SOUTH LASALLE STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603 (312) 443-0700 LOS ANGELES OFFICE CABLE:LOWIRCO COO 3250 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD TELEX:25-3070 LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90010 DAVID M.GOODER 2222 Kensington Court (213)487-7064 (312)443-0293 Suite 110 TELEX:18-1135 654-0561 Oak Brook, IL 60521 _ 'September 28, 1982 Village of Oak Brook VIL! AO.IE- CH O;lj;+; E t0ui�, IL. 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, IL 60521 C.DIMir' ; I_RATIUN Re: 1919 Swift Drive Zoning Amendment Request Gentlemen: My client, Swift & Company, has applied in the alter- native for (1) a zoning variation or (2) an amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance together with a special use permit if it should be required. On behalf of Swift I would like to propose certain changes in the text amendment proposal which we believe will, in substantial part, obviate certain objections voiced by members of the Plan Commission. I should also like to clarify and summarize certain of the supporting testimony and research data. First then, with regard to the text amendment itself, we would urge that the Village amend the ORA-1 district regu- lations to provide, as the ORA-3 district regulations now do, to permit a 40% reduction in the parking spaces required pro- vided that sufficient space exists on the property to permit 100% of the required spaces to be installed either on the surface, in or under the building or in a parking structure all of which would meet all fire, building, health, safety and zoning code requirements . However, we would also urge that a reduction be permitted only through the medium of a special use permit which would require a showing that there is a reasonable probability that the intended use of the building will generate a parking demand which will not exceed the 60% level. Furthermore, the Village could grant a reduction of less that 40% if the evidence demonstrated that the 60% level would be too low. Finally the special use permit could be conditioned on a continuation of ownership of the building by the applicant and a continuation of the intended use of the building as described in the appli- cation. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a .draft of a text amendment which incorporates the above requirements . B LOR D ISSELL. & BROOK � Village of Oak Brook September 28, 1982 Page Two Secondly, the evidence submitted to the Plan Commission and which will be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals, sup- ports and will support the following factual conclusions: 1. Swift will have no more than approximately 310 employees in the building at 1919 Swift Drive and will not require for its corporate headquarters and small basic research activities more than 325 parking spaces (about 70% of required parking) immediately and in the foreseeable future. These can be provided by a combination of surface parking and basement parking. 2. The parking requirements of the zoning ordinance at the 100% level would require 469 parking spaces. 3. To provide the additional 144 parking spaces, Swift would have to construct a parking structure at a cost of between $800,000 and $1,000 ,000 . 4. The total gross floor area of the building after ex- cluding mechanical rooms and the basement is 139 ,400 square feet. Thus the ordinance would require 3.4 parking spaces for 1,000 gross square feet. Swift, however, needs no more than 2. 3 parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. 5 . Studies conducted of suburban office building parking demand in Oak Brook, Hinsdale, and elsewhere demonstrate that 2.3 parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of occupied space will more than meet the parking needs of large numbers of office buildings. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to expect that Swift's requirements will not exceed 2. 3 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. 6. The 1981 study of the actual parking demand at the Hinsdale Office Park conducted by the Metro Trans- portation Group, Inc. found that the average usage was 2.30 parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of occupied office space. 7. The 1981 study of 15 office buildings along 22nd Street in Oak Brook by Barton-Aschman found that the average usage was 2.33 parking spaces per 1,000 gross leasable square feet of occupied office space. 8. A study of office parking demand by Barton-Aschman which covered more than 17, 000,000 square feet of building area in more than 130 suburban office buildings showed an average observed peak parking demand of 2'.34 parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of occupied area, when the area is calculated, as it is in Oak Brook, • LORD, BISSELL & BROOK • VillVe of Oak Brook September 28,1982 Page Three from outside wall to outside wall. (The Barton- Aschman study reported its results on the basis of "gross leasable" area. Total gross area, wall-to-wall, is at least 10% greater. Thus 2.66 per 1,.000 square feet of ross leasable floor area is the approximate equivalen o 2.34 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area calculated on a glass-to-glass basis. ) Thus Swift urges that the draft amendment be adopted and that Swift..be granted a special use permit allowing a 30% reduction. Swift would not oppose a grant of the special use permit subject to the following conditions: (a) The special use permit shall continue only so long as Swift, an affiliate, parent or subsidiary thereof holds title to the property and the building is occu- pied by one or more of them; and (b) Swift agrees to install such additional parking in- cluding if necessary the construction of a parking deck, as future use of the building by it, an affiliate, parent or subsidiary, may make reasonably necessary. s ctfully1subr d, David M. Gooder DMG:pg Encl PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT Amend subsction (2) and (7) of Section X(B) to read as follows: " (2) Special. Uses; If the owner shall demonstrate that (a) it is reasonably probable that his use of the property will require up to 40% less parking than Section XI would require and that (b) he has reserved adequate land area to permit him to satisfy the full . requirements of Section XI, then he may construct such reduced parking area up to a 40% reduction as is justified by the circumstances. " " (7) Off-Street Loading and 'Off-Street Parking: . As in Section XI of this ordinance, subject to the pro- visions of subsection 2 (e) of this Section X(B) . " EXHIBIT A - a v G t VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 654-2220 i September 23, 1982 President & Board of Trustees Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 RE: Swift $ Company - Text Amendment & Special Use (1919 Swift Road) Dear President and Board of Trustees: The Plan Commission, at their Regular Meeting of September 20, 1982, heard the petition of Swift $ Company for various alternative types of relief which would permit the conversion of their existing building to an office use. The specific alternative actions requested were: 1. An Amendment to Section XI (E) (12) (d) (8) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required parking spaces to 1 per 400 square feet of gross floor area. 2. An Amendment to Section XI (E) (12) (d) (8) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required number of parking spaces to 1 per 333 square feet of net floor area. This Amendment would be accompanied by an Amendment to Section XIV (B) (54) of the Zoning Ordinance "Floor Area" to exclude additional areas not used as office space such as elevator shafts, stairwells, atrium, and toilet areas. 3. An Amendment to Section X (13) (2) Special Uses creating a new Special Use category which would permit a reduction of required off-street parking for office uses by 40 per cent, on the condition that adequate space is reserved on site which would permit construction of the additional 40 per cent if so determined by Village authorities, and the granting of that Special Use. The Plan Commission recommends to the President and Board of Trustees denial of these requested Text Amendments. RE: Swift & Company - Text Amendment & Special Use (1919 Swift Drive) President & Board of Trustees September 23, 1982 Page 2 This recommendation was made on a motion by Member O'Brien, seconded by Member Antoniou and approved on a Roll Call Vote of six (6) ayes: Members Antoniou, Beard, Marcy, O'Brien, Ramm, Acting Chairman Bushy; zero (0) nays; one (1) absent: Chairman Reece. It is the concensus of the Plan Commission that some form of individualized relief, such as a Variation, would be warranted under the facts presented. Respectfully submitted, Karen M. Bushy, Acting Chairman Plan Commission BFK/KMB/jr i Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. E 1 820 Davis Street Evanston, Illinois 60204 312-491-1000 - RDIORANDUM TO: James DeRose FROM: Donald M. O'Hara DATE: June 16, 1982 SUBJECT: Parking Demand for One Woodfield Lake Office Building As requested, an update of the parking demand for One Woodfield Lake Office Building was conducted. The office building contains approximately 203,897 square feet and includes Hillary's Restaurant with 8,200 square feet and a health club with 11,750 square feet. There are currently 772 striped parking spaces with land reserved for an additional 62 parking spaces. (As of May 27, 1982, the building was 100 percent leased with 193,196 square feet, or 95 per- cent occupied.) Surveys to determine the parking demand for the One Woodfield Lake Office Building were completed on May 27, 1981, when 168,000 square feet was occu pied, and again on May 17, 1982. These data were compared to determine the growth factor in parking demand for each 1,000 square feet. -The parking sur- veys were each conducted at 10:00 A.M. , 12:00 noon, 1:00 P.M. , and 3:00 P.M. An additional parking survey was conducted at 6:00 P.M. in 1982. Listed in Table 1 is the number of vehicles parked and the parking ratio per 1,000 square feet of occupied office space for the One Woodfield Office Build- ing. In calculating the office ratio, we have removed the square footage for the restaurant and health club from the morning and afternoon survey data since minimal activity or parking demand can be attributed to the restaurant and health club facilities at those times. Table 2 indicates parking demand on a square-footage basis which incorporates the areas of the restaurant and health club. Use and parking demand is great- est for these areas during midday. Comparing the 1981 and 1982 survey data in Table 1, there has been an increase in office parking demand of approximately three (3) percent per 1,000 square feet; this can be attributed to increased or changed business of the tenants as they become established. We have projected that the existing 1982 office parking ratio will also increase by yet another three (3) percent and then stabilize for the 10:00 A.M. time period. It is anticipated that the total office development of 183,947 square feet will generate a maximum parking ratio of 2.84 spaces per 1,000 square feet, or 522 parking spaces. 