Loading...
Minutes - 06/03/2009 - Intergovernmental Joint Review BoardL 2. KI MINUTES OF THE JUNE 3, 2009 JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN BY THE PLAN COMMISSION ON AUGUST 17, 2009 AND BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2009. CALL TO ORDER: The Special Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Payovich in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:00 p.m. The Special Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Champ Davis in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: PLAN COMMISSION: Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Members Raju Iyer, Richard Knitter, Mintu Sharma, Marcia Tropinski and Vivek Singlzal ABSENT: Member Gopal Lalmalani ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Jeffrey Bulin, Baker Nimry, Joseph Rush, Steven Young and Wayne Ziemer ABSENT: Member Glenn Krietsch IN ATTENDANCE: Stelios Aktipis, Trustee, Gerald Wolin, Trustee and Robert K.allien Jr., Director of Community Development NEW BUSINESS A. VILLAGE OF AMENDMENT (PUD) CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL. NEW BUSINESS OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT V0I3 - TEXT — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AMENDMENT - (POD) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Chairman Davis swore in all those who would provide testimony in this matter. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 27 June 3, 2009 1;�� Director of Community Development Kallien provided an overview of the request stating that the Village had' retained the firm of Houseal Lavigne Associates to prepare the Commercial Areas Revitalization Plan, which looked at all of the land use developments within the commercial corridor and made a series of recommendations. The Village Board ultimately adopted the plan as an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan. One of the key recommendations from that process was to create additional language in the Zoning Ordinance to deal with mixed use and larger projects that were previously done through a variety of text amendments, special uses and variations. Most communities have this tool and it would be an asset for the Village, especially in our desire to revitalize the commercial corridor. John Houseal, Houseal Lavigne Associates, reviewed the proposed Planned Development Regulations that would become Chapter 15 in the Zoning Ordinance. Planned developments allow for a high level of creativity, flexibility and appropriateness in terms of development as opposed to someone coming in and building through straight zoning. Planned developments came around initially to accommodate multiple buildings on a single site and straight zoning could not do a good enough job. Planned developments have grown to include specific geographic areas. The proposal has a specific boundary for an Overlay District around the commercial district. Some communities do it for an historic downtown area. If there is a unique development pattern in a specific geographic area, regardless of one or multiple buildings, it is required to go through the PUD process. Size can also trigger PUD developments in some communities. The proposed PUD would impact the commercial overlay district in the Village and is divided into several areas. ■ Intent and Purpose ■ General Provisions Planned Development Standards (PUD) Site Development Allowances Procedures Application Requirements Effect of Approval or Denial ■ Amendments and Changes to Approved PUD's. Intent and Pu &pose encourages a higher level of design. In the commercial areas master plan, one of the recommendations implicated several key components that the Village needs to begin to implement in order to realize a successful revitalization of the commercial areas. While going through that process it was realized that first and foremost, the Village needed a PUD ordinance, because it did not have one and suffered as a result. Currently, the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 27 June 3, 2009 Village accommodates complex developments through text amendments, which is not the intent of text amendments. Text changes in the code are intended to apply to all the same zoned properties in an area. The Village used it as such that it applied to individual properties to accommodate a specific development, which is not the intent of a text amendment, but there was no other vehicle in order to approve certain developments. PUD's allow for greater creativity, efficiency and the preservation of features that would not be protected by straight zoning, and it accommodates new approaches in development and enhancement. It provides a more unified development in design and is consistent with long term planning objectives that are not articulated or represented in straight zoning applications. In the preparation of the proposed regulations, 31 different PUD ordinances were reviewed from around the country, including, Northbrook, Skokie, Naperville, Schaumburg as well as in several different states, including areas with large scale shopping centers or large high rise office buildings and mixed use developments. There is not a single approach to zoning that works everywhere or everyone would have the salve code. They tried to provide a good assimilation of similarly developed and developing communities to see what was and was not working, so that they could take the best from all the different codes. They talked to staff that administered these ordinances in the different communities and brought them together in a highbred code that would work for the Village. He reviewed the previously approved Clearwater development (located at the northwest corner of York Road and 22nd Street), which has office, retail, restaurant, athletic, hotel, condominiums, underground and at grade parking. The approved plan has since changed, but there was no vehicle to accommodate the complex, creative, highly designed and desirable development in Oak Brook, so it had to be done as a very arduous text amendment, which makes the Zoning Ordinance incredibly difficult to use, because it was the only vehicle the Village had. A PUD would have made the process much easier for the Village and the developer, and would have resulted in the same outcome, if not in a better manner. The same applies for the Promenade development. General Provisions. The proposed PUD only applies to the commercial properties located in the Overlay District and is only required within the Overlay District for development projects. It would not apply to someone with an existing use that wants to come in and apply for a drive- through facility, which would just be an additional component as part of that use. The same would apply to outdoor dining areas. If someone proposed to construct a large addition for a whole new project, then it would require that the project go through the Planned Development process. Instead of going through the Plan VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 27 June 3, 2009 Commission and the Zoning Board for different approvals and variations, it pulls the project together in one place and would make it easier on the applicant. Independent Review and Approval is similar to a variation, where approval or denial is based off the application and the merits the applicant puts forward. If the applicant does not make the case for approval, then it is not approved. It is based upon the independent review of the proposal that is brought forward for review, nothing else. Applicants Responsibility to convince the reviewing body as well as the Village Board that they should be approved. Mix of Uses as -APproved by the Planned Development which does not require that something must be office, commercial, or residential because under a Planned Development the applicant can do those things but they can also propose a mix of uses that the Code does not currently have a good vehicle to accommodate. They must convince the