Loading...
Minutes - 02/19/2001 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. Acting Chairman Members Chairman Members Director of Community Development Stephen Allen Samuel Girgis Barbara Payovich David Pequet Stelios Aktipis Surendra Goel Anthony Tappin Robert Kallien Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich to appoint Member Allen as Acting Chairman. VOICE VOTE: All in Favor. Motion carried. 1l. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Payovich moved, seconded by Member Pequet, to waive the reading of the January 15, 2001, Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as amended. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. Acting Chairman Allen said that the agenda items will be taken out of order. Ill. OAK BROOK HINES DEVELOPMENT L.L.C. — 700 -800 COMMERCE — TEXT AMENDMENT TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — REVISION TO CHAPTER 10A -3- A TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM F.A.R. IN ORA -1 DISTRICTS FROM .45 TO. 60 Richard Klawiter, Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe, attorney for the petitioner, reviewed the proposed text amendment and the subject site that will benefit from the request. The site is at 700- 800 Commerce Drive, which is a pair of office buildings and the owner of each is Oak Brook Hines Development L.L.C., headquartered in Chicago. The subject site is approximately 15 acres located north of 1 -88 and south of Harger Road, currently zoned ORA -1. The request is for a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to change the maximum permitted F.A.R. from the current .45 F.A.R. to .6 in the ORA -1 District. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 19, 2001 7 The short-term specific request is to develop approximately 14,290 square feet in the basement of the existing 700 Commerce Drive office building in order to accommodate a series of tenant requests for additional space. The effect of this increase would be to increase the F.A.R. for the site from .45 to .47. Their request to change the F.A.R. from .45 to .6 is to solve a longer -term problem. This is driven by their concern that in order to be competitive in the market and for the Village to remain competitive in attracting perspective tenants in existing buildings and potential developable buildings, that the actual F.A.R. allowable be increased to a degree higher than .47. This change is consistent with proposals that have been before the Village for some time known as the Lohan Report. The report contemplates in certain office and commercial areas an actual F.A.R. of 1.2, which is not inconsistent with sound long -range planning objectives. This request is much more conservative request than contemplated. There is an inconsequential impact on the subject property, since all use, bulk and density requirements would continue to be adhered to. The parking count is more than the Zoning Ordinance minimum requirements — 1 per 300 square feet. The site overall will essentially remain unchanged. There will not be an increase in lot coverage because the current proposal is to increase the floor area ratio by recharacterizing a portion of the footprint from being a non - leasable area to a leasable area. Although the specific request is to increase the F.A.R. to allow the proposed development, they have a longer -term concern, which is what is behind the request to increase it to .60. In order to attract and retain existing tenants and to be able to have the flexibility down the road to be able to build to .6 F.A.R. on an overall site basis. The current request would not have an impact on increasing or decreasing side yard setbacks. They are taking space that is now allocated to parking and converting it to leasable space for office use. The proposed text amendment meets the qualifications of the Zoning Ordinance, as follows: The proposed increase in F.A.R. will increase the value of surrounding commercial properties by promoting commercial development and expansion, while having little or no impact on nearby neighborhoods. The proposed increased F.A.R. will allow the property and others to be used to their full potential and the increase in density will make the density of development for commercial properties consistent with that in nearby municipalities. This was all set forth in the Lohan Report. Many nearby communities, including those, which Oak Brook is most competitive with in the attraction and retention of existing tenants, have a F.A.R. somewhat in excess of .45. In Schaumburg, their office business district allows for a maximum F.A.R. of .8. In Itasca, their office district closely associated with the ORA -1 District in Oak Brook, allows for a maximum F.A.R. of .6. What they are seeking is more conservative than contemplated by the Lohan report and no more liberal than allowed in neighboring municipalities which are most like Oak Brook. Roger Heerema, Project Architect, Wright Architects, described the essential components of the site plan. McDonald's occupies the entire 800 Commerce building. There are 1112 parking spaces, of those, 55 are located within the lower level concourse of the 700 Commerce building. They are proposing to eliminate the use of a portion of those within the lower level only. The site plan from a parking perspective will remain unchanged. There is a one level deck and access to the concourse level parking through a ramp that proceeds down on the north side of the building adjacent to the two berth loading dock. They are proposing to add windows on the southwestern section of the building, at grade. The overall character of the building will be maintained. The site will be maintained as it currently exists, even with the elimination of 30 cars in the concourse, they will still be in excess of the required parking spaces. Greg Van Schaack, Vice - President and Partner with Hines Development said that the genesis for this request is that they have been very successful in leasing the space in this building. 