7cRj7� S C P 2i 1982 VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, IL. ADMINISTRATIO!%j Barton-Aschman AssOclates, 1no. As stated above, the restaurant and health club generate their major parking demand during the 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. time period. From 1981 to 1982, parking demand at midday increased by 15 percent. (See Table 2.) For pro- jecting demand in the future, we assume that future parking demand may increase another 15 percent and then stabilize at that level. Based on the current parking ratio of 2,67 and the projected 15 percent increase, the maximum parking ratio for the total development would be 3.07 per 1,000 square feet during the peak demand hours. The maximum parking demand that can be expected to occur at One Woodfield Lake Office Building will be for 626 parking spaces. Presently there are 772 parking spaces (excluding the reserved land area) which is in excess of the projected maximum parking space demand by 146. From the study, it is clear that the reserved land area for the 62 additional parking spaces is not uarranted and in fact the existing parking spaces are far in excess of the actual need necessary to acconnnodate the One Woodfield Lake Office Building. Barton-AsGhman Associates, Inc. Table 1 PARKING DEMkNID FOR THE ONE 11OODFIELD LAKE OFFICE BUILDING FOR PERIODS OF LOtiI' USE OF HEALTH CLUB AND RESTAURANT FACILITIES(1) Parked Vehicles Parked Vehicles May 27, 1981 Parking Ratio Per May 27, 1982 'Parking Ratio Per Time (168,000 Occupied 1,000 (193,196 Occupied 1,000 Period sq. ft.) Square Feet sq. ft.) Square Feet 10:00 A.M. 39S 2.67 478 2.76 3:00 P.M. 393 2.65 475 2.74 6:00 P.M. - - 223 1.15 (1)Does not include 19,950 square feet of floor area attributed to the restaurant and health club facility. Table 2 PARKING DBAAR'D FOR THE ONE WOODFIELD BUILDING AT PEAK DAYTIME PERIODS FOR HEALTH CLUB AND RESTAURANT USE (RATIOS REFLECT THE AREAS OF THE RESTAURANT AND THE HEALTH CLUB) Parked Vehicles Parked Vehicles May 27, 1981 Parking Ratio Per May 27, 1982 Parking .Ratio Per Time .(168,000 Occupied 1,000 (193,196 Occupied 1,000 Period sq ft.) Square Feet sq. ft.) Square Feet 12:00 Noon 361 2.15 467 2.42 1:00 P.M. 392 2.33 515 2.67 DONALD M. O'HARA Senior Associate, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. EDUCATION: Graduate Studies, Transportation Engineering, University of Illinois Circle Campus Undergraduate Studies, Northeastern Illinois University PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Illinois Section EXPERIENCE: Mr. O'Hara has been with Barton-Aschman since 1974. During this time, he has worked on functional design and traffic studies for numerous parking structures; site access and related highway improvement studies for industrial, commercial, and residential developments; traffic operations and improvement studies; and functional parking and circulation design for office, industrial,and retail developments. Mr.O'Hara has also ap- peared as an expert witness in court and at public hearings. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS: Mr. O'Hara has served as project manager or project engineer for the following as- signments. • Parking Needs and Feasibility Studies in Schaumburg, Country Club Hills, and Decatur, Illinois; Midland, Michigan; Calgary, Alberta; Milwaukee,Wisconsin; Mexico City, Mexico; and Palm Beach Florida. • Functional Design and Traffic Studies for Parking Structures at Miller Brewing Com- pany in Milwaukee,Wisconsin; University of Oklahoma Medical Center Garage, Okla- homa City, Oklahoma; and Riverside Garage, Elgin, Illinois. • Office, Residential, and Industrial Park Traffic Planning in Connecticut, Florida, Illi- nois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin. • Suburban Regional Shopping Centers in Arizona, California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. • Urban Regional Shopping Centers in Des Moines, Iowa; Chicago, Illinos, Phoenix, Arizona; Detroit, Michigan; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. • Functional Parking and Circulation Studies for Miller Brewing, Milwaukee, Wiscon- sin; Dow Corning Chemicals, Midland, Michigan; One Woodfield Lake Office Cam- pus, Schaumburg, Illinois; Chicago Ridge Mall, Chicago Ridge, Illinois; Strathcona Town Centre, Calgary, Alberta; and West Bend Mail, West Bend Wisconsin. In addition to the representative sample of traffic and parking assignments listed above, Mr. O'Hara has participated in the long-range transportation planning for large scale multi-use developments in Grayslake, Aurora, and Schaumburg, Illinois. Mr. O'Hara has presented technical papers on parking to the American Planning Asso- ciation (APA) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. j r TECHNICAL PAPERS: [) -1, �a I� "Major Trend Affecting Planning and Design for Parking." I � - . Ig StP � 1 89- VILLAGc OF OAK BROOK, IL. ADMINISTRATIQN Table 3 PARKING DEMAND STUDY Totat Gross Actual Actual Actual' Leasable Occupied Parking Parking Offices s Area Area Demand Ratio 2707 Butterfield 120,000 119,538 247 2.07 Oakbrook, Illinois (western suburb o f Chicago) n Realty G Hawthor y rou p 2803 Butterfield 50,000 49,808 128 2.57 Oakbrook, Illinois (weste rn suburb of Chicago) s 9 0 ) Hawthorn Realty Group. Y 2805 Butterfield 50,000 49,808 135 2.71 , Oakbrook, Illinois (western suburb of Chicago) Hawthorn Realty Group I . 2809 Butterfield 100,000 99,620 260 2.61 Oakbrook, Illinois (western suburb of Chicago) Hawthorn Realty Group 2901 Butterfield 100,000 99,620 Oakbrook, Illinois (western suburb of Chicago) 270 1.81 Hawthorn Realty Group 2905 Butterfield 50,E 49+808 Oakbrook, Illinois (western suburb of Chicago) Hawthorn Realty Group 2907 Butterfield 50,000 49,808 98 1.97 Oakbrook, Illinois (western suburb of Chicago) Hawthorn Realty Group McDonald's Corporate Center 300,000 285,000 801 2.81 McDonald Plaza Oakbrook, Illinois I square feet of occupied Per 1,000 sq ied floor area.p Survey conducted in September and October, 1981. E P 21 1992 22 VILLAGc OF OAK BROOK, I-L. - ADMINISTRATIC]N � `3 Table 3 (cont'd) PARKING DEMAND STUDY Total Gross Actual Actual Actual' Leasable Occupied Parking Parking I Offices Area Area Demand Ratio 2625 Butterfield Office Plaza 194,115 170,821 563 3.30 Oakbrook, Illinois (western suburb of Chicago) RREEF Midamerica Oakbrook Office Pavilion 65,675 62,391 124 1.99 2601-2607 W. 22nd St. Oakbrook, Illinois (western suburb of Chicago) Fifield Palmer 2001 Spring Road Oakbrook, Illinois (western suburb of Chicago) Arthur Rubloff 2015 Spring Road P 9 Oakbrook, Illinois 492,630 423,662 702 1.66 (western suburb of Chicago) Arthur Rubloff 2021 Spring Road Oakbrook, Illinois (western suburb of Chicago) Arthur Rubloff ' One Oakbrook Place 90,000 86,804 217 2.50 2301 W. 22nd St. i Oakbrook, Illinois (western suburb of Chicago) LaSalle Commercial Brokerage Two Oakbrook Place 90,000 83,219 161 1.93 2311 W. 22nd St. Oakbrook, Illinois .(western suburb of Chicago) LaSalle Commercial Brokerage ELKAY Center 46,286 45,299 112 2.47 2222 W. 22nd St. Oakbrook, Illinois western suburb of Chicago) o 9 ) LaSalle Partners Manual Life Building 340,257 309,635 816 2.64 1301 West 22nd Street Oakbrook Illinois Total: 1,984,841 4,634 2.33 ' Per 1,000 square feet of occupied floor area. Survey conducted in Se to er and October, 1981. 23 i ` PLAN COMMISSION Minutes -2- September 20, 1982 IV SZ4IFT & CCFPANf - TEXT AM NU4ENT & SPECIAL USE (1919 Swift Drive) The following persons were present representing the applicant: David M. Gooder, Attorney; Donald M. O'Hara, Barton-AscYman Associates; Richard Green, Vice President-Swift & Company; Mr. Sidhu-Shaw, Swanke, Hayden & Connell Architects/Planners. Mr. Gooder stated that the requested amendments are sought in order to modify the parking requirements to reflect current demands and to eliminate the need for paving of green areas, which serve the added purpose of water absorption. He stated that Swift & Company is particularly affected, since they are planning on eorivPrting their Research & [pvQlogment Building, built in 1966, to p'rirarily an office use. The current building is a combination of one and two stories. Since this type of an arrangement takes up more land area than a conventional three-story building, there is less roan available for surface parking. He stated that certain mitigating factors should be taken into account which would justify the decreased need for parking spaces: 1) Swift & Company anticipates no more than 300 employees at this location. 2) Various studies indicate that offices exhibit an absentee rate of approximately 13 per cent due to illnes, vacations, meeetings and seminars. 3) The current occupancy rate of vehicles is 1.12 occupants per vehicle. Mr. Gooder presented his client's two-part application as follows: Amendment A would either reduce the parking requirement to one for every 400 square feet of rg oss floor area, or to one for every 333 square feet of net floor area. Alternative Amendment B would create a Special Use category allowing for the reduction of required off-street parking by a factor of 40 per cent, on the condition that adequate space be reserved on site for construction of that 40 per cent at the Village's direction. Mr. Green stated that the existing building has been used for research and development purposes for the past 15 years. Their plans are to make this the corporate headquarters of Swift & Company with a maximum employment of 300 persons. He stated that if they were to comply with the Village's requirement of 467 parking spaces, it would necessitate the construction of a $1 million parking structure. In response to Member Marcy, Mr. Gooder stated that only 250 surface parking spaces would be feasible without construction of the parking deck. This figure is based on the Village's requirement of parking stalls being 9' x 18' with a 27 foot isle. Mr. Sidhu reviewed the proposed floor plans which include 91 parking spaces in the basement, currently used for storage. He noted that Plan Sheet IA shows 330 spaces, of which 239 are surface parking and 91 are in the basement. Alternative Site Plan 1B shows a potential total of 492 spaces, 239 in the parking structure, 162 surface spaces, and 91 spaces in the basement. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes -2- September 20, 1982 s i PLAN COMMISSION Minutes -3- September 20, 1982 IV SWIFT & CUIPANY - TEXT AMENX-= & SPECIAL USE (1919 .Swift Drive) (Continued) He further stated that their plan is to completely screen the proposed parking areas along the side and rear lot lines. Mr. Gooder stated that both plans indicate four loading berths as required by Village ordinance. He further noted that the first level of the parking structure is actually below grade. Member Beard inquired as to the need for four loading berths, with Mr. Green responding that there was a greater need for these berths when the building was used entirely for R & D purposes, but that they would only need one berth for the proposed office use. Mr. Donald O'Hara stated that, conceptually, it makes sense to subtract such areas as atriums, stairways, elevators, and washrocros fran the floor area calculation in determining required parking spaces, which is the basis for that Text Amendment which would require one space for every 333 square feet of net floor area. He stated that Barton-AscYman, in previous years, had performed studies on office parking requirements and, determined that there were greater- needs for parking. At this time, however, parking needs are less. He submitted to the Plan Commission copies of a parking demand study for 17 buildings in Oak Brook conducted in September and October, 1981. He stated that this survey looked at the total gross leaseable area which excluded such areas as mechanical roans, elevators, and atriums. To determine the actual parking ratio, only those areas which contained tenants were used. The overall average parking ratio was determined to be 2.33 spaces per 1000 square feet. He further stated that readings at all buildings were taken between 10 A.M. and noon and, again, between 1 P.M. and 3 P.M. to determine the peak demand period. Member Marcy suggested that certain buildings which attact a large number of visitors, such as the Butterfield Office Plaza at 2625 Butterfield Road, have a different usage pattern than typical office buildings which attract few visitors. He further suggested that many offices reserve varying amounts of parking for their high-level executives, which effectively reduces the available parking. Member O'Brien stated that the Manual Life Building at 1211 and 1301 West 22nd Street, is a good example where large numbers of spaces are reserved for employees. He stated that there are many times when visitors are unable to find parking space. Member O'Brien asked Attorney Brechin whether the Village of Oak Brook would be able to give a variation to Swift which would not jeopardize our current parking standards. Mr. Gooder stated that the Village could require Swift to reserve space for 40 per cent of the required parking, as was done in the case of the McDonald's headquarters in the ORA-3 Zoning District. r PLAN CCi`IMISSION Minutes -3- September 20, 1982 f Y PLAN COMMISSION Minutes -4- September 20, 1982 IV SWIFT & OcMPANY - TEXT AMENCMENP & SPECIAL USE (1919 Swift Drive) (Continued) Mr. O'Hara submitted a report frcm Barton-Aschman Associates dated June 16, 1982 the subject being the "Parking Demand for One Woodfield Lake Office Building" in SchauThurg. He stated that in that case, the developer land-banked 100 per cent of the Village's required parking in exchange for which they were given teliporary permission to construct all but 62 parking spaces pending full occupancy of the development. This report concludes that at full occupancy, the office portion of the development will require 2.84 spaces per 1000 square feet. The entire development, which includes offices, restaurant, and a health club, at full development, will require 3.07 spaces per 1000 square feet. Member Antoniou suggested that any Village parking standards are only an approximation, to the extent that no two buildings are identical. He further stated that he preferred the procedure whereby the developer would set aside land, based on some standard, and then at some future time, justify to the Village their true parking need. Member Beard stated his preference for the Special Use arrangement and that he would prefer the developer construct the 91 spaces in the basement. Acting Chairman Bushy inquired as to the status of the five items which are existing and nonconforming, as listed in Assistant Manager Kapff's memo of September 17, 1982. Mr. Gooder stated that all five of those items will be taken care of, with either of the alternate plans. Acting Chairman Bushy noted that no members of the audience expressed approval or opposition to the proposed plans. Member Marcy stated his preference for proposed Amendment B, but would be unable_ to justify any particular percentage reduction in the star#.card until a complete study were performed. Members O'Brien and Antoniou indicated their preference for such cases following the Variation route, in order that each case be justified based on particular hardship. They both indicated that either proposed Text Amendment would allow all buildings the opportunity to construct fewer parking spaces, with a detriment to certain types of building uses requiring more spaces. There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Member O'Brien, seconded by Member Antoniou to recta mend to the President and Board of Trustees denial of the requested Text Amendments. The Plan Commission further expressed consensus that the petitioner be granted some form of individualized relief, such as a Variation. PLAN CO%12SISSION Minutes -4- September 20, 1982 PLAN COMMISSION Minutes -5- September 20, 1982 IV SWIFT & COMPANY - TEXT AMPNDMENr & SPECIAL USE (1919 Swift Drive) (Continued) ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: (6) Members Antoniou, Beard, Marcy, O'Brien, Ramm, Acting Chairman Bushy Nays: (0) Absent: (1) Chairman Reece MOTION CARRIED. . . . . A five minute recess was called by the Acting Chairman to give Mr. Gooder sufficient time to organize his files for the next item on the agenda. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes -5- September 20, 1982 A • E ro . 9 F, �uun VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK B ROO K ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 654-2220 September 17, 1982 MEMO TO: Plan Commission FROM Bruce F. Kapff, Assistant to Village Manager SUBJECT: Swift & Company, Text Amendment and Special Use, 1919 Swift Drive APPLICATION IN GENERAL Swift & Company, represented by their attorney, David Gooder, has made various appli- cations which would permit the conversion of their existing building at 1919 Swift Drive from a research and development to primarily an office use. The specific appli- cations before the Plan Commission are in the alternative. Alternative number one is a Text Amendment to reduce the required parking to one per 400 square feet, gross area; or, one per 333 square feet of net area which would ex- clude such areas as elevator shafts, stairwells, atriums and washrooms. The alternative amendment would provide for a Special Use which would permit the re- duction of required off-street parking by 40% on condition that adequate space be re- served on-site for the 40% if the Village should, in the future, determine that addi- tional on-site parking is required. The granting of a Secial Use Permit is also re- quested in the event that this second Text Amendment is recommended. The applicant's third application is for a Zoning Variation to permit fewer off-street parking places than presently required, which will only be heard by the- Zoning Board of Appeals. VILLAGE STANDARDS You have in your file a memo from Building Commissioner Clark, dated August 19, 1982, which states that 465 parking spaces are required for the proposed renovation of this building. Following further discussion with that department, Staff has determined that 467 spaces would be required based on the following calculations: Office Space 118,088 Sq. Ft. @ 275 Sq. Ft. = 429 Spaces Research & Developmant 27,312 Sq. Ft. @ 800 Sq. Ft. = 34 Spaces Loading Docks .4,000 Sq. Ft. @ Min. Standard = 4 Spaces Total 467 Spaces It should be noted that the above calculations assume the exclusion of both of the Page 2 September 17, 1982 RE: Swift & Company, Text Amendment and Special Use, 1919 Swift Drive mechanical rooms (8000 Sq. Ft.) on the first and second floors. Although Definition #54 in the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically exclude such areas, the building department in the past, has made the interpretation that. mechanical rooms are not part of "the structure's primary and permanent working area". DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED 1. Plat of Survey, received August 31, 1982, shows existing building and parking layout. Various items on this Plat show existing, non-conforming items which will be further noted in a later portion of this memo. 2. Site plans, received August 2, 1982. a) Sheet lA is one proposal which would provide for 327 total spaces, which includes approximately 88 spaces in the basement. The exact location of those spaces are shown on a reduced plan attached to David Gooder's July 30, 1982 letter. b) Sheet 1B is an alternative parking layout which includes a parking structure at the Northeast corner of the site, containing approximately 484 total spaces, comprised of 244 in the structure, 88 in the basement and 157 sur- face spaces. The information received from Mr. Gooder on September 17, 1982, has not been reviewed by Staff due to its late submittal. OFFICE PARKING STANDARDS FROM OTHER JURISDICTION The attached chart contains various parking requirements for office developments from a number of surrounding jurisdictions. I have also. included in that chart, a recom- mended parking standard, as proposed by the National Parking Association. It should be noted when reviewing these standards, that the floor area used in each calculation is somewhat different. For example, Oak Brook includes the gross floor area, exclud- ing basements. Certain other jurisdictions only include those areas of the building which are directly used for office purposes. The following example should serve as a rough means of comparing parking standards which relate to gross and net floor areas. Generally speaking, the net floor area of a building is considered to be approximately 80% of the gross floor area. Therefore, in Oak Brook's case, the following rough com- parison could be made , for a hypothetical building of 100,000 square feet. Gross Floor Area Net Floor Area 100,000 Sq. Ft. 80,000 Sq. Ft. @ 3.6 spaces per 1000 @ 4.5 spaces per 1000 360 spaces 360 spaces The above hypothetical example should help to put the standards, as contained in the Page 3 September 17, 1982 RE: Swift & Company, Text Amendment and Special Use, 1919 Swift Drive attached table, in perspective to the extent that some include the gross floor area, while others, only include the net area used for office operations. The Village of Schaumburg has recently used a unique technique which allowed a devel- oper to provide less than the required number of spaces, on the condition that within one year's time, and after the building had reached 95% occupancy, the developer was to return to the Village and justify his parking needs. One of the conditions was that sufficient area be reserved on site equal to the full number of required spaces, which in this case was 62 spaces. That developer did recently come back to the Village and justified not needing those additional 62 spaces. i It should be noted that the Village of Oak Brook has had its current regulations since January 25, 1972. The previous standard was for one for every 250 Sq. Ft. of, net_ rentable area. ITEMS WHICH ARE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING 1. Parking in front of the building. The Plat of Survey notes 18 parking spaces, al- though only 6 are permitted. The proposed plans would conform since they only show 6 spaces. 