Loading...
Minutes - 06/15/2015 - Plan CommissionMINUTES OF THE JUNE 15, 2015 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOI{ APPROVED AS AMENDED ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Tropinski in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:05 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Marcia Tropinski, Members Thomas Doyle, Raj Lal, Simon Sheers and Kenneth Wilczak ABSENT: Members Raju Iyer and Naveen Jain IN ATTENDANCE: Director of Community Development Robert Kallien Jr., Village Attorney Benjamin Schuster, and Planning Technician Gail Polanek 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES There were no minutes to be approved. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS BUSINtS BUSINESS S A. OAK BROOK PROMENADE LLC — 3001 -3051 BUTTERFIELD ROAD — TEXT AMENDMENT — SECTION 13 -7A -2 — B -1 DISTRICT SPECIAL USES — TO ALLOW SCHOOLS: PRIVATE, ETC. Chairwoman Tropinski announced that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting a continuance in order to provide additional information. Motion by Member Lal, seconded by Member Wilczak to continue the matter until such time that the applicant is ready to proceed. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. MULTI - OWNERS / MULTI- PARCELS — LOCATED ON CANTERBERRY mU TiOmicaS LANE HUNT CLUB LANE AND OAK BROOK ROAD (31sT STREET) — MAP AMENDMENT N "r -1AP 'A R -2 MAP AMENDMENT — REZONE FROM R -1 TO R -2 Chairwoman Tropinski reviewed the request. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 15 June 15, 2015 __V41 Director of Community Development Kallien said that the request involves 9 property owners and 11 parcels all seeking a map amendment from R -1 zoning that requires 2 acres minimum, to R -2 which requires 1 acre minimum. Arthur Zwemke, 1351 Davey Drive, Batavia, Illinois, works for the Robert Arthur Land Company, which is owned by Dr. Jafari, one of the petitioners. He introduced the 7 of the 9 petitioners who attended. He reviewed the request. 2 acres of land is over 87,000 square feet. If a 5000 square foot house were to be built, there would be a 2500 square footprint for a two - story house. The existing zoning would take up only about 3 percent of the lot. That same house on a 1 -acre lot would be about 6 percent of the land. They are not seeking R -3 zoning. The sizes of the existing lots vary from 3.5 to 3.8 -acre lots. He noted some of the possible concerns. 1. Impact on property values — They think that the property values for the petitioners is being suppressed because the market is different from what it was when the parcels were originally subdivided. The market is different in that people still want a big house but there is not a lot of value given for the larger home site. Fewer people now have horses today than in the past. If approved, it is believed that it would create an opportunity for more home sites and homes that should add to the property values in the community. Newer homes tend to be populated with younger families and children, which could help reverse the trend in the community, which is a decline in school age children in the school system. 2. Traffic and public safety — Oak Brook Road handles a lot of traffic each day. Not all of the lots face Oak Brook Road some face Canterberry Lane, which is sufficient to handle additional traffic that would occur there. A traffic study would probably say that there would be 10 -11 cars per day, with kids going to school, soccer practice, etc. The roads are more than sufficient to handle any additional traffic movement. They do not believe that there are any traffic compromises to public safety. 3. Flooding - environmental concerns — We live in one of the most stringent environments in terms of engineering. The rules in the County, State and federally are very tight. What could be done in the past cannot be done today. The technology is outstanding. They are seeking rezoning of the properties, not plat approval. In the event that the property owners would exercise their option and would seek plat approval, they would be required to go through the plat approval process. Any such development in terms of flooding or environmental concerns would not hurt neighboring properties. 4. Impact on the schools. — Declining population, which they have seen time and again, where schools close because they do not have enough students enrolled. If the properties would be developed and would bring in families. Using the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 15 June 15, 2015 current rates a $500,000 home would contribute approximately $5,000 per year to the school tax district. Schools generate approximately 75% of the tax bill. The school is not an issue with the declining enrollment and the tax base. Chairwoman Tropinski opened the meeting to the Commissioners questions /comments. Member Lal said that a lot of assumptions were made in the application. He asked that the data be submitted to staff. He noted that last year they had wanted to combine the schools and the request failed. He noted that when the 3.5 — 3.8 acre parcels were bought parcels, they knew they were large parcels. He reasoned that when Mr. Butler had his vision, lie wanted the lots bigger that were close to I -294 so that people would have space for horses, etc. The homeowners bought the lots knowing what the restrictions are. Oak Brook is kriown for its rural setting. He asked for the data how it increases property values. He asked who would maintain the ongoing costs for the roads and utilities. Member Wilczak confirmed that of the 11 sites, 10 were improved and asked if