Minutes - 04/17/2006 - Plan Commission1.
2.
3.
4
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 17, 2006 REGULAR
MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN
ON JUNE 19, 2006
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
7:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons
PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Members, Raju Iyer, Gopal
Lalmalani, Moin Saiyed, Marcia Tropinski and Gerald Wolin
ABSENT: Member Paul Adrian
IN ATTENDANCE: Jeffrey Kennedy and Robert Sanford, Trustees, Robert Kallien,
Director of Community Development, Margaret O'Connell, Assistant
Village Attorney, Dale Durfey, Village Engineer and James Bodony,
Fire Chief
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2006
Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Lamalani to approve the minutes
of the March 20, 2006 Regular Plan Commission meeting as written and waive the
full reading thereof. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
CALL TO ORDER
MINUTES
UNFIMSHED
BUSINESS
A. VILLAS OF OAK BROOK SUBDIVISION — 2901 OAK BROOK ROAD — VILLAS or OAK
BROOK-2901
FINAL PLAT WITH VARIATION — 4 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH OAK 13ROOK RD
VARIATION FOR PRIVATE STREET - FP w /VAR - 4
LOT SUB
Director of Community Development Kallien said that at the last meeting there were
a number of issues identified by the Plan Commission and Village Engineer Durfey
that were to be addressed by the applicant. It appears that a number of those issues
have been resolved.
Jim Flowers, agent for the owner of the property, Vito Falco, said that there were
three issues remaining at the last meeting.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 24 April 17, 2006
12c
They addressed the issue of the jurisdiction of the bike path with the county
and have submitted their commentary to the Village Engineer;
They have provided the structural engineering for the retaining walls to the
Village Engineer; and
They received a memo from the Village Engineer regarding some drafting
changes. They have tentatively scheduled a meeting with the engineers this
week to resolve any drafting changes.
No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request.
Member Wolin questioned portions of Village Engineer Durfey's memorandum
regarding the single and double - tiered retaining walls. He asked if there were any
concerns that should be discussed relative to the retaining walls.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that they are no technical engineering issues,
other than the Village's concern in past subdivisions.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that they wanted to know what it
would look like and the applicant has provided that.
Member Wolin questioned Village Engineer Durfey's comments about the wet
bottom lakes on lots 1 and 3 and the shoreline around them does not comply with
the Public Works Construction Standards, which pertains to the proposed retaining
wall and ground sloping areas and asked why he cannot meet the section for the
non - walled areas.
Jiun -Guang Lin, Project Engineer, Balsamo /Olson Engineering, 4906 Main Street,
Lisle, Illinois, responded that based upon the north perimeter of the two existing
ponds to the north, they propose to keep the existing slope. They have tried to
maximize the flood plain compensation storage because the current slope sometimes
varies from 2 to 1 to a 3 to 1 slope, Based on the Village's required typical lake
section, there are two requirements that they are unable to meet. The first is that the
typical section requires a minimum of 20 feet separation between the back of curb
on 31St Street to where the slope begins to drop. Based on the existing conditions
they probably only have 15 feet of separation. The second requirement states that
when the slope starts to drop there must be a 4 to 1 slope between a certain elevation
between a normal wall level and a high wall level, a six -foot wide safety ledge has
to be provided which is extremely flat. The existing slope is only 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 at
some points. If they try to comply with the typical lake section as specified, they are
going to lose a portion of the provided flood plain compensation storage, which
would not make it work, engineering wise. However, they have looked into the
regrading of the area. After a discussion with Village Engineer Durfey, they are
going to revise the grading along the north shore area to create a uniform. 4 to 1
slope along the entire frontage of the property from where the existing slope is,
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 24 April 17, 2006
which at some points is 2 to 1 and 3 to 1. This 4 to 1 slope will be uniform along the
entire frontage of the property with exception to area of the proposed road, which
will enhance the safety concerns. Creating a 4 to 1 slope, as proposed, will make the
slope less deep, and will push the normal water level location further south from the
relocated bike path.
Member Wolin questioned although they partially addressed the problem and since
they did not completely meet all of the cross section requirements, were there any
safety concerns.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that the standard is an underwater safety ledge.
The entire lake has an underwater safety ledge because it is no deeper than 3 feet,
anywhere in the lake, The standard also has an above water safety ledge for a
populated area with a lot of children; so if they fell down with a 4 to 1 slope, they
would hit a relatively flat area before they even went into the water. This piece of
property is very largely impacted with approximately 50% flood plain across the
entire site, It has steep physical features to try to manage and the revised plan seems
to be a decent compromise.
Member Adrian confirmed that he had reviewed the case file and read the minutes
of the last meeting.
