Loading...
Minutes - 01/17/2005 - Plan CommissionMINUTES OF THE JANUARY 17, 2005 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON FEBRUARY 21, 2005. 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Payovich in the West Wing Training Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Members David Braune, Surendra Goel, Jeffrey Bulin, Marcia Tropinski and Gerald Wolin. ABSENT: Member Paul Adrian IN ATTENDANCE: Robert L. Kallien, Director of Community Development and Dale L. Durfey, Village Engineer. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2004 Motion by Member Goel, seconded by Member Bulin, to approve the minutes of the December 13, 2004 Regular Plan Commission meeting as amended and waive the full reading thereof. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL MINUTES 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 5. A. OAK BROOK PROMENADE — 3001, 3003 AND 3121 BUTTERFIELD OAK BROOK PROMENADE - ROAD (SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BUTTERFIELD ROAD AND 3001, 3003 AND 3121 MEYERS ROAD) — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — ZONING BUTTERFIELD RD) - MAP AMEND, ORDINANCE — MAP AMENDMENT, TEXT AMENDMENTS AND TEXT AMEND, SPECIAL USES. TITLE 14 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — SUBDIVISION AND SPECIAL USES - FINAL PLAT OF REGULATIONS — FINAL PLAT OF CONSOLIDATION CONSOLIDATION Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed the request. It is an 18.2 acre site with consisting of multiple parcels which is presently improved with 3 office buildings. The goal is to combine the parcels into one lot; rezone the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 21 January 17, 2005 property to B -1; demolish the buildings, subject to text amendments, variations and special use approval to build an 180,000 square foot retail center. It is something that has been talked about for a number of years to help spur redevelopment of the Butterfield /22nd Street corridor. This would be a good start especially since it is on the far end of town. A lot of good things can happen in the middle if it happens that way. They have had many meetings and discussions with the developer and they have already addressed many of the staff's previous issues and concerns. However, there are some things that need to be talked about in order to fine -tune the project, but all in all it is a quality project and good for Oak Brook. Mary Riordan, Attorney for the applicant introduced the developer of the project Dennis Hiffman, of NAI Hiffman based in Oakbrook Terrace. Also from NAI Hiffman were Ryan Murphy and Ken Erickson. They are acting as agent for the property owner who is St. Paul Properties, which is located in St. Paul, Minnesota. She introduced the development team who are part of this project that would be speaking at the hearing. Henry Klover, Klover Architects of Kansas City, Missouri; Phil Wolf and Nick Smith, Manhard Engineering; Wendy Schulenberg, Landscape Architect, Daniel Weinback & Partners and Don O'Hara, Traffic Engineer, KLOA. Ms. Riordan provided an overview of the project. The property has three existing office buildings and is on the southwest corner of Meyer and Butterfield Road. The property has been zoned ORA -1 since 1976 and are 30% occupied, which is a 70% vacancy rate. In the office market the vacancy rate in Oak Brook, Oakbrook Terrace, Downers Grove and Lombard is 30 %, so the occupancy rate for this site is well below the average. Given the market and the state of the properties, which are well maintained but are lacking in the amenities that tenants are looking for, it is very unlikely that these buildings are going to be leased anytime soon. They have property that is vacant and is generating no tax to the Village. The property is located on the far western edge of town. Across Meyers Road to the east is the Inland building, which is also zoned ORA -1; immediately to the west is a ComEd substation, also zoned ORA -1. To the south the property is bounded by the tollway and to the south of that is a residential area. Immediately north of the property is the Village of Lombard and the development to the north is zoned B -3 planned development (according to the Lombard zoning map), which is the Fountain Square development with restaurants and retail. To the west is the Yorktown Shopping Center and down farther to the east is the Oakbrook Center. They are proposing that the buildings be demolished; that the whole property be redeveloped with 180,000 - 190,000 feet of office, retail and sit down restaurants. Broken down that would be about 20,000 feet of office, 130,000 feet of retail and about 30,000 feet of high end sit down restaurants. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 21 January 17, 2005 The proposed zoning district is B -1, which they believe is the most appropriate zoning district for the project they are proposing. The B -2 district is for the regional shopping center. The B -3 District has too many uses that they would not want to see on the project and the Village probably would not like to see them there either. They concluded that B -1 would be the most appropriate zoning for the proposed project and would fit in most with retail trends on Butterfield and 22nd Street. It is consistent with the Fountain Square property to the north. There is also a proposed development to the west and they are somewhat in competition with the developers to the west for tenants and users. The kinds of tenants they are talking about are high -end lifestyle center users. Another development is proposed down the street so these tenants are looking between the two projects to see which one is more desirable. The proposed B -1 district is consistent with surrounding land uses. The proposed development will not have any deleterious impact on the surrounding properties. They think if there is going to be any impact it will be a positive one. It is a high -end project and the density they are looking at is less than that it could be if developed under ORA -1 as far as height and bulk. They have tried to develop something with a lot of public amenities. There is a lot of open space that is friendly to pedestrians and shoppers to come and spend some time and money to eat and shop. They are proud of what they have come up with. They are anticipating when the project is fully built out they will generate approximately one million dollars in sales tax. The project will not have any impact on the taxing districts. They are not creating any new school children. The only services will be those that are now being provided. There will be significant sales tax to the village. They have several petitions. They are seeking a map amendment from ORA -1 to B -1. They are also seeking several variances, text amendments, special use and a final plat of consolidation. They have 5 separate parcels, one of which is not in the village; it is what they refer to as the tollway parcel and is zoned R -2 in DuPage County. As part of this process they are going to prepare an annexation petition to annex the property into the village. It will also be part of their map amendment, which