Loading...
Minutes - 01/16/2006 - Plan CommissionMINUTES OF THE JANUARY 16, 2006 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON JANUARY 30, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Regular 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 7:32 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Members Paul Adrian, Raju Iyer, Gopal Lalmalani, Moin Saiyed, Marcia Tropinski and Gerald Wolin IN ATTENDANCE: Jeffrey Kennedy and Robert Sanford, Trustees, Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development, Margaret O'Connell, Assistant Village Attorney, Dale Durfey, Village Engineer, James Bodony, Fire Chief. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 2005 Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Iyer to approve the minutes of the December 19, 2005, Regular Plan Commission meeting as written and waive the full reading thereof. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. Chairwoman Payovich advised the audience of the procedures that we be followed at this meeting. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. BREAKENRIDGE WOODS LLC — APPROXIMATELY 57 ACRES OF VACANT PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF 35TH STREET AND EAST OF ROUTE 83 — MAP AMENDMENT — TO REZONE PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY FROM R -1 TO R -2 AND R -3 Chairwoman Payovich addressed the procedures to be followed for the meeting. Frederick Cappetta, Cappetta & Associates, Ltd., attorney represented several objectors to the proposed development. He is representing the owners of more than VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 27 January 16, 2006 CALL TO ORDER MINUTES UNFINISHED BUSINESS BREAKENRIDGE WOODS LLC - M AMENDMENT- REZONE PORTIO OF THE PROPER FROM R -1 TO I AND R -3 20% of the frontage immediately adjoining the subject property and 20% of the owners with frontage directly opposite the subject property. On January 12, 2006 pursuant to the Illinois Compiled Statutes, they filed a protest with the Village clerk that will demand that the Village act on this matter with a super majority only when it is before the Village Board. It does not effect the conduct of the Plan Commission, but he wanted to advise the Commission that a protest has been filed. In addition to those parties, he also represents every homeowner whose private property immediately adjoins the subject property. Every approved improved lot owner on 35 th Street and the balance of all occupied homes except for one, in Breakenridge Farm not previously mentioned, with the sole exception of one lot owner, which is IBLP, who owns a lot inside of Breakenridge Farm. Except for 3 legal non - conforming lots and six vacant parcels he represents the balance of all the owners, which comes to 60 people. Additionally, he represents the two homeowner associations that are within the R -1 District. They are the Breakenridge Homeowners Association and the Fullersburg Woods Area Association. He also represents an unincorporated association, which has adopted the name "Preserve Oak Brook." They conducted an opposition petition throughout the Village resulting in 1,072 signatures of residents who are opposed to the development including 105 signatures from Hunter Trails and Old Oak Brook and 730 non - Fullersburg residents from essentially every residential development in Oak Brook. He provided the exhibits that were not attached to his response. Exhibit I is the zoning map; Exhibit J is a 36" x 24" address map of the Village with each objector's address highlighted; and Exhibit K is a copy of the citizens' petitions (93 pages). Virtually every adjacent property owner as well as all property owners in the entire quadrant has objected to the Village's approval of the petitioner's proposal. The residents are requesting that the Village deny the petitioner's request for zoning changes from R -1 to R -2 and R -3. It is their desire that the Plan Commission take a vote at this meeting in whatever way they deem appropriate. Without a vote, the matter is prolonged and significantly increases the cost to the homeowners. The homeowners do not have an economic interest in the success of the development. Their expenses for an attorney and other experts are not part of a business motive, are not deductible and will not be offset against future profits so for that reason that have requested an up or down vote at this meeting. Callaghan's proposal requests that 44 home sites be approved on the 57 acres. That is approximately 21 more home sites than the existing zoning would allow. A short drive up and down Adams Road as well as 35th Street establishes that the area is very special to Oak Brook. The fact that so much of this area has been developed over the years with 2 -acre zoning and is likely to continue, causes one to ask, why would anyone allow 21 more homes than current zoning allows to be created on this dead end street? The developer's own traffic study says that the proposed development will cause over 240 more car trips per day up or down 35th Street than would be VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 27 January 16, 2006 expected in an R -1 development. The people who live there have made substantial investments over the years based upon 2 -acre zoning. They say that the Village of Oak Brook has every reason not to allow those extra homes. In fact, these residents believe that the reason they elected our Village officials is to protect their special place from needlessly being "over developed ". To allow for 240 extra traffic trips per day on these rural streets, or to require the village services (Police, Fire, and Schools) for 21 extra homes rather than allow the historic development momentum that has and will continue in this quadrant is a tremendous mistake. This property is in a location where 2 -acre zoning works. Substantial homes with maximum green spaces have resulted. A large tax base with reduced demand (per acre) for village services as well as fewer traffic trips per day has evolved and serves this area quite nicely. If, as requested, the rezoning is not allowed, the property will be developed consistent with the historic density of the quadrant without the undue burden of an additional 21 homes on a dead end street. The subject parcel is not an isolated parcel and should not be compared to isolated parcels of real estate elsewhere. The situation should not be equated and compared to independent scattered sites. The subject parcel is an integral indivisible part of an already substantially developed district. The 207 acre R -1 District in Oak Brook is made up of 18 acres of forest preserve, 53 acres of vacant land, 79 acres of improved lots and the subject 57 acres. The subject property is the final piece of an existing 207 acre parcel in the R -1 District. It is proper for the Village to require the final 57 acre part of the 207 acre parcel to be developed in accordance with the existing zoning district and comprehensive plan that has governed the development of the R -1 District since its inception in 1966. The adjacent 79 improved acres have been developed in reliance upon the stability of the zoning district. People have invested their money in that property in the belief that this is the way this area would be developed. The existing residents of the adjacent 79 improved acres had and continue to have a right to expect that the last 57 acres of this district be developed with the same standards that existed when the first three - quarters, 150 acres of the R -1 District were developed. There are 42 lots covering 79 adjacent acres that share the R -1 District that have already been developed over the past 40 years as 2 -acre zoning. The existing residents have a bond with the Village, and a vested right to expect, that the unique rural character of their area will not be arbitrarily changed and they have a rightful expectation to have the property developed in accord with the Village standards and zoning. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 27 January 16, 2006 Residents within the District have purchased and developed the land they live on because of the unique qualities that the landscape, the Village, and the community provide. The R -1 District involved is one of the oldest in Oak Brook (1966) and is the site of some of the largest and most luxurious homes in Oak Brook. The residents who have developed property in accord with the. zoning classification have a bond with the Village and rightfully expect the Village to maintain the zoning classification. All of the properties in this R -1 district including the 57 subject acres are wooded, with water and changes of elevation of up to 75 feet. The developer's inference that other property in the Village is or has been permitted to be changed to more dense use is misleading. The examples sited, Forest Gate, Hunter Trails, Old Oak Brook, and Trinity Lakes are very different from the subject property because the other parcels have access to roads that support a more dense use. Hunter Trails, Forest Gate, and Trinity Lakes are serviced by a 4 lane arterial road with a stop light at the entrance and an additional access points for secondary roads at each of those subdivisions. Old Oak Brook is serviced by a major thoroughfare. The subject property however is only located on a local dead end street to service it. The dead end street enhances the ambiance of the 2 -acre zoning, which the residents love, but it cannot support a more dense use than the use it is currently zoned for. In its presentation, the petitioner suggested that 2 -acre zoning on Route 83 does not exist because of the influence of Route 83 (65,000 daily traffic count trips per day) for 24 miles north and 7 miles south of the subject property. That is misleading because all but one of the involved communities listed by the petitioner does not have 2 -acre zoning anywhere in their communities, not at Route 83 or away from Route 83. It is the zoning plan of these communities that leaves them without 2 -acre zoning, not the influence of Route 83. 