Motion by Member Lamalani, seconded by Member Saiyed to recommend approval
of the Final Plat of Subdivision as revised, the variations and waivers to the
Subdivision Regulations as requested, subject to the following conditions:
1. The revised plan is to include the 4 to 1 slope changes;
2. Address the issues contained in Village Engineer Durfey's memo on pages
9 -9.c. of the case file; and
3. Final engineering approval.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: 7 — Members Adrian, lyer, Lalmalani, Saiyed, Tropinski, Wolin and
Chairwoman Payovich.
Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried.
B. BRITTWOOD CREEK LLC — APPROXIMATELY 57 ACRES OF VACANT cx, ORDI: 83
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF 35TH STREET AND EAST OF ROUTE AND 35TH - MAP
81 MAP AMENDMENT — TO REZONE THE WESTERN PORTION OF AMEND AND
PRELIMINARY
THE PROPERTY FROM R -1 TO R -2; PRELIMINARY PLAT — 35 -LOT PLAT WITH
SUBDIVISION WITH VARIATIONS TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS — VARIATIONS -
35 -LOT
SECTIONS 14 -6 -2, 14� -6 -3 14 -6 -3D, 14 -6 -3E, 14 -6 -3F, 14 --6 -3G AND 14 -6 -3L SUBDIVISION
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 24 April 17, 2006
V'---LA
Chairwoman Payovich announced that when the last meeting ended those who had
signed in to speak would be heard first at this meeting.
Frank Krohn, 1010 35th Street, said that when Mr. Callaghan originally presented his
project to the residents last August, he said that when the people on 35th Street
purchased their property there were no guarantees that the 57 -acre parcel would
never be developed. He was right; but they did know that the property was zoned R-
1 and had a reasonable expectation that it would stay R -1 and bought their properties
on that basis. He said he would turn the statement back on Mr. Callaghan and tell
him that when he contracted to buy the 57 acres, there was no guarantee that he
would be able to get any zoning changes, and knowingly and voluntarily took the
risk. Mr. Callaghan has a big problem with 35th Street and it is a problem that he
cannot remedy. He submitted that all developments in Oak Brook in the last 30
years that were ranted zoning changes for greater zoning density all had primary
road access. 35t Street is not a primary road or a secondary road; it is probably a
tertiary road. It is an 18 -foot wide, tree lined country road that services horses as
well as vehicles. The road epitomizes what makes Oak Brook unique. He asked if
it makes sense to allow Mr. Callaghan to build 40% more homes than he would be
entitled to without a zoning change, further stress out 35th Street and forever change
the character of it and the surrounding area. He believes the 35th Street issue alone
is enough to reject the petition.
Ray Allen, 1017 35th Street, said that he agreed with Frank Krohn's statements. He
said that he was one of the coordinators that went around and collected signatures.
50 -70 signatures came in by fax or mail. He called on homes, not in his area, but
those that were east of York Road. He said that it took a long time to get 1100+
signatures and all of the people were very sincere. None of the people east of York
Road were personal friends, but volunteered to sign the petition. They were heart
fully sought and heart fully signed.
Tony DiCanio, 3617 Madison, a 20 -year resident of Fullersburg. The 40th president
and a native Illinoisan was known to some as the "The Lipper," but most as a great
communicator. When President Ronald Reagan was repeatedly asked the same
questions repeatedly, he would answer in frustration, "here we go again." So here
we go again, a variance is a variance is a variance. Respectfully, he said he
reminded the Plan Commission that their responsibility was to the citizens of Oak
Brook, not to an elected official or someone with a special financial interest and
please deny the petitioners request.
Ernest Huntzinger, 2 Oak Brook Club Drive, declared his opposition to the proposal.
The character of 35th Street and the surrounding environs are lovely and he would
like to see that maintained at the present zoning.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 24 April 17, 2006
M---o
Mary Ann Kaufman, 3615 Adams Road, she lives on two 2 '/2 acre lots and moved
here for the school system. She does not want to see any zoning changes occur.
Based on all the meetings it does not seem that anyone will benefit from it, not the
school system or fire department, police department, or the village with increased
tax money. It is obvious to her that no one will benefit, but one person. With over
1000 petitions and knowing how the community feels about such zoning changes,
she truly believes the change should not occur in this area.
Bob Lindgren, 1020 Birchwood Road, said that he has spoken many times before,
but wanted to reiterate some points. He said that the development of this parcel
within the existing zoning, in his opinion, would max out the impact on the existing
environment. The Fullersburg Woods area cannot take anything more than what is
contemplated with the existing zoning. He agreed with Frank Krohn's comments
and added that as a citizen he was concerned that we have seemed to tolerate a
strategy toward the zoning laws, which is one of negotiation. The zoning ordinance
that has been enacted by the village becomes an opening point in a negotiation
process, rather than the law of the village that is expected to be complied with. He
urged the Plan Commission to treat the zoning as what it is, not as an opening point
in a negotiation process.