they understand will be subject to the approval of the annexation. There are a lot of restrictions, constriction and physical problems with this property. Those factors had a lot to do with driving the design and development of the property. The project team presented the proposed project Phil Wolf, Manhard Engineering Since the project began they have been working hand and hand with Village Engineer Dale Durfey to assure they were in compliance with the Village Stormwater Ordinance. The existing buildings were permitted back in 1976. There was an existing culvert that came through the property and was released to a creek VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 21 January 17, 2005 and then discharged back into a six -foot diameter culvert going back underneath Meyers Road. As part of the original development some storage had to be provided for detention that was at the time determined to be 4 -acre feet and some additional detention had to be provided for fill that was going on in the floodplain. Along the front of Butterfield Road where the culvert comes in there are some fairly large depressions that also store stormwater along with the pond itself. In coming up with the proposed plan to redevelop this property they had the constraints of the existing pond. Approximately 3 acres of flood plain are on the site and they had to be in compliance with the new ordinance. They had some areas they were trying to do some fill, but in trying to actually utilize those areas because of the depth of them for even a small area of trying to reclaim out of floodplain, to gain a half of an acre you would need to provide six times that in volume someplace else on the site, which is pretty limited with the pond being utilized and proposed with the new structures and easements running along the southern parts there is not a lot of area to add new volume. They came up with a method whereby the water in the pond gets dropped to provide some additional storage. The bottom of the pond gets elongated out and the net result is that they could be in compliance with the ordinance for the small amount of fill they are placing in flood plain and the new volume that they would need to be in compliance with today's ordinance above and beyond what was required in 1976. They have verified the existing sanitary on the site with the Hinsdale Sanitary District to provide for the increased need for sanitary and the capacity is there. They have worked with Village Engineer Durfey relating to the utilities and some of the revisions to the water system, which would be necessary to ensure that they would meet the needs and requirements of the Village. Don O'Hara, principal with KLOA Traffic Consultants He said that they were retained by the applicant to do the traffic study, which is on tab 27 of the case file. He highlighted some of the important aspects of the traffic planning for the site. They studied Butterfield Road and Meyers Road. He said that everyone knows that the traffic on Butterfield Road is not good. However, given the existing land use on the subject site they are already generating some traffic. 30% (as stated earlier) of the site is leased, 70% is not. They counted each of the driveways as well as the intersection and reduced the volumes on the roadways to make up for the 30% existing on the site; then they went and generated traffic for the subject site relative to Butterfield Road and Meyers Road. They evaluated the intersection and the development would be adding less than a second of delay on the system. There are really not any improvements that are necessary given the roadway configuration now; it is still not going to be good on Butterfield Road at certain times. However, they are not really putting a large impact on the road system. One of the important aspects is the access to the facility. They have three existing buildings on the site and there are also three existing driveways and the locations of the current driveways do not follow the ordinance as it is today. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 21 January 17, 2005 The plan is that the right in right out of the subject site, which is to the west, will remain as is and the signalized intersection that is aligned with the shopping center across the street will remain as is. There is one minor modification proposed that they have reviewed with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) about and which they (IDOT) are not opposed to moving the driveway to the west slightly for safety reasons so that it would be a simple right turn in and would be by the facilities. From the traffic and safety standpoint it made sense, however it does not meet the Village requirement of excess of 400 feet spacing between driveways. An important aspect of this is that Butterfield is IDOT's road and they do not have a problem with the proposal and have given them preliminary approval subject to final engineering. On the site they have an existing road that goes straight through the existing facility that is remaining for the most part. It is 24 feet wide and the current Village ordinance requires 27 feet under this type of land use. It is currently 24 feet and it is their firm belief that 24 feet is more than adequate to have two -way traffic going through the facility. Obviously the majority of the parking is down to the rear so they are going to have traffic that will be moving southerly and northerly in a regular fashion. They are planning to have internal traffic control so that they do not have a speedway. They will be in total compliance with the parking regulations. The next issue is the parking garage that is currently located underneath the site. The parking that is below grade is intended for office parking and valet service that will be controlled. It will not be something regularly opened to the patrons. It is their feeling, given the onsite circulation it is a very good plan and will work under the new urban conditions for this type of land use. Ms. Riordan clarified that the controlled access to the underground parking would be by keycard or by valet. The plan is to use it for valet and employee parking only and there will always be a control over who accesses it. They do not have the concern they would have had in regards to safety if it were used as an open garage. Henry Klover, Klover Architects He said that he is a lifestyle center architect and has worked on six lifestyle centers across the country. Member Wolin asked for a definition of "lifestyle center." Mr. Klover responded that a lifestyle center is a term that was coined by Poag & McEwen, who developed the Deer Park Town Center. Everyone was going to malls at the time. The original intent was to create an environment that was to acknowledge the lifestyles of the people of today. People go out for entertainment, to restaurants, there is retail and an environment that is a gathering place that you create. Statistically, there was a study done by the ICSC International Council of Shopping Centers and lifestyle centers are designed to bring people in for one VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 