2 -acre and larger estate zoning can be found in a few unique communities such as Oak Brook, Barrington Hills, and Riverwoods. Each of the communities also has busy roads akin to Oak Brook's Route 83. Oak Brook also has 2 -acre zoning along I -294. Barrington Hills, with 5 -acre zoning has Route 59, Route 62, Route 68 and Route 14. South Barrington has 5 -acre and 2 -1 /2 acre zoning on Route 62 and some of each on Route 59 and Route 72. Those are all very busy roads. Riverwoods has 1.8 acre zoning on Deerfield Road and Green Oaks has 2 -acre zoning along I -294. It is not because you cannot have 2 -acre zoning on Route 83, because we do not have it in this area; it is because those communities don't have it. If you go farther north to Barrington you will find these communities that have 2 -acre zoning. (See Exhibit A, Index #19 of the case file) Adoption of Callaghan's proposal would result in the Village and School District suffering a doubling in the burden for schools, traffic, and police in exchange for only a 25% increase in tax revenue over that which would be received if the property remained zoned as R -1. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 27 January 16, 2006 Oak Brook does not have a statute that talks about net developable land, some communities do. However, Oak Brook has a procedure, generally speaking, that when they are working with water detention, that they like to aggregate the water detention on the specific lots because they do not want it spread throughout the community and when they have a failure of the ground water system there is no way to enforce it. The procedure has where possible, that enforced by Oak Brook to bring the retention into single areas, try to get a homeowners association to be responsible for it and in that way they can control the water that is going over the top of the ground. When they do that, that water detention area generally does not count in the acreage for the lots. Using the calculation previously filed by the petitioner, when they filed their initial application that included the plat of subdivision. Subsequently, the application they filed included a concept plan. Presuming their computations were correct at that time, they reserved 3.55 acres for water detention on their original plan. In addition to that there is an issue about how much land would a road consume. There are many exceptions in Oak Brook, where the land inside a road counts toward the acreage within the lot and there are many exceptions. However, using the statute and just the size of the lots as provided, there would be a 66 -foot right of way and a 27 -foot pavement. Following the original route of the Callaghan looped street, which was a wonderful idea, would consume 8.8 acres. There would be 45.46 acres would be left, allowing for 2 -acre lots, there would be 23 lots. If you look at gross acreage there could be 28 lots. What is being reviewed is a concept plan. This is shown as Exhibit B on Index # 19 of case file. Using the Callaghan Financial Impact Study, and using the same lots and sizes as provided by the petitioner, allowing for 44 lots, results in a proposed accessed value of $161 million. The assumptions seem appropriate. Allowing for 23 lots, and using the same calculations the proposed assessed value would be $128 million. The comparison of the two is a difference of $33 million. The 44 lots provide only a 26% increase in valuation over the 23 lots in the assessed valuation. The benefit for the extra homes is only 26 %, not twice as much as would be expected, however the burden on the village with 44 homes is twice as much as would be for 23. (See Exhibit C on Index # 19 of the case file) Twice the number of houses means twice the number of potential school children, twice the number of cars and twice the demand for police and other Village services. But twice the number of houses on smaller lots only produces a 26% increase in tax revenue. The developer's "economic impact study" as presented, attempted to demonstrate to the reader that this development was economically beneficial to Oak Brook. If the proper question were asked however, one would get a different outcome. That is, if the rezoning was not granted and the property developed with 2 -acre zoning, how would that economic result compare to the proposed development's economic impact. Fewer homes, 23 or so, similar to Breakenridge Farm, would almost equal the tax VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 27 January 16, 2006 base with less demand on Village resources with less traffic to contend with, resulting in a significantly better result to the community and the surrounding neighborhood. The traffic in an already slightly strained rural area would be greatly worsened by the development of the proposed 44 homes versus the currently allowed 23 homes. The traffic demand that would be brought upon 35th Street by the development of 44 homes instead of 23 homes represents a dramatic traffic increase. The development of 23 homes over a half a dozen years would put moderate strain on the local street (35th Street) that leads into the development. The development of 44 units on the street is a matter of substantially greater significance. The petitioner had a traffic study included in his documents and he had taken some of the figures out of that. He has selected the ones that he wanted to call to the attention of the Plan Commission. (See Exhibit D, which is Index #19 of the case file) He reviewed the trip generation. By having 44 homes instead of 23 homes there is 21% greater traffic generated in this area, than what would have otherwise been there. The daily trips increase if allowed to be developed with 44 homes will increase the trips generated by 91 %. Construction traffic to build 23 homes on the subject property would be significant on the local street (35th Street). Construction traffic to build 44 homes on the same property would result in almost twice the traffic. The traffic issues will impact not only 35th Street but also Adams, Spring, Madison, Ogden and York roads. 35th Street is currently developed as an 18 -foot wide dead end street, which is adequate for the nine lots that exist on that street. The residents love their 18 foot pavement and country lane atmosphere and the local dead end street could probably tolerate 23 additional residences with only some strain, but 44 homes would require widening 35th Street and suggest a second access point for the new subdivision. There is no hardship that the owner or developer suffers by not being permitted to change the zoning. The only owner and developer interest at stake is economic. While both the owner and developer obviously believe that they could reap more profit from more lots, no demonstrable hardship befalls them if they are required to develop under existing zoning laws. The proposal represents a significant increase, a doubling of burdens upon the school district, fire, police and municipal service when compared to the 23 lots that current zoning would permit. The proposal therefore detracts from the health, safety and general welfare of the public when compared to its present use or current zoning. Why would the Village for similar revenue suffer twice the school impact, twice the traffic, and twice the demand upon police and fire services and other municipal VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 27 January 16, 2006 services? The proposed zoning change will additionally generate a loss to the public in terms of the habitat. The impact of ground water upon adjoining property, the ravine, Spring Road, and ultimately Salt Creek are significant and are not planned for adequately. The flooding potential includes the potential of flooding Spring Road between Adams and Madison which has been a significant problem in the past and has been remediated to the extent of current demand but no provision for the future additional load was provided in that remediation; so we would be back to flooding Spring Road. The Comprehensive Plan unequivocally describes the subject property to be and to remain R -1. The final paragraph from the Summary of the Oak Brook Comprehensive Plan at page 43 says, "As a community, the Village of Oak Brook is nearing its maximum developable ability. Care now must be taken to avoid higher- density land use that might be a deterrent to the genteel, rural atmosphere of the village. Careful planning will allow Oak Brook to maintain its reputation as a trend - setter for the entire DuPage County." The Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Oak Brook was adopted in June 1969 and amended February 1973, May 1975, and June 1990. All of the Plans designated the subject property as Single Family Residential. The Plan states at page 55 that the General Objectives include the objective to maintain the low - density character of the Village and preserve a maximum amount of open space. At page 57 the Plan states, "Encourage the improvement of the streams and creeks, namely Salt Creek and Ginger Creek and other tributaries, which pass within the Oak Brook Village limits" and "Preserve the flood plain lands for open space use and ensure that further development complies with the characteristics of the environment so that stream flow and underground water of satisfactory quality will continue to be available." At page 58 the Plan includes Residential Objectives to: "Maintain the quality and open rural character of Oak Brook as the population grows to optimum density and maintain stability and balance in the present zoning classification districts." The Plan states on page 21, says, "The survey and analysis of Oak Brook's land use patterns is best undertaken through a consideration of the planning districts within the Village. "Each planning district has been delineated on the basis of special physical and governmental boundaries, functional land use areas, physical conditions, and other similar considerations." That portion of Planning District 3 that includes and adjoins the property has been designated for R -1 (2 -acre minimum lot size) Single Family residential development. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 27 January 16, 2006 The plan at page 65 says, "Open space continues to be one of the principal attractions in the Village of Oak Brook" and "The preservation of open space for environmental reasons is a paramount consideration. Sound flood plain management necessitates the preservation of existing floodway, permitting only strictly controlled development in the floodway fringe areas." The nature of the subject property, the character of the neighborhood, and the current zoning uses of the property are consistent with the comprehensive plan and the current zoning that exists on the property. On the other hand, the proposed density in the concept plan is inconsistent with the character of the area and inconsistent with President Quinlan's statement that the Village's professed interest is in maintaining, "spacious prestigious residential areas..." as stated on the Village website. The petitioner's proposal suggests a less spacious and less prestigious residential area. The parcel plays an important role in flood control and provides some of the last remaining habitat for the Village's diverse wildlife. The heavily wooded nature of the property, rolling topography, water areas, and forest preserve are physical characteristics that lend themselves to large lot estate type residential properties. A unique feature within the Fullersburg area is the Bronswood Creek Watershed, which traverses from the Forest Preserve property at the south edge of the subject property, across the subject property, then to the Fullersburg Nature Preserve, and ultimately to the Salt Creek. Dr. Warpeha wrote him a letter, which is included as Exhibit H on Index # 19 of the case file. It is a physiographic report, which provides a smattering of understanding concerning just how unique the geographic feature known as Bronswood Creek is in establishing the character of not only the subject property but of the entire Fullersburg area, which the proposed development would dramatically change. In his written presentation, while any one or two of the many technical defects pointed out may not legally prevent the proposed development and individually may be correctable, amendable or curable, the fact that they are all capable of being misunderstood suggests that the proposal is flawed on so many levels that the Village has not been provided sufficient detail to make a reasonable judgment in favor of the proposal. It is also significant to note that, the developer, even if the Village approves rezoning, has little likelihood of accomplishing the plan as proposed. Breakenridge Farm Subdivision residents will require anyone who wants to use the Breakenridge Farm private drive to get Court authority. The residents of Breakenridge Farm do not believe that the developer nor the Village has any right to use the Breakenridge Farm private drive for the new subdivision and will not consent to such VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 27 January 16, 2006 use without legal process. The drive was installed and is maintained exclusively without Village funds. The drive is not dedicated as a public road. It by its terms of creation only exists for the benefit of those whose property was used to create the drive. The drive is financially supported by the residents who object to, and do not appreciate the Village joining with the developer in the effort to usurp the property rights of the residents for the benefit of a private developer. Perhaps one of the most significant technical defects concerns the fact, that the application for rezoning does not contain a proposed Plat of Subdivision. It merely contains a concept plan and as such is not enforceable in the future. Approaching the problem as a concept instead of with a Plat leaves vast vagueness and will certainly result in misunderstanding and subsequent disputes over misconceptions. Although the developer's initial application contained a proposed plat of subdivision, the current rezoning application contains no such plat, it contains only a vague and unenforceable "site plan ". Although the Village's Zoning Code does not prevent approval of a zoning amendment, with submission of a plat of subdivision at a later date, good planning practice and he hoped that traditional Village procedure calls for the proposed plat, which must contain detailed site layout, road and utility information, to be reviewed in conjunction with the proposed zoning change. Without a proposed plat, the Village is merely reviewing a concept and not an actual development proposal. With a plan as undefined as the concept plan we have to be concerned with unintended consequences. The discussion concerning technical defects in his written response identifies actual or possible defects in the developer's proposal, some of which, without a proposed plat, cannot be evaluated. The devil is truly in the details and here, the developer has not provided nor has he committed to those important details. For this additional reason, that is lack of information, the proposed rezoning should be denied. The Village engineer in the staff report of December 13, 2005 makes significant reference to this concept plan deficiency. The existing Breakenridge Farm Subdivision is not in need of an emergency access to Breakenridge Woods. Breakenridge Farm, in fact, has access to an additional secondary private road, which it has chosen not to improve or use. The emergency road that the proposed development uses from Breakenridge Woods is solely being created because the proposed Breakenridge Woods is overly dense and does not have access to a major arterial road to service it. Maintaining proper density within the proposed development would do away with the need for a second entrance. The subject property with current zoning would be 23 lots. It could use a single entrance and not need to try to exit through the gated private drive of Breakenridge Farms, Hunter Trails or anywhere else. With 23 lots on the subject property would be much like the 22 lot subdivision of Old Oak Brook, which is serviced by a single entrance. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 27 January 16, 2006 The 23 lots as it is currently zoned could survive on a single entrance, just as Old Oak Brook survives on a single entrance. The Callaghan proposal has some good ideas. It has a berm at Route 83, the aesthetic appeal of a fancy masonry entrance, conservancy, and tree preservation, these are all wonderful; however, these good ideas would benefit a 2 -acre subdivision just as well as a 1 -acre subdivision. They do not speak of converting a 2 -acre to a 1 -acre. They talk about wonderful things that could be done in any development; they are wonderful ideas. However, this is a concept plan and these good ideas are not a commitment by the developer but merely what is now being said to achieve a zoning change. Later on, the different matters the Village may have relied upon can disappear but the more dense zoning that would be created would be left behind. He introduced three experts in the real estate field and a local real estate salesperson to provide testimony concerning critical underlying facts that support his oral argument and the written response provided. He asked each expert to present an extremely brief summary of facts that support his oral argument and written response. The qualifications of each of the expert witnesses are as follows: • Jim Gibbons, licensed as a real estate appraiser in Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri; licensed as a broker in Illinois, he is also a real estate expert with a national reputation having completed assignments in [AZ, FL, IL, IN, IO, KY, MI, MO NJ, NC OH, TN TX, and WI] in 14 states. He testifies as a qualified expert in judicial and extra judicial proceedings and has been active as a real estate professional in our market since 1969. He has attained recognition as an MAI, a recognition that is the result of education, experience and qualification. It is not simply a result of membership. • Joe Abel has a Bachelor's Degree from the University of Illinois in City and Regional Planning and has done post graduate work at University of Chicago and the University of Oklahoma. He spent 3 years as a Planner for the Waukegan Plan Commission. He then spent 8 years as a project director for Gardner & Assoc. where he did planning for municipalities by the way including at the time working on the Comprehensive Plan for Oak Brook. For 17 years thereafter 1970 -1987 he was the Director of the DuPage County Regional Planning Commission. For 5 years ending 1992 he was the Executive Director of the Economic Development Commission of the City of Chicago. For the past 10 years he has managed his own consulting firm specializing in Land use Planning, Site Plan and Zoning. He has acted as a consultant to the Oak Brook Park District. For the past 20 years he taught as an adjunct Professional at University of Northern Illinois in their Master of Public Administration Program. He holds more than a half dozen VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 27 January 16, 2006 distinguished certifications that are the result of education, testing, experience and are not merely memberships including the AICP designation of the American Planning Association. • Ron Lanz who has a University of Illinois Bachelors degree in Urban and Regional Planning and a masters Degree from University of Illinois in Urban & Regional Planning. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planning, recognition as a result of education, experience and qualification not simply a membership organization. He has extensive experience in land use, transportation, urban design and community development in both the pubic and private sectors. He has experience in the preparation of comprehensive master plans, land use studies, site analysis, conceptual site design, municipal planning and zoning administration. • Lori Myers of Adams & Myers Realtors has intimate knowledge of the area and of the need for R -1 property in this community and the unique marketability of the subject property. James Gibbons, President of Gibbons and Gibbons Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants, 401 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL. He was asked by Mr. Cappetta to review some documents, do research, review the subject property and make comments regarding the zoning application. The predominant adjacent uses of the neighborhood are R -1 and the subject property is part of that district. A section of the property borders R -2 at the western part and north of 35th Street. The Village of Westmont on the west side of Route 83 is not part of subject neighborhood. In his opinion it does not describe the character of the subject area. The Village of Oak Brook zoning map clearly identifies the area of neighborhood and the boundaries. The extent to which the removal of the existing limitation would depreciate the value of other properties in the area. The number of objectors indicates that there is concern for the property values in the area should the application be granted. Development under the existing zoning would result in new investment to the community. The suitability of the property for the zoning purposes. The subject area is rather unique. It is part of a larger area of R -1 land. The access road is almost rural in character on a dead end. Higher density in his opinion is not in keeping with the general character of the area. The existing uses and zoning of nearby property: The existing uses and zoning is shown on the zoning map and it clearly identifies the area as R -1. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 27 January 16, 2006 The length of time under the existing zoning that the property has remained unimproved considered in the context of land development: They have done some investigation and he could not find any active marketing of the subject land and did not see any evidence that it could not be developed or sold on the basis of its existing zoning. The relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed on the individual property owner: A development with R -1 would benefit the general area in his opinion, while not imposing any undue hardship on the owner. The extent to which the proposal promotes the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public: Development consistent with the existing zoning in the area will enhance the value of all property in the area. The community need for the use proposed by the property owner: In his opinion there is a need for 2 -acre lots based upon the existing zoning for the subject property. The existing zoning meets the community needs currently. He researched large estate type lot sales in Oak Brook and talked to four local realtors, three of which had sold the large estate lots and one that currently has a listing. Each one of them told him that they thought there would be good to excellent demand for 2 -acre lots at the subject location. Joseph Abel, 200 Forest Avenue, Glen Ellyn, Illinois said that he has been totally immersed and involved with this property for most of his total planning profession. He was with the firm of Carl Gardner and Associates, and they designed Oak Brook. He was on the planning team that did that for about 8 years. They were the consultants for the Village and did numerous works beforehand with Paul Butler. He followed this property during the entire 17 years that his was the Director of Planning with DuPage County. One of the unique things about the Comprehensive Plan for DuPage County is that it was for the entire County. It was not a plan for just the unincorporated areas; it was for the entire County including the incorporated areas. They worked closely with all of the villages. They were not allowed to take the Comprehensive Plan to the County Board for adoption until every municipality signed off on it; either through ordinance or other enabling legislation. Paul Butler happened to be one of the planning commission members so they worked very closely with the Village of Oak Brook. During that 17 year period, they updated the plan a number of times, so he is completely aware of what the long range goals and policies and vision for this area was. He left the County in 1987, and has been involved with 2 areas of planning for this property. He was hired by the homeowners to object to the Institute in Basic Life Principles proposal to rezone the property for a college campus, which was successful and the plan did not go ahead. Recently, he was hired by the DuPage County Forest Preserve District regarding the condemnation of this property. Over his 45 years of experience in planning and zoning and economic development he is very familiar with the property. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 27 January 16, 2006 He said that the staff report clearly delineates what the commission is to be involved with, which are the factors that go into whether or not this property should be rezoned. The factors within the zoning ordinance. There were a lot of nice pictures presented at the last meeting, but that is not part of this hearing or the zoning. Every one of those things should be done especially when you are developing the finishing touches on a 2 -acre estate type residential development; those are givens. He reviewed the factors. 1. Character of the neighborhood ■ The 57 acre subject property has been zoned R -1 since 1966. The existing zoning and uses in and around the property has been uniform; there has been no change. There has been an implication that the area to the north, Hunter Trail, had changed. The zoning designation changed from an old R -1 to a new R -2, but the minimum lot area stayed the same. There was not a change in land use. Hunter Trails has always been a 1 -acre zoning district. Someone testified (on behalf of the petitioner) that the subject property was a remnant parcel. This is not a remnant parcel. It was part of a well - planned 235 -acre single family estate area within Fullersburg planning district 43. ■ The subject property is surrounded on 3 sides, the east, west and south by R -1 zoning and is part of a 160 acre area located south of 35th and west of Adams that contains 2 -acre+ residential estate lots. Everything there lends itself to the character of the area. ■ 35th Street is a natural boundary, because it is a road, and the lots in Hunter Trails back up to it. It is a long term planning principle that if you are going to change zoning, it should take place at streets and rear property lines. To extend an R -2 district in a north/south linear fashion through this property goes against all planning principles; and it is duplicated by adding R -3 long narrow zoning along the western portion of the property. The front entrance for Hunter Trails is 31s' Street. The subject property borders 35th not 31St The character of this area is definitely R -1 single family estate and should not be changed. 2. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions. ■ He is not an appraiser, but there is a feeling by the people that have signed the petition that that they are going to lose the character of the area and in some way that will have an economic impact on them. The R -1 zoning does not diminish the value of the property or the adjacent properties and enhances the value by staying R -1. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 27 January 16, 2006 3. The extent to which the removal of the Existing Limitations Would Depreciate the Value of Other Property in the Area. After reviewing the petitioners answer, he believes they talk about other uses that could be developed on that property, such as schools, libraries, police stations, auditoriums, etc., and none of those uses would make any sense on this property. There is a record that when the Institute tried to put a campus in this area it was defeated. The strength of the board going on record to say that they were going to deny the petition, and maintain its status as R -1, there is not a reasonable probability of rezoning of the area. He does not believe the petitioner's list of things that could go into this area is true. The threat of higher density is not valid because it is a legitimate R -1 family estate area. 4. The suitability of the Property for Zoned Purposes This is a unique parcel and the market study that was prepared for the petitioner by Strategy Planning Associates noted the unique characteristics of the site. The report states, "The site itself is thick with trees, brush, and wildflowers, a rare attribute in DuPage County. Flagg Creek runs along the western side of the site." The study goes into surrounding land uses and talks about all of the things that make a site unique. It also states, "The site has a very secluded feel, while Route 83 a major roadway through the area runs 50 feet from the western edge of the site, the large trees that line this border maintain this feel as well as act as a noise barrier." In addition, an earth berm with extensive evergreen cover is proposed. 