Connie Keller, 1155 35th Street, said that she grew up and has always lived just
down the street. She has spoken before and is heartened that so many other people
feel the same way she does about the Fullersburg Woods. She hoped that the Plan
Commission and Board of Trustees appreciate the wooded character of Oak Brook.
She did not think there was any hardship. The property can be built with 2 acre
zoning in place. The berming and all that the builder has proposed would protect
him from Route 83. If the lots are planned with nature and the watershed in mind,
he could make a nice development out of the 2 -acre zoning. She is in favor of the 2
acre zoning and not widening the street to keep it the equestrian wonderful spot that
it is and has always been the reputation of Oak Brook.
Terry O'Malley, President of the Breakenridge Farm Association, said that he
represents over 14 members that are at this meeting. They have had 3 issues put
before their association. One was the access road, they had asked for that to be
responded to at the last meeting, and was not and still has not been responded to.
Secondly, there were 3 lots subdivided by Basic Life in Breakenridge Farms that
were 5.99 acres according to their records, and one of the lots that is out of
compliance is the Basic Life property. When the other 2 properties were sold, they
were 2 acres and Basic Life kept the other property, which is adjacent to the 57
acres. The community has met on this issue several times and he represents them
overall. The key is that they are concerned about the traffic issues and wanted to
express that as well.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 24 April 17, 2006
VA
Sandra Martin, Superintendent for Butler School District 53 stated that they have
been studying the issue and believe that it is a village concern. As the school
district, they have evaluated the potential impact on the school system. They want
to keep their standards very high and the quality of service as high as it has always
been and continue to improve that. It is probably in the best interest of the school
district to accept as few students as possible from this development. Of course, they
would educate all of those that go there.
Mary Ann Karris, 3110 35th Street said that she has lived in the Village since 1970
and raised two children here. Through very good luck, they have moved to 35th
Street and it is the gem of the community and the neighborhood. Their lovely 35th
Street, with the equestrian and the narrow road is truly Oak Brook. She asked that
the zoning not be changed for economic advantages to a contractor. She believes he
could do very well under the present laws. They have obeyed the laws for 35 years
and feels he could also obey them.
Frederick Cappetta, Cappetta & Associates, Ltd., attorney represented several
objectors to the proposed development. He represents the following:
• The owners of more than 20% of the frontage immediately adjoining the
subject property and 20% of the owners with frontage directly opposite the
subject property; there are 4 owners in that category.
• Every homeowner whose private property immediately adjoins the 57 -acre
IBLP property; there are 10 homeowners in that category.
• Every improved lot owner on 35th Street; there are 12 people in that
category.
• The balance of all of the homes, with the exception of 1 in Breakenridge
Farm, that have not previously been listed, there are 18 people in that
category. The sole lot owner in Breakenridge not represented is IBLP, who
happens to own a lot within the subdivision is a co- petitioner.
• Except for three legal non - conforming lots and 6 vacant parcels, every other
homeowner located in the R -1 District that we are talking about. They are
listed on Exhibit F on the Citizens Response.
+ Breakenridge Woods Homeowners Association and the Fullersburg Woods
Area Association, which are the only homeowner associations in the subject
R -1 area.
• The Preserve Oak Brook organization, which conducted the opposition
petition, which resulted in 1072 signatures and are included in the records.
It includes 105 signatures from Hunter Trails and Old Oak Brook. 237
signatures from the R -2 Section of Fullersburg and 730 not from Fullersburg,
but from other subdivisions in Oak Brook, including, Brook Forest, Ginger
Creek, Midwest Club, Oak Brook Club, Saddle Brook, Trinity Lakes, York
Woods, Briarwood Lakes, Covington Court, Yorkshire Woods, Wood Glen,
Forest Gate, Timber Trails and Chateau Woods.
VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 24 April 17, 2006
The opposition petition from the first petition filing remains valid and opposes not
only the Callaghan September 2005 filing, but also the November 2005 and
steadfastly remains opposed to the February 2006 filing. The petition signed by the
1100 people prays that the R -1, 2 -acre residential zoning remain and that the Village
requires compliance to its current law without variance, amendment or change of
any building, zoning or subdivision ordinance. Although it was signed over a period
of time going back to the first petition, what it asks for continues to stand in
opposition to what is pending before the Plan Commission. At the last meeting, he
was openly opposed to the manner in which the Plan Commission meeting was
conducted. The object of the Plan Commission is to render due process and conduct
deliberative process that provides a full airing of the issues and a fair and dust result.
His concern was that after hearing the petitioner present his position the Plan
Commission concluded that there was insufficient time for the objectors to put their
case on, so it was deferred to this meeting; that made sense. What did not make
sense was the question and answer session and a free ranging discussion presided
over by the petitioner trying to solidify his points. It would be much the same as
jury- beginning deliberations after the prosecution makes its case, but before the
defense makes its case. It is inappropriate in our system to begin deliberations
before the issues have been joined and defined and the parties have stated their
positions. It would be wholly inappropriate in a criminal case to spend time having
the jury cross examine someone and determine who the owner of a particular
weapon was when it might later turn out that the weapon was not part of the crime.