2. Ten foot separation of parking areas from side and rear lot lines. Although the existing plat shows the separation as little as 2 feet along the rear lot line, the proposed plan indicates a 10 foot minimum separation. 3. Screening and landscaping of parking areas. The existing screening and landscaping along the side and the rear lot lines is presently insufficient. The proposed plans are not of sufficient. detail to indicate compliance. 4. Driveways. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum width of 24 feet for a two-way driveway serving more than twenty parking spaces. The existing plat shows a width of approximately 20 feet, while the proposed plan shows approximately 24 feet, which would conform. 5. Loading berths. Based on this building's total square footage of approximately 157,400 square feet, a minimum of 4 loading berths must be .provided. In discussions with the building department, Staff has determined that loading berths consist of on-grade loading and unloading areas, not simply parking spaces. Compliance can not he determined from the current plans. Respectfully submitted, Bruce F. Kapff, A Village Manager BFK/ms REQUIRED PARKING - OFFICE DEVELOPMENTS Parking Required Spaces Jurisdiction Standard P<er 1000 Sq. Ft. Floor Areas Excluded DuPage County 1/300 sq. ft. 3.3 Basement used for mechanical (remainder of basement is in- cluded) Elmhurst 1/250 4.0 None Hinsdale 1/275 3.6 None Lombard 4/1000 4.0 Storage and mechanical Naperville 3.3/1000 3.3 None Northbrook 1/200 5.0 Corridors, lobbies, washrooms, equipment rooms, elevator shafts, stairs, storage areas (common to entire building) Oak Brook 1/275 3.6 Basement St. Charles 1/500 2.0 Storage, restrooms, hallways, elevators, mechanical Schaumburg 6/1000 (first 4.08 (for Elevator shafts, ,stairs, attics 4000 sq. ft.) theoretical less than 7 feet, lobbies, rest- 4/1000 (after 100,000 sq. rooms, mechanical rooms 4000 sq. ft, ft. building) "Zoning Ordin- 1/350 2.9 Entry balls, foyers, elevator ance Provisions shafts, stairways, janitor, elect- for Parking" rival, mechanical or maintenance National Parking rooms, restrooms Association (9/81) •. ou • VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROA D OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS September 9, 1982 654-2220 Dear Resident, The Oak Brook Plan Commission and/or Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Village Board will be considering a: X Variation Preliminary Plat g Special Use Final Plat X Zoning Amendment at the meetings as scheduled on the reverse side of this notice. The application has been filed by Swift and Company Name of applicant 1919 Swift Drive Address Relationship of applicant to property owner N/A Name of Subdivision (if applicable) The property in question is situated at: 1919 Swift Drive We have attached a map of the area to assist you in determining your relation- ship to the property in question. The request which has been made is as follows: A Variation to permit the reduction of required off-sweet parking for office uses from 465 to 325 spaces; or one of two amendments to the Zoning Ordinance permitting the reduction of required off-street parking spaces. If you desire more detailed information, we would suggest that you contact Mr. Bruce F. Kapff, Assistant to the Village Manager, at the Village Hall to review the file on this application. We will be looking forward to your_ attendance at the public meetings. Respectfully yours, A c t K neth G. Carmienani Village Manager KGC:j r All Meetings are held in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Oak Brook Village Hall, on Oak Brook Road (31st Street) and Spring Road, Oak Brook, Illinois Plan Commission Meeting. . . . . . . . ... . .. .. . . ...7:30 P.M. Monday. Sept. 20, 1982 Zoning Board of Appeals. . . .. . . . ... . .. . ... ... .7:30 P.M. Tuesday Oct. 5, 1982 Board of Trustees Meeting. . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . .7:30 P.M. Tuesday Oct. 12, 1982 MAP OF AREA • .._ __.. _. _. __ _ ___ - �_..___—ter. __�_ _.__/__ .T.. ___. . v2 141 IT,�1U R71TG 1!5 W as f / / I{{ r IU 119 lU /i'(✓// / If5 I� Ill 151 ILl 5rr w' I'•OOp fl/ Ib �I �79•0 •1 li•!M � IG 1 \12T 45 IM Il x L 'ls X. TS 9! �1 91 I12 4• 1. '+� 87 tiv �_ as 7a <.° " 9l 90 I•,{3 111 91 107 101 `�/`/ > �•' � _ „ S ca lad d � rY.• __ •sl1 •� `r •• { ms's �r � o°pa ��" • • = Sr ti-�S�• ' • •� s .w�;c, -r r�~O �� �� y• � n t.f^Il i Il^IGIa9 {! �Rr�»1PC wGO OS �/��I J I'n O� { M 1. .l � •I {Il1I QO / ' ao�s•'s.�..H_' IL :: i9 iTl! 79 j, 1 I � r � 1 i ' Is '> ts a� —SIRES Y-- LEGAL NOTtcE VILLAGE OF OAK 9ROOK r DuPape and Cook Counties.lYirhoia NOTICE IS HEREer"civENtm�a a abl PUBLISHER'S CERTIFICATE Co Bond of Appeab of to Vintage of Oak c o�k,n{g{�p p and Coat Ing the Oaks, ookbj wW be hey on Octa>er 5,1982 at 7:30 p.m.In the Oak Brook Village Hap, 1200 Oek Brook RrwJ,Illinois,for t!e pWpO�Of corsi, of the application m Swift and°°^, nor THIS IS TO CERTIFY That the notice, a true copy of which is attached to this ether a Variation, or a text Amendmen{w � Special Use, aunderSection sxm(G),wn(q,endxu°(�� certificate, vIas published in THE OAK BROOK DOINGS once each week for Or- Of the Zoning Ordinance 3 amend d.the Visage of Oak Brook,IMirnois,Or- dinence G60,as amended. A Variation to Cq f0,"0"g Section.of the Zoning Ordinance is ' requested'A vma`iator'from the provisions Of Section Xl(E)(12)(d) weeks successively; that the date One squired number soft-street of Sec spaces for Off"uses,and a Venation from the provisions of Section XIV(B) (54)ooncominq the method of computing floor area with respect to required number parking spaces to permit a reduction kt the re- of the first publication was the__...-____9th------------------------------------------------------- required of gInthnumberdoff-street - -••----•--•-••-----•-----...-•--•- Y In the aitemative to the Veda�uonrequss ed,one of two proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance have been requested to - �fhe number of required on street parking spaces for ed to .September A.D., 19.82._, and that the date of the last publication was Alternative no.1: An Amendment to Section Xl(E)(12)(d)(8)to require'a minimum the----------------------------------- -_.-da Of_._-..__..----._-_-- ) of either:(II one Parking,pace for each 400 square teat or Floor Y -._A.D., 19----_-----. area'Or(d)One perking space for each 333 square feet of floor AND IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED That THE OAK BROOK DOINGS is a ,. area;accompanied by an Amendment to Section XN(8)(54)Floor Area-to exclude add11>onei area.not used as tin XIV(Be,4)Fl or secular newspaper of general circulation, published weekly in the Village �`at°ti •.tairwena,atJms,and toilet are". : of Hinsdale, County of DuPage, State of Illinois, and circulated generally .Alternative no.2: An Amendment legory hick (wd comfit a Uswa«naangenxw in the Villages of Hinsdale, Clarendon Hills, Oak Brook, Willowbrook, Burr SOeciel Use-�regoy odic would oermt a reducflcvh d `''steer >A-king space 4 a uses by 40 Dor;am on ins an � Ridge, adjacent unincorporated and incorporated areas, and in DuPage and st" ate rl 40 per cent ""� wOtlI"Pormif� Cook Counties, Illinois, and in other areas; that said THE OAK BROOK author o,a the additional 40 per cent if so determined by Village My bees,end the grants g of a special use thereof.The My be ganaratN described as 1919 stint firths,tic Brook DOINGS Is a "newspaper" as defined by the Illinois Statutes made and pro- �'°'°•and to legal description Is as follow.: vided for such situations, to wit; by Section 5 of "An Act to revise the law Lr.deaonPton for�" A in relation to notices", 1874, Feb. 13, R.S. 1874, p. 723, 15,ittet pa^°r the Southeast per a Section 24,Townsh, 39 " , as amended 1959, may.Range 1 ,«en,n b��P A/erldi.n, DuPage July 17, Laws 1959, p. 1494, 11; and is also a "newspaper" as defined by hird eNOrSn8 aI corner Of the Southeast Quarter of said 24; Section 1 of "An Act concerning the publication of legal notices", 1909, June Vie souteaeI Quartteer of ats4ea`r'o'e'a , North o et 8, Laws 1909, p. 288, § 1, as amended 1927, June 29, Laws 1927, p. 603, § 1, and �. to a Pont on the westerly Yoe of the lUorthem n&nol.Too ighway as further amended 1945, April 12, Laws 1945 as presently monumented;thence south - I p , P. 1089, § 1, and as further Me of the Northern Illinois Toll H' hwa ,ash akx,g�'°waate'y - amended in 1957, July 9, Laws 1957, p. 2270, § 1, and as further amended i. the following two courses and distances,S pro 7 d tits monuments 5 1959 July 17 Laws 1959 1496 § 1; and that staid THE OAK BROOK DOINGS Inches W.—two 250 co feet and 0 egraes 05 feet OS r Y + + p• > 559.42 feet to a Point fora lace adeweea 12 heat as mores E has been continuously published at regular servals of at least once each South" along said Westeprly fine�meahg.thence Continuing Y P Highway,as Northerrm Illinois Toll week with a minimum of 50 issues per year for over one year prior to the ditance ,S 0 degrees 12 feet 48 nchhe following 4 3 feet amend S 7 feet degrees 58 feet 23 inches—59.73 feet;thence S 89 degrees 19 first publication of the attached notice. 41 inches W along a line parallel to the North Line of the Southeast Quarter Of said Section 24,a distance of 465.71 feet; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, one of the co-publishers of said THE thence N 0 degrees 40 feet 19 inches W a distance of 100.0 feet; - thence N 89 degrees 19 feet 41 inches E along a line parallel t° OAK BROOK DOINGS has affixed his hand and seal this Ma North line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section gel a �. distance of 458.10 feet to the place oter Of said Legal descriptor for tract Q loth September 82 North,.Rangemtel East olatteThad Principal sa°tion 24,Township 39 ............................d y .., N Illinois more tufty described as follows commencing Coun- a of A.D. 19.... . Nor- theast comer of the Southeast Quarter of sold Section 24;Thence 86.18 S 69 degrees 19 feet 41 Inches W along the Norm lice of me Publishers Charge--------•--------------- Southeast Quarter of said Section 24,a distance of 45.22 feet to e Point on me Westerly line of the Nomten,Illinois Toth Highway,as Presently NNoortthhern Illinois ioll Hence SWesep Waal n g the o�Wh eumMteG�he following three courses and distances,S 7degrees 05 feet OS in. ches W—250.83 feet, S 0 degrees 12 feet 48 inches E— ' 800.15 feet and S 7 degrees 58 feet 23 inches E— ••.... '....