any of them were vacant. Mr. Zwemke responded that none were vacant. Member Wilczak said that people are then currently spending money in the community. He questioned whether the road leading to the eastern most properties south of Oak Brook Road, was private. John Kieffer, owner of the parcels at 107 and 115 Oak Brook Road responded that it was a private road, but when the tollway was constructed in the late 1950's, they were granted an easement to access the tollway. The homeowners own the land, which is privately maintained. He noted that he has lived in Oak Brook for 40 years. When they first moved in the Village took care of the plowing and people were friendly, but as the years went on people became less friendly. He installed gates and added a private sign. Shortly thereafter, the Village Manager sent him a letter stating that the plowing was not the Village's responsibility. Elizabeth Biffardi, 110 Oak Brook Road said that when they moved into the house the driveway did not curve as it does today, it came straight up. When the tollroad was built, they had to have an easement come across 116 Oak Brook Road in order to get out because they would not have been able to make it up the hill, which has been there since the late 1950's. The road is private and is not maintained by the Village. Member Wilczak said that he was concerned with the low percentage of people involved in the request and that typically, when you change something not everyone agrees. However, if you have a 2/3 majority you can reason that enough people are seeking this. He asked if they had tried to get more people. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 15 June 15, 2015 1 g Mr. Zwemke noted that Mr. Kieffer had been the point of contact, however they had met with neighbors on occasions and some are not interested in the project. One had wanted more lots out of his lot and they were not heading in that direction. They only wanted to go from R -1 to R -2. Since it was made public, a few more phone calls were received from people that may want to be included, but have not yet. Mr. Wilezak questioned whether the market value is suppressed. He noted that 321 Canterberry has the same requirements and they are building a new home. There is a market for it maybe it is outreach. A problem is building similar sized homes on smaller lots as they would be compared against each other, which could actually lower the value of the new and existing homes on the two -acre parcels, which is a concern. Mr. Zwemke responded that there is always a case where homes are sold at different levels. He said that it could be safely said that the larger home sites are on the market longer than a smaller home site. if broken down to the price per square foot one that someone is paying for a smaller lot versus a larger lot, the price per square foot is higher on the smaller lots. They are seeking the opportunity, that if one of the property owners would like to add one house or two to their property. As you go north along the tollway the density increases. They are not seeking the same density. If it were to happen, there would maybe be 10 home sites, not 30 as mentioned in the staff report. Member Doyle said that the lots north of 31st Street /Oak Brook Road, he could see an individual requesting relief based on some kind of hardship. He could not see those lots included in this kind of request, because you would truly be getting into spot zoning. It would be an arbitrary request with no hardship presented to be rezoned. He saw an issue with the lots south of and facing Oak Brook Road because any kind of a subdivision of those lots would probably involve flag lots. Flag lots are not a happy thing with the Plan Commission, although they have been allowed. There is the potential of several additional driveways on 31st St /Oak Brook Road. If it were more comprehensive with an interior or frontage road out onto 31" Street, from a safety point of view would make a lot of sense. However, none of that is in this plan. The current plan is a request to change the zoning and each time a petitioner is involved, they would need to come in and request a change anyway. The only thing that he can see in this application is that instead of each of the petitioners asking individually, they are asking globally. There is nothing comprehensive about the request, except for a change in zoning, with no indication of what future plans would be, it would box in those homeowners who chose not to be part of the petition. He found it difficult because there was nothing comprehensive about it to see what the future might be. Much more would be needed to convince him to vote for it. Benjamin Schuster, Holland and Knight, Village Attorney, said that this application was for 11 different parcels that decided to join together to go through the process, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 15 June 15, 2015 but there are really separate applications. The Plan Commission is free to find that all of the lots meet the requirements, or that some do and some do not. It can be broken up in a way that the Commission feels is appropriate based upon whether or not it meets the factors. The Plan Commission Rules of Procedure and Illinois case law is the LaSalle Factors and is spelled out in 8.3 of the Rules of Procedure. A flag lot is a term that refers to a lot that has a driveway that goes from the front of one property in order to access a rear lot, so it looks like a flag. Some of that will be dealt with at the subdivision level and can be considered to the extent that the Commission finds that it meets the