So, all of the deliberative process where conclusions are come to before both sides
of the story have been heard is inappropriate. It pollutes the well of thought and
prevents us from coming to an open and honest decision. As a result, in our system,
deliberation should not begin until the parties have made their argument. Because
the proceedings went a bit awry, he took a few things out of order before beginning
the principal thrust of his argument.
The issue of Exhibit B was part of the Citizens Request. The question was asked as
to how many units could be placed on the property. The answer is simple and
irrefutable, but easy to cloud. The answer to the question is that you can only build
23 lots on 57.8 acres, unless the Village of Oak Brook gives some concession. Of
the 57 acres, roads and water detention consume some of the area. If the Village
approves a private road, then you can get more lots. The issue can be argued all
kinds of ways, but the fact is that 23 homes can be built on this site and from his
point of view, that is the starting point and his concern. The developer showed a
slide and made it seem as if he was doing something that was not a material change.
He took R-1, R -2 and R -3 property and averaged it together, then said he was not
doing much different from what is already there. What already is there is an R -1
district, not R -2 and R -3, but this property, which is all R -1. On Exhibit F, it is
listed from the Assessors records, that the average lot size in this area is 2.4 acres.
That is not the minimum requirement and specified he was not suggested that be the
requirement, but he does not want the facts confused or lose site of what happens to
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 24 April 17, 2006
&V a/ I
exist when we let the public follow the rules of Oak Brook and how they develop
this property. The people have invested millions to build their properties
He said that the current February filing has several differences from their previous
filing. The new filing has been modified to address some of the issues about which
they were previously concerned. The project name has been changed and the road
leading to the adjacent subdivision has been eliminated. The September filing
provided for 46 buildable lots. The November 15th filing provided a reduction of
lots to 44. The latest filing suggests, preliminarily that they are seeking 35 lots,
although the structure of the request would permit a later increase to 44 lots without
a variance. If the zoning request was granted based upon this preliminary plat of 35
lots, they could come in and file a final plat for 44 lots and the village would have
no right to object, nor would they because the land would be zoned l acre zoning.
The plat is apparently 35 lots, but he is not sure it is truly 35. Although, perhaps not
intentional, a very significant flaw in the process occurred by the way that the
village treated its resident objectors to this development. Callaghan's September
filing was flawed in innumerable ways, many of which were reiterated in the
Citizens Response. It did not take long before the clay feet of Callaghan became
apparent even to Callaghan, so he came forward with a November filing. The
village should have required an up or down vote on his September petition, before
proceeding with his second petition. Instead of requiring Callaghan to face an up
down vote on his September filing, the Village permitted his November filing to
take the place of the September filing, which had been waiting in line. As required,
they responded in November, and appeared before the Plan Commission, which
voted and he suffered a unanimous defeat. The matter should have then gone before
the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Village and that should have been the end of
the matter; but this friend of the Village gets to file again in February, and we are
referred again to the Plan Commission with a third inappropriate plan. The village
is abusing the process, by requiring the opponents of Callaghan to respond three
times to a petition of the developer. The citizens are entitled to an up or down vote
on these matters. It becomes extremely costly for these objectors to hire
professional people, lawyers and other experts, to speak. It has cost a great deal of
money. It may cost quite a bit to the developer but he has a $35 million property.
He has a business venture to spend $100,000- 200,000 on lawyers and engineers; it is
part of the process and part of the profit to be made on that $35 million. However,
the lady who enjoyed her equestrian road has no potential profit; she only has her
property. For these people to come up with that kind of money. Hundreds of
thousands of dollars to defend these things is really a heavy demand to put upon the
residents of this community.
All the residents he represents are in favor of development. They know it is in the
best interest of their community to have all the land on the tax rolls as its highest and
best use. They favor the development of office buildings on 22nd Street; and
additional stores and parking facilities at the magnificent shopping mall. They are
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 24 April 17, 2006
pleased with the R -4 development of Saddle Brook; the R -3 developments of
Midwest Club, Trinity Lakes; the R -2 developments of Hunter Trails, Old Oak
Brook and the eastern portion of Fullersburg. What they oppose is the adulteration
of zoning. They oppose a bowling alley adjacent to Christ Church, or an office
building in Breakenridge. They oppose taking the last building sites of the most
lush R -1 lot in the Village and converting them to R -2 for the economic benefit of
an owner who has already received millions of dollars of consideration for the loss
of access. He should not now be again compensated by increasing density to make
up for access purchased from them for condemnation. They are not anti -
development; they are however opposed to helter- skelter scattered and spot zoning
to please economic whims of a developer. Forty of the current residents in the R -1
District, listed on Schedule F -1, developed $40 million of real estate in the R -1
District with $200 million of single - family dwellings in this district. They have
invested heavily in Oak Brook and look forward to others who will likewise invest
in Oak Brook. They are impressed with the amount of $35 million that the developer
is supposed to pay for land in the historic Oak Brook estate area. They look forward
to all of the land after 13 years to be put back on the tax rolls where it deserves to
be.