Village that it is a right mix of uses, but there are no limitations to what a developer can propose as a mix of uses. If someone would propose a use that is believed to be detrimental to surrounding property, then it can be denied based upon that. There is no limitation as to what can be proposed in terms of mixing commercial or residential uses. Planned Developments need not comply with zoning standard provisions which could mean that in a district that would prohibit building in excess of 50 feet, the applicant could come in and present a great project with a mix of uses with a building 62 feet tall. It does not have to be approved, but a developer could propose something beyond the underlying zoning in the proposal. The developer must prove to the Village that it should be approved. Planned Development Standards (PUD) is not as of right development; it has to go through the public hearing process. There are several different general design standards that are articulated in the ordinance. It has to be consistent with the Commercial Areas Master Plan (CAMP) and the Comprehensive Plan, as amended from time to time. It has to demonstrate that, ■ It is not detrimental to the public welfare, ■ It would not have a negative impact on other properties, • It does not have a detrimental impact or one that cannot be mitigated on public facilities and resources, • It does not have a detrimental or negative cultural impact, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 27 June 3, 2009 It is able to accommodate sufficient parking, circulation and any traffic issues, • It provides adequate buffering to adjacent commercial, if appropriate, and to the adjacent residential areas to protect those from commercial activity or expansion; and that ■ It provides appropriate signage. One of the things submitted, as part of an application, is a detailed signage package along with the architectural and landscaping plans. The applicant has to have ownership or a level of control over the property. There needs to be an economic feasibility for the project and it must be demonstrated. It has to abide by the Subdivision Regulations and Plat Act of Illinois. It has to be respectful of Village covenants and restrictions that may encumber the site otherwise. Additional standards, as part of the Village review from the detailed submittal, which has a better integrated design, would include building materials, architecture and architectural components, lighting, landscaping, everything. It encourages beneficial common area open space so it is not lost over time. It makes sure that functional mechanical features are integrated into the site and not as afterthoughts that might encumber the site visually or otherwise. It has, to provide visual and acoustical privacy for different units that are within the structure, if it is a residential structure, and from that development to other nearby property. There is encouragement for energy and efficient design with LEED accredited professionals and a LEED checklist required. It needs to make sure that drives, parking and circulation are done in a manner that helps to alleviate some of the congestion problems on 22" d Street and Butterfield Road, instead of adding to it. Things like internal cross circulation and signage that make it better, not worse over time. It should specifically address water and drainage. Currently the Village does not have the ability to look at these things with straight zoning so they can come in build what they want. The PUD provisions give the Village the ability to look at all of those components described. Site .Development allowances is thought of as a variation. If the maximum building height in a district is 50 feet and a developer proposes 58 feet, as straight zoning they would need to apply for a variation to prove hardship or unique circumstance. In a PUD, it is classified as a development allowance. It would still need to be cited as to why it is needed and should be allowed. If the overall development receives approval, then it is bundled into the approval. Instead of getting separate variations for example, to height, setbacks and parking spaces, they can be bundled as site development allowances, as part of the PUD approval. The case has to be made as to what they are, why they are VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 27 June 3, 2009 needed, why it is a good idea and how it can be justified to the Village why they should grant the allowances. However, it is not a separate variation that goes before the Zoning Board of Appeals, it is handled at the one meeting with a joint board as the planned development allows, but the changes have to be called out. Departures from the code must be documented. Compatibility of the surrounding properties and, departure from underlying zoning must be approved. Variations are not required after the approval is given for the Planned Development; it is a 'packaged deal. The Village does not have to approve all the allowances if they are not all deemed to be justified. Procedures. The first step would be a pre - filing review with the Village Board. It is not an extensive submittal. packet; it would be a preliminary concept plan with a narrative. They would meet with the Village Manager and the Community Development Director to review the plan and get the proposal on the Village Board agenda. The pre - filing meeting is non- binding. The Village Board could provide some preliminary feedback to the applicant and it would allow the applicant to decide whether or not to go forward. The next thing would be a pre -filing review and transmittal with staff at the direction of the Community Development Director. It would be a conference with any staff that the Director would think should be involved, including any outside consultant that would review it. At that time, the applicant can request a waiver to any of the requirements, such as the need for a traffic study, if there is the belief that the project would not impact traffic. Staff would have the ability to waive the requirement, but that is not binding. As it goes through the process, if it is determined that something that had been waived is needed, then the applicant could be required to submit it. A neighborhood meeting is required, if staff deems it to be needed. In their experience it is better to deal with neighbors' right up front than it is to wait for a public hearing and have neighbors that are angry because they had not been kept in the loop. If staff requires it, the applicant would be required to send a notice to all neighbors within 500 feet and conduct a public meeting to review the project and get back feedback and concerns. The applicant is required to keep a record of who attended, what, was said and what questions were asked. When the application is submitted, the outcome of the meeting must be included in the submittal. It initiates a community dialogue before the public hearing takes place, which is beneficial for the developer and neighbors so that issues can be resolved, prior to submittal. The Planned Development Commission would be comprised of members from VILLAGE Or OAK BROOK. Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 27 June 3, 2009 the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Plan Commission, with rotating Chairmanship. Planning looks at long -range things and with development and with waivers being sought, the Zoning Board of Appeals input is required as well. The outcome has been fantastic in other communities. After the public hearing the Planned Development Commission will approve, or approve with conditions, or not approve the development. The Planned Development Commission is a recommending body to the Village Board. When the Village Board receives the recommendation, they can deny the application, refer it back to the Commission for further review, postpone it pending additional information, or adopt an ordinance approving the planned development. If it is approved, it is not only approved in text form, but all of the landscape plans, architectural renderings, traffic studies, sign package and lighting standards, including all exhibits are approved as part of the ordinance. Approval requires a majority decision. A super majority of two - thirds is required for approval if the Planned Development Commission recommended denying the request. Approval can be subject to certain conditions. Application Requirements. The application must be by the owner or an agent of the owner. There are numerous components to the application. In addition to filing fees, an escrow account is established to cover the costs and processing of the application. Outside third -party costs are covered by the escrow account and are born by the applicant. E ect of&proval or Denial. ■ Plan Development approval by the Corporate Authorities. Pen-nit review by the Director of Community Development. • The zoning map amended to show where the Planned Development is approved with an Ordinance number. • Building permit applications to be consistent with Village requirements within 9 months. • Construction must commence within 24 months, with completion within 36 months, unless an extension has been applied for and approved. ■ Must adhere to the development plan or the master plan. Extensions can be granted • Uses approved can remain. ■ It is null if it ceases for a period of one year, then it reverts to the underlying zoning and they would be required to come back in for approval. ■ Resubmittals must be altered significantly in order to resubmit. A year is required between submittals if there is not a significant change. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 27 June 3, 2009 Amendments and Changes to Approved PUD's. Modifications require review and approval, but there are also minor changes. As things are built, they may move a few inches here or there. Minor changes can be approved without going back through the entire public hearing process. However, if during the process the developer would want to add a couple of floors to the proposal, that would be a significant change and would require that it be amended, noticed and go through the process again. The Director of Community Development would make the determination between major and minor changes. His recommendation would be made to the Village Manager who may approve the minor change at staff level. If it would be a major change it would need to go back through the process. Member Knitter asked if the identification of the overlay district to a PUD would be done as an amendment rather than rezoning the area. Some cities reference PUD on their maps. The City of Chicago has hundreds of numbers listed for its PUD's as rezoned, which would be like rezoning from B -2 to a PUD: Mr. Peter Friedman responded that in Chicago the PUD approval would not be an amendment or a rezoning. PUD is noted on the maps as an administrative step to clarify, so that everyone knows when they are looking at the zoning map that there is a PUD on the property, so that they do not rely on the underlying zoning. Member Knitter questioned if consideration was given to provide PUD's anywhere in Oak Brook as long as it is not zoned residential. Mr. Houseal responded that it could, but the intent was to encourage commercial and mixed -use development in a better fashion than in the past, so the Overlay District was specific for those areas and was written with that intent. A residential PUD could be done separately or with modifications to an approved ordinance. Member Knitter questioned whether there should be any excluded uses, such as adult uses. Mr. I �ouseal said that PUD's by design are meant to be as flexible and creative as possible. If someone would propose an 8 -story adult use theater the Village could say that it would have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties, etc., which would allow the Village the ability to reasonably deny such a use. They did not want to put in a vehicle that prohibited uses. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 27 June 3, 2009 Member Tropinski commented that the ordinance appeared to be very thorough but asked who decides whether groupings of structures are harmonious so that they are not overwhelming on a site. Mr. Houseal responded that is decided by the recommending body and ultimately approved by the Village Board. When the regulations state that they are looking for harmony and integrated design it is left to the design professionals of the developer that can be modified as it goes through the process. Member Nimry questioned why maximum height could not be included so that a developer knows what they can and cannot do. Mr. Houseal responded that could be done. There are some ordinances that allow a deviation of no more than 25 percent of the underlying zoning district standards. He does not like those because if the maximum building height was arbitrarily set and a development was proposed that slightly exceeded that amount, the regulations would then prohibit any change from the maximum or standard that was set. If an absolute limit of 200 feet would want to be set, it could be. Mr. Friedman added that the danger would be, if an arbitrary number of 200 feet would be set, then the Village has almost established some kind of standard. If someone would propose a 199 -foot building and it would be denied, then they could use the argument that the standard was met. Member Nimry questioned that security and safety was not mentioned anywhere and it should be required. Mr. Houseal responded that was a good suggestion and it could be incorporated. Member Young questioned the make up of the Planned Development Commission. Mr. Houseal, responded that it would be a two -year appointment of three members of the Zoning Board and three members of the Plan Commission. The Chairperson would rotate between the Plan Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairpersons. Member Rush questioned why a new committee would be formed, instead of VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 27 June 3, 2009 having it heard as it is now, where it is reviewed by both complete groups of the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Houseal responded that there would be representation from each group as opposed to one group or the other. The sole purpose of having the Planned Development is to streamline and provide a more efficient process for the Village and the applicant; and the outcome is better. Creating one review board, which works together to make a recommendation and prevents the applicant from going from one review board to another with the possibility of receiving conflicting recommendations. Member Young said that the board has seen various quality traffic reports and would like to see what would be required for a typical report and an environmental impact report, especially with a mixed -use project. He would also like to see something included related to noise. Mr. Houseal responded that there are specific standards for visual and acoustical privacy that talk about the level of noise not only between units but different uses within a development and surrounding areas. There is also a provision on having a detrimental impact on surrounding properties. Member Young asked how the Commission would know that an applicant applied for a waiver. Mr. Houseal responded that the list would indicate what waivers were sought. The waivers do not have to remain permanent throughout the process. A document that had been previously waived can be required to be submitted by a trigger at any time. Chairman Davis said that it appears that the process could be quite costly. The Zoning Board does not get involved with cost, but it appears there would be a lot of cost that the developer could incur that they would not normally incur under the current zoning. Mr. Houseal responded that there are fees associated with the process, but in most cases there are costs incurred going through the process as it is today. There may be other costs, but there is the efficiency of time, procedure, process and outcome included in those costs. Mr. Friedman added that with developers these costs are standard operating procedure. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 27 June 3, 2009 Chairman Davis questioned if a developer would come in and ask to come in to go through the regular procedures that are in place today, would they be able to do so, when the Planned Development Regulations are adopted. Mr. Houseal responded that if the property were located within the Overlay District they would be required to come in through the Planned Development process. Any new development would need to go through this process. Member Bulin asked if they would need to go through the PUD process, even if they met all of the Zoning Ordinance requirements. If so, then it would mean that the underlying zoning districts would have no meaning. Mr. Houseal responded that they would go through the PUD process because it would give the Village an opportunity to review signage, landscaping, architecture and things that have not been able to be addressed in stand alone projects. If it is simple and straightforward and no additional relief is being sought, then it may require only one meeting. They could request a waiver to almost everything if the impact is nominal; it does not have to be an onerous or arduous process. Member Nimry questioned that if the mall wanted to add condominiums would they need to go through the new process or the old process. Mr. Houseal responded that they would be required to go through the PUD process. He also noted that the Oakbrook Shopping Center attended the Commercial Revitalization Committee meetings and were involved in this process. Member Singhal questioned the energy design and LEED certification and was not sure whether there would be a LEED certified person on the project or does it mean that the buildings design would be compliant with the LEED certification. Mr. Houseal responded that the PUD regulations as written require that there be a LEER AP professional on the developer's team, which has become very standard now. It requires that something is submitted that talks about LEEDS and what was done to try to achieve some of the LEED things. It does not require that the buildings be LEED certified. LEED certification is Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Points can be made by building in developed areas versus undeveloped areas; by providing rain barrels for water VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 27 June 3, 2009 recycling, etc. There are a number of ways to make points such as by using energy efficient bulbs, rotating fleet vehicles that are hydrogen run versus gas. If enough points are acquired you can become gold or platinum certified, which are nice things to aspire to, but in some cases you cannot get to those, so there is not a requirement that a development be LEER certified. The regulations require that someone on the team should be a LEED AP professional, so that input is coming into the project with a statement that they have done things so that LEED is addressed, but there is not a standard that it be achieved. It is a very difficult standard to place. Member Singhal responded that instead of requiring the LEED certification, perhaps the regulations should require a statement that the development was reviewed against that requirement in some form or fashion rather than saying there is a LEED certified professional on their team to sign off on the requirement. Mr. Houseal responded that the committee had a lot of discussion on this issue and that this was determined to be the middle ground from those discussions. Member Ziemer said that the intent is to encourage as many LEED points as possible. He commented that they are not required to go through the US GBC in order to get all the filings. Mr. Houseal responded that by having a LEED AP professional, there would be someone from the team that could come to the podium and articulate why they could or could not, or did or did not do something; and to encourage LEED certification if at all possible. Mr. Friedman added that the reason they put in the checklist is because it will be seen during the project review. Member flush questioned that they were required to go out and talk to the neighbors and report the comments. He said that it appears there are many meetings planned for this process. Mr. Houseal responded that they are required to provide a summary of the input from the residents and how they addressed the issues and it is to be provided during the review so that it is apparent that they have tried to work with the neighbors. Member Ziemer asked if the 500 feet was standard requirement. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 27 June 3, 2009 Mr. Houseal responded that 500 feet is more than most communities require. Director of Community Development Kallien said that when there is a large project, such as Clearwater, the staff probably had close to a dozen meetings prior to the hearings and they were required to meet with the adjacent property owners to receive their input. When they were working on the proposal for the movie theater there were several workshops with neighbors to hear from the developer. Many of the concepts contained in the proposal are already used and are done for large projects. Mr. Houseal responded that it saves time and emotions. Director of Community Development Kallien said that currently the Village goes to the extent to require, by ordinance that neighbors be notified when a house is going to be demolished. Member Nimry commented that he did not think. 500 feet was far enough because many people were not notified regarding the theater. If something big is planned, maybe it should require a Village wide invitation. Mr. Houseal responded that by requiring 500 feet, it contacts those that are really impacted by the development. Member Sharma asked if there were guidelines that those persons serving on the PUD Commission could follow to fall back on. Mr. Houseal said that the required standards are contained right in the regulations, which should be reviewed during the PUD review process. Under Section 13 -15 -3 the development standards (page 3) refers to all the standards that should be looked at and evaluated during the review. Member Young asked what would make this process successful. Mr. Houseal responded that this is a very thorough PIJD Ordinance. It will be successful because it is not overly burdensome on the applicant. The process works well for the applicant as much so, if not more so, than for the Village. It is a two -party system because development happens in partnership. It is very clear and easy to follow, it is not confusing, it establishes one of the precepts in planning, and in the legal aspects is fair certainty, with some level of reasonable expectation. They should be able to know what can and cannot be done or what VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 27 June 3, 2009 is expected. If you get known as an unfriendly development community, then you are not getting the best, brightest and most creative. This will begin to facilitate that bridge between contemporary high quality great development and this community. There was never a process in the past that helped to facilitate that, which was a shortcoming. This is looking to position the community to be the forefront of new cutting edge, great development; and there is now a vehicle to accommodate that. He was confident that it will work extremely well. Member Iyer questioned the joint committee and he asked whether there was something similar in other communities. Mr. Houseal said some do some do not. Those that have it love it and it works extremely well. Every single community does things differently and that is the way that it should be, because they are developed in a way that is sensitive to the context of that community. This is different giving what the Village needs are and what the development pattern was. There are pros and cons to every approach, but the communities that use the joint board did not have any complaints about using it. He was not aware of any towns that have a PUD and require a review in front of two different boards before it went to the Village Board. Most communities have PUD ordinances. The most stunning developments were probably developed under a PUD, because straight zoning does not allow that level of quality, creativity and success. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Oak Brook process to review development is thorough but requires two bodies to review it. In Naperville, all of their projects go through the Plan Commission then to the Village Board. Mr. Houseal said that two different review boards is a developer's nightmare. Having one review board is the key component to a PUD ordinance working. Director of Community Development Kallien said the process has worked well, but the Clearwater project and the Promenade required significant changes to the zoning text, plus numerous variations and multiple special uses. Those could have all been avoided had this tool been available to approve the project. The regulations are needed significantly. Trustee Wolin questioned that if what a developer wanted to do, fit within the current zoning, it would seem that it would be easier to go through the straight process rather than the PUD process. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 27 June 3, 2009 Mr. Houseal responded that it could go through in just one meeting, and without going through the PUD process, the Village would not have the ability to review architecture, building materials, landscaping, signage or lighting; or any of those things that are tangent to a development, but would impact the character of an area that is trying to revitalize. As the Village sets out an aggressive approach to revitalize this corridor and set it for the next three decades to dominate as it has in the past three decades, then the Village is going to want to make sure that the incremental decisions that are made, are done as well as they can be done. Projects are done in the Village incrementally, with lapses of time between projects. If those decisions are made correctly, then 10 years down the road the net impact goes in the direction the Village wants to go. If there is not a level of review for each of those incremental decisions, then it is never going to go where the Village wants to be years from now. PUD's allow the kind of review that straight zoning does not allow. By going to even one meeting, would allow the Village to look at the architecture, landscaping, etc. and at least sign off on it. Trustee Wolin asked what benefit if any, there is to the current zoning. Mr. Houseal responded that the underlying zoning district establishes the standard that exists. The developer has to justify any deviation from the current zoning standards. If the underlying zoning allows a maximum of 50 feet and the developer requests 70 feet, they must get waiver approval to do that. It is like a variation but is done through the PD Commission. Trustee Wolin questioned if there was a procedure to amend the overlay map. Mr. Friedman responded that it would be a rezoning. Currently, the overlay district does not exist. Member Nimry asked if Oakbrook Center wanted to add a condominium on its site, would it apply to the entire property or just the section with the condominium. Mr. Houseal responded that it would be the entire center. Member Rush, suggested that donations should be added to the regulations, so that schools are not excluded. Fred Reynolds, Board Member with the Greater Oak Brook Chamber of Commerce said that he had been monitoring the progress of the proposed PUD. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 27 June 3, 2009 He said that they believe the Village is doing the right thing and that it is a very valuable tool. It modernizes in the correct way and gives the Village the adequate tools that are needed. It gives the Village the chance to bring in developers by knowing that the Village is making a giant step forward to accommodate them. As a developer, he is sympathetic to both sides of the process. He would also consider that if a development came through the process that everyone endorsed 100 percent, then there should be a way to expedite it through as a convenience to the developer, rather than handcuffing the Village with the process of going from committee to committee through introduction and public notice, so that with the right development, it could be handled expeditiously to move and be approved. Those that need work can obviously be treated accordingly. When the right development comes, the Village should be ready to move on it. Developers hit economic cycles and things get canceled, so a lot of tunes you can miss it, if a project is delayed. They support the PUD proposal and think it is a good step forward. He noted that when things are zoned compartmentalized throughout a town, you have to get in a car in order to get to the next zoning for what you need. When these things are brought together it is a modernistic view. Looking at Metropolis 20/20 studies, it is the right step forward. People can shop, eat and work closer to home, so there are benefits there as well. Mr. Houseal responded that the comment on expediting things is very important. Under the proposed PUD regulations, if something were favorably reviewed from the onset and was highly regarded going through, all it would entail would be a five minute review in front of the Village Board that did not require a legal notice, and as little as one public meeting and then to the Village Board for approval in the most expedited route that the project could go, and is incredibly lean; and it is designed to be that way. Trustee Aktipis commented that the PUD concept is excellent and one that would help the Village move forward expeditiously with many projects. In the past it had a bad reputation, because it seemed to allow communities to bypass existing standards, which may be a reason why the Village had hesitated to implement it. He was happy to see a very thorough and well constructed set of rules that can be applied. Some of his concerns were raised by others, which may be able to be adjusted to some degree. He questioned the use of "an exclusive approach of the PUD application" and to provide an option that would allow the developer the choice of using the provisions of the underlying zoning district rather than the PUD. Given the current climate, it would give developers the flexibility to choose between the two processes and it may be VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD. Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 27 June 3, 2009 that most would choose the new PUD regulations. It would facilitate the notion that we are very friendly and open to new development. The other concern he had was the appearance that the Village would be very stringent in terms of energy efficient design. It should be encouraged, but the language appears to be restrictive and would like to see that it is not a compulsory approach, but one that encourages by nature. The LEED standards should be an option that should be encourage rather than required. If there are any instances where a developer would not want to go through a preliminary board review for whatever reason, then they should have the ability to do so, so that it would be voluntary rather than compulsory. When meeting with staff, they will get a sense of where the Village stands as a community. If there is any doubt, Mr. Kallien would encourage them to come forward to the Village Board for a preliminary review. Director of Community Development Kallien said that every project is always referred by the Village Board to go forward to the Plan Conunission or Zoning Board of Appeals. The two larger projects actually made formal presentations on the evening of the referral. If there were some major issues, they may have taken a step back and would have worked with staff before going on to the boards and commissions. Mr. Houseal responded that when a PUD is utilized there is a triggering mechanism and there is no choice, which was discussed extensively by the task force. The preliminary review before the Village Board is a five minute presentation and allows the policy makers to know what is coming. As far as LEED requirements, nothing is binding. The only binding thing is that a LEED professional is to be on the developer's team and most planning, architectural and development offices has at least one LEED professional, so it is not an onerous thing. By submitting the checklist showing what they did or did not do, and there is no requirement that LEED has to be met in any way. The requirement is very nominal and still provides information that LEED was addressed. Trustee Aktipis responded that the triggering mechanism is the entire commercial area of the Village, so it essentially gives the developers no other option than the PUD, which is very restrictive. Chairman Davis commented that although it is restrictive, it also allows for the imposition of additional standards that are not currently addressed under the regular zoning procedures. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 27 June 3, 2009 Robert Sanford commented that he had been part of the commercial revitalization task force and agreed very much with some of Trustee Aktipis' comments. The whole purpose of the revitalization is how to get new construction so that the Village would never need to implement a property tax. When they talked with the , commercial community, they discussed what the Village could do to expedite the redevelopment of the commercial areas. They discussed the lengthy, expensive, time consuming and awkward process of going through, planning, zoning and the Village Board. The proposed regulations are not only very beneficial to the community, but are designed to encourage development within the community. Member Nimry said that it appears the PUD process would be faster than going through the special use process. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that if the Village Board agrees with the hybrid reviewing body, then projects will go through the process quicker. Because of the number of requirements that are placed on the development, the Village ends up getting much more complete projects at the initial submittal. When the Promenade application was received, the submittal included quality design, landscape, signage plans, etc. A good project that is well thought out and designed, can move through the process very quickly. Director of Community Development Kallien addressed the amendment factors as follows: The PUD language that is proposed is a by- product of the recent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. One of the provisions is the relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan, which is the second step and is being done as a result of that amendment. Protecting the public health, safety and welfare are that there will be multiple reviews and opportunities for the public to be protected and in terms of the amendment process; the requirements go beyond what the normal hearing process requires. Trustee Wolin said that his concern remains to be that if someone demolishes a building in the commercial district, they would be required to go through this process instead of obtaining a building permit. The PUD process requires a lot of additional steps, although he agrees there can be some significant benefits to the process. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 27 June 3, 2449 The Director of Community Development Kallien said that today, if a building on Enterprise Drive were removed and replaced with a similar sized building and met all of the setbacks, without any other relief required, it would be a matter of them presenting building plans, which would be reviewed by staff, and a building permit would be issued. If the PUD regulations were in place, then there would extensive meetings at some board level, etc. which would take more time. However, the benefit to the community would be that they could achieve a higher level of building design, materials, landscaping, signage, etc., instead of the bare minimums that are now in the code. There are not any enforcement tools that require a higher standard be provided. Member Rush said that puts restrictions on the developer that they do not have now and monetarily that has to be covered somehow. Chairman Davis commented that they could seek waivers to some of the requirements. Director of Community Development Kallien questioned if there could be a provision added that should a project not require any other relief, beside the issuance of a building permit, could they request a waiver from the Village Board from these procedures. Member Knitter questioned why the PUD could not be available to the entire Village and let the developer decide whether or not they wanted to use it or rely on the existing underlying zoning. Mr. Friedman responded that the charge that was given the task force, which was given to them, was to look at the commercial revitalization area and not the entire Village. It would be possible to revise the draft text as suggested by Director of Community Development Kallien, but then the Village would lose the opportunity to review it, keeping in mind that someone could then build something that the Village may have wanted more than what is developed, which may not be enough, and which could be right in the middle of the commercial revitalization area. There are provisions that say to the extent that someone is not complying with the underlying zoning, those things have to be called out Member Nimry said that the benefits from the PUD are great and now projects will come into the Village that are complete. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 27 June 3, 2009 Trustee Aktipis said that the projects through the years have turned out very good. He liked the PUD approach, but still feels that the Village should not hold it as a hammer over the head of developers, but rather they should have the option of going through alternative existing processes, especially since it covers the entire commercial district of the Village. He did not want the wrong perception to come from the Village that would make it appear to be a difficult place for developers. The procedures have been adequate and the PUD provision can be added. Chairwoman Payovich polled the Plan Commission Members Member Sharma said that these regulations are needed and she could see the benefits, but felt there were some loopholes with providing detailed guidelines for the PUD Commission to review. She felt that the standards listed were too broad. As long as the information would be provided at the meetings by staff, then she would be fine with the amendment proposed. Chairwoman Payovich said that a lot of the details go back to Village staff and she did not feel that it was her job to tell developers exactly where to put trees, etc,, but to have a concept plan provided. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the way the text is drafted there would be a higher expectation from both the developers' point of view, as well as from staff, as to what would be required. When projects go through the process, they will be far more complete than what they have ever been before. This process will result in a proj ect that what you will see you get. If the developer would want to build anything other than what would be approved, they would be required to go through the process of amending the PUD with a minor change or go back through the entire process. There will be a much more exactness with what will be built, how it will look and how it would impact the neighbors. Mr. Houseal responded that there is a stipulation that when the project goes before the review commission, it is to be accompanied by a report from the Director of Community Development, including any comments from any consultants or other staff, which could include the police, fire and public works departments. Member Tropinski said that as an architect, she likes what has been proposed. It is a wonderful tool and is in favor of it along with the amendments discussed. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 27 June 3, 2009 Member Knitter said that he would love to see a PUD ordinance, which is a great idea and is badly needed, but there is no reason to restrict it to the Commercial Revitalization Area and have every property in it subjected to the PUD; and then exclude all areas outside of it, that could benefit from being a PUD. If the ordinance could be applicable anywhere in the Village, so that if someone who would want to, could apply for it. Let those great ideas be applicable to the entire Village, but not demand them from many properties when they would not really be a PUD, but would be required to apply as one. To change a hot dog stand into a restaurant is not a PUD; that is not what they are for. Allow a PUD to be what it really is for. Having every property along the Commercial Revitalization Area apply for a PUD is missing the point. It is a great concept and there are many good ideas, but it is mixing apples and oranges. The joint committee is a great idea, but that would be a great idea for all zoning hearings within the Village, not just PUD's. Chairwoman Payovich questioned whether Member Knitter was opposed to the PUD because of the Overlay District. Member Knitter agreed, and said that other areas of the Village could be included where it would be an appropriate tool as a PUD, but not for the purpose to replace an office building with an office building. He agreed that PUD's should not apply to single - family residential properties. Member Tropinski agreed that the PUD regulations should not apply to residential properties. Member Iyer said that he thought PUD regulations were a great idea, would be good for the Village and it should be approved. He would be willing to approve it subject to Member Nimry's comments to include safety and security. Trustee Wolin said that he thought it was a great idea and would like to see it approved. He also liked Chairwoman Payovich's idea to give the developer the option to request a waiver so that they could go with the current zoning of the property and believed there was merit in that option. Asking for a waiver is not an undue burden, but in this day and age, it would not be unreasonable to give the developer the option. Trustee Aktipis commented that he agreed with Trustee 'Wolin, except that he would rather see the developer have the option to apply to either process. If that would be included in the PUD regulations, then there would be unanimous VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 27 June 3, 2009 � approval, so it would be a matter of making a couple of adjustments to attain that. He also noted that the Trustees are guests at this meeting and are only offering their views. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that in a recent case an existing hot dog restaurant was replaced with a similar type restaurant, but the developer added a drive -thru lane, outdoor dining, and variations. 'There was extensive debate and an outcry from some of the neighboring residents about what they were doing and how it would ruin the neighborhood. What the Village got from the developer essentially was a PUD. They provided a traffic study, landscape architectural plans and an environmental impact statement was provided; a PUD would have worked well for that development. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in Naperville they processed over 200 PUD's because it was the only mechanism available to guarantee design, landscaping, roof top mechanicals, etc., which is kind of the predicament that we have in Oak Brook. Our Code is not as comprehensive as it should be to guarantee those factors are adequately addressed. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in response to the comment that these regulations should apply Village -wide, if anything, that should be a second step to get the input and discussion from the Village Board to see what support there would be and what benefits there would be of having PUD regulations outside of the Commercial Revitalization area. There may be some requests for PUD's in some of the residential areas that may bring some very significant debate, if proposed. At this point, he was not sure that there would be an adequate benefit at this point to make that extension. Member Bulin commented that in Brittwood Creek they proposed multi- density housing. Member Singhal said that it was a great idea. The PUD regulations allows at least the commercial district to start shaping up and lets discretion be allowed here and to have an integrated system, which hopefully 30 years from now would be integrated in peoples minds and would allow real development to take place. Allowing developers the choice to go with the existing rules, just defeats the whole purpose. Therefore it should be done for the whole commercial area so that they would have to comply with the PUD requirements, which is why he was pushing for the LEED certification, so that we could create a Village for the 21" century and how we get that process going. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 27 June 3, 2009 With the exception of the Trustees present, no one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Mr. Houseal said that it becomes more of a subjective review as to when a waiver should or should not be granted. To grant a waiver from a component is one thing, but to grant a waiver from an entire project that meets the underlying standards, and then to not grant a waiver for another property that meets the same standards, he did not know how the Village would have the footing to grant or not grant those waivers and not have it appear to be more subjective. Chairwoman Payovich said that many communities have tried different aspects to their PUD, regulations. If what is adopted didn't work, it was changed, which the Village would have the option to do. Right now the recommendation is to go to the Village Board in economic times that are a little questionable, to offer some relief and to have the developers have an option to have a choice to go with the straight zoning, if they meet the requirements of the underlying zoning district. Chairman Davis suggested that since it would be up to the Village Board to grant such a waiver, perhaps that issue should be left out of the recommended motions and to leave that up to the Village Board to decide. Chairwoman Payovich said that the Village Board should also know that the Zoning Board and Plan Commission are flexible on this issue and that all aspects are being considered. Member Tropinski questioned that if it is left in, rather than letting someone go through the zoning process, it would allow the Village Board to make comments about the quality of the building. If it just went through and was developed under straight zoning, then a developer could come in and use cheaper materials and produce an ugly building. If they go through the PUD process, at least there are other members that can vote on it and have some control over a better quality project. Mr. Houseal responded that would be correct and that is the essence of a PUD. If something is developed as of right, meets all of the setbacks, height and parking requirements, they could build whatever they wanted. There are virtually no landscaping standards; there is no quality control or architectural standards or screening requirements. None