700 Commerce is 100% leased and occupied. They were able to attract the tenant Premier from PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 19, 2001 2 neighboring Westchester and they occupy about 60% of the building. They have also attracted Regis Business Centers and they occupy the entire 5th floor. McDonald's occupies 100% of 800 Commerce. They purchased the property from McDonald's and McDonald's has leased the space back from Hines. They have had requests from McDonald's, Premier and other tenants for expansion space and this proposal is the best solution they can come up with on a short-term basis, to build out the concourse level. This will accomplish short-term goals, but does not as F.A.R. as long -term goals. It was built in 1967 and looks that way. In order to retain McDonald's and accommodate their long -term growth, the .6 F.A.R. will give Hines the flexibility to plan ahead and determine whether to add a floor or two to the building, or tear it down and start over with in the same footprint; or do something long -term to keep this very important tenant base that they have established and allow them to grow within the site. Member Girgis questioned where the Village Board stands on the Lohan Report. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the report was done several years ago. Since then, there have been a few presentations have been made and a joint workshop was held. There has been some consensus made on what the maximum F.A.R. should be in each of the districts. The Lohan Report originally anticipated a much higher F.A.R. across the board, but by doing so, the traffic improvements that would be required would be very extensive. In some places, it was recommended that the F.A.R. be ratcheted down. It was envisioned that an amendment would have been made to the Master Plan that incorporated the F.A.R.'s as well as the transportation element including required infrastructure improvements. The Village hopes to accomplish this in the near future. It was felt that Hines could pursue the increased F.A.R. to accommodate what they need to have done. This was the reason for the suggestion in the staff report, to either recommend the .6 or a number that accommodates what they need to do and gives the Village the flexibility to do an analysis for recommendation to the Comprehensive Plan. Acting Chairman Allen said that at this point the Lohan Report is still under review in terms of what was reviewed at the Joint meeting with the Village Board. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there is an understanding as to what the Village wants to achieve, but it has not been formally adopted or incorporated into the Village's Comprehensive Plan document. No one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the request. Member Girgis questioned whether the lower level of the building as proposed would be in harmony with the existing fagade. Roger Heerema said that they reviewed several possibilities, and although the proposed opening contrasts with the treatment above, the lower level is a separate element. Greg Van Schaack said that they are pleased with the design as proposed because it gives the building a top, middle and bottom with a design that is timeless. Acting Chairman Allen questioned that to make this particular project work, a .47 F.A.R, is what is currently needed and that .6 is needed for the future. Greg Van Schaack agreed, and added that they expect to be in discussions with McDonald's in the near future about expansion at the 800 Commerce building. They are hoping that the Village will try to help them solve that problem. Member Pequet questioned if everyone could comply with the parking requirements, how much would the increased .6 F.A.R. impact the district. It could be a much larger impact than this property alone and could possibly add another million square feet to that district. Greg Van Schaack said that many of the office building lots are too small to accommodate the parking that would be required by the increased F.A.R. of .6. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 19, 2001 3 �`L Acting Chairman Allen questioned when they envisioned addressing the need for McDonald's? Greg Van Schaack said probably not for 2 or 3 years, but the planning would require McDonald's to know well in advance for them to decide whether or not to stay. Due to the lack of space in Oak Brook, they have had to move to space in Downers Grove and Warrenville. They do desire to stay as close to the headquarters as they can. Director of Community Development Kallien said that one of the considerations to .6 is that it will not apply to just this particular building. If you would look at all of the ORA -1 parcels in the community, many are built very close to the maximum under the current .45 regulations. Increased F.A.R. would require redevelopment of the parcel, demolition of the existing structure and rebuilt. They would also have to build parking structures. If someone were to assemble a number of parcels, it could have a significant impact on traffic in a particular area. There is a consensus from the Village Board that the Lohan Report offered opportunities, with a F.A.R. that we could work towards. He suggested that if the petitioner has a future plan, the Village would like to see that specific plan. Member Pequet asked if they increase the F.A.R. by 33 %, how is the entire district impacted? Member Pequet said that if the F.A.R. was raised from .45 to .6, in the area proposed where it is underbuilt right now, would double the square footage allowed with the proposed change. In District 2 West alone, would allow additional cars, probably many thousands. Acting Chairman Allen said that at the Joint meeting when the Lohan Report was discussed, the concern was whether the infrastructure would be able to support increased F.A.R.'s. The overall impact on the District might have some demands that could require infrastructure improvements. Director of Community Development Kallien said that a companion text amendment would be necessary to the Building Regulations of the Village Code. It requires that any utilization of additional floor area ratio, a traffic study must be done. If there were a requirement that off -site improvements be necessary, then the developer would be required to enter into an agreement to make those improvements. Greg Van Schaack said that for McDonald's at the corner of Spring Road and Commerce Drive, the Plaza 2 site has been upgraded to a .8 F.A.R. and they are allowed to go to a 1.2 if they perform certain improvements. He asked if there was a possibility to increase