factors listed in the procedures. The concept of spot zoning has been raised. To many different people it is a term that means many different things. The Plan Commission is really focused on the factors, which one is "not" is this spot zoning. You can have a lot that qualifies under the factors even if it is one lot surrounded by others. The Illinois courts have made clear that you can have a one -lot zoning district, depending upon if it meets the factors. The Commission may find that a single lot surrounded by other lots that differ, does not meet the factors. Some of the factors are the character of the neighborhood, the extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions, the extent to which the removal of the existing limitations would depreciate the value of other properties in the area, etc. Just because one lot is surrounded by other uses does not mean that it is an illegal case of spot zoning, if such a thing exists. It is more of, do you find that based on the application that the factors are met. Member Wilezak questioned that the factors also indicate hardship, because he did not see any hardship. Village Attorney Schuster responded that the section referred to in the Rules of Procedures is 8.3.G — the relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed on the individual property owner. Mr. Zwemke responded to Member Doyle that they were at the zoning stage. It is not a subdivision request and is a step -by -step process. The request just gives the opportunity to the property owners, should they decide to subdivide the property at some point they would go through that process. Flag lots or a shared driveway does not necessarily need to look like a flag and it would allow fewer curb cuts on Oak Brook Road. Development is down the road. Mr. Zwemke responded to Member Lal's comments and said that he struggled with the factor on the moral issue. He said that vibrant towns continue to be vibrant because they reinvent themselves over time as Mr. Butler had a vision 40 -50 years ago, and things do evolve over time. Sometimes there are better ideas than there were 50 years ago. They are trying to create the opportunity to take advantage of the great location that happens to be landlocked and borders the tollway. This is an opportunity to add more homes and hopefully a younger demographic to the town VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 15 June 15, 2015 �_ wr and as it continues to thrive becomes a better place to live. Member Lal thanked him for the clarification, but that many presumptions were made. He requested some data that was referred to as part of the presentation. Chairwoman Tropinski questioned why 6 of the original petitioners backed out of the process. Mr. Zwemke responded that a couple of the properties were sold. Mr. Kieffer added that the new owner was supportive of the request and indicated that they may be added in the future. There was some difficulty contacting the owner on Hunt Club and 31", but it was a little late to join. Mr. Zwemke said that another potential petitioner had wanted to do a more aggressive rezoning and that was not what this application was seeking. There may be others that would also like to join in. What they have now is a significant mass of people wanting to go forward. It takes a lot for people to say that they live here and would like to make it a better place. They recognize that they may live next door to a neighbor that does not want it to happen. It takes a lot to step up as they have with 9 different property owners. Member Sheers was concerned with pieces of property here and there. He would have rather seen a whole area, than lots that were picked out of people's opinions. He was not comfortable with the bits of property. Mr. Zwemke responded that they were limited with the scale. There are about 40 acres of land seeking the change out of about 65 -70 acres. When taken on a lot -by- lot basis there is a sizable critical mass. Member Sheers said that he would rather see a future plan for the lots, not just a rezoning. He questioned what it would look like after they were rezoned and there has not been any indication of that. Mr. Zwemke responded that it is a common thing for people to ask what it would look like. He noted that he has rezoned many home sites from farm property and it is common that people want to know what it is going to look like, but first you get the zoning with the authority to do something before the money is spent to design a subdivision. It is taken in steps, first the rezoning, second would be if there is a subdivision then to design a subdivision, followed by it be reviewed and finally to build. They are trying to get to first base, which is their purpose at this stage. It is not practical thing to ask 9 different property owners to do a subdivision design and then ask what the houses would look like. They are asking the Commission to follow the process that they would as if it were a 40 -acre farm in the middle of town. The steps they are taking are the same as they would be on that kind of property. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 15 June 15, 2015 Chairwoman Tropinski said considering the LaSalle factor that refers to the suitability of the property for the zoned purposes. She was having a hard time trying to understand what was trying to be done and how suitable it would be without seeing some kind of plan. Whether it would be done or not, there has to be some kind of idea. As an architect, she could not go to a client and tell them she has an idea for them. They will respond with show me what it would look like. She would like to see some idea of how it would be accomplished. There are large parcels of property, some of which are disjointed that appear to have no relationship to the other properties. What would be the benefit and why would it be suitable to rezone the properties. Mr. Zwemke offered to bring back sketches. He did note that there are individually property owners and he did not anticipate everyone going into a joint venture to develop the properties. The sketch they would provide would address ingress and egress and flag lots so that the Commission could see an example. He understood that everyone would like to see what it would look like. Mr. Kieffer suggested looking at the whole piece of land from York Road to I -294 and from 31" to Canterberry Land is a total of 80 acres. From York Road east approximately 660 feet going south to Canterberry totals approximately 20 acres. The remainder of the parcels going east totals 60 acres. The 20 acres is R -1 zoning and less. Initially, in 1940, the one owner of the complete block split the land into 3.8 -acre parcels. Two were 3.2 acres in area because it did not work out with the arithmetic. There are no roads splitting up the 80 acres, it is all one block. In a manner of succession the 20 acres was zoned R -1 or less. There was a 2 -acre minimum for approximately 40+ years. Their petition is the hardship on the surrounding area. Looking at the complete Village, they are isolated because of their zoning compared to the rest of the Village, which should be considered. They have a certified appraisal that states if these lots were zoned 1 acre, the land value would probably double. That is their hardship because they are finding a difficulty in selling the bigger parcels because 90 percent of the town is 1 acre or less and they are held to the standard of 2 acres. In today's market, people do not want the big lots. They are buying 1 -acre lots and are passing by the 2 acre lots. They put up nice sized homes on the R -2 lots, which everyone can see by driving down York Road. Dr. Jafari has been a 40 -year Oak Brook resident and has many property investments in Oak Brook. Nine (9) out of 16 lots are asking for the rezoning. Even though they are more than 2 -acre lots, the Commission would like to see how they enter and egress. His lots at 313 Oak Brook Road and 314 Canterberry Road are back to back together. He separated them for sale and no one bought them. The realtor suggested that they combine them for a nice presentation and maybe someone would buy both. They made a nice design that was on the market for a long time and did not sell. The hardship is not being able to sell the property. Currently, the lot on Oak Brook Road shares a driveway with the next -door neighbor, so it may not need another driveway. He could add an exit onto Canterberry, which could be presented to the board. He invests a lot in land and he firmly believes that any owner can make the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 15 June 15, 2015 best use of his land. Dr. Akshay Thaker, 104 Canterberry Lane and said that her hardship she had one son and there were no neighbors close by and no one for him to play with. She also misses not having neighbors close by. They have wonderful neighbors but you do not see them or talk to them. If the houses were closer, it would be good to have a neighbor in an emergency. Elizabeth Buffardi, 110 Oak Brook Road and has been an Oak Brook resident, on and off for 40 years. She grew up in Oak Brook. Their lot is 2.5 acres and when she grew up her monr always cut the grass herself and then there were kids in York Woods who made a lot of money cutting everyone's grass; however, kids today do not do that. They grew up in an island of sorts as most of the neighbors were much older than her parents with kids that were grown and out of the house. It would have been nice to have kids closer in age and closer in distance. She was told that one of the objections was that if they subdivided the lots it would change the flavor of the neighborhood. In response, her former neighbors moved in and had 5 kids, which completely changed the dynamic of their microcosm, which was to their benefit. Suddenly there were babysitting opportunities and kids to play with. When they were growing up people had nice houses and pretty yards and now on York Road it is McMansion central, which has totally changed the flavor of the community and looks ridiculous. Oak Brook used to be a horse friendly community. She was told that hoses are no longer allowed on Canterberry Lane and they cannot use the underpass to cross into the forest preserve. There is a little blue house at 3207 York Road has been for sale for $900,000. It is a 3 bedroom 2 bathroom house with a two -car detached garage, has not been lived in for years, and is being sold, as is, which is basically a tear down. The house at 116 Oak Brook Road is a 4 bedroom, at least 4 bathrooms with an attached 3 -car garage and was originally listed at $1.295 million and sold for $1.060 million, which is a difference of 18 percent. The difference between the 2 lots is one acre. The price differential for the acreage is that the property on York Road is $842,155 per acre. The house next door to her sold for $489,127 per acre. She questioned how you could have a house that is a tear down almost in line with a house that is in beautiful condition on a bigger lot. The answer is that no one wants to take care of that big lot anymore. Most people moving into the area are dual income families. They do not have the time to keep up with a large yard. It is a huge expense for a landscaper to cut 2 acres or more. She was told that another objection was that it would create a donut hole in the properties. She disagreed and said that to her knowledge, no one has actual plans to subdivide at this time, and they are just looking for the option. She believes the prices of the land and the houses would increase immensely if she could sell her property as 2 lots. She respectfully asked the Commission to consider the request. They are not looking to subdivide at this time, just for the option. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 15 June 15, 2015 Member Wilezak said that one of the properties was listed on the market that it could be subdivided and he said not to mislead because there is intention to subdivide the properties. Also, the property located at 3207 York has not sold. There is intent, which is why everyone is here. Ms. Buffardi responded that the 3207 property was made an offer of over $800,000 that was refused. Member Wilezak added that these owners could get much more for their property if it could be subdivided. Ms. Buffardi agreed, but that it would be beneficial for all of them to have the option. At the present time, she does not have any intention of selling or moving, but if someone came to her at some point, it would be great if it were allowed. Nicole Kieffer, 107, 115 Oak Brook Road noted that looking at the entire Village, the R -1 zoned properties are definitely not the majority. The hardship and the intention is that they want the ability to subdivide in order to sell. She said that financing is very different today than it was back then. In the last year, there were 13 lots for sale in the irmnediate area and the market time was 221 days, when the typical market time is 3 -6 months. It is taking time and people take a large hit when they do sell. The large lots are selling for a lot less than or just as much as the 1 -acre lots. It is not so much about malting money or changing the demographic, it is more of getting what the land is really worth. You cannot do anything with these lots when they are 3.66 acres. So, you would have a 2 -acre parcel and then a 1.66 -acre parcel that you do not have a use for, if you are trying to sell it or build another home. She did not understand how there are all the flag lots permitted on York, but not willing to look at it for everyone else behind them. When Mr. Butler came, it was all farm country and they wanted to bring more families into the area, which is how Ginger Creek and York Woods got started. It was their intention to bring a school in with kids and families. They feel like they are the last part of the old Oak Brook, not the new up and coming Oak Brook. Her daughter attends Brook Forest school, she talked to many parents who were in the market for homes, and they want nothing to do with a 2 -acre lot. Everyone is busy these days with the kids and running around because the times have changed from the time when she was little. Many of the applicant's are going into retirement age and cannot take care of the lots themselves, which they have done over the last 40 years. They also do not want to spend their retirement income on landscaping. They are looking for the opportunity to have the option to move these properties into new families with kids running around and going to the schools. It is a rough plan right now because no one has the plan. It's difficult to draw something up when you don't think you have that option is a waste of time, which is why they started here to talk to the Commission to see if it could be approved. Nancy Carrino, Berkshire Hathaway, Hinsdale, Illinois. She was the listing agent for 305 Oak Brook Road, which she had on the market for at least 2 years. It had VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 15 June 15, 2015 been previously listed by another agent at a higher price prior to her listing. Several people interested in the property. It was a beautiful property on 3.8 acres. It was an unusual home with an indoor pool and was actually like a resort. There were a couple of offers that were a little lower. It sold in October and was listed for $2.249 and sold it for $2.2 million to a family from Ireland that felt it was like their home. However, he now is interested in the possibility of subdividing it. She understood the reasoning for seeking the rezoning in order to get the value out of the property. As far as Butler and the old Oak Brook, this was like old Oak Brook at one time, but actually, where Butler lived and all his property is now considered old Oak Brook and is a subdivision. His property was not kept as a nostalgia area and is now a subdivision. The neighbors are not looking to make subdivisions out of it, but would like to have the opportunity and it would let other family's come in. Today's family is different. Years ago, people would have tennis courts and pools, but now people go to country clubs and fitness centers. They work all day and do not want to come home and maintain these homes and property. They want to enjoy their families and go other places. Frederick Cappetta, attorney, represented the owners of 203 Oak Brook Road, 200 Canterberry Lane, and 200 Canterberry Lane, Dr & Mrs. Elias Sabbagha, Dr & Mrs. Ken Cadido, and Nick Castaldo. He noted that also present were objectors that he did not represent, Jane Christman of 400 Canterberry and Rosemarie Okmark of 416 Canterberry. He stated that it was his understanding that Ms Barolomei and Mr. & Mrs. Laban of 117 Oak Brook Road also object to the Petition. He said that zoning ordinances are designed to create