The 207 acres in the R -1 District in Fullersburg has 53 scattered sites available for
2 -acre development. 80 acres have already been improved and the final 34.7 acres
of the 207 acres is before the Plan Commission. The developer wants to place a new
and different use on the oldest, most established, estate district of the community.
The hundreds of millions of dollars invested and given by these residents in reliance
upon the zoning and integrity of the community is now being second- guessed and
challenged. Virtually every adjacent property owner as well as every property
owner in the entire quadrant continues to object to the Village's approval of the
petitioner's new proposal. Callaghan's proposal of February 15, 2006 requested 35
homes sites be approved on 34 acres of the 57 acre site; that is approximately 12
more sites, which is 52% more than the zoning would permit. It is better than the
prior request when they wanted 100% more. A short drive down Adams Road and
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 anyone would allow 52% more homes than
current zoning allows to be created on this dead end street. The developers own
traffic study of November 14, 2005 provides the data that says, "the proposed 35-
unit development will cause over 139 more car trips per day on 35`x' Street than what
would be expected in an R -1 development." That is a 52% increase over existing
zoning. In his Exhibit D.2, there seems to be a variance between that and the traffic
report filed in February 2006, which would lead someone to believe that there was
no increase in traffic in this proposal. Compared to the November traffic study
indicates that 35 units will add 139 more trips per day. The people that live there
and have made substantial investments over the years based upon 2 -acre zoning
believe the Village of Oak Brook has every reason not to allow the extra homes.
These residents believe the reason they elected the officials is to protect their special
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 24 April 17, 2006
place from needlessly being overdeveloped. To allow extra traffic trips on these
rural streets, or village services for an extra 12 homes, rather than to allow the
historic development that has and will continue in this quadrant is a tremendous
mistake. The property is in a location where the 2 -acre zoning works and substantial
homes with maximum green space has resulted in a large tax base with reduced
demand per acre for villages services as well as fewer trips per day has evolved and
serves the area quite nicely. If the rezoning is not allowed the property will be
developed consistent with the historic density of the quadrant without the undue
burden of additional homes, children in the schools, or demand on the village
services. The existing residents of the approved 79 acres have and continue to have
the right to expect the last 34 acres to be developed with the same standards that was
applied to the first 150 acres of the development. The existing residents have a bond
with the village and a vested right to expect that the unique rural character of the
area will not be arbitrarily changed and that they have a rightful expectation to have
the property developed in with the village's zoning plan. They have purchased and
developed the land they live on because of the unique qualities of the landscape of
the village. The R -1 district involved is one of the oldest in Oak Brook and the site
of some of the most luxurious homes in Oak Brook. All the property in this R -1
district including the 34 subject acres are wooded, rolling and with changes in
elevation up to 75 feet. The developer's inference that other properties in the village
is or has been permitted to be changed to a more dense use is misleading. The
examples cited Forest Gate, Hunter Trails, Old Oak Brook and Trinity Lakes are all
much different than the subject property because the other parcels have access to
roads that support a more dense use. Forest Gate, Hunter Trails and Trinity Lakes
are all serviced by a 4 -lane arterial road with a stop light at the entrance and a an
additional access point at secondary or local thoroughfare; and Old Oak Brook is
serviced by a major thoroughfare. The subject property however is tucked away on
a local dead end street to service it. The dead end street enhances the ambiance of
the 2 -acre zoning, but cannot support a more dense use. The petitioner continues to
assert that 2 -acre zoning along Route 83 does not exist because of the influence of
Route 83, with the 65,000 daily traffic count, is misleading, because all but one of
the involved communities they referenced do not have 2 -acre zoning anywhere in
their community. Those communities do not have 2 -acre zoning because of Route
83, but because their ordinance does not have 2 -acre zoning, so they could not have
it, even away from Route 83. Adoption of the proposal would result in the village's
school district suffering an increase of 50% of the burden for schools, traffic and
police in exchange for no increase in tax revenue, over that which would be received
if the property remained R -1. In his Exhibit C.2 reviews the Callaghan financial
impact study, which finds that the assessed valuation as it is being proposed is not
substantially different from the assessed valuation if it is left alone. There is no
increase in revenue to the village by changing the zoning. The developer's impact
study attempts to demonstrate to the reader that this development was economically
beneficial to Oak Brook. If the proper question were asked, there would be a
different outcome; such as, if the rezoning were not granted and developed with 2-
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 24 April 17, 2006
acre zoning how would that economic result compare with the proposed
developments economic impact. Fewer homes similar to the Breakenridge Farm
development would equal the tax base with less demand on village services,
resulting in a significantly better result to the community and surrounding
neighborhood. The traffic in an already slightly strained rural area would greatly
worsen by the proposed 35 homes versus the currently allowed 23. Traffic issues
would not only impact 25"' Street, but on Adams, Spring, Madison, Ogden and York
roads. The residents love their 18 -foot pavement and country lane and local dead
end street. It cannot tolerate anymore than the 23 that the zoning presumes. There
is no hardship to the owner or developer; they bought the land with this zoning,
unconditionally. There is no economic impact or hardship other than you get more
lots if you get more density you get more money. They obviously believe they can
make more profit from more lots and no demonstrative hardship befalls them if they
are required to develop under the existing laws that the residents developed under
from 1966 through today; and they did not have any trouble developing their
property and it is worth millions of dollars.