21 January 17, 2005 activity such as going to dinner and then to stay and browse the shops, stop for ice cream or coffee, etc. It is one of the reasons why the center looks the way it does. He reviewed the present layout and structure of the existing site. One of the first thoughts on the proposed layout was to try to use the underground systems. There were other considerations such as the tollway and the overhead power lines and easements. There is also the ComEd substation directly west of the site. One advantage they had was the detention basin. It was an attractive element to deal with so they chose to accentuate it by having outdoor patios and restaurants, which is a natural for that area. They were going to use the buildings to shield the unattractive parts and to focus the center upon itself with a central element in the center. One of the considerations of the site was to have nice smooth circulations paths and there is a wide island through the middle that has decorative plantings and is problematic in itself because it sits on top of the parking deck. The desire was to set up really strong circulation with wide pedestrian areas some are as wide as 36- feet deep; there are planters and seating walls as well as bollards to try to protect the pedestrians as they come around. In a lifestyle center a lot of attention is paid to the materials and the surfaces that people walk on. They created areas where there are seating nodes that are protected by green areas and plantings. There are different textured materials such as stone, colored concrete and a sandblast texture to the materials. They try to create a pattern that actually varies as you go through the center. Part of the idea when you develop is to try to create an image and excitement of your youth. The concept was to try to create something that was old world and to create skylines as well. At the request of Village Manager Boehm and Director of Community Development Kallien they were asked to look at certain buildings in the Oak Brook community and there were certain elements that they saw such as eyebrows, detailing and of some of the brick patterns that they wanted to carry into the building. There was a bit of an old world charm that they picked up on that they wanted to bring into the center. In the skyline they provided a lot of variety and texture and an important element is to create a signature piece that has some heights. The higher end retailers want higher ceilings than they are used to. The village ordinance under the B -1 District is 30 feet. Typical retail clear ceiling height is 14 feet, which is 16 -17 feet to structure. Multiplied by 2, that exceeds the 30 feet allowed by ordinance, which is the reason for one of the text amendments they are seeking, in order to get the height that retailers want and desire. The retailers are going to come in and do a lot more exciting and enticing things. There is a text amendment to allow the tower which is unoccupied space, but the intent is try and create a signature element that will be a lighted tower that will be the place that people acknowledge and see from VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 21 January 17, 2005 on and off the property, and hopefully from the tollway. The archways are to signify a gateway and bring people to the rear where there is parking. They have set up valet areas on the site plan for people. They will run lights along and across the pedestrian paths and walkways to create excitement and light. They pay a lot of attention to lighting at night so that the buildings jump at you. They have created areas along the water for 30,000 square feet of restaurant use. The patio areas are designed to be along the waterways. Building K is a smaller area and will be enclosed in a protective barrier and will be designed to be part of the building. By barrier they mean masonry walls and ornamental railing. The intent is to be a high - end environment with linen tables and hopefully some awnings. There is a requirement that they use teak furniture, wrought iron furniture, that it be designed to be compatible with the interior design and style of the restaurant. They have even tried to have the trash enclosures be compatible with the buildings. There are a variety of the types of lights they will be putting on the buildings as well as on the parking lot pedestrian lighting. There are a series of poles that go around the entire ring of the center to create the ambience of the streetscape. The materials used are a combination of brick and stone and different material such as hardy boards, which is a siding that is made out of a cementitious product that will not deteriorate and rot. They are trying to create hard materials that can be touched and felt and not be damaged and other materials that are lighter but provide that interesting character that will be built over a period of time, as well as some prairie stone. He said that Village Manager Boehm and Director of Community Development Kallien suggested a requirement that the tenants must get design approval from the center prior to going to the Village for permit approval. The tenants are each required to install blade signs and that is to get the scale, some are down low, which is why they have planters so that they cannot be tripped over or they are up at certain heights. The intent is to provide some character, so there is a 30 -inch projection for the blade signs for each tenant. They do not want people coming in and just place a box sign on a wall. There are some creative allowances for additional heights and widths if they do some 3- dimensional type signage. They are also asking for marquee signs that are not just on the building itself. Another reason that they asked for the building height to be a little higher was the elevation. You want the signs to fit the proportion to the heights and historical character of the windows, etc. so they are asking for the ability to get the signs up where they belong, which is the second part of the amendment to the signage, in order to get the signs up to the height of the roof line and that has to do primarily with the needs of the tenant. The monument sign is on tab number 6. It is not a typical monument sign. It is a 4 -side structure with a natural roof structure. It is halo lit identification for the project and then pin mounted very classy signs for the tenants that would be ground lit, so they will not be traditional illuminated signs. At the entrance is identification just for the center itself, which is labeled as sign B. It is a smaller sign. Both of the signs could be bigger as allowed by ordinance, they are trying to do something that fits in with and identifies the quality and the character of the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 21 January 17, 2005 center. Ms. Riordan asked about the rear treatment of the building, which is not being treated as the back of the building but as an additional front and how they will be used with the south parking lot and from the perspective of the residents of the R -2 subdivision south of the tollway. Mr. Klover reviewed the rear elevations. Decorative