•.. .. ..............•....... a Point for a Piece or fir 59.73 rest to Publisher feet 23 inches E :thence CO^tinuing S 7 degrees 58 Highway.as Preseanntly monument"ed�8 distance of 54&22 foetl said thence S 89 degrees 19 feet 41 Inches W along a line parallel to the North line line of the Southeast Quarter of said section 24 a distance of 535.0 feet;thence N 0 degrees 40 feet 19 inches We distance of 329.53 feet to a point on a curve:thence Normeaster- E Northerly and Northwesterly along ilia arc of a curve,convex Easterty,and Mvinq a radius of 100.0 feet:thence N 89 degrees h 19 feat 41 Inches E anO-s lima par&"to to North line of the Southeast Quarter of said'96 to 24 a distance of 485.71 feet to theme right beginning.vacation Northern Illinois Toll Highway,oas distance of 545.22 feet;thence S 89 deg presently es 9onnumenled' a W along a tine par"to the North line of�theaea t 9 feet 41 inches said section 24 a distance of 535.0 feet them N theast Quarter of manse Inches Northeasterly,distance of 329.53 feet to a pant curve. t nce convex Easy "�N and Northwesterly along the arc of N curve,degrees 19 fee 4j hhcl,ay E having a Pius of 100.0 feet:fence Me of the Southeast Quarter of said aline parallel di to North .465.71 feet t0 the Section 24 a distance Of Street right a way acation beginning. Y plat of That pert Of the area dedicated for a Public,road by Document No. R64.11028 situated in the Southeast Quarter of Becton 24, Township 39 North,Range 1 1 East of the Third Principal Section DuPage County,INinofs described as follows:Comm et the situated Comer of tract B of Swift d Company's asessment plat, Norm.Range 11 Southeast s t,QThird Of Section 24, Township 39 Document No.R64.28943;thence N�ortth Mde�•recorded as inches West Wong the Easf right Of way IOne of ssaieidd PuOblf a rid (Swift Drive)being also the West line of said tact B a distance of 00 degrees 40 feet 19 Inches West across 329.53 feet to a point for a place of beginning:manta continuing North part Of sand Public road(Swift Drive)right Of way as dedicated by Document said North 1028,A distance of 181.80 feet to a pant on a curve on the D 1 ast"right of way line a said public road(Swift Drive)say being also on the West fine of said tract B: thence being Sut eat�v��isterly along say Westerly right of way, and being also the West fine of said bf having B a �sanc°,fe of 248'9ot feet to the place of beginning. Per anent Parcel Nos. AM 06-24-402-003,08.24.402-004. the Persons clearing to be heard in support of or in opposition to Proposes Variation,Text Amendments and Special Use or any Provision thereof.will be afforded an opportunity to do so and may submit their statements Orally or In writing or both.The hearing may be recessed to another date if notice of time and Place thereor is Publicly announced at the heatingOr Is given by new ton not lass than ve(5)days prior to the data of the recessed an hewing. Marianne Lakool, Published at the dirction of the Corporate Authorities and the Clerk Zon- Ing Board of Appeals of the Village Of Oak Brook,DuPage and Cook Counties,Illinois. Published In the Oak Brook Doings Sept.9,1982. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK MINUTE'S 5 August 24, 1982 Roll. Call Vote: Ayes: Trustees Congreve, Imrie, Listecki, Philip, Watson and President Cerne Nays: Trustee Rush Absent: None 3) Revised Preliminary Plat For Whitehall Park, Oak Brook, Illinois Trustee Watson moved, seconded by Trustee Congreve . . . To approve the Preliminary Plat, conditioned upon the removal of all refer- ral notes prior to certification by the Clerk. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Trustees Congreve, Imrie, Listecki, Philip, Watson and President Cerne Nays: Trustee Rush Absent: None So Ordered. VI .. NEW BUSINESS: A. Oak Brook Poll, CCub 1) Temporary Liquor License Trustee Philip moved, seconded by Trustee Congreve . . . To authorize the issuance of a 1 day Class B liquor license to the Oak Brook Polo Company to be used in conjunction with the Oak Brook Polo Club Ball to be held September 10, 1982 at the Lower Level .of Saks Fifth Avenue located in the Oakbrook Center, with the license to be withheld until ap- plication is properly executed. Voice Vote: all present, in favor. So Ordered. 2) Helicopter Landing - Sports Core Trustee Congreve moved, seconded by Trustee Watson . . . To permit the landing of a helicopter on the Polo Field of the Sports Core to discharge the two (2) polo team captains just prior to the 1:00 P.M. polo game on August 29, 1982. Voice Vote: all present, in favor So Ordered. B. & C. - Referrals With no objections, the following applications were referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of October 5, 1982 and Plan Commission Meeting of September 20, 1982: 1) Swift & Co. - 1919 Swift Drive - Parking Variation referred to Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting; 2) Swift & Co. - 1919. Swift Drive - Text Amendment and Special Use referred to Plan Commission Meeting and Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. D. Open Forum Organization identified as Concerned Citizens of Westchester requested a Resolution be adopted to oppose the law allowing a Planned Parenthood Clinic to operate in Westchester. VII. ADJOURNMENT: Trustee Congreve moved, seconded by Trustee Philip .. . To adjourn this meeting. Time: 9:25 P.M. Voice Vote: all present, in favor. So Ordered. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK MINUTES 5 August 24, 1982 • A r c o` A ` COU. ` VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 654-2220 August 19, 1982 MEMO TO: Bruce Kapff, Assistant to the Village Manager FROM: James E. Clark, Building Commissioner SUBJECT: Swift & Company The original building department records do not have a Zoning application certificate on file, for verification of the number of parking spaces that were required -at the time of the original permit. Based on the applicants material that was submitted for review the approximate number of 465 parking spaces would seem to be correct. If you have any further questions please let me know. Respectfully, -�- James E. Clark Building Commissioner sd r 4 ! LORD, BISSELL & BROOK IIS SOUTH LASALLE STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603 (312) 443-0700 LOS ANGELES OFFICE CABLE:LOWIRCO COO 3250 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD TELEX:25-3070 LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90010 DAVID M.GOODER 2222 Kensington Court (213)467-7064 (312) 443-0293 Suite 110 TELEX:18-1135 654-0561 Oak Brook, IL 60521 July 30, 1982 AUG 2 1992 President and Board of Trustees VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, IL. Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road ADMINISTRATION Oak Brook, IL 60521 Re: 1919 Swift Drive; Swift & Co. Dear President Cea_ne & Trustees: My client,, Swift & Company, would like to move its corporate headquarters to Oak Brook and house theri in its building located at 1919 Swift Drive which now houses its research and development operations which would continue to use only a small part of the building. A major obstacle to the desired move is the cost of meeting the Village 's requirements for off-street parking for office uses . (One space for 275 square feet as compared to one space for 800 square feet for research and development activities . ) To meet these requirements a three level parking structure would have to be built at a cost of approximately $500,000. However, Swift would have no need for parking in the required amount of 465 spaces since it anticipates that it will have less than 300 employees in the building. Furthermore, a recent study by Barton- Aschman Associates , Inc. concludes : "Our findings have indicated that parking space demands at office developments are less than three per 1, 000 square feet of floor area" and "The ' floor area' shall not include: a. Elevator shafts and stairwells on each floor. . . .Entrance lobbies and atrium-type areas. . . .Washrooms , intended for general public use . . . . " (A copy of, the report of the study is attached as Exhibit A.) i LORD, BISSELL & BROOK Pre_aent & Board of Trustees Page Two July 30 , 1982 Oak Brook' s current requirements are one space for each 275 square feet of floor area which by definition (Section XIV (B) (54) ) requires the inclusion of the above described areas in calculating the floor area. Therefore, on behalf of Swift & Company I am filing herewith two Applications for Public Hearings as follows : :REQUEST TERNATIVE I - Zoning Variation to permit fewer off-street parking spaces than is normally required for office uses under Section XI (E) ( 12) (d) (B) of the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance; and ALTERNATIVE REQUEST II - One of two alternative text amendments to re- duce the parking spaces required by Section XI (E) (12) (d) (B) : -Amendment A would reduce the required off- street parking for office uses by changing Section XI (E) (12) (d) ( 8) to require a minimum of (i) one parking space for each 400 square feet of floor area (instead of 275 as at present) or (ii) one parking space for each 333 square feet of floor area. This latter change should be accompanied by an amendment of the definition of "floor area" (Section XIV(B) (54) ) to exclude additional areas not used as office space, such as elevator shafts , stairwells, atrium and toilet areas . -Alternative Amendment B would provide for a special use which would permit a reduction of required off=street parking for office uses by 40% on condition that adequate space was reserved on-site for the 40% if the Village should in the future determine that additional on-site parking was required. A special use is requested for the subject site in the event that Amendment B is adopted. Attached as Exhibit B is a tabulation of the proposed uses and two sheets showing tentative space assignments. J LORD, 13ISSELL 6e BROOK President` Board of Trustees Page Three July 30, 1982 Also filed herewith are two drawings, Sheets 1A and 1B, dated July 30 , 1982, which reflect two alternative parking plans: Sheet lA - Site Plan without parking structure Sheet 1B - Site Plan with parking structure. It is requested that Alternative Reguest I be re- ferred for appropriate action to the Zoning Board of Appeals and that Alternative Request II be referred for appropriate action to the Plan Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals . Re ec fully submit d, David M. Gooderl DMG:pg Encl ECONOMIC IMPACT OF CURRFNT PARKING STANDARDS ON OFFICE DEVELOPMENTS Neil S. Kenig, Fellow, I.T.E. INTRODUCTION Parking space is a major transportation facility. It is no longer regarded as a relatively inexpensive adjunct to a major land-use development. In today's economic conditions, where residential and retail development has slowed considerably, office development is booming. Current construction and financing costs have made it mq e necessary than ever to increase the cost-effectiveness