permanent conditions throughout a city or village to take care of the problems of the present, as well as those of the future; to the extent, they can be reasonably anticipated. The purpose of statutory zoning authority is to ensure that adequate light, air, and safety from fire and other dangers may be secured. That the taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the municipality may be conserved. That congestion in the public streets may be lessened or avoided, and that hazards to persons and damage to property resulting from the accumulation or run off from storm or flood waters may be lessened or avoided, that the public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare may otherwise be promoted, and to ensure and facilitate the preservation of sites, areas and structures of historical, architectural and aesthetic importance. To achieve those purposes, the municipal corporate authority has the power granted to it by State Statute of the State of Illinois to divide the municipality into districts of such numbers, shape and area, and have such different classes according to the use of land and buildings, height and bulk of buildings, intensity and use of lot area, area of open space, and other classifications as may be deemed best suited to carry out the purposes of the corporate authority. They also have the power to prohibit uses, buildings or structures incompatible with the character of districts established under the zoning statute. A zoning ordinance should describe with certainty the area in which the particular restrictions are applicable. Zoning is done by districts and not by individual pieces VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 15 June 15, 2015 —VA V-; of property. Zoning districts are created to permit stability, without districts, one might build a house in one location, and the person next to you could build an industrial plant or factory with heavy traffic and 24 -hour noise. We can all appreciate what chaos would follow. Further, order is necessary to stabilize the value of real estate, it is important that the uses are predictable. If the owner of the property has no assurance as to the stability of the zoning in his area, the value of his property will be detrimentally affected. To permit different uses of property, districts are generally abutted one to the other in ways that the borders will not be abjectly horrible to each other. There is a place for a factory or a manufacturing facility, but it should be more likely adjacent to a warehousing district, which could in turn border a commercial or business district, which in turn could border multi - family districts, which could border single family district and then less dense single family districts, etc. The point is that simply allowing scattered use of the property will promote chaos and cause property to be valued at its lowest price point. The State Zoning Act provides that corporate authorities and municipalities, which desire to exercise powers conferred by the Illinois Zoning Statutes, provide for a zoning commission with a duty to recommend the boundaries of districts and appropriate regulations to be enforced therein. Pursuant to the laws by which we are empowered to zone, the fundamental building blocks of zoning are districts. Communities zone themselves to attract what they perceive as the most beneficial mix of uses. Oak Brook was initially designed with roughly 1/3 in open space, 1/3 in commercial, and 1/3 in residential. Oak Brook does not have a public transit system serving the broader community and does not have a downtown. Oak Brook intentionally and wisely organized itself around a Regional Shopping Center and zoned land to attract corporate headquarters surrounded by high value real estate. That distinguishes Oak Brook from Naperville. They are different and have different goals and standards. Naperville is 40 miles away from a large Metropolitan District. It has less expensive land, which, is served by a regional train that links it directly to the central business District of Chicago. Naperville has recently acceded to developer desires for higher density, to reduce the cost of land per unit of housing and provide more economical dwelling units for its city bound working population. Each goal is proper and particular to itself. People settle in the River North area of Chicago in multi - family high -rise units because they want accessibility and facilities within the city including public transportation to the central business district. People settle in Oak Brook because they want to settle in a residential community that is well spaced and aesthetically pleasing strategically located at the intersection of major interstate highways leading away in all four directions. People settle in the city of Chicago in the non - business district because they want single family or multi - family dwellings with reasonably available public transportation to the central business district. People settle in VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 I of 15 June 15, 2015 Barrington because they are willing to accept well and septic in lieu of city water and sewer, and have open residential land that might have some equestrian value within 40 miles of a major metropolitan community. The point is that different areas are developed for different purposes to suit different needs and to please different people. Whatever the reason or cause when somebody comes to an area, once they invest in that community, they have a reasonable right and expectation that the zoning classes will generally conform so that their property