walls have been designed to match the center itself and have tried to mirror the pattern and rhythm of the front of the building. There are also a series of tower elements and corners to accentuate and make the corners strong. Wendy Schulenberg, principal with Daniel Weinback & Partners She said they are a landscape architectural firm in Chicago. Landscaping is very important in a lifestyle center. There is a tree survey and tree list contained in the file. The pond is the most significant element on the site and there is a lot of mature vegetation around the pond. Adjacent to the existing buildings is similar vegetation and then there are parking lot plantings. Because of the scope of a development like this there are large areas that will need to be graded and they will be losing a good majority of the vegetation. There are able to save the most significant plantings, which are located around the pond. Along Meyers Road there are overhead power lines and shade trees had been planted that have been topped off over time. They may take those out and put more ornamentals in that would be in a better scale for the overhead lines. Spotted around the site are a number of trees they feel they can relocate. Some are 7 and 8 -inch caliper trees. There are some honey locust, some very nice ginkgo trees, maple and quite a bit of ash trees on the site. There is a concern that there is going to be an ash borer that is going to come and sort of be the next Dutch Elm disease and is going to wipe out all ash trees in the near future. It is not a certainty that it is going to happen, but it is in southern Michigan and could be making its way here. Most municipalities are not allowing ash trees to be planted anymore and a lot of the really big trees on this site are ash trees. They will not do anything with the ones located around the pond they will wait to see what happens. They will spare the expense of relocating those in the parking lot or of movable size because it does not make any sense at this point to move them. As you come up to the corner of Butterfield and Meyers Road it is difficult to see into the site and there are some trees at the corner that they would be considering taking out just to allow some views into the site. It will be a nice view of the new development. The west side of the pond will be graded out. They will upgrade the existing pond landscaping. Along the pond edge there is an existing lawn that actually goes down VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 21 January 17, 2005 to the water edge. They want to develop a more natural feel along the pond edge as shown on tab 23 of the case file. They will be using more water edge grasses and wildflowers to give it a more natural pond edge from the water line up to the path. There is an existing path around the pond that they will be maintaining and will repair it in a couple of places. They will extend the path so that it extends up at either end of the building development. There are some boulder walls that are spotted around the path. In some areas it will require steps to bring it up to grade and they would use boulder walls along those steps. Along the outdoor dining areas they will have groupings of multi- stemmed trees, such as alders and birch; the birch of which have a very nice bark. They are considering up lighting those trees in between the outdoor dining spaces so that in the evening there will be a nice glow. A green screen will allow vines to grow across. The grasses will help to keep people from walking directly into the pond and it will help to keep the geese away from the pond. Along Butterfield Road they will be cleaning up the existing planting, there are a couple of big willow trees that will remain there. They will be adding new benches along the path and they will be adding seating areas and additional planting for color. The section along Meyers Road where the overhead lines exist they will really clean up the area and replace some of the trees that are in bad shape from being topped off due to the overhead lines. Along the perimeter of the site there is a 10 -foot setback requirement. They are looking for a slightly reduced setback width. They will provide the plantings required and screening for parking. Along Butterfield Road there is a much greater setback however, all of the edges will have very heavy planting and they certainly want a beautiful view with lots of color so that when people drive and also the required screening for the parking lot. There is a hedge that is required in front of all the parking areas. The other important feature at the front would be the signage. There will be kind of a red mass at both sign locations. There will be lots of shrub roses and things that will give very long term color. They will be mixing annuals in at the signage and at the storefronts. The parking lot landscaping has a number of different issues. They have plantings spread all throughout the parking lot. The requirement is to provide 10% green space, they are providing 11% green space throughout the parking lot. There is a requirement to provide a tree every 15 parking spaces. They do have areas where they do exceed that. Some are 16 spaces, some are 17, a few spaces in the back it gets up over 20, but as a requirement 820 divided by 15, they need 54 trees. They are actually providing 54 shade trees, some relocated trees, and using some ornamental trees. In the location of the utility easement they would look at adding VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 21 January 17, 2005 ornamental trees in place of the shade trees. With all of the trees, they really exceed the overall requirement and almost double the inches that are required. They are also looking at planting trees that are larger than the minimum 3 -inch caliper required; they are providing a minimum of 4 -inch caliper trees and in some places they will be larger than that. They want that mature feeling you get when you enter at the corner to continue on as you get into the site. Some of the trees they are going to relocate are 7 and 8 -inch caliper. They are looking to spot those around the site in order to get that mature feeling in all portions of the parking lot. Every three parking bays a divider is required, there is one location they are short where they lack that divider. What they feel they gain by putting in the pedestrian connection with the pavers and lighting is much more important than that six -foot divider. The whole storefront is the most important part of the development. Most retailers do not want landscaping in this case they want landscaping in the front and they want nice landscaping. They are going to be introducing all kinds of raised planters that would be spotted all along the storefronts. Not wanting to make it look like a wall they will be using bollards, and will be providing a feeling of safety. The storefront is where they will use seasonal colors. There will be bulbs, annuals and freestanding planters with a lot of color and more designing character. There are pages of plant photos in the files that they show would do well here, are hardy and will