of transporta- tion facilities . This is not only true in the fast-growing sunbelt states, but also in downtown New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Milwaukee, etc. as well as in the suburban areas of these and many other communities. This paper justifies a reduction in parking space requirements for freestanding office buildings as established in traditional community ordinances. With almost all development, the quantity of parking space necessary to support the various land-uses seems to be difficult to determine. In 1965 and again in 1981,. the Urban Land Institute conducted studies to establish parking standards for the shopping center industry which were accepted and utilized by many communities around the country. Even though numerous studies of various land-uses have been conducted to determine appropriate parking requirements, it has become obvious through researching a number of zoning ordinances that no one has been succe-'sFul in establishing a single zoning standard for any land-use. In 1971,1 2 studies were conducted to determine appropriate parking standards for several types of land-uses. The primary purpose of these studies was to point out the lack of standardization in zoning. ordinances. This has not changed since 1971. This paper looks at the current situation with re- gard to office parking requirements. As the title suggests, a significant economic impact is created by the disparity between the actual need for office parking space and the park- ing requirements established not only by the communities , but by the leaders that finance the projects. Current requirements by many communi- ties and lenders are, on the average, four parking spaces per thousand square feet of floor area. aVice President, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 1 A Approach to Determining Parking Demand by Robert J. Boyland and Neil S. Kenig, ASPO, Planning Advisory Service, June, 1971. 2Toward Realistic Parking Standards by Robert J. Boylan and Neil S. Kenig, Traffic Engineering, October, 1971. EXHIBIT A The following discusses the factors which detenn ine pat-king do lmuld, the specifications used in measuring parking requirements, comparisons with existing zoning ordinances , recommendations for providing parking space at outlying office developments, and the economic implications of the current differences. FACTORS WHICH AFFECT PARKING MvIAND A number of factors can influence the parking demand at outlying or suburban office developments. These include (1) population character- istics such as income and car ownership; (2) alternative transportation modes such as group riding, taxi, walk, bicycle and public transportation; (3) traffic access; (4) parking facility congestion; (5) shortages; (6) location; and (7) the parking fee charged. The studies we have conducted at numerous office developments have tried to minimize the influence of most of the above factors. Basically, we have gathered information at freestanding office buildings where little or no public transportation or ride-sharing is available, and which are not affected by any of the traffic factors or cost. Parking fees or in- adequate parking space are primarily deterrents to parking demand and occur in the inner city and central business districts. In essence, the observations conducted as a part of this study express a maximum parking space demand. This is because the above factors af- fecting parking have been minimized. PARKING SPECIFICATIONS Zoning codes should use practical measures for establishing parking speci- fications. For instance, the number of parking spaces required for single-family or multiple-family residences would be on a per duelling unit basis. For other land-uses , spaces may be specified per bed, per employee, per seat, per square foot of building area, etc. The adequacy of parking space and the degree to which zoning spells out such adequacy depends substantially on the unit basis chosen and its definition as well. A review of more than 100 zoning ordinances throughout the country yielded the following unit specifications for office, business and professional : 1. Per square foot of floor area. 2. Per employee. 3. No specific requirement. Approximately 20 percent of the ordinances had no specific parking re- quirement for office buildings . Although using a ratio of spaces per employee would be desirable, it is virtually impossible to estimate the number of employees who will occupy a particular office building. Thus, 2 a ratio of spaces per square foot of floor area is the appropriate speci- fication. The only problem to be resolved is square feet of what area? Ordinances have defined floor areas as the total building area, out-to-out of walls; gross floor area (which has a number of connotations) ; with and without mechanical equipment elevators, corridors, atriums, etc. Ordinan- ces also have used net usable floor area which excludes everything except the actual employee work areas. The difference between gross building -. area and net usable floor area can be as high as 20 percent. It is obvious that there can be a significant difference in building floor areas in terms of accommodating employee work areas. Buildings with large atriums or lobby areas would be penalized if total building area were utilized to calculate parking requirements. The following definition is recommended for not only determining parking requirements but off-street loading area requirements as well. "noor Area, " Gross (CFA) for Determining Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. "Floor area" is the sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of a building or structure measured from the interior faces of the interior walls or from the interior line of walls separating two (2) buildings or structures, including the following . The "floor area" of a building shall include: a. Floor area of the basement if it is used for other than storage except as requiremed for (g) below. b. Penthouses, other than that area used for mechanical equipment. c. Attics having headroom of seven (7) feet or more. d. Interior balconies and mezzanines. e. Enclosed porches. f. Accessory storage areas located within retail sales or working spaces such as counters, racks, or closets, or stormed in the conduct of the business or used and calculated in the gross leasable area for multi-tenant buildings. g. Space devoted to retailing activities, to the production of goods, or to business or professional offices. The "floor area" shallinot include: a. Elevator shafts and stairwells on each floor. b. Floor spaces and shafts used for mechanical telephone and electrical equipment. 3 c. Attics having headroom of less than seven (7) feet. d. Areas used for—stora e as renuired by (g) above e. Space devoted to off-street parking or loading facilities. f. Entrance lobbies and atrium-type areas. g. Washrooms, intended for general public use. h. Mechanical penthouses. CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE PARKING REQUIRBkT.N 'S An indication of the problem confronted by site planners, developers, traffic engineers, etc. is the various requirements for parking cur- rently specified in many zoning ordinances throughout the country. An examination of the requirements for office parking in more than 100 ordinances resulted in 27 different methods of calculating parking re- quirements. They ranged from no specific requirements (20 percent of the ordinances) to the following: -- One per each 100 sq. ft.--one percent. -- One per each 200 sq. ft. --seven percent. -- One per each 250 sq. ft. --five percent. -- One per each 300 sq. ft.--twenty percent. -- One per each 400 sq. ft.--fifteen percent. -- One per each 500 sq. ft. --twelve percent. -- One per each 600 sq. ft.--three percent. A number of other ordinances specified such requirements as two spaces plus one for 300 square feet over 2,000 square feet, or one per each 250 square feet or one per each three employees . One ordinance even specified one square foot of parking area per square foot of building area. Some ordinances require a ridiculously low number *of spaces, while others require just the opposite. A review of some of these ordinances, discus- sions with planners and zoning consultants responsible for writing them, plus firsthand knowledge of sonic of the communities, provided the follow- ing reasoning behind some of the above requirements. The relatively low requirements of some communities, such as Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh, are due to their recognition of 4 transit factors. In some of those communities with extremely high require- ments, it has been our experience that they are using such requirements to discourage development or at least maintain control when variances may be sought. Another stumbling block in developing reasonable parking require- ments for office developments is the lenders. By and large, they require one parking space for each 250 square feet of floor area. This figure falls in the high range for parking requirements. Ideally, zoning requirements should be based on local studies of actual parking demand for each type of land-use. Examples of such a procedure are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. As shown, these developments are providing excessive parking spaces in com- parison to actual demands. The building shown in Figure 1 is actually part of a complex including several existing buildings plus several more scheduled to be built. The community allowed the developer to provide four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross building area instead of the five spaces per 1,000 net usable area. (The two ratios actually are very close.) As indicated, the actual parking demand is approximately 2.5 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area as defined. These figures will be used in upcoming applications for further building development as part of this complex as well as others in the community. The development shown in Figure 2 is part of a multi-use project. Shown is an adjacent hotel which shares parking with the ofFice complex. At the time of the original application, the developer sought relief from the community's standards both from a numerical standpoint and from a shared parking concept standpoint. Since the development was to be staged over a number of years, the community adopted an ordinance allowing a 20 percent variation in the individual standards to account for the compati- bility between office and hotel area to be instituted in the future, if it could be demonstrated that such a reduction in demand materialized. Following completion of the first stage of development (hotel, two office towers, and parking structure plus additional surface lots) , svidies indi- cated that the parking structure is only utilized up to SO percent of its capacity. At a recent request for the next stage of expansion, it was found that the developer took his 20 percent discount in the first phase and did not even need that much parking. The community has since relaxed its standards for the next phase development as a result of these current studies. One problem that resulted was having to provide more than 200 extra spaces in a parking structure which will not have been utilized for a number of years. That is a high price to pay for unrealistic parking standards. RECOMMENDED PARKING SUPPLY In order to establish a standard for the supply of parking space, it was necessary to update previous studies of freestanding suburban office developments . AS rreViOL151\- indicates!, the studies wove maJo at devoloin- ments which had little or no transit service or vanpooling and were not substantially affected by the previously outlined factors. S wars � � } � A ` ua ``- �•�-• �� ,, t 1Y .