35th is a secluded street lined with gated subdivisions and houses that should provide the perfect proposed development. You can only come to one conclusion regarding the summary of community characteristics, etc. and that is this is a very unique piece of property within a very unique community. This is the last remaining large R- 1 piece of property in DuPage County. Almost every other R -1 area has been developed. Most of those fall within the Naperville area. Mr. Cappetta stated that the Village is unique in that it is the only area in a long area that has R -1 zoning. There is a reason for that because of the topography on the site and the vision of past planners of the community. Where else can someone who heads a corporation or whatever, which was Paul Butler's dream, to be able to live and work close to one another; to reduce the work to home relationship. The plan designates massive areas of office and research and has a commercial component. The village provides a complete range of housing types. There are more than enough areas zoned R -2 and R -3, but there are unique areas that are R -1. They both happen to be on the east side of Route 83; one on the edge of Route 83 the other on the edge of I -294. There is nothing in the report that would change other than changing the cover of the report to read, "market potential of 23 luxury single family detached buildings in an R -1 zoning classification." Everything points to why this is an excellent area for the R -1 land use. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 27 January 16, 2006 5. Existing Uses and Zoning of Nearby Properties. ■ From a planning standpoint, this is the most important element. There is the trend of development, character and existing land use. There is reference that on the west side of Route 83 there are gas stations, hotels, etc. The only use directly west of the subject property is residential; it is located at the northwest side of the property, in Westmont. Going south from there is all well- landscaped and maintained, office research development, similar to Oak Brook. There is also one area with restaurants. All of the service stations are located down to the south at Ogden Avenue and not directly west of the property. There is the 50 -foot wide strip of forest preserve along the western edge of the property and to the south end is forest preserve property and borders the entire development. The entire eastern border is up against an existing R -1 development. That is the predominant land use surrounding the property. There is nothing in the evaluation to let the Village believe that there is anything wrong with the existing zoning classification. The only area zoned R -2 is Hunter Trails, which is because of its proximity to 31St Street. There is no R -3 south of 31St in this area. R -2 and R -3 development on this property does not make sense and if entertained sets a serious precedent by setting not logical zoning delineations and doesn't make sense from a planning standpoint. 6. The Length of Time Under the Existing Zoning that the property has remained unimproved considered in the context of land development. ■ It is improved because the property owner spent time trying to develop it as a campus and then was involved with a lengthy condemnation case. For 2 -3 years it could not be sold because most developers would not buy property that is subject to a condemnation case. 7. The Relative Gain to the Public as Compared to the Hardship Imposed on the Individual Property Owner. ■ Not responded to. 8. The Extent to Which the Proposal Promotes the Health, Safety, Morals or General Welfare of the Public. The general welfare is the reason why many residents are opposing the development and protecting the general welfare of the people by having the zoning remain R -1. 9. The Relationship of the Proposed Use to the Comprehensive Plan. ■ The comprehensive plan is unique. Not many comprehensive plans read this way. The Village implements the comprehensive plan with the underlying zoning as the base map. There is no doubt that this property is in Planning VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 27 January 16, 2006 District #3. Each planning district is analyzed. The plan has not been updated, but that is because it is good and maybe does not need to be. Oak Brook is a defined area. The plan clearly shows the property being zoned R- 1. The plan should be implemented with an R -1 zoning, not R -2 or R -3. 10. Community Need for the Use Proposed by the Property Owners. This is the last large parcel of R -1 and should be protected and developed and not carved up. Ron Lanz, Land Vision, 445 East Illinois, Chicago, Illinois said that there are three primary issues. The proposed rezoning lack of conformance to the Comprehensive Plan. This piece has been zoned and designated appropriately from the Comprehensive Plan for over 40 years, as a low density single family classification. Based on his review of the site, the surrounding land uses, and the detail within the Comprehensive Plan itself, this seems to be the most appropriate classification for this property. There has been no change over the last 40 years; and there have not been any changes to the property surrounding it over the same period of time, that would justify rezoning of the property today. In the interest of preserving diversity, the zoning map has a number of residential zoning districts spread uniformly throughout the community. This property is one of the last remaining large pieces of property that maintains the unique and highly sought after classification that does not exist in any of the surrounding communities. This is the last option left to preserve this. Oak Brook is built out in its overall nature and will not be able to downzone some existing area from R -3 to R -1 in the future; it does not make sense. Holding on to this property from a planners land use perspective, as R -1 makes a lot of logical sense. The lack of a designed concept plan, which really ties everyone's hands in terms of evaluating this proposed development, in relationship to the existing land use regulations and subdivision codes. Although zoning may have a certain implication, until you see it on a plat or a detailed concept plan, which is typically provided in these instances, showing lot dimensions, overall lot coverage, setbacks and more importantly the natural setbacks such as the Bronswood Creek and the existing wetlands on the site. Without seeing those, it is impossible to know what the actual impact of this proposed development and the rezoning being requested, would actually have on the property and the community in general. They also reviewed the financial impact based on the impact study provided by the applicant and using that data, it is their assessment that $162 million assessed evaluation is what you could expect from a 44 lot development. If you use 2 -acre zoning, allowing for 23 lots, would result in $129 million in assessed valuation. For the additional 25% in overall financial gain into the community through the assessed valuation differences, the community would have an overall doubling of cost of Village services. The question becomes, do you get the additional buck for the additional bang. There is a lot more impact on the services of the Village in exchange VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 27 January 16, 2006 for a 25% increase in overall financial gain. Based on those elements, their recommendation is that the site should remain the same, as an R -1 classification. Lori Myers, Adams & Myers Realtors has been selling real estate in Oak Brook for 37 years and is very familiar with the residential real estate market. There is very little 2- acre land available. If the 57 acres on 35th Street remain R -1 the demand for the property would be significant because there are many people who are still looking for larger than 1 acre pieces. She is very familiar with 35th Street, which is a charming country lane and would be a wonderful area to sell 2 -acre parcels. It was a dream of Paul Butler's to have the great village of Oak Brook. It would be a travesty to see this dream destroyed. Mr. Cappetta said that the petitioner's request for transitional zoning on a single parcel of realty within a zoning district can be improper and poor zoning practice. While transitional zoning from zoning district to zoning district is traditional, it is improper and outside standard practice to create multiple zoning districts within a single zoning district, except as noted. The effect of achieving zoning changes within a single district is accomplished with the use of a Planned Unit Development. In Oak Brook however, PUD's are not permitted. The rationale used to separate zoning districts is accomplished by using geographic features, road systems, or political boundaries, road, rivers, borders and highways. At page 21 of the Comprehensive Plan, the plan wisely states that each planning district has been delineated on the basis of special physical and governmental boundaries, functional land use area, physical conditions and other similar considerations. Delineation of zoning districts on a proper basis does not exist in petitioner's proposal, which proposal is a single parcel of land and suggests three different zoning districts, R -1, R -2, and R -3. The zoning boundary issue within a single parcel is further complicated by the fact that a concept plan is involved and the final plat configuration can not now be discerned. See the Village engineer's comments in his staff report of December 2005. He said that you do not know what is going to happen next. The developer does not have a right to a zoning change; it is not a vested right. The petitioner does not have a vested right to a zoning change because other parcels of property, within or outside the Village, have zoning that the developer prefers, or desires, or would be more profitable to the developer. The mere existence of particular zoning elsewhere, near or far, does not in itself create a right or expectation that similar zoning must or should, as a matter of right or fairness, be granted to the developer. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 27 January 16, 2006 The Village has no obligation to grant the developer's request. Of course, changes in zoning occur and the process is set so that future generations can adjust land use and utility to fit modern times. When the planners designed Oak Brook, a unique community was designed for the times; and that design continues to be the cornerstone of Oak Brook's appeal today. The design continues to be quite relevant and suitable today. The Village has the absolute right to deny the developers proposals without fear of legal reversal so long as the Village grants due process to the developer during its deliberation. The Village has the absolute right to maintain its vision and is not required to change its standards to acclimate to the standards of other nearby Villages. In fact, zoning is a principal feature that distinguishes Oak Brook from adjacent communities and it is within the prerogative of the Village to retain and enforce 2 -acre zoning. The following persons will be incorporated into the finality of the presentation: Those parties will be Frank Krohn, Dennis Keller, Connie Templeton Keller, John Templeton, Ed Kelly, Ed Vendel, Mintu Sharma, Terry O'Malley, and some Breakenridge Farm Residents. On behalf of the respondent objectors they request that the Village of Oak Brook should deny the petitioner's request for any zoning relief and instead allow the petitioner to develop the property in accord with the existing zoning of the Village of Oak Brook which denial by the Village after a fair hearing is the absolute right of the Village. He quoted a sentence from Dr. Warpeha's note, which was incorporated into their written response as part of Exhibit H (in Index #19 of the case file). He said... "When I look at Forest Gate, an Oak Brook subdivision developed recently, I see a gate but no forest, Oak Brook's monument to urban sprawl is this the past prologue of things to come." Chairwoman Payovich said that the Commission is in agreement to let the group of people to speak that were to be included in the time requested by Mr. Cappetta; however, it is exceeding the agreed to allotment of time as requested. This will impact the amount of time available for other resident comments as well as for the applicant to respond. Frank Krohn, 1010 35th Street, said that if the Village grants the higher density zoning requested, it will effectively give him a gift of millions and millions of dollars to his bottom line. This would be done contrary to the wishes and desires of over 1000 residents of Oak Brook who have signed a petition in effect saying no greater density should be allowed on that 57 acre parcel. Included in that group are about 97% of the people that are right around the development. They are almost unanimously opposed to the higher density zoning. Dennis Keller, 1155 35th Street said that he is not an expert on real estate, but is passionate about a neighborhood and a community. He was born in the community VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 18 of 27 January 16, 2006 and raised about a mile away from where he now lives. When he and his wife broke ground for their home about 8 years ago, they were secure in the knowledge that because of the 2 -acre zoning that surrounded them, they felt that they could count on the protection of the beauty and residential character of their neighborhood. They believe in the right to develop the land, but do not believe it is necessary to make the density twice of what people have counted on for many decades. They asked the Plan Commission for its help. Terry O'Malley, Breakenridge Farm President, said that there were 15 members of Breakenridge Farm in the audience and he would make a statement on their behalf. Currently federal law requires that an emergency road be the shortest and safest route available. The Breakenridge Farm route proposed by this plan clearly is a farther route than coming through Hunter Trails, which would be the safest and shortest route. He is not recommending going through Hunter Trails, because they are objecting to that as well and they are concerned that the safest and shortest route would be looked at. The other issue is that approval of the easement requires 100% of the land owners to sign off on the release of their easements for the road. The number of lots and requirements should be something that is in the area with the safety regulations and it is not totally clear to the Breakenridge Farm Association what that number is. They are asking that the Plan Commission turn down the current plan. It does not meet the required standards and in the early stages of development they were not aware of an access road through Breakenridge Farm; these are private easements for the residents that live there. John Templeton, lives on 35th Street and knew Paul Butler, Sam Dean, their vision of Oak Brook and respect for the character of the land. Things have changed, but along with change he hopes that the Plan Commission will keep in mind to not overpopulate and change the zoning that is in Oak Brook. They love their little area on 35th Street, and hope that the Commission keeps within the letter of the law. Connie Keller, 1155 35th Street, sister of John Templeton said that she grew up with fox hunts coming through their property, there were stables at McDonald's and she loved to see the horses come down 35th Street and hopes that will always be; and that it won't be widened. She does not believe that there is any hardship here. The buffer is a good idea for Route 83, but 2 acres would give the property owner more space to build and more open space. She is very worried about how close hey would be building to the watershed. She said that she hopes the Commission will uphold and preserve and conserve Oak Brook. Mintu Sharma, 703 Deer Trail Lane, said that there are very few sections left in Oak Brook that have the uniqueness of being close to a forest preserve area. Preserving this character should be a matter of concern for everyone. Any good builder could do a fantastic job of building a beautiful development in this neighborhood while working within the present code. She is in favor of preserving Oak Brook and against VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 19 of 27 January 16, 2006 the high density zoning change which Mr. Callaghan is seeking. She asked that the Commission help in protecting the last 2 -acre zoning that is left. Ed Vendel, 1201 35th Street, said that he owns Oak Brook Farms and this is an emotional issue for him. He opposes the change in zoning, the increased traffic and the problems that they bring. He said that Mr. Callaghan talks about the problems of Route 83. He said that we should not change the 35th Street area and bring the same problems that exist at Route 83. He said we have to make excuses for Route 83 and should not have to make excuses for 35th Street. Keep the zoning the same. Stuart Whitt, 105 E. Galena Boulevard, Aurora, Illinois. Attorney for the Butler School District and he has represented school districts throughout Illinois. He is accustomed to a lot of growth and development and the impact that it has on school districts. He represents the Butler School District 53 regarding the proposed subdivision. Their purpose is not to advise the Village how to plan or develop the community. The Village decides how many homes will be built on the property. When it is eventually built, they will receive the children from that neighborhood and they will educate them; no matter what taxes they pay, no matter how big the home is, they will accept the children and educate them; that is their role. They are reluctant to weigh in on these types of issues, because they respect the Commissions and Village Board's role. However, when these types of developments have an impact on the school district and the school districts ability to provide educational services to its students, then they feel it is incumbent on them to voice their view. As they see it, this property will be developed, either through its current zoning, which would allow as many as 28 homes or the 44 homes as proposed. In this type of situation they have to determine how the school district would be impacted by the development. In doing that they assumed, which is a fact in DuPage County, that the property tax receipts received by the school district would be impacted by the provisions of the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL). By the new property provisions of PTELL, under those provisions, increased value of the land is not new property, so the school district receives no additional revenue as a result of the increased value of the land. The school district does get additional revenue as a result of the new homes being constructed on the land. If there is an appreciation of the value of the land, that does not result in additional dollars to the school district. In making their analysis under PTELL, they assumed that property within this community would appreciate at 5% per annum on an EAV (Equalized Assessed Value) basis. They assumed that the CPI would be 2.5 %, which they believe are both conservative numbers. Under the as proposed scenario, they assumed that the property would be built out in accordance with the values contained in the report prepared by Strategy Planning Associates, which was about $3.6 million a piece. In that scenario it was assumed that $1.2 million would be land and $2.4 million would be improvements. Under the current zoning scenario they took the number provided VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 20 of 27 January 16, 2006 by the petitioner, which could be 28 homes. They assumed on that basis that 4 homes would be built each year over a 7 -year period. One of the things that come into play is the number of students the school district will receive. There is a factor built into the Village Code that assumes that