give color with a landscape that really compliments the architecture of this development. Ms. Riordan summarized that after the pond, the easement, the high power lines and the front flood plain, they really have about 11 acres to develop so they have tried to design them to fit and at the same time, if they do not have a certain amount of retail they will not be able to attract tenants. Unless they have so much retail, retailers are not going to be interested. Ideally they would like to have about 200,000 feet, and they have been able to come up with about 190,000 feet, which they still think is working in terms of retailers. That is why it is so important to try and make the site work with what they have. They have talked a lot about the features and design criteria and in the books Exhibit 12 is a spiral bound book that is the tenant design criteria. It lays out every feature of the project. The project is going to be totally owned and controlled by a single owner. Every space will be leased. The design criteria booklet is going to be part of the leases. Tenants will come to them first, they will review the plans to ensure they have complied with the design criteria, so that by the time they come in for permit they will have approved the plans. They believe this project is going to cost in excess of fifty million dollars. Not only do they want to make sure that the Village gets what they are presenting, they want to make sure they protect what is going on there. They cannot represent to one tenant that this is going to be a high scale project and then let something unacceptable happen in another area. In the narrative for the map amendment there are some permitted uses in the B -1 area that they do not want VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 21 January 17, 2005 people to have. For example, motor vehicles, barbershops, laundromats, shoe repair, there is a list that they would like to have excluded by ordinance so they do not have that battle with potential tenants. Member Wolin said that it seems to be an excellent project and he is very familiar with the property. He spent seven years in the 3001 building looking over the pond. The pond was never a safety issue because it was an office building, but with a shopping center there he does have a concern about safety because there will be children there. Ms. Riordan responded said that they really like the pond, but if they had it their way they would get rid of the path especially from a liability view. The Village has asked them to enhance the path and put out lighting. If the village requires it they have tried to do the higher landscaping trying to make it difficult for any one to walk into the pond. Mr. Klover said that there is no direct access from the restaurants. There is no access; there is emergency access only for security. It is all railed and for control of the operators you would be able to walk to the back to see it, but it is completely screened. You cannot get there without going outside to the path. Ms. Schulenberg said in order to get to the path at either end of the building there are some steps that you can walk down. There is a significant change in grade to get down to where the path is. Member Wolin said that from the standpoint of safety, they may consider some attractive fencing at either end where people have access to the path. He would urge them to consider eliminating the path. Member Braune said that its current population would not use the path, however, with people coming to the site as a destination point they may use the path. Member Bulin noted that while waiting for a table at a restaurant they could walk around the path. He said that he thinks it would be a mistake to lose the path. Chairwoman Payovich noted that if it is a lifestyle center with a health club it would be an amenity. Ms. Riordan said that as Ms. Schulenberg stated they would use landscaping to make it difficult for people or geese to get into the water. Ms. Schulenberg said that it would be particularly difficult for young children to get out into the water. Ms. Riordan said that as the property owner they have a concern also just from VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 21 January 17, 2005 basic liability issues. Mr. Klover noted that if you think about the layout of the buildings and the locations of the) doors and the access points, if a child would get away they would have to go quite a ways before they can get around and all the way down to the pond. They reviewed the access in and out of the underground parking lot. The underground will be completely controlled. Member Wolin questioned whether the one million dollars in sales tax was the total amount to be collected or the portion to the Village. Ms. Riordan responded that the million dollars was the portion to the Village only. The Village levies a 1'/4% tax on all sales. Member Wolin said that it is a very well thought out development and a lot of good work has gone into it. Ms. Riordan responded that they have had a good team, and Director of Community Development Bob Kallien, has been awesome to deal with. Member Goel asked about driving around the shopping center to get from building to building. Mr. O'Hara responded that the hope is that you will walk once you have parked. The idea in making it so attractive is so that you will want to walk around. The addition of the pedestrian crosswalk is to help provide that interaction between buildings. All the parking is in close proximity to the buildings, which is the nice thing about the plan. Ms. Riordan referred them to Exhibit on tab 9. Mr. O'Hara explained that each red line indicates a pedestrian walkway that will get you around the site. Chairwoman Payovich asked for any comments from the audience. Patrick Donnelly, resident of Western Springs, said that he shops in the area often. He thinks it will add a lot to the Oak Brook community and he just came to observe. No other comments were received from the audience, either in support or in opposition to the request. Member Braune said that he agrees with everyone and believes it will be a nice addition to the Oak Brook area. He is particularly attuned to traffic problems and asked for assurance that the traffic will be well controlled. Mr. O'Hara said that he is fairly confident. He said that he believe if you are going to obey the law you will. However, there are people that believe the roads were made for them, not the law. To say that people will not pull into a right turn out to make a left, if they can do it, and they are inclined to do it, they will do it. There is a lot of flexibility in VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 21 January 17, 2005 the access system. There is a traffic signal to get into the site and a traffic signal at Technology Drive. If you can reduce the conflict points internally a lot of the traffic problems will be solved, especially on site. The idea is to get the people to parking as soon as possible while minimizing the number of conflicts and he believes they have accomplished that. There is no doubt that Butterfield Road has a lot of traffic on