•�-`'+' _ '; W -:.f5t%vfY• Y";' .§:: :r �s''' z N • 41-4 � 1:'? -s...rsn;.I�.ti.b:u�r�as"":w.u+tam.d'•.tsias:..+...;.r�,vtelaiete.. ira :.w:ii...a,..•:sar.r a..3[-�w • k � ""'"*,.�.�x:,�:�fay- .`-���i.e•t •,+ _ r�M>eTM�'+*�+re+i-•rw..'+wr.�+.•e-ar�.xa1�• �_ $ltd -- ? 3�,- a •,e.. .��-�..lp.�e� .< - �.s�+.�„��.pt«:'✓`-.!*'fY`^S. t'3?"Y"auyiFi . Bpe* �'.'�y1`.•�j::r�,•'• 4. •� r.•t f °•r.'� lr n a '� r,,,:y• •�,9 a-•a». `A� st�r a• -• .,5 .7.1 ;� r ��• v tom! \° F.�R�sN" a< �.�..y ` ±.,•!"ii-'�- .vJ.�� , . .rte,..�_��.. •- a . r _ . • •. _. � -...°'Y .'_ Figure 1 Suburban office development in Chicago Metropolitan Area. tiy_-„�„" „� ..� c+Lm•.w:. ,� # '•+t' w.y,'.a. rs - ��.{�o^'(' � S rl ri IZ .d.. f1��� � i f ry ....- .„ +'+a' �' :�r�`Re,,w .�•'esr+°••°° �`f`ar'.("!ar� •.���P'�f �T. '^+..r r9 r. - r � 1..,r1 +- �•.�'•fW.K.....-• ,rw.r� ��^^.rte,._-•�_� � ti \ ti. 1�1. ti, �r i���; _,.1 a r arf•.>sF'y� Cam.� t. � Q` � '°aw""'' .'"'T.,. �`.. v, .t Y�,�,yat ,•..., � � t_ t ,: �`^^" a. t �: S: � ,ZR•�. }a*n'�..__ �°�1.`0 •• -<._ :.rte'^-r ` + o',w to . .wd' '�. •=•/'� ( Ip wf',�`�6 �,c�t���rr(°i�•�`. .''�`; �.-� ..,fix �x �'� �.-'�g ��� `''�� s ,.-�, •';""�,�'�°�'N'?�'�k�..."`�'"',+,'��� 'Q ..x _ r g00®�� F;��_. 4.ai }.1a ,�.eef��,,p•Srrl� s� 4t Wa® �+ r�if" ryf ytRL'^ Pt" " 7�.fi E •vlli- -VZ.z .ate En. Yr� ri�-'� _,�3•Syt •-a' `�.�" �. �° +['o�' i}�+fir Figure Z ' Suburban office/hotel/Parking r' ' ^nment (Chicago The following methods and procedures were utilized in gathering the data necessary to recommend a realistic parking standard for office develop- ments. Observations and studies were conducted to determine peak hours of auto accumulation, as well as the occupied building area at the time of each study. Several samples were taken at a number of buildings both in the morning and afternoon and throughout the week to determine any significant variations. For example, one office building (125,500 square feet) in suburban Chicago was surveyed for eight weeks, Monday through Friday, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. The variation between the highest count at any one time or day and the average of all counts was less than 10 percent. The following table illustrates the average of all eight weeks, Monday through Friday, morning and afternoon. Other than on Monday morning, which averages 10 percent higher than the rest of the week, all counts were within one percent. Average Parking Ratio Parked per 1 ,000 Day/Time Vehicles Square Feet Monday Morning 3 50 2.79 Afternoon 311 2.48 Tuesday Morning 304 2.42 Afternoon 305 2.43 Wednesday Morning 309 2.46 Afternoon .304 2.42 . Thursday Morning 296 2.36 Afternoon 296 2.36 Friday Morning 309 2.46 Afternoon 300 2.39 Similar studies at several other buildings disclosed very little variation between the morning and afternoon period and, in fact, there was virtually no difference between the days of the week. Over 130 samples corresponding to more than 17,000,000 square feet of building area and representing over 45,000 parked vehicles were obtained for purposes of determining, a recommended parking supply for suburban office developments. The results of these surveys are as follows: -- Average observed peak parking demand: 2.66 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. -- Range: 2 .07 to 3.08 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. -- Average size of building surveyed: 131,000 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the results of these studies, it is recommended that a parking requirement of 3. 0 spaces per 1, 000 square feet of gross floor area be adopted as a general-parking standard. It is recognized that on occasion this figure might be exceeded, but based. on extensive surveys, it was exceeded only a few times. In fact, except for one of the major sur✓ey inputs at a governmental office building, which had a number of carpool vehicles in the lot, the 3.0 ratio would not have been exceeded. ECOMINC IMPLICATIONS Office buildings currently are the most active element of the development industry. This paper has presented a simple and straightforward method for reducing transportation budget requirements for office developments without compromising ability to meet the demand. Parking facility costs are skyrocketing as. fast as building costs. Recent estimates indicate that the cost to provide a parking space in a surface lot which is well designed (paved, drainage facilities, curbing, lighting and landscaping) ranges between $1,S00 and $2,000. This is for a free lot and does not consider costs for gates, meters, cashiers, etc. Of even more significance is the cost of structured parking. There are con- siderable variances in the costs of structured parking due to local condi- tions, type of structure, facade treatment, and many other elements. Based on some recent cost estimates for several well designed facilities, • range of $15 to $20 per square foot of floor area was uetermined to be • reasonable figure. Depending on local design standards, this could mean a cost ranging be- tween $4,500 and $7,000 per space for an average of 300 to 3S0 square feet per space. The following table illustrates possible parking costs for a 150,000-square-foot office building.. Parking was assumed to cost . $2,000 per surface space and $5,000 per structured space exclusive of land cost. Increases or decreases in these estimates can be applied for a particular situation. 8 Parking Surface Parking Requirements Spaces Lot Structure 5.0 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. 7S0 $12500,000 $331750,000 4.0 spaces per 12000 sq.ft. 600 1,200,000 3,000,000 3.33 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. S00 1,000,000 2,500,000 Recommended 3.0 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. 450 900,000 23,250,000 2.50 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. 37S 7503,000 1,875,000 2.00 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. 300 600,000 12500,000 The above requirements are based on 7S percent of the ordinances which specify a parking standard. As can be seen, there is a significant cost difference between the reco=ended parking standard (3. 0 spaces per 1, 000 square feet of gross fZoor area) and the typical requirements, both higher and lower, than the recommended standard. Certainly the cost differential between that recommended and what many of the lenders have typically required (4.0 spaces per 1,000 sglLare feet) should be of interest to many of the cotntry's developers and lenders as well. Of importance is the possibility that even the recommended standard may be too high in many instances. Unless a specific employment figure is available or a development is staged, it would be difficult to justify a reduced parking standard. The cost differential between the various parking measurements is justification enough to warrant serious considera- tion of a realistic parking standard. In addition to the cost issues, there are other factors to be considered if excessive parking space is provided. These include increased storm- water runoff, aesthetics, energy considerations, etc. Although not intended to be a major area of discussion in this paper, park- ing design standards are a significant item to be considered, along with the required number of parking spaces. A number of studies have been con- ducted recently, both published and unpublished, regarding the changing trends in car sizes, high percent of compact cars, current design standards, etc. Major concessions have been obtained by the author in ntznerous com- munities regarding the percent of compact car spaces allowed and the down- sizing of parking stall requirements. 9 c c c The effect (economically) on obtaining variances or ordinance changes regarding compact cars and standard size car standards can sometimes be as dramatic as the reductions obtained in the number of spaces required. The combination of both can mean the difference between an economically viable project and one that may not succeed. In some instances, developers are requesting significantly greater densities to overcome land and parking costs. By having appropriate parking standards, these requests can be controlle Some currently common parking standards involve 10- by 20-foot and nine- by 20-foot parking stalls. Based on downsizing of cars and an appro- priate percentage of compact cars, the following dimensions are recom- mended for the relatively to w turnoiaaer of office emnloyee par 1 : Standard Size Cars - 8.5 feet by 8 feet Compact Cars - 7.5 feet by 1S feet Compact Percentage - Minimum of 40 percent In comparison to a nine by 20-foot stall, stalls of these dimensions could result in a savings of greater than 15 percent in parking area. For the hypothetical case of a 150,000-square foot building and a park- ing provision of 450 spaces, a cost savings of $130,000 for a surface lot to $340,000 for a parking structure could result from a change in design standards. The following indicates some of the changes occui-ring in comnwlities where a partial recognition of trends in car sizes has become apparent but no professional opinion was sought in developing; the zoning amendment changes. One suburban community in Chicago adopted a standard stall size of seven feet, six inches by 1S feet stall size for compact cars , with up to 40 percent compacts allowed. Die community also changes its standard for full size cars as follows: For 90-Degree Parking ID60 Ordinance 1 1 Or finance Width 816" or 816" or Length 18 '0" 1816" Aisle 29 ' for 26' for 8 '6" stall 8 '6" stall 27' for 26' for 910" stall 910" stall Bay Width 6S' for 6S' for 816" stall 816" stall 63' for 63' for 910" stall 910" stall 10 It is obvious that, after juggling all the numbers, this coiinunity has basically re-adopte4heir 20-year-old standard. Another community which had a standard calling for stalls 10 feet by 20 feet and five spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area responded as follows to a developer's request for a change in standards. It accepted four spaces per 1,000 square feet of net usable area. (This was satisfactory to developer because this number would be re- quired by