of them exist in the current code, so they could build minimally what they wanted on the property, per the standards in the Zoning and Building codes. There would not be any review. By going VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 27 June 3, 2009 through the PUD process there would be a review of architecture, materials, landscaping, signage and screening that would not exist otherwise and would enable the Village to start getting better development and giving developers that need relief a better process in order to get relief and build a creative development, which would be a win/win for both sides. That is the essence of the difference. If there is a building by right, the Village gets nothing. If there is a PUD the Village can make comments on those things, which is a complete development plan as opposed to just building a building. Trustee Aktipis commented that the problem he has with the hard -line is that this is not a Village that has slack and inappropriate development. The Village has operated for 30 years under the present code and has produced very good buildings with very good landscaping, so the argument is a little outside the discussions. Member Tropinski commented that there are some very dated buildings within the Village. Mr. Houseal responded that as of right building versus the PUD process, there were some nice results, but there was a process in place where they went to the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals for relief for special uses and variations, so they were not as of right. The Village ended up in a good way, but it took a convoluted way to get there. The question from Member Tropinski was the as of right permit building, that meets the standards and does not seek any zoning relief or going to any of the boards, which is the as of right permit not the PUD process. He was not comparing the process in place where relief is sought through the boards. Member Tropinski said that as an architect she likes to see quality projects and Oak Brook has wanted to create a community of quality and she has the interest of maintaining quality and high standards, so she amended the motion to exclude the previously included condition of the waiver: "If a developer's proposed development meets the underlying zoning district requirements he could request a waiver from the PUD process, subject to the approval of the Village Board." Instead, she would like to see them go through the PUD process. The idea of leaving the condition up to the Village Board is a good idea, if they would like to include it. This would be more of the image of Oak Brook in the 21St century. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 27 June 3, 2009 Motion by Member Tropinski, seconded by Member Singhal to recommend approval of the text amendment to create Title 15 of the Zoning Regulations and to adopt the Planned Unit Development Regulations (PUD) along with the following conditions: 1. To add security and safety to Section 13 -15 -3B 2. To add donations and impact fees to Section 13- 15 -3B.4 ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 — Members Iyer, Sharma, Singhal, Tropinski and Payovich. Nays: 1-- Member Knitter. Absent: 1-- Member Lalmalani. Motion Carried. Chairman Davis asked the Zoning Board whether they had questions. Member Nimry asked Mr. Houseal if anyone from the commercial business area worked within this process and whether any of them had any negative comments because if they had a problem with the PUD they would have complained. Mr. Houseal responded that there were a number of business representatives on the advisory committee. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Chuck Fleming, Oakbrook Shopping Center, Dan Wagner represented Inland who has 8 office buildings in town, Dennis Hiffinan, the Promenade, was on the committee and has numerous buildings that he has developed or manages and none suggested that a waiver be given as an option. Mr. Houseal commented that there are a lot of opinions and there is not one correct way to do anything. All of these issues were vetted at several meetings. Member Nimry said that 'there are other things that we do not have, such as signage regulations, but the Village should walk before it starts running. He did not agree that the signage looks good in the Village. It is one of the worst towns in regards to signage. There is going to be a standard for signage and landscaping. No one will be prohibited from doing something. This is a great process to see it through. Member Rush commented that he supports the PUD process, but believes it should be by choice and to force those in the commercial revitalization area to go through the PUD process is a left handed or back door way of rezoning. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 27 June 3, 2009 aPREP 1W I �W- �' - - "Mg, There are existing rights under the current zoning and that is going to be changed with this process. He has a problem with the ordinance the way that it is written and did not think it should take 17 pages to cover the requirements. It is repetitious as far as the requirements for each group that meets to review a portion of the process. He cannot approve it and does not agree with it. He also does not agree with the establishment of a Planned Development Committee. The Village is better off using the expertise of everyone as opposed to limiting it. Member Ziemer commented that the PUD, allowing for the creativity of a development is essential for moving forward. This mechanism is very good and would like to see it move forward. Member Bulin said that he was in favor of the PUD, but would like to see it encompass the entire Village, as opposed to limiting it to the Overlay District. He would accept it now with the anticipation that it would be enlarged and be able to encompass the entire Village. There are a couple of small issues. He agreed with Member Tropinski, and as a landscape architect, said that it is good to have the oversight and control, however there is a bad side to that because you tend to get into micromanaging of design decisions, by the commissioners and trustees where they would worry over a brick color, which could hold up the entire process, that being said he would support the PUD. Member Young said that he was very much in support of the PUD and he originally sided with the comment made by Chairman Davis and is concerned what this would cost the Village in the long run. Chairman Davis said that over the years he has placed zoning matters with great deference on the Plan Commission, which is appropriate since they go through a lot more hearings than the Zoning Board. He noted for the record that the Plan Commission recommended approval of the text amendment by a vote of 5 to 1. He noted that he supports the PUD as well and that Mr. Kallien addressed the standards as required to recommend approval of the text amendment. Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Ziemer to recommend approval of the text amendment to create Title 15 of the Zoning Regulations to adopt the Planned Unit Development Regulations (PUD) along with the following conditions: 3. To add security and safety to Section 13-15 -3B 4. To add donations and impact fees to Section 13- 15 -3B.4 VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 27 June 3, 2009 ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 --- Members Bulin, Nimry, Rush, Young, Ziemer and Davis Nays: I — Member Rush Absent: 1-- Member Krietsch. Motion Carried 4. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Knitter, seconded by Member Tropinski to adjourn the Plan Commission meeting at 9:40 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Bulin to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 9:40 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried ATTEST: ' Robert Kallien, Dir ctor of C mmunity Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Page 27 of 27 June 3, 2009