it. There are 40,000+ vehicles on it a day, which is a lot of traffic and there is no relief in the very near future. This project will add to that by adding a second to the delay, but 30 -40% of that is already on the system today. There has been care taken in the planning for this site. Member Braune said that when Costco was built there was concern about the lighting facing the people across the highway. There appears to be a diagonal sight line to the residences across the street. Ms. Riordan commented that the lighting from the tollway would obviously be much more intense than anything on the site. Mr. Klover said that there are restrictions on how high the poles can be on the back of the site because of the high - powered transmission lines. There will not be wall packs or direct illumination lights. There is a photometric in the booklet that is designed to cut down on light pollution so there is not a spillage of light. When there is a 35 -foot pole, obviously there is going to be some as you look up at it, but they are designed so that they shoot light downward and not spill out. The tower is designed to be lit up, but it is not a beacon. It is designed so that you can see it; it would be no different than a church steeple that would be lit by lighting, which he does not think anyone would find offensive. The whole idea is to have a character and an image. They have been very careful not to have wall packs over the doors that shine down. Any lighting they will have will have light fixtures directed down or glazing the walls to accentuate the walls as opposed to just spilling out over the sidewalks. Lighting is important and some of the centers look the best in the evening. Most of the sales are done in the wintertime went it gets dark early. In an outdoor center it is really important. You have to provide enough lighting so that there is a comfort level. You need a general illumination from the parking lot level and then you count on the accent lights from the building and from the tenants, the sidewalk lighting to get the ambience and character. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there things in the Zoning Ordinance that are relative to controlling lighting. It says that the source of the lighting has to be obscured. The maximum foot - candle at the property line cannot be any more than .5, so they will be held to that standard at the southern property line. There is also an approximate 200 -foot right of way at I88, and then there is vacant property that is unincorporated. They do not have the same issues that came up with Costco. Costco's building is far larger than all of these buildings combined. The signs on the south wall of that building are substantially big and very bright. Member Braune noted that no residential property owners were notified, so they must have been far enough away. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 21 January 17, 2005 Director of Community Development Kallien said that the maximum height that could be built under the current zoning is 76 feet, under the ORA -1 District. There is a certain amount of lighting that could have from that type of thing. There are very tall buildings around it, directly to the northeast on the Oakbrook Terrace side. Lombard has plans to the west and there is a hotel there now. There is a substantial amount of light in the area. This site will be rather obscure when you compare it to its surroundings. If they are successful in getting approvals, when they get their building permit they will make sure that they comply with the Village Code. Member Tropinski asked how the deliveries would be handled. Mr. Klover responded that said that the rear of the buildings have delivery areas, that are actually have screened truck walls designed into them. They are tall enough to obscure any trucks. Member Braune asked how the permitted uses they want disallowed, will be enforced. Ms. Riordan said that they will enforce it in their covenants. Director of Community Development Kallien said that under simple zoning concepts if something is listed as a permitted use by right the applicant or owner has the right to that use. However, if the applicant chooses to restrict the types of uses they feel are inappropriate to their development, they can in essence ask the Village if there is a map amendment they can incorporate those limitations into the final ordinance. If it is sold the next owner could ask that some of those things be relieved to modify the ordinance. Member Braune said that they only comment that he saw from the public was a letter to the editor in the newspaper where they questioned whether we need another set of upscale retail in the area, which is not a rational question based upon what they have seen here, however, it is worth a question on potential tenants. Sometimes if the rent is too high you get empty storefronts and they are hard to fill sometimes. Ms. Riordan responded that right now they have had an incredible response from tenants that are interested in coming in. Right now they are in the process of trying to figure out a way to pick and choose who is going to be allowed in the center. Because of the amount of money that the ownership is spending that is not going to happen unless they have tenants. They are not going to build these buildings on spec and then hope they have tenants come lease them. The lease is going to be completed before they ever do this. This is happening. It is either happening here or it is happening to the west of Oak Brook, they believe that it is better to be happening here. They think that it is a great use for the property and will spur more redevelopment and it keeps the dollars in the Village. Director of Community Development Kallien said that relative to the market, when you look at Oak Brook's commercial space, Oakbrook Center normally has a VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 21 January 17, 2005 backlog of who wants to locate there, they can be very selective and can pick and choose and they actually have people that move around. The other centers in town, there were some vacancies, but the storefronts are generally full. The most difficult places are the northeast and northwest corners of Route 83 and 16th Street. Part of the problem there is not that there isn't a market, but they're not laid out maybe the best that they could be. The access and visibility is poor. You see them and then wonder how to get in the site and by the time you figure it out you are already past it. They really are the northerly extension of the shopping center. The Oak Brook market has the capacity to support additional retail. Most of the Village government is funded on sales tax and when there is the opportunity to expand a base, it has to be looked at very seriously. Member Goel said that the plan for the path around the pond seems to be very good and if it is made attractive enough, people will come and maybe jog or walk around there in good weather. Perhaps they could consider revising it to be a jogging trail and would add to the center. Ms. Riordan responded that was something they could look at. In terms of tenants