the F.A.R. on a case by case basis. Many buildings are full and occupied with long -term leases. Director of Community Development Kallien said that without the text amendment, he does not see a mechanism outside of granting a variation to this property to allow the .6. The proposed text amendment to the Code would allow the .6 for all properties in the ORA -1 District. Rich Klawiter said that even though the .6 would be potentially eligible to be taken advantage of by the properties in the ORA -1 District, in order to pull a building permit they would have to demonstrate from a traffic impact standpoint, that the impact on the proposed development on the neighboring street system is accommodated by the traffic generation expected to be given off by the increase size of the development with the number of cars generated for the given development. The Village Board would have the right to approve or not, for any given development proposal whether or not to allow the increase in the F.A.R. They felt that their objectives and the Villages' were in harmony and this proposal was a win /win situation from the standpoint of the Village wanting to ensure that the existing and prospective tenants consider Oak Brook to be a the top of the list in terms of the place to locate by virtue of location and amenities. The Village in terms of its long -term objectives is becoming less competitive vis a vis other municipalities. It would represent good long -term sound planning for the Village to adopt a text amendment of this sort. If that were not the case, they would be willing to process the request as a variation. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 19, 2001 4 l2i_tt Acting Chairman Allen responded that the one problem the Village does not want to create, that Schaumburg has and Oak Brook does to some extent, is gridlock. You cannot move when accessing or exiting some of these areas during the a.m. /p.m. rush hour. The plan as presented appears to be well thought out, but his suggestion is to take the matter slowly. Additional text amendment's can always be made, if they are presented. Member Pequet further added that the Commission may not necessarily be in disagreement with the .6 F.A.R., but there are F.A.R. reaching ramifications that they do not want to set a precedent. The change could have significant impacts to the surrounding area, and they do not know what all they truly could be. They would be more attuned to accommodate the petitioner's specific situation. Seeking direction, Rich Klawiter said the feeling he is receiving from the Commission is that should a plan be submitted down the road and justify an increase on a site specific basis in F.A.R. .45 to .6, and if the Commission is persuaded based upon the information provided, could recommend approval for this particular site. Their concern is that in terms of the long -range planning with the expiring leases, particularly in the McDonald's building, they cannot reassure McDonald's that the request can be granted. They are seeking to marry their long -range purposes with the Village's long range purposes and planning, and come up with a solution that would be responsive to both. If the Commission is not comfortable with the F.A.R.- reaching potential consequences of the .6 increase; they asked that the Commission recommend an increase to at least allow them to do the immediate development. They also asked for direction in terms of whether or not the Commission would be amenable to a request so that they can go back to McDonald's with all the flexibility they need in order to accommodate them as a tenant. They will not want to wait until six months before their lease expires to renew their lease. There is a degree of long -range planning that needs to be made, in order to be successful. Rich Klawiter said that they approached the request using the most conservative estimates in the Lohan Report. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if the Village Board ultimately adopts .48 that means all parcels in Oak Brook zoned ORA -1 would also have the ability to build to .48. They would still need to meet the setbacks and parking requirements, and would have to comply with the building codes. Approving the .48 shows a willingness to work with the developer to deal with a current day situation. It also shows that there may be more work that staff and the Plan Commission need to do in terms of analysis and what this all means. If someone asked what the net impact would be to go from .45 to .6, you could quantify it and say another million or so square feet would be added. However, when you look at the individual buildings, literally you would say for that to happen, each one would have to be torn down and rebuilt, and so on. There is a need to look down to the various parcels that are zoned ORA -1. In the petitioner's case, there may be a way to add on to the 800 building with some modest structured parking to meet their needs. However, with other buildings in the ORA -1 District they would most likely have to literally start over. Member Girgis questioned the difference from the petitioner's standpoint to seek a variance rather than the text amendment. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the variation process would require the applicant meeting all of the factors for a variation, including hardship, unique circumstance, and that the request is worthy of the additional relief. Oak Brook seems to have a history that makes the variation process difficult. In this case, hardship is not a physical one, but wanting to do more with the property that what is allowed. If the Lohan study had never been done, a variation would have been the only avenue the applicant would have been able to use. Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich the proposed Text Amendment to increase the F.A.R. from .45 to .48 is deemed necessary for the public convenience and will be PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 19, 2001 5 operated so that the public health, safety and welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in which it is located. The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend subject to the proposed text amendment to read as follows: ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4- Nays: 0 - Absent: 3- Motion Carried. Allen, Girgis, Payovich, and Pequet Aktipis, Goel and Tappin IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK- ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 3 GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS AND CHAPTER 12 OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING The petitioner in this case is the Village of Oak Brook. Director of Community Development, Robert Kallien said that the review of Chapter 3 was concluded at the last meeting. Tonight the discussion will pertain to a number of proposed changes to Chapter 12. Chairman Aktipis and Village Board Trustee Liaison Savino are both very interested in this chapter. As such, instead of reviewing the document and revisiting the issues again at the next meeting, he proposes to review several items that he wanted to bring to their attention prior to the next meeting. Section 13- 12 -4 -J of page 9 -d in the staff report, recommends language for landscaping, screening, and design of new parking decks. The concept would be to enhance the appearance of these new structures. Additional language relating to architecture and design has been proposed which should provide visual consistency between the parking structure and the principal building. This case is very appropriate in light of their previous discussion with Hines. To get to a .6 F.A.R., there will have to be a significant amount of redevelopment, which will include the construction of numerous parking decks to accommodate the many thousands of new cars. Now there is an opportunity, and Oak Brook has been very careful over the years to ensure that the architecture of the principal building is reflective of the goals of the community and there are very visual pleasing buildings for the most part. However, with parking structures, there are some that look nice and others that look very average. The goal should be that when you end up with a nice looking building, the characteristics of the building need to be drawn into the design and architecture of the parking deck. There is an opportunity here to make a statement with the buildings. Around the country, there are some structures from the outside that you would not realize you were looking at a parking deck. On the outside, they are hidden by retail uses or living units with the parking deck behind. Member Girgis said that concept was brought up in the Lohan Report. Director of Community Development Kallien said that a good traffic /parking study could anticipate how uses would feed off one another. When the Marriott was proposing an expansion, we talked about a shared parking arrangement that would not conflict with the adjacent office uses. There may be an opportunity to see additional retail added to the buildings to service the people that actually use the building. This would then create different trip generations. At the next meeting, if anyone is aware of any parking structures that are truly unique advise us of the location. Section 13 -12 -5, The required off - street parking standard for each of the land uses has been reviewed and updated where appropriate. Please review the zoning ordinance to see what uses exist and the parking ratios that have been established. Throughout the region, communities have a wide variation of what they require for parking. The size of the building does not necessarily reflect on the demands of the parking and utilization. We need to review what our parking ratios are and make sure they are relevant to where the Village is going. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 19, 2001 6 Member Girgis questioned if there is any type of guideline that can be used. Director of Community Development Kallien said that ITT (International Traffic Trip Generation manual) is a manual that traffic engineers have surveyed all of the various land uses to find out what the parking requirements are. The problem is that in the book they will say that the average office space has a utilization of .9 to 10. They come up with a mid -range number, which results in the 3.3 or 4, or 4.5. We need to look to see if there are situations in Oak Brook that has a parking issue, and therefore we must come up with parking standards. Acting Chairman Allen said that there might also be a need for uses that are changing. If there is a plan for a daycare center that has traffic coming and going, and then down the road the use for the building changes, and the requirement that worked for one use may not work for another. Especially the way businesses come and go today, Member Pequet said that with data processing needs are, hundreds of people can be packed into a smaller area, so the industry can have a big impact. Director of Community Development Kallien said that they are also now businesses that have people work from home part of the time. Member Pequet said that it almost seems it is the ratio per employee versus the square footage. Acting Chairman Allen said that the Village wants to have an orderly growth and control it, but you do not want to scare the growth further west. Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Pequet, to continue this hearing to the next regular Plan Commission meeting date set for March 19, 2001. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 4- Nays: 0 - Absent: 3- Motion Carried. Allen, Girgis, Payovich, and Pequet Aktipis, Goel and Tappin V. CHRIST CHURCH OF OAK BROOK- 501 OAK BROOK ROAD — AMENDED SPECIAL USE FOR EXPANSION OF CHURCH FACILITIES WITH ALLOWANCES TO THE 100 FOOT SETBACK ON YORK ROAD FOR AN ADDITION of A NEW PARKING LOT (PHASE B) The petitioner requested that the hearing be continued to the next Plan Commission meeting set for March 19, 2001. Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. VI. YORKSHIRE GLEN OF OAK BROOK L.L.C. — 4 YORKSHIRE DRIVE — FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION — 7 -LOT SUBDIVISION The petitioner requested that the hearing be continued to the next Plan Commission meeting set for March 19, 2001. Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 19, 2001 7 Vll. ADJOURNMENT Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. -7 Meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Director of Community'D v lopment Secretary March 19. 2001 Date Approved PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 19, 2001 8