The most recent filing did not address any of the significant engineering or habitat
issues previously raised by the objectors. The developer repeatedly stated that he
would not remove any trees. Subsequent in his written project summary under the
title of conservation he said that if any existing trees with diameters of 10- inches
and larger require removal due to construction, they would replace them. In
February 15, 2006 he said that he is committed to an environmentally friendly,
residential development to maintain and enhance as feasibly possible and that the
diameters of 12- inches or larger. So increasing the preservation size from any tree
to 10- inches, to 12- inches, and introducing the term feasibly possible, sounds like a
subtle change and a movement away from an environmentally friendly development.
The developer could have demonstrated his alleged environmental friendly position
by simply superimposing the tree map over the preliminary plat. The identification
of the trees by GPS can be carried out at little or no cost to the developer. This
would have given a very accurate relationship of those trees to the proposed roads,
reservoirs and individual lots and enhancing the developer's credibility as a
conservation conscious builder. It appears that he has planned reservoirs over
significant tree stands, while they have repackaged the material in their most recent
petition; the heart of their proposal remains unchanged.
His expectation of zoning changes for the subject property because other parcels in
the village have had zoning changes is not appropriate, is not the law and is not what
should be approved. The Plan Commission is not obligated to change this zoning
because some other property may have been changed. The more dense parcels
suggested by the petitioner each have road access and other appropriate conditions
that permit density. The mere existence of dense zoning elsewhere in R -2 and R -2
zoning district does not create a right of expectation that dense zoning must or
should be approved as a matter of right or fairness be granted to the developer. A
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 24 April 17, 2006
zoning concession does not have to be given to the developer. This is a legislative
decision. The subject property is not an appropriate candidate for a more dense
zoning. The school board attorney presented written information that the proposal
would cost the school district $2.5 millions more than what would be spent if
developed under current zoning. The current scaled down proposal will still cost the
school district more than the current zoning would For what reason would we
want to increase the burden on the fine school district. What is in it for the residents
of Oak Brook; and why would they want to make it more burdensome on the school.
The superintendent said that she would educate whoever would be sent to the
school, but doesn't the village have a responsibility to give the school what was
planned and not what is unnecessarily increased.
All of the additional expense to the village and for what reason; there will not be any
increased revenues and raises safety issues; irresolvable traffic issues, school issues,
and they have trivialized concerns for the creek by scrubbing the land before
studying the environmental issues. Using Callaghan's financial figures, the
proposal is a bad deal for Oak Brook. His experts have opined in writing the factors
that he has listed in his exhibit, and they are available to answer any questions.
He asked the Plan Commission take into the consideration the objectors concerns
when reviewing the materials provided. They filed an 18 -page Citizens Response,
includi% his exhibits A through H. The witnesses testified by oral argument on
June 16t , and a written copy was provided to the Village; his oral argument of
January 30"' along with the written copy; his oral argument at this meeting, which
can be provided to the Village and he would like included with the record. The
factors that were presented this evening and opined to by their experts and his
supplemental C -2 and D--2 exhibits, which are slightly different than the originals,
because the petition has changed, as well as all previously submitted exhibits that
have not changed. The third petition does not render the previous documents
invalid, except that the name and access points are moot issues. The density
objection remains consistent and is applicable to the petition filed and as amended.
Although he alleges to meet the standards in the filing, he has failed to do so. The
applicant does not have a vested right to zoning change because other parcels of
property have zoning that is different. There mere existence of zoning elsewhere,
near or far, does not create a right or expectation that similar zoning should as a
matter of right or fairness to be granted and the village has no obligation to grant the
developers request. Changes in zoning do occur, and the process is set up so that
we, as well as future generations can adjust land use and utility to fit the time.
When the planners designed Oak Brook, a unique community was designed for that
time and that design continues to be the cornerstone of Oak Brook's appeal today.