they would have to make sure that is something they would like to have going on to see if it is a feasible use. She said that she did not know if the retailers would like people taking up parking spaces to go jog around the pond. She said that is something they can explore. Member Bulin questioned where the additional 75 valet parking spaces were that were referred to in Exhibit 10. Ms. Riordan responded that their thinking was that the valet company could double or triple -park the cars. However, they do meet the Ordinance without out that. Because there is a single ownership, there would be a single valet company. Under the map amendment tab on page 10 the calculations determine that they need 1009 spaces. They do have actually 1010 spaces without the valet parking, which meets the requirements of the Ordinance. Member Bulin said that he is very much in favor of the path around the pond and believes it will give an additional amenity to the lifestyle center. He asked if it would connect to the Village's existing bike path system. Ms. Schulenberg responded that part of the problem is the change in grade. With the existing grade that is at the pond and the existing topography that they have with the new development there is such a change in grade that they are not able to do that. Member Bulin said that he did not necessarily mean that particular path, however, it was referenced in their materials that there would be a bike rack and there really is no bike path on Butterfield Road or Meyers Road. Village Engineer Durfey responded that there is no connection along Meyers Road yet, but they foresee sometime in the future there will be. There is a proposal that he has asked the engineers to look at regarding the construction of a sidewalk along the north side of the pond from their easterly driveway to Meyers Road. There is a VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 21 January 17, 2005 further proposal, sometime in the future, through working with the State, the Village and Oakbrook Terrace of constructing a sidewalk along the south side of Butterfield and 22nd Street all the way to Route 83. Hopefully some long -term sidewalks in the commercial areas will be accomplished. Member Bulin asked to what extent the tenant could alter the exterior elevations of the buildings. Ms. Riordan said that there is some allowance for color or glass or entry, but the owner is building the buildings. Member Bulin said that he believes it is a great package. Ms. Riordan summarized the request. She said that they are seeking the following in their petitions: 1. map amendment - to change the zoning district from ORA -1 to B -1. • They believe their requests meet the standards they will not have a deleterious impact on the surrounding properties. They think if there is going to be any impact it will be a positive one. • The proposed B -1 district is consistent with surrounding land uses and will not have any negative impact on the neighborhood. • They believe there is going to be more of a gain to the public for this project. • It will be beneficial to the health, safety and welfare of the public and will not have any negative impacts. 2. Three text amendments are being sought: • Section 13 -7A -1 — To add "health clubs" as a permitted use in the B -1 District. • Section 13 -7A -3B — Amend text to change Structure height from 30 feet to 50 feet. • Section 13 -3 -8 — Amend text to allow design elements from 15 feet to 30 feet. a. They believe that these changes are consistent with the neighborhood with Fountain Square to the north and the current trends in the Village. b. This will be a decrease in the allowable heights, if the property were zoned ORA -1. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he alerted the petitioner of his concerns. The provision they are seeking to 13 -3 -8 would amend all structures in the Village. In this particular case 30 feet would work, because we know what we are getting. However, to allow this to every property, he and he believes the Village Board would feel uncomfortable in allowing this amendment in its current state because the request is too open. Perhaps the Plan Commission could recommend to the Village Board to limit it in some fashion and direct the Village attorney to work on that as part of an ordinance. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 21 January 17, 2005 3. Special Use for outdoor dining. • They believe the special use is located and designed so that it will not have a negative impact on the public health, safety and welfare. • It will not have a negative impact on surrounding property values. • The staff report speaks to 3 issues and they agree to the following conditions to be added to the special use: 1. That the standards outlined in the request are enforced. 2. That a safety mechanism is devised for the seating in Building K if it is developed. 3. That a maximum occupancy is established. 4. The safety mechanism devised for Building K will restrict a car from going forward. 4. Plat of Consolidation — To allow them to consolidate the 5 individual parcels they now have into one single parcel. They are also seeking 2 variations to the Subdivision Regulations. • Variation to the monumentation requirements • Variation to the public utility easements • They are also seeking annexation of an unincorporated parcel, prior to plat approval. • Approval of the plat subject dedication of the right of way. They are also seeking variations that will be heard before the Zoning Board of Appeals in February. Director of Community Development Kallien questioned the purpose of the planters along the walkway. Mr. Klover responded that they are designed for aesthetics as well as safety. Motion by Member Goel, seconded by Member Tropinski to recommend for approval the map amendment as requested to rezone the property from ORA -1 to B -1. In making this recommendation, the Plan Commission finds that: 1. The 19.7 acres is zoned ORA -1 and has been zoned /used for nonresidential purposes for nearly 30 years. 2. The Butterfield Road /22"d Street corridor in this area is home to a variety of office, commercial and restaurant uses. 3. Recent development /redevelopment activities in close proximity to the proposed development have resulted in a number of new commercial properties, in particular the Fountain Square development located directly to the north and the Embassy Suites development to the west. 4. The prevalent land use to the north and west of the Oak Brook Promenade site is retail. 5. In Oak Brook, at lease two recent redevelopment projects (i.e., Shops of VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 21 January 17, 2005 Oak Brook and Costco) have been approved and developed which involved a change in the previous Off /Warehouse use to a retail use. 6. An amendment that changes the zoning of the subject property to B -1, and development of the Oak Brook Promenade would in fact be consistent with the surrounding development. 7. The applicant has addressed all of the applicable factors required for a map amendment and in writing, which is located under the map amendment tab on pages 2 through 15. 