the homes in the community between grades K -8 would receive .65 children per home. They think that number is a little low. Applying the factors supplied by The Illinois School Consulting Service 44 homes would generate 41 children, which is still less than 1 child per home. If there were 28 homes built, it would be approximately 22 children, using the new numbers. The numbers provided by Strategy Planning Associates, which is in error in the memo he provided (See page 24 in the case file); it is actually 31 not 22 students as shown. They also project what the Butler School District pays to educate children. The District spends $15,511 in operating expenditures to educate a child in grades K -8. It is a composite average that includes kindergarten children as well as special education children. This number is from their State Report Card for the 2003 -2004 school year. They used that number as a benchmark to use in order to project through 2016. For purposes of this analysis, they assumed that the expenditures would increase a modest 2.5% per annum, just like the CPI. There is typically an 18 -month lag between the time that a home gets built, a child moves in, enrolls in school, and the district finally receives tax dollars from the home. Based upon that, 2 charts were provided (see page 24.b of the case file) showing the impact of development as proposed with 44 homes, built out at $3.6 million per home which includes $1.2 million for land and $2.4 million for the improvements over the period projected by Strategy Planning Associates. The revenue never offsets the expenses associated with educating the children. Believe it or not $3.6 million per home will not provide more than enough money to educate one child. While it costs about $15,000 to educate a child per year; these homes will only generate about $11,000 - $12,000 per year in taxes and sometimes less. In terms as proposed they start out with a $62,000 deficit in the first year and in the year 2016 there is a $590,000 deficit. They have deficits ranging from $460,000 up to $590,000 through 2016. Over this period from tax year 2005, paid in 2006 for school year 2006 -2007; and projecting to 2016 they project they will lose $5,740,000 educating the 41 children from these homes. In large part that is due to the PTELL. The situation is different if it is developed under current zoning as noted on the second chart (see page 24.c of the case file) assumes 4 homes per year over 7 years. They still have deficit as it relates to these homes. The number of children is reduced from 41 to 28. The deficit each year goes down from $202,000 (2008) to $241,000 (tax year 2016). During the entire cumulative period of time under this scenario is $2,528,000. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 21 of 27 January 16, 2006 They have met with the school board officials and talked extensively about this. They have met with Mr. Callaghan and Mr. Morrissey and have made some progress. This is a matter that they felt the Commission needed to be advised of for a couple of reasons. Strategy Planning Associates weighs in on the schools and the great impact that this development is going to have on the schools. Mr. Cappetta and his advisors weigh in on the impact on the schools. They thought that it would be appropriate if the Village heard from the schools in terms of the impact. Member Lalmalani noted that under current zoning as testified, 23 homes could be built not 28. Mr. Whitt responded that he arrived at the calculations by dividing the number of acres on the site by 2. Michael Forutan, 21 Natoma Drive, President of Old Oak Brook Homeowner Association said that changing the zoning on this parcel of property and creating double the amount of houses permitted would create a huge traffic jam; not only on 35th Street, but also on Adams and Spring roads, which will devastate his area. In his judgment, the request is simply for the benefit of the developer to make more money. He does not think that Oak Brook has the obligation towards the developer. They have already seen the effect of his development at Forest Gate, which is not a desirable site. He asked that the zoning request not be passed that would double the amount of houses that should be built on the property. The land has serious problems and there is also the issue of the emergency exit and the huge school buses that are supposed to pass on 35th Street, if this property is developed as requested. Rama Gourineni, 3420 Adams Road, and have been living there for about three years. They were attracted by the quiet atmosphere and if this development is allowed, the thing they would miss the most would be that the character of the road would be changed if it were widened. Everything that needs to be said has been said. She relayed a story about how protective the residents are of this area and their homes. When they first moved in (they are both working physicians) there was a lot of garbage that they had to put out. One day they received a letter that said, "Dear new neighbor, please do not leave your garbage cans out." In capital letters it said, "NO ONE LEAVES THEIR GARBAGE CANS OUT HERE." It kind of gave her a chill, but it helped her appreciate how much the people in the community really love the beauty of the neighborhood and everything around it and they never left their garbage cans out after that. Bill Gilligan, 3400 Adams Road, said that some 34 years ago he moved from his home in Hinsdale. He moved because of the ambience of the area. It is not unique just to his values but to everyone that lives there. They have all worked very hard to maintain that character and to not want anything to happen to it. There is no question that by increasing the density of this property would significantly change the last remaining piece of property and the entire character of the community. As people have spoken it truly is the birthplace of Oak Brook, of Paul Butler and dream of Sam VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 22 of 27 January 16, 2006 Dean., for whom the Board Room is named. He asked that the 2 acres be kept and preserved. Richard Allison, 31 Robin Hood Ranch, said that he also lived in Hinsdale for 20 years and during the 70's and 80's it was disconcerting to see the weak management of the Village Board and the zoning and planning commission and how they gave into developers like Tim Thompson; making a hodgepodge of a good portion of Hinsdale. His home was an old farmhouse built in 1874 at Ogden and Washington. It was a 250 -acre farm that was annexed by Hinsdale. Because of a business reversal he was forced to sell his home to someone who promised they would keep it in the condition at that time. Well, it was torn down. He moved into Oak Brook in 1991 and subsequently joined the Fullersburg Woods Area Association as a board member, primarily because of his love of the area. A prominent historian in Oak Brook told him that in the early 1960's a plan was submitted to the Village Board that considered a much higher density of the commercial development in Oak Brook and the citizens such as those at this meeting, and the 1070 petition writers prevailed upon that board to continue Butler's plan more or less. He used to have an airplane on Butler's Golf Course, so the area means a lot to them. He is behooved that the Commission take into consideration the citizens interest, similar to what Mr. Dean's widow did; which was to donate her entire 40 -50 acre estate to the Park District. He understands that the Plan Commission recommendation is not binding on the Board of Trustees and asked that they consider that more petitioners than voters, who voted for the current Village President, as a significant interest group. In the words of OJ Simpson's lawyer, if the plan won't fly, you must deny. Robert Kazan, 3501 Adams Road, said that he has almost 10 acres of property at the base of 35th Street and Adams Road. He has lived in Minnesota and Burr Ridge. He moved to this specific area, and anyone that knows the land, knows that his is a very special part of the Village. In his opinion, and that of his neighbors, there is almost unbelievable opposition to changing the zoning on this property. There are good reasons for that. He and his neighbors want to see the property maintained as zoned. They believe the developer stands to make a great deal of money even if it remains 2- acre zoning. He asked that the Commission to represent the majority of the people that live in this area and vote against the zoning change. Bob Lindgren, 1020 Birchwood Road, said that they moved into this area 19 years ago. R -1 zone is a great value and R -2 zoning helps to define the entire area. This is not just the issue of a few comfortable landowners; it is of passionate importance to everyone that lives in the area. Regarding traffic, Adams Road and Ogden Avenue has been defined as a strained intersection, but he said it is terrifying and life threatening. He tried to make a left turn at the intersection during rush hour last week and the driver in the vehicle behind him became quite agitated because he would not pull off into 40 mph traffic. Just as he had the opportunity to make the left turn, the car pulled around him to try to make a right turn onto Ogden. That is the kind of VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 23 of 27 January 16, 2006 traffic situation that exists at Ogden and Adams. It may seem like an additional 23 houses is not a big deal, but the cars will go down 35th Street to Adams; and Adams cannot accommodate the traffic. The only traffic on Adams is not vehicular; there are many pedestrians walking down Adams Road all the time that complicates the traffic on the road. There are no sidewalks and they are not asking for sidewalks, which would be more inappropriate than the development that is proposed. Any density increase in the area is inappropriate