The design continues to be quite relevant. If it was not relevant, it ought to be
changed; but it is relevant and suitable today. The village has an absolute right to
deny the developers proposal without fear of legal reversal. The village has its
absolute right to maintain its vision and is not required to change its standards to
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 24 April 17, 2006
acclimate to standards of other nearby villages, other subdivisions, or other ideas of
other developers. Zoning is the principal feature that distinguishes Oak Brook from
adjacent communities. From the summary of the final paragraph of the Oak Brook
Comprehensive Plan on page 43, he said that, "As a community the Village of Oak
Brook is nearing its maximum developable ability. Care must now 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 Area." Why wouldn't the Village follow
its magnificent plan that has brought it to where it is today? On behalf of the
respondent - objectors, they requested that the Village of Oak Brook deny the
petitioners request for any zoning relief and instead allow the petitioner to develop
the property in accord with the existing zoning, which denial by the Village after a
fair hearing is its absolute right.
Thomas Volini, 3704 Madison, said that there is a lot of feeling of what Mr.
Cappetta said in his facts. The surrounding residents view these issues as being in it
all together. They view the Plan Commission as their friends and upholders of the
zoning ordinance. The practicality of the approach of the neighbors is evidenced in
the body of the petition, which encourages the development of this property to be
consistent with its zoning, but does not discourage the development of the property.
It is not a question of personality. There is a fine developer, with a fine attorney
who has been a friend for years, but the hardship argument does not wash with
previous condemnation proceedings with the access issues having been determined a
long time ago. The strict 2 -acre lot size argument, however it was derived in
connection with other Oak Brook subdivisions is subject to way too much
interpretation, as to what private streets are part of lots and how lot sizes are
ascertained. The facts are that no true hardship has been shown. IBLP and the
developers incentive is all that is in play. Many are concerned about the precedent
setting impact, because IBLP is a landowner elsewhere in the community and
pulling in their horns to some degree. So there is more to play here for the future.
The impact on the schools finances, traffic, is obvious and palatable. It is an
ecologically sensitive area. A petition was signed, along with 1000 neighbors,
thoughtfully, and they are asking the Plan Commission to do what it did before,
uphold the zoning ordinance as it was last fall.
Mr. Morrissey said that he represents Brittwood Creek, LLC, the contract purchaser
of the land in question. He does not represent the Institute in Basic Life Principles.
They are the owner of the property and Mr. Barth is their general counsel. The
manager of the Brittwood Creek property is Daniel Callaghan, which is a limited
liability company, which is the contract purchaser and hopeful developer of the
property.
A five- minute recess was called. The meeting resumed at 9:00 p.m.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 24 April 17, 2006
Mr. Morrissey said that there had been much discussion about School District 53,
which everyone agrees and there is no question that it is an excellent school, one of
the best in the state and consistently produces some of the finest students. The
village has adopted an ordinance, and on Section 14 -4 -7, which guides them through
the contributions to the school district. Section B of that ordinance specifically
states the factors to be used for the maximum number of students and the minimum
number of acres. At the last meeting, there was a slide presentation and the last 3
pages calculate what the contribution will be by using the Oak Brook ordinance.
They used the .35 factors for generation of elementary school attendance and the
exhibit demonstrates the contribution will be $164,957. The ordinance also has a
different factor of .30 for the junior high; and the calculation for that is $161,218.
They also showed the contribution made by other recent developments to the
village. Kanan Court, located on Midwest Road, is a 4 -unit subdivision developed
in 2004 and paid $5,602 per lot. The impact calculation under the ordinance for
Brittwood Creek is $9,319, which is what has been offered and amounts to $326,175
based on 35 lots. They are sympathetic to the plight of the district, which was
explained by Mr. 'Whitt regarding the Property Tax Extension Levy Act. The time
gap was explained regarding when students are generated from the subdivision and
when the money starts getting collected in tax revenues and the capital improvement
fund. They are sympathetic to that as well, which is why Brittwood Creek made the
offer that it did, which is almost twice what the last payment was for almost every
development in Oak Brook, However there is a process and they are guided by the
ordinance and as he understands the village's municipal law, if the school district
wishes to commence a proceeding to change the ordinance, that is certainly within
their right. Just as they are asking for certain consideration under the ordinance, the
school district can also ask for consideration for a change under the Subdivision
Regulations. As they are before the Plan Commission with this application, clearly
their guidepost is the ordinance as it has been enacted and as the applicant, when
they signed the affidavit at the bottom of the application has to proceed in
accordance with that ordinance, regardless of where their sympathies lie. They want
to clarify that they have done that and have presented physical evidence of the fiscal
impact on the school district from this project.
On page 55, item 8 of the Village of Oak Brook Comprehensive Plan, the general
objectives are set forth, "to maintain the low- density character of the village
preserve maximum open space, buffer lower density from existing higher density.