8. No comments have been received from the neighboring property owners that the proposed map amendment will negatively impact the adjacent properties. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: 6 — Members Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 1 — Member Adrian. Motion Carried Motion by Member Goel, seconded by Member Wolin to recommend for approval the special use as requested to allow up to three outdoor dining areas adjacent to restaurant. In making this recommendation, the Plan Commission finds that: 1. The developer is proposing that the Oak Brook Promenade have up to three upscale restaurants at part of its final tenant mix. 2. Most of the more upscale restaurants in the Village include a number located at the Oakbrook Center as well as several along 22nd Street have approved special uses for outdoor dining arrangements and successfully operate those facilities for the benefit of their patrons as well as the community. 3. Even though the specifics are not known at this time concerning the actual restaurants that will be locating in the Oak Brook Promenade, the applicant has proposed as part of their special use, specific design criteria that will control the location, size, design, lighting and operational aspects of teach outdoor dining area. 4. The outdoor dining arrangement proposed by the applicant is consistent with previously approved special uses for other outdoor dining arrangements in the Village. 5. The applicant has addressed all of the applicable factor required for a special use as explained in writing under the special use tab in the case file. 6. No comments have been received from the neighboring property owners that the proposed special use will negatively impact the adjacent properties. 7. With regard to the outdoor dining area proposed for building K, it may be appropriate to integrate additional landscaping /physical barriers between the dining area and the parking lot to more effectively protect patrons from an errant car. 8. Any future outdoor dining area that is proposed to be constructed that is not VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 18 of 21 January 17, 2005 in substantial conformance to the approved special use would be required to seek and amendment to the special use. 9. The maximum seating capacities for each outdoor dining area would be established at time of permit per the building and life safety code as adopted by the Village of Oak Brook. 10. The approved outdoor dining areas are to be used for outdoor dining purpose only and in no way to be used as a party deck. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: 6 — Members Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 1 — Member Adrian. Motion Carried Motion by Member Goel, seconded by Member Braune to recommend for approval the text amendments as requested in order to facilitate construction of the proposed Oak Brook Promenade project. In making this recommendation, the Plan Commission finds that: 1. The applicant has proposed three text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in order to develop the Oak Brook Promenade as presented. 2. The amendment which would increase the maximum height of structures in the B -1 District would have, applicability with the two existing parcels zoned B -1 (the two shopping centers at the northwest and northeast corner of Route 83 and 16th Street). 3. The amendment to permit an additional 30 feet of height above the maximum permitted by the district for appurtenances may be appropriate for the proposed Oak Brook Promenade but may be excessive when compared to the other developments in the community. This provision may be limited to redevelopment projects of a particular size, scale or location. Appropriate language is to be added as determined by the Village Attorney. 4. The Plan Commission concurs with the concept of permitting increased building heights at the proposed location for the Oak Brook Promenade. The Village Board may consider a review of the other non - residential zoning districts to determine what changes if any should be made. 5. As presented by the applicant, the proposed increased structure height for the Oak Brook Promenade is deemed reasonable and will not negatively impact any adjacent property owners. 6. The proposed amendment to add health clubs as a permitted use in the B -1 District is deemed reasonable for not only the Oak Brook Promenade but any B -1 property in the Village. 7. No comments have been received from any property owner in Oak Brook that objects to the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. 8. The applicant has addressed all of the applicable factor required for a text amendment and as explained in writing under the text amendment tab on pages 3 through 6 in the case file. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 19 of 21 January 17, 2005 Roll Call Vote: Ayes: 6 — Members Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 1 — Member Adrian. Motion Carried Motion by Member Goel, seconded by Member Braune to recommend for approval of a final plat of consolidation and a variation to the Subdivision Regulations. In making this recommendation, the Plan Commission finds that: 1. The proposed plat consolidates the five existing parcels that are of this project into one parcel. One of these parcels is contiguous to the site but is presently outside the Village limits (i.e., unincorporated). 2. The single 19.7 -acre parcel will accommodate an approximate 180,000 square foot mixed -use project consisting of retail, restaurant and office uses. 3. The proposed variations to the Subdivision Regulations request by the applicant relates to required monumentation and public utility easements. 4. Because the site is already developed and a portion of the site improvement will be maintained, the variation to the monumentation requirement is being requested. 5. With respect to the requested variation, the Village has in the past (700/800 Commerce) approved a similar request. 6. The final plat consolidation satisfies all other aspects and requirements for the Village's Subdivision Regulations including that neither the proposed variation nor final plat conflicts with any adjacent properties. 7. That the applicant addresses all issues raised by Village Engineer Durfey in his memorandum dated January 12, 2005 on page 12 of the case file including final engineering approval. 8. Annexation approval of the unincorporated parcel as a condition of final approval by the Village. 9. Future dedication to DuPage County of the Meyers Road right of way. 10. No comments have been received from any property owner in Oak Brook that objects to the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: 6 — Members Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 1 — Member Adrian. Motion Carried 6. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 20 of 21 January 17, 2005 OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Braune, seconded by Member Wolin to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert L. Kallien, Jr. Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 21 of 21 January 17, 2005 ADJOURMENT