a lender.) The community accepted 40 percent compact cars at a stall dimension of nine feet by 16 feet. It also changed the stall dimensions for full size cars to nine feet by 18 feet. This latter change was not exactly a major victory, but in comparison to previous standards, represented a significant change. A common question (and one that deserves an adequate answer) is that if the community alloi,,s these reductions in standard--, what prevents the developer from asking or proposing to build larger buildings? This was touched on earlier, where it was pointed out that parking should not be the determinant in land-use density. When a conununii:y sets up its zoning ordinance with requirements for floor area ratio (F.A.R.) ; front, side, and rear yard setback; open space requirements, et.c. , it is these standards which should dictate allowable building density. There have been very few situations in suburban areas where Barton-Asciunan has represented a devel- oper that has asked for a density greater than that allowed by the com- ivanity and at the same time requested a variation in parking standards . Where zoning changes are sought under either planned unit development or special use, the community can dictate its desires. One community that listened to and accepted the arguments on reduced design standards for parking, including compact car provisions, asked the developer, as well as amending its ordinance, to provide half the space savings in landscaping. SUNMARY As indicated previously, it is evident that a majority of the existing parking ordinances are antiquated. The increasing cost of adherinu to these ordinances m,ay cause a developer to pass up an opporaziity to develop in the particular community. At the other extreme is the parking ordinance that_is too lenient. Piajor parking problems can be expected to occur in a community; this may result in the adoption of a parking space requirement that is higher than actually needed.. Therefore, it is im- portant that a realistic parking ordinance be considered. our findings have indicated that parking space demands at office developments are less than three per 1,000 square feet of floor area. In order to accommodate additional volumes, a ratio of three parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area as defined in this report is recommended; this is more than adequate to satisfy the parking requirements of the local community as well as senie the needs of the developer. In addition, the parking stall dimension standards of the parking ordinance should also be revised to recognize the current trend toward smaller auto- mobiles. 11 MAIN BUILDING SQ.FT. 1st FLOOR Office Areas 22 , 544 Research/Development 27 , 312 Cafeteria 3, 243 Atrium 6 ,000 Toilets 670 Circulation 1, 026 Mechanical Room 4 , 000 Loading Dock 4 ,000 2nd FLOOR 68, 800 Office Areas 49 , 721 Atrium . 5 , 000 Floor Opening 6 , 000 Mechanical Room 4 , 000 Toilets 670 Circulation 3 , 409 ANNEX Office Areas 14 , 400 Atrium 2 ,000 Circulation 700 _ 17 , 100 LOBBY 2 , 700 _ 2, 700 Less : Mechanical roams 157, 400 and loading dock - 12,000 Research/Development 27, 312 Y145 , 400 Other 118 , 088 145x400 PARKING REQUIRED 27, 3_12 Research/Devclopn,, �rjt - 1 space for each 800 sq. ft or 800E - Office Areas ,. 1 sp.rxe for each 275 sq , ft. or 118a08G — = 430 2.75 TOTAL 465 EXHIBIT B i 3 • W1E%C.1V•TED • • • L:ECNak�aL • t LI J �•• .� I �.I , .I � .i l 1.1 PARKING rECNUxnL u..exc♦vaTEO i i I I• w-- • f I • YEC1uMCAl . I•: I • . •� I • • I . • • i gam..`._... ._,�-...�.•-__ � ..�__'__. ,y8 I BASEMENT 'e no SHAW, SWANKE, HAYDEN z CONNELL ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS 1. C. HARBOUR CONSTRUCT 1CN COMPANY LOADING AREA ` jj MECHANICAL • 'i� ---..� i F r y' fi a�.•s•.3 OFFICE • • • • • PERSONNFEL 1 I •` • Al... t.`1 (SERVICES LAW LILS. w OP ART4ENT VVV? (( ? PLAZA Y!'1 � ��'•C��> PROP. :GMT. RECPT. .•+:ET ! rolE' I • k:r:?L�•ATRRiM •�`` I MAIN CONF. -�---`- CORPORATE GENERAL ACCOUNTING FINANCIAL CREMT.COLLECTiOtiS d LOSSY . CORPORATE AREA • . r .�., ;� • FIRST FLOOR CO-W-'n-�npo SHAW, SWANKE, HAYDEN & CONNELL ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS I. C. HARBOUR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY .l t l 6.L. 1 1 1 1 y./ I I I 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. t_i 1.1. ..11..1 1. a • . +. ���iF�r■�''� `fir �T ., CHEESE 7"j�,� a MECHANICAL ct �- UNASSIGNED _ s E. .. ATRIUM .w..,� PROCESSED MATS ROOF SALES POULTRY ROOF . i T t- II SECOND FLOOR SHAW, SWANKE, HAYDEN & CONNELL ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS I. C. HARBOUR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VILLA(# OF ZON I MNZE FLOOD 11I.AIN OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK. ROAD APPEAL VARIATION: OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521 $ $100 300 654-2220 VARIATION SPECIAL U` $300 $675 APPLIC'.ATIM FOR FLMLIC I EE"dNG MMIDt•YENT TO BE FILED WITH VILLAGE CLERK $650 SPECIAL USE $400 (Section 2-225, 8/111E ALL APPLICA11ONS 11UST ICE ACCOI ANIED BY PROPER FEE, Pl..&L' 0-2 SURITE'Y, AND (18) COPIES OF A SCALE DRA`IING, S15AO14ING ALL PERTINrNT APPLIC LLE I.NF.°OMATION, i.e. , PROPERTY LINES, EXISTING BUILDING LOCATION OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONy ANY BUILDINGS ON ADJACENT rROPERTY WITHILM 100 FEET OF SUPJF:C- `ROPERTY. DO.W MUTE IN TH v RACE FOE OFFICE USE 01 JI Y Data Filed: • rW 2_/I iz.a . Board' ox Trustees R e f o x-c ax Notice Published: ��-=�i '��3� Vewspape r., Date Adjacent Property 00n--rs I'ot.ifihet: ._.�,�';",�_ ,, K , . Stiff Referral.: /I r Public hearing Date::: Plan Commission _� - 7..ar_.ng Board of Appealszl-r. ,✓ %�.�. Board of Trus::ae:s ;`� / ;° Board of Trustees ,� P:. r_ >' (Approval 'of Or4linan< FEE PAID: r Recei.p : No. : -� Lec°eived By: V1. C'erl- APPL.I(:AJNr. 3 0 Ct:��P1L1' I7. 06-24...402-00'-!' LOCATION O'J OF SUBJECT FROPE"11M PERMIANENT PAl~C; L i�TLTra't�P 06_24_40?-004 Plat Tract LOT liO. A & D SUBDIVISION ADD 1919 Swift Dr..ive, 0��k P7-rcc�k, IL ZONItdO ORA-2 ZC+r�IY�C, Op. li°' aTCN SY: . `.LOi . Sec XI (R) (12) (d.) (21) .Sec.. XIV ACTION REQUESTED Variation to �_ n�it reduction of parkins,_ from, 465 to 325 spaces. PROPERTY INTEREST OF APPLMUIM Ob74ER�. i CONTwx-r PUrxYIIiaa E..� AGENT 01NIN-1-R(S) OF RECORD Swift & Coripany nNoNE nllt-mmz, -112/431-26015 ADDRESS 115 1•7est Jackson .137.vd. , Chicago , ZIP 6060? ZENEFICLI .R3'.(IES) OF TRUST: T t1/A .r. PHONE UMBER .' ;E OF APPLICA:TJT Owner PHONE tRMBER ;ESS 7,1r ._.,_. .._. _. cer :ify that all of the above statements and the r�iaremer-.-.s contained ny papers s�bmrtta d herewith are true to the 'hest of r�our� knowledgerd bey ef. ure Applicant. Da�'L sigrT,'x tyre j,�`j. t ica C-' /D4tc/ NOTICE TO A°PLICAINTS Filing Schedule VARIATION: WST BE MCEIVED PRIOR 11) THE FIRST OF THE NTfi IpJR PUBLIC HE k ING Gib 7IM F 11 RST 7U, DAY OF THE -}LL0JV2T 1G 1MV11% J MM4T OR SPECIAL USE: MUST BE P':ECEIVED PRIOR TO TTM, :115arl O T<� r.�t"d1 1 R PION 0D:4'AISSIGN 11EAMNG ON 71-1 THIRD MINDAY OF THE FOLLMING Mai, WITH ZONING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING TO FOLLOW. A Variation is a zoning which remits minor changes of ekist;.~zct require- ments where :ndivicsu..A properties are both harshly and rmi.cac.r-1, burde:neel by the str%.ct appl.i.catiail ox th, law. The power to vary is re, tri inherent in tlxe property® c to d sand the degrec of Variation is l:h'Atcrc to l lie minL-.qun change necessary to overcQ;ne the inequal-ity 1. A Variation r°eeonizes that the sariie district requ e rem nfs do not affect all pi-operties equally-, it was invarrtcd to permit minor cb!,n->es to allow hardship prop- ertics to enjoy equal oppo:~tuni'a.nes '53���A properties s�;f:il arl y zoned. You ra yz. t prove that your I_as:.d is affected by special c irC1,,ms tc Ties or unusual coedit ioaF,. These must result in un �;imon hardship Lnrl t�aequal trc:6.ta.-' nt 1 X der the- stric'L ;IM- plscat :. n of the Zo-ning (Yrdi_nance. Uh—re hardship CZt1 :5 Variati0 cannot be cc�r,�i °erct�� �.,ciend to ot��ud. aroA - � � . a ', or Fcn a eta rtzi hip ifz a 6hange of ire man or the trzfc of the Zoning O;mclirt:3nce. 2. You rus-t prove. t.'ra.t the combination of the Zoning Order^. cue and E xae t=A�co:ur�sn conditions moo'}f your rropte�rt jrp+prc,,rcc:ntsy�ygo�r.i �z"tivm}+p�i/��lcisw��°a`;[n��+• teat:�q�,�7�.�,ry1c q�tj;�/�,f yso��x1/h- land as permitted ,.); %rou tens-nt 6e4�ACJ.n 6t1strict• 6./Jrcd , (,.c),-, A4 gf1./_C3.6 eJ iCLii 6 Cnd not people, 1ze con6it-lonis Caimot ba cons:der ll per 5IG7ilen to the applica- tion t' � for a Variat c i.: �Dl q�P/7�co et5hat c�'p'..ry�'ii3iC tt +a �tim-ulydryq'i.721C�'tyi'rys.�ae tbe- -_Fine^`' cia' ye- t6 rn from l�he land, (2) Personal l 8'L4LL�cIl A��¢.l A i N�^�y L CIA ii-ni. os:.t�„n., hardship.s ip. min eue (�'.RE.}., F-a r: e,, he recognition of conditions Crl a 4, e, aft d �s�le �,:��d`'.aL G.!��5.1�.4, t°.�f l-Etb: L.�}�.�...4 d�� lf1 f.L." niincr- would emcoul'c va and condone 11.3ki-1 at_`.ca OJ tJ:.°' la•:a'. 3. No Variation rra.y be g%''mted i:h�.rh woUlld ac"Wersely S71°t�x?9i"t'�P or tlia geincral* neighborhood. All Variations must by Li harr,tar vj.1:11 t e �it(1n'% arts. .purposes of �}Ae Zcz ling Ordinance. Names of e� Folloi;ring are t h.- nai es anti il,'.G�``�s: ' s ` ?El'�St', "c IFl4, prop3'7G"t,r cn,,mars' f:'ro'rt th"c' property n qucsti.on for a. dx:�t��nct C� ��C? fe:: t .n a.l.l directions, -m.d the .�r• of feet ocm-pied by "11 pub*l I•_ roar:s, stin.c:ts, alleys, w id pubic ways have be:"Ek'1i E':oClL1dc° d in C.'"iT?pL4'L]F7g the s`9 s 3'"Q:JC tP roqui.r- ient. ':C's muM-s are as ` of .°df:d in 'b`..h y off'ce Cj f tl,'Le Cot.uac�rr ' s:CCf `i°f'�" J+. 1)'2C6S (0 "t:,1ae Re istrar" of T:r i; .0 Cj..' tT11-_ 2 t j vs an cr from aIe luttl�ry a r cam.i r°k�6 C:X(�S of t`1!i S (GigltxtI�' , `c7Ti� AduAes s SEE ATTACHED LIST .�...,........._._._�..o..._.,.�..____....,...._.....,....,,._».�_.�.,..........._.. ........-.mom _�...,o._ ......,_.._.,, .�...._.,_.,_...<...._=,..w.._.�.M,.......,....�. ..._�.,._,_._".....__.�.., Tax Parcel Number Occupant & Address Owner & Address 06-24-402-019 Xerox Swex Investment Group Ltd. 1808 Swift Drive % J.S. Shapira #3500 115 S . LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 06-24-402-020 Penwa_lt Corp. S.S .White S S W Associates , Inc. 19.19 Swift Drive % Wallner & Co. 1205 Prospect Street LaJolla, CA 92037 06-24-402-021 Polaroid Corp. Janes Investment Group 2020 Swift Drive % J.S . Shapira #3500 115 S . LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 06-24-402-025 Merck, Sharpe& Dohme Merck & Company 2010 Swift Drive P.O. Box 2000 Rob caay, NJ 07065 06-24-402-027 I11. Credit Union Illinois Credit Union League 203.1 Swift Drive 2011 Swift Drive Oak Brook, IL 60521 06-24-402-0114 Blistex Bli.stex, Inc. 1800 Swift Road 1800 Swift Load Oak Brook, IL 60521. 06-24-402-023 Xerox. 76al ra.ma.ted Bank, Trustee 100 Windsor Drive under Tr. No. 2296 State S t. at Monroe Chicago, II, 60603 i i