values will not negatively be impacted by inconsistent adjacent uses. Zoning changes are not properly precipitated by simply the desire to achieve more money. Increasing the housing density permissible within a defined plot of land will to a great extent increase the specific value of that land, but not the value of adjacent improved land. The adjacent land will decrease in value. If a person is willing to spend $150,000 on a plot to build a house, then the more plots of land to build a house that occurs within a defined acreage will result in increased value. Increasing individual value of specific land is not a proper goal of a zoning ordinance. Once the corporate authorities decide on their desire and future vision for the land and facilities within its corporate limits, a Comprehensive Plan is established and published and it is the duty of the Plan Commission and ZBA to guide the Village to its proper execution. It is not the function of the committees of the Village Board to overturn or debase the adopted Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance. To help understand the comprehensive plan and its place in our community, he asked Joe Abel, who has been a Land Planner for 50 years. He asked him to compare the Oak Brook Ordinance with the current petition. He asked him to point out where the petition violates the ordinance. He noted that one petition had been filed for $2100 not 12 separate petitions. He saw it as a single petition. He believed Mr. Abel's insight would be helpful in arriving at a meritorious conclusion. Joseph Abel, Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Consultant, 200 Forest Avenue, Glen Ellyn, Illinois said that he has been doing this for 50 years. He said that he was very familiar with Oak Brook. He worked on many projects as a junior Planner in Oak Brook Their firm designed the entire plan for Oak Brook for Mr. Butler. Ile was in on the ground floor. Oak Brook has maintained the original concept that Mr. Butler had for Oak Brook. He was the Director of Planning for DuPage County for 17 years. He said that Mr. Butler's vision was that it was to be primarily a single - family, low - density residential area, which should include also sizes of single family. His first lot size was R -1, which is why a number of areas are set aside as R -1. The VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 15 June 15, 2015 `-46 predominate amount of land would be R -2 and R -3 lots. If was said was true in regards to large lots, then Barrington Hills and Lake Barrington would soon be ghost towns. DuPage County does not have many R -1 areas left. Most communities, such as Naperville he fought to keep as many of the large lot areas as possible in the southern portion. Because it has the trains to the city they wanted to be a big city, they did not want to be a small town and decided to get rid of it. Oak Brook is in a unique position of having one of the few areas that have sustainable R -1 zoning classification. When you have a lot that is close to 3.8 acres there are ways of maybe adjusting some lots through a variation process. To wholesale and take the lots and rezone them, is really spot zoning. Arbitrarily taking the lots, the people that bought the lots knew when they bought the lots that if they wanted to be in an area where they could sit on the front porch to talk to neighbors should have bought a house in Carol Stream or something. There are places in DuPage County that have new town concepts where the houses are closer to the sidewalk, there are porches, which is a movement that started about 10 years ago, but is a movement for certain types of people. He has never used the approach proposed by the applicant, that would just say give me a chance, maybe I will develop my property, and maybe I will not. That does not give the people that bought there and want to be there. Many are there because they want to be there and like the area the way that it is. He did the entire comprehensive rezoning for DuPage County. Rezoning districts are a science and an art, and there are concepts. One is that you should try to make an area as large as possible and you do not disturb it by adding little spots here and there. He is not in favor of flag lots, which he thinks is an abuse of good land planning principles. If these areas are going to be redesigned down to one acre it would dramatically change the area. There is a concept of physical density. People want a predictable density perception for the area they live in. Right now, they know what they have. If someone said maybe someday in the future there might be five homes, they would want to know if they would be in front, in the back or next to their house. As far as landscaping, there is natural landscaping. There are many trees in the area, so it is not all grass. People living in an estate area, should be able to afford a landscaper, if they cannot afford it then buy a house in a smaller lot. Everyone has to determine what they want for themselves. This is a complete zoning district. This is not yet before the Zoning Board where the LaSalle factor play a role. This is more about the Comprehensive Plan, what did the Village want in this area over the years, and the plan has not changed. This area is in Planning District 3, which is the Fullersburg Woods district. There is a character that this property falls into. The Comprehensive Plan recommends density. For a person already living in that area it is important for them that the intent of the ordinances adopted to the end that value of land and structures throughout the Village may be conserved. This area, where people have made an investment, which should be predictable, should have to worry about being surrounded by 2 or 3 other structures sometime in the future, without any due process. With the property rezoned it would only need to go through a subdivision review no a notification process. Although, it is not talking about condominiums or townhomes, it is an estate area so there will be some congestion associated. The ordinance also states that you regulate and limit the intensity of the use of lot areas. These lots are going to VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 15 June 15, 2015 f.