and he asked the Commission to keep the 2 -acre zoning. Joseph Perri, 36 Breakenridge Farm, said that he is currently doing some building in Oak Brook and he feels that there is enough of the other residential zoning districts and there is not enough R -1. In his eyes this is such a unique area and he would keep it at its present zoning. If the Commission puts themselves in the Fullersburg resident's shoes they would do what is right and maintain the R -1 zoning. Doug Kremer, 3712 Adams Road, he and his wife have lived there for 51/2 years. Prior to that they spent over a year looking for a new home in the area without congestion and settled here from Park Ridge. They fell in love with the country like setting of Fullersburg Woods and felt comfortable with the fact that the minimum lot size of 2 acres would pretty much assure that high density would not be possible and the area would retain its charm and protect property values. They have a concern for the traffic that will be generated by the proposed development. The single exit from 35th Street, the traffic onto Adams and Spring Road will be tremendous. Even if 35th Street is widened to a 4 -lane highway, it would still not alleviate the traffic problems on Adams and Spring Roads. They always avoid making left hand turns onto Ogden from Adams because it is terrible. He disagrees with the argument that the builder should not be held to a higher standard and be allowed to build on lots less than 2 acres. What other subdivisions have done is irrelevant; that is not where they live. The Breakenridge Farm area does not have lot sizes less than 2 acres and as far as they are concerned, that is the standard. Dan Romano, 109 Deer Trail, said that like other people, he lived in Hinsdale and after his wife talked with the Superintendent of schools in Oak Brook, and what they could do for his five children, they moved to Oak Brook for the schools. The only question he has is how the increased use of the land would impact the school districts. He would like the board to think about that. Mark Kaufman, 3615 Adams, said that they moved here because of the schools. Oak Brook schools have a full -time speech therapist and the school in Western Springs had one available, only once a month. A couple of their daughters have a hearing deficit so that was the reason that they first came. He believes that they have all moved here because of some of the special qualities that Oak Brook offers. Increasing the density for the profit of a developer is not one of those special qualities. The Commission and Village should look very carefully about changing VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 24 of 27 January 16, 2006 things like residential zoning that fails to pass the Village of Oak Brook standards. It sets a dangerous precedent for future development. Very simply, the Commission is given the charge of doing what is best for Oak Brook. He also noted that on the website, Mr. Quinlan's statement describes Oak Brook as a spacious, prestigious residential area and the qualities and characteristics that describe Oak Brook as tranquil, beautiful, stylish and prestigious. He does not believe that changing the zoning adds to the specialness of the qualities as described on the website. If the reason for changing the zoning is to increase the developers profit is what makes Oak Brook better, then he would like to challenge that. If it is not making Oak Brook better, than it is making it worse because the Village is never at a standstill; and as a Commission it is something that should be considered. Bill Caparo, 12 Carlisle, and his family moved to Oak Brook in 1977. He remembers times where there were golf courses and now there are developments. He said that he is not on either side of this argument and does not support either side. His purpose was to ask the Plan Commission and Boards to be fair; to look what was done in the past when those decisions were made. Oak Brook is great place and there has been a lot of development and changes. People have made fair decisions and hopes that the Commission can take the emotion out of this decision for the good of all of Oak Brook and make a fair decision. Laura Kelly, 3516 Adams Road, said that she has lived there for 18 years and during that time many people moved into the neighborhood and happily complied with the zoning. Most of the people have said that they moved there for that zoning. She understands that Mr. Callaghan is a developer and as a developer he wants to make as much profit as he can, but that does not mean that Oak Brook has to accommodate him. He complains that he is held to a higher standard, but Oak Brook has high standards; that is what is loved about Oak Brook. It wouldn't be a sought after property and Village if it didn't. This is one of the most prestigious areas of the country and by their own testimony, location is the key to selling property and she does not believe that this developer cannot sell 2 -acre properties with new houses, even along Route 83. She believes that is a self - serving assumption. She is also concerned with the impact on the schools and the impact of extra traffic on the neighborhood. It disturbs her, that as a resident of the Village, Mr. Callaghan is not more sensitive to the residents concerns. When he was questioned about these concerns, his response was that it was not his problem. It was the same response to the concern about the schools and traffic impacts. Well, if he cannot sell the property along Route 83, then why is that our problem; it was purchased knowing what the zoning was. She asked that the Commission maintain the R -1 zoning. Michael Chambers, 907 Saint Stephens Green, said that he has heard a lot tonight and the one thing that he knows is that change is constant. He heard expert witnesses refer to his subdivision as west of Route 83 on 35th Street as Westmont. He assures them, it is not. There is a lot of traffic down his 35th Street. He understands that VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 25 of 27 January 16, 2006 everyone is trying to protect their homes and property values; however, we cannot impede on this man's ability to- earn money and cannot put him at a disadvantage by asking him to put 2 -acre lots on Route 83. He asked that the proposed zoning be approved. Steve Byers, 2 York Lake Court, said that he moved to Oak Brook because of Fullersburg Woods and the Graue Mill. He loves the character of area and everything else. He is also a developer and property investor with a lot of development going on right now. He looks at this site in particular, in a lot of different ways. In his opinion, there are issues with this site. He agrees with what a lot of the neighbors said, but does disagree with some things. To him, it is a very difficult and challenging site. Route 83 is not an issue that can just be ignored. He is looking to buy 2 acres right now, and he looked at this site. With 100% confidence he would never buy 2 acres along Route 83. It is not a subjective issue. In fact, he would ask the developer or anyone else who opposes it to research it. It is a researchable, quantifiable thing that you can assess. You can really study what transactions took place along Route 83, such as what value increases have occurred. It is not just an issue of the number -of units that is developed in a development, which is certainly an important issue. It is also about the quality of the development and the money that the developer puts into the project. For an example, look at subdivisions built in Burr Ridge and look at the quality that goes into one versus what goes into another. Specifically, there are subdivisions with bigger lots than others and you can quantify the effect on value. Some of the subdivisions with lower density, but with a much weaker and poorer development versus some of the others. That is a thing that has to be researched. Dan Callaghan certainly has a lot to risk, if this does not get approved. Theoretically, the neighbors have nothing to risk if it does not get approved; however they really do. Because 10 -15 years from now when they are not voicing as much; and there are new commissioners and trustees. Another developer can come in and that developer may get away with putting in a much higher density that exists now. So what people think in the short run is a great thing, turns out to be not such a great thing. That really has to be looked at. It is not just the number of units; it is the quality and who is doing the development. Chairwoman Payovich noted that there was only about 15 minutes left for the meeting and offered Mr. Callaghan the opportunity to start now or begin the next meeting first. Mr. Callaghan said that he since the Commissioners will probably have questions for himself and his expert witnesses they would not be able to finish at this meeting. He asked the Plan Commission to consider the opportunity to hold a special meeting, so that the matter could continue at a better rate. Chairwoman Payovich polled the board if they would oppose a special meeting. It was the consensus of the board to hold a special meeting. She advised the audience VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 26 of 27 January 16, 2006 that no other discussion would be taking place other than to schedule a special meeting and thanked everyone for attending the meeting. Motion by Member Adrian, seconded by Member Lalmalani to continue the hearing to a special meeting with a date to be determined. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. 5. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. 6. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Adrian, seconded by Member Saiyed to adjourn the meeting at 10:13 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, Di r of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 27 of 27 January 16, 2006 OTHER BUSINES: ADJOURNMENT