Minutes - 11/26/2001 - Committee of the WholeMINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 26, 2001 COMMITTEE OF
THE WHOLE MEETING OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
APPROVED AS WRITTEN BY VILLAGE BOARD ON
DECEMBER 11, 2001.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
The Committee of the Whole Meeting of the Village Board of Trustees was called to
order by President Bushy in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Village Commons
at 7:37 p.m.
Deputy Village Clerk Harty called the roll with the following persons
PRESENT: President Karen M. Bushy, Trustees George T. Caleel, Susan Korin,
Elaine Miologos and Alfred P. Savino.
ABSENT: Trustee John W. Craig
IN ATTENDANCE: Stephen B. Veitch, Village Manager; Michael A. Crotty, Assistant
Village Manager; Richard A. Martens, Village Attorney and Stelios Aktipis, Chairman
of Plan Commission.
2. DISCUSSION — PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES
President Bushy commented that a Committee -of- the -Whole meeting is an opportunity
for the Board to gain information from staff and discuss ideas in an informal setting
where no formal action is taken. Trustee Miologos wished to explore the idea of adding
a planned development section to the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Oak Brook.
President Bushy asked Trustee Savino to introduce the topic as the liaison to the
Community Development Department. Trustee Savino said that he was at the meeting
to learn about planned developments and felt that this addition could be beneficial to the
Village of Oak Brook.
Village Manager Veitch presented the overview and analysis that had been prepared by
Community Development Director Kallien. He indicated that the booklet contained the
PD regulations of six area communities that were thought to provide a good cross -
section of current practices.
He suggested that if the Board wished to move toward consideration of a PD ordinance
for Oak Brook, the threshold questions to be addressed include the following:
Applicability. Should the PD process be available as an option in all zoning districts?
Just non - residential districts? Should the PD process be mandated for all developments
in excess of a certain size or for all developments of certain types? Should it be optional
for smaller developments which otherwise would require zoning relief?
COMMITTEE -OF- THE -WHOLE Minutes Page 1 of 5 November 26, 2001
i
2. Submittals. In addition to the presumed basics (site plan, elevation drawings,
landscape plan) should PD applicants be specifically required to submit other studies in
all cases or only under certain circumstances (e.g. based on size)? Other studies
typically include traffic analyses (a frequent requirement) fiscal impact studies and
environmental studies (less frequently required). Should a Village body (Village Board,
Plan Commission) be authorized to waive a submittal if requested by an applicant?
Underlying Zoning. Should some requirements of the underlying zoning district apply
within PD's? The possibilities include FAR, residential density, perimeter setbacks and
structure heights. To the extent such provisions control, those matters would not be
subject to negotiation or allowances within a PD approval.
Bonuses. Additional FAR, residential density or height is sometimes made available
through the PD process in exchange for and as incentives to provide features such as
additional green space, etc. Are such bonuses of interest?
Uses. Should PD's be allowed to contain land uses not otherwise permitted by the
underlying zoning? If so, to what extent?
Green Space. PD ordinances often specify minimum percentages of land area that
must be "green ". Is that sort of provision desirable?
Standards. PD's are most often provided for as special uses and are therefore subject
to the special use standards. Sometimes extraordinary standards are applicable to PD's
or to bonuses available through the PD process. Should there be standards in addition to
the special use standards?
Process I. The Plan Commission would presumably have a primary role in reviewing
and making recommendations concerning PD's. Frequently, the local plan commission
is the legal hearing body as well (not the local zoning board of appeals) unless there is a
zoning amendment involved. Should the Zoning Board of Appeals have a role in the
process in all cases?
Process II. Typically, there are separate processes for preliminary and final PD
approval (not unlike subdivisions). Also similar to the subdivision process, it is typical
that an applicant can petition for concurrent preliminary and final approval. For larger
PD's, preliminary approval is often sought for the entire development and final approval
for the initial phase. Is this sort of process acceptable?
Equipped with at least preliminary answers to some of these questions, the staff would
be able to prepare a first draft planned development ordinance for the Village Board's
further review.
COMMITTEE -OF- THE -WHOLE Minutes Page 2 of 5 November 26, 2001
2. Thereafter, it would be appropriate for the Village Board to refer the draft ordinance to
the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals for review and hearing.
Village Manager Veitch, along with Village Attorney Martens confirmation, added that
the Illinois courts had invalidated architectural review processes and indicated that there
were many pitfalls to that direction. Manager Veitch indicated that the Village of Oak
Brook had the opportunity to add options it wanted to include in a planned development
ordinance and noted the variety of options which were included in the regulations of the
communities reviewed.