� -r.' explode and we do not know how. The ordinance says to provide for the gradual elimination of structures and uses, which are incompatible with the character of the district in which they are located. This would be doing just the opposite, which would put incompatible uses, which are incompatible with the character of the existing area in this district. It is important for Plan Commissions to think about the big picture. There are good established R -1 zoning classifications, which were planned that way and should not arbitrarily be decimated. The Commission needs to worry about setting a precedent. Mr. Cappetta reviewed the request to rezone 11 lots, which allow for 11 units. If permitted the 11 could become 31 in the same area. It would be creating islands of R -2 zoning in the middle of an R -1 District, which is not in accord with the ordinance, or Comprehensive Plan. It would essentially be condemning this R -1 district to ultimate extinction and would be signaling that Oak Brook has changed its vision and other R -1 districts, upon which Oak Brook was founded, may not now be sacrosanct. The violation of the zoning District is unhealthy, wrong, and in contravention of the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. He filed a written response to the statutory factors required by the ordinance and he believes the petitioners failed to state a prima facia case to support his petition. He commented on 2 of the factors that he believes were missed entirely. e. The length of time under the existing zoning that the property has remained unimproved, considered in the context of land development: All of the petitioning parcels are improved except 1 parcel (313). The petitioner parcels are not unimproved. Eight of the parcels have been improved for over 45 years. One parcel has been improved for 21 years and one parcel has been improved for 11 years. The current R -1 Zoning has not prevented or hindered the parcels fi•om being improved. They want to cut off a portion of their lot to get another lot out of it. i. The community need for the use proposed by the property owner: The Petitioners' response is non - responsive to the factor. The community does not need more R -2 zoning. The Village currently has a very well thought out mix of R -1, R -2, and R -3 zoning. To change the zoning of a few parcels contained within an existing R -1 District to create a few more R -2 parcels is not something needed by the community. He asked that the Commission members politely, but firmly enforce the Comprehensive Plan and recommend against this misguided petition. He believed the petitioners efforts have gone awry and they are making requests of the wrong community. Their effort to increase their individual property values at the expense of their neighbors and the Village is inappropriate and is ill advised. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 15 June 15, 2015 Mr. Zwemke said that he appreciated the comments, but would work on the vocabulary to use more powerful words like explode and condemn. He did not think they had that kind of situation here. He said that they would respond to the Commission as requested regarding the facts about property values and examples of how it would look. They did not see the rebuttal in writing until tonight and would like to respond to that. He felt very uncomfortable about the comment that it would turn 11 lots into 31 lots. As he indicated in the beginning, the residents do not have the inclination of knocking down their house and subdividing it to become the maximum yield lots. They would like to supplement around the existing structures. They do not see 11 equals 31; they are talking about having a family member. He understood the Comprehensive Plan, but as Mr. Kieffer pointed out, this was originally an 80 -acre farmland and farms long ago were multiples of 80 acres. The lots along York Road turned out nice (R -2) and the property owners that are adjacent to them (R -1) could question if they could add another lot, As a Village ages they need to reinvent themselves. There will be redevelopment opportunities, if not this parcel, it may be other parcels with people looking at a new trend or desire to have less work around the house. They would like to come back to answer the opponents and the questions that were raised by the Commission. Chairwoman Tropinski said that the case is due for further discussion and an example of how they would subdivide the property. Member Doyle motioned, seconded by Member Lal to continue the hearing to allow the applicant to respond. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. Member Sheers voted nay. 6. OTHER BUSINESS OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. There was no other general public comment. 7. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Lal, seconded by Member Wilezak, to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: /s/ Robert L. Kallien Jr. Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 15 June 15, 2015