Trustee Caleel asked what the advantages of a planned development were to the
applicants and to the Village. He also wondered why this option had not been
considered in the past.
Village Attorney Martens replied that the advantage to a developer was the opportunity
for zoning relief in a variety of arenas and did not carry the strict requirements of
proving that a hardship was not the fault of the developer. The advantage to the Village
was that the Village could have more restrictive details than with regular zoning. He
felt that there was an opportunity for dialogue between the Village and the developer
that might not otherwise exist. He added that although there was always the possibility
of a dispute, it appeared to happen less within a planned development than with the
more traditional zoning instruments.
President Bushy asked whether the underlying zoning ordinances would still be
applicable. Both Manager Veitch and Attorney Martens responded that it depended on
how the planned development ordinance was written and what provisions the Village
Board wanted to maintain. Manager Veitch reiterated that the examples shown had a
wide spectrum of options.
Manager Veitch additionally responded that provision of planned developments as a
"permissible" special use created no entitlement to success above and beyond any other
special use. He stated that they would still need to meet the special use standards. He
added that it was also possible to add extraordinary standards.
Manager Veitch noted that the use of this tool had not been considered in the past
because there was a perception that the Village had to give something away in the
process. As a result the Village has considered and approved very elaborate special uses
that, while very similar to planned developments, were not called planned
developments.
Trustee Caleel commented that the Village of Oak Brook had been successful without
the use of planned developments and wondered if a planned development ordinance was
really needed.
COMMITTEE -OF- THE -WHOLE Minutes Page 3 of 5 November 26, 2001
/d
2. Discussion ensued related to the concerns and negative perceptions that residents had
about planned developments.
Manager Veitch noted that if a developer or property owner desired to construct a
development in which the uses are all permitted and there are no other variations or
allowances requested, the Village probably could not legally compel the developer to go
through a planned development process. He added that staff could persuade and
sometimes be successful.
Attorney Martens suggested that Oak Brook has been successful in attracting top quality
development. He felt that the reason for that was the predictability of the zoning and it
may be worth considering leaving the underlying zoning as is and make a planned
development an option because if a developer came to the Village with a marvelous
development that did not need any zoning relief, there would be no advantage to the
Village to make them go through the time - consuming and costly process of a planned
development. Discussion continued as to incentives that other communities offered and
why Oak Brook had not offered them.
Trustee Caleel reiterated that it continued to be noted that Oak Brook has been
successful and that the system was good, therefore adding a planned development
ordinance was not needed at this time.
Trustee Savino asked how the special uses that had been granted would have been
different if a planned development was used instead. Attorney Martens reiterated that a
planned development was a special use, just a larger and more complex special use. He
added that a planned development may have more detailed standards in addition to the
special use standards. He felt that planned developments are beneficial in
redevelopment situations more than in initial development. He indicated that a
developer might feel that in order to get a return on their investment that they need some
allowances. He speculated that the market place would indicate what was feasible and
that it might be an interesting discourse to research.
Further discussion revolved around speculation of future changes that might evolve.
Additional discussions involved specific scenarios and the impact a planned
development process would have on those scenarios. Suggestions were made that may
be incorporated in the current review of the zoning ordinances that could serve to
answer any concerns instead of looking to a planned development process.
Discussion ensued related to legislating taste, asking for additional advice and the
concern that additional advice becomes subjective. Concern was also expressed for who
would incur the cost of additional advice.
COMMITTEE -OF- THE -WHOLE Minutes Page 4 of 5 November 26, 2001
2. After a substantial discussion regarding the possible addition of a planned development
chapter to Title 13 of the Village Code, the consensus of the Board was that no action
would be taken at this time.
3. ADJOURN TO CLOSED MEETING
Discussion of Collective Bargaining and the Appointment, Employment or Dismissal of
an Employee or Officer.
Motion by Trustee Caleel, seconded by Trustee Savino, to adjourn to a closed meeting
to discuss the collective bargaining and the appointment, employment or dismissal of an
employee or officer at 9:31 p.m. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: 4 - Trustees Caleel, Korin, Miologos and Savino.
Nays: 0 - None
Absent: 1 - Trustee Craig. Motion carried.
President Bushy reconvened the meeting at 10:30p.m.
4. ADJOURNMENT:
Motion by Trustee Caleel, seconded by Trustee Savino, to adjourn the Committee -of-
the -Whole Meeting at 10:31 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried.
ATTEST:
�' lY
Carol L. Harty
Deputy Village Clerk
COW 112601
COMMITTEE -OF- THE -WHOLE Minutes Page 5 of 5 November 26, 2001