Promote the aesthetic transition between residential and other land uses to promote
"curvilinear and orderly street layouts." On page 58, item E.4, "Explore a variety
and flexibility in new concepts of site plan." That is part of in addition to the other
three stated objectives. Comments have been made regarding 35`x' Street, which is a
lovely 18 -foot width street as it is presently used. However, the right of way is 73
feet. They addressed this issue earlier and the boundary line of this property,
running east to west is 40 feet with a 33 -foot easement for the water main pipelines
that run underneath it and just to the south.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 24 April 17, 2006
W-041
Most importantly, page 64 of the Comprehensive Plan sets in context what they are
talking about at this meeting. Listening to the material that was put on it, would
mean that zoning is cast in stone and should never be changed or visited and having
sat through four sessions of the Plan Commission, he knows that is not the fact.
There is a myriad of tasks that comes before the Plan Commission and other
agencies of the village as they proceed as different issues arise. No plan is perfect,
it may have been intended that way, but its implementation always takes some skill
and some judgment. On page 64, item 4, in talking about the development of the
property states, "vacant properties located generally south of 35"' Street and west of
Adams Road, which are presently zoned residential should be developed with single
family detached homes." Mr. Cappetta may not like that reference, but it is very
clear they are referring to the 57 acres in question. It does not say R -1, R -2, R -3 or
R -4. To look for edification as to what was the intent of the writers of this
document, if you look up the page, there is a very eloquent statement of what the
planning process is about; it read, "A location which may be considered for R -4
special use housing configurations or park space, the area south of Kensington Road
and west of Jorie Blvd." it talks about the 34 acre site and its proximity to Route 83.
So the drafters of the document gave it an explanation before providing the
conclusion on the bottom of page 64 in the third full paragraph do address the Salt
Creek and Ginger Creek basins and talk about the fact that Briarwood is a buffer
between Route 83 and single- family detached homes to the west. This puts the
discussion of this application in context.
Mr. Cappetta opened his statement that he represented a large group of residents of
the village and those that occupied 20% of the home sites on 35` Street and the
eastern boundary of the property, but there is no zoning change on the eastern
boundary of the property. There are no owners directly on the boundary of the
property, because the eastern boundary of the property is not being changed.
Mr. Cappetta made a point that there was some disingenuous planning with the plan
for 35 lots because of the fact that between the time they asked for approval of the
preliminary plat and then come back for the final plat, Mr. Callaghan would have an
evil motive and would have the ability under the ordinance to change it. For the
record, he stated that the developer of Brittwood Creek, Mr. Callaghan would be
happy to sign a development agreement or stipulate that the number of lots would
not change in the center portion. The concern is that the ordinance provides for R -1
and R -2 and nothing in between. The center portion of these lots are acre plus and
the concern is that Mr. Callaghan would act unethically and would squeeze the one
plus acres lots down to one acre. He said openly and publicly that is not his intent
and that would not happen and the applicant would be happy to state to that fact as a
condition of approval, which should remove that problem.
There was a comment made about some insufficiency of some of the material and
talk that there would be a 50% increase on the burden on the roads and the schools.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 24 April 17, 2006
D
The contract - owner, developer and applicant was not a party to the two
condemnation proceedings, one, which 15 years ago shut off the access to this
property on Route 83 and has received no economic benefit from that. He was not a
party to condemnation proceedings 3 or 4 years ago, which created the fifty -foot
strip along Route 83 for a trail corridor and then the south 50 acres. They previously
provided their view of why they believe that condemnation took place so they would
not be redundant and repeat it again into the record.
Mr. Callaghan is committed to the environment and the habitat. There was a point
made between 10 and 12 -inch trees. The record is clear that when they amended
their application this would be an environmentally friendly development. On Mr.
Cappetta's exhibit, C.2 showed the financial impact of 23 lots at $2.4 million. He
pointed out that page 18 and 19 of Mr. Cappetta's handout this evening, is not
realistic. They do not believe that the prudent citizens of Oak Brook would line up
to pay $2.3 million for a 2 -acre lot along Route 83. They believe that the references
in the Comprehensive Plan clearly make Route 83 as a man -made highest and
densest of uses feasible so therefore, some accommodation should be made for that.
On Mr. Cappetta's exhibit D.2 he talked about 23 lots. In the record of the
proceedings from the last hearing, there was testimony from the applicant that the
property as presently zoned with R -1 zoning, 2 -acre lots, could be developed today
as 27 lots. That is still their position and they do not agree with Mr. Cappetta's
assertion that it would be 23 lots as currently zoned. There were testimony and staff
comments on the ability to develop 27 lots. Their application request is really the
difference between 27 and 35 lots, which is a very important point to be kept in
mind.
In The Doings newspaper on Thursday, September 29, 2005, an advertisement
appeared on page 27 that was sponsored by Citizens to Preserve Oak Brook and the
Fullersburg Woods Association. The third full paragraph of the ad concludes what
the zoning issues that exist that would cause the village government to allow the
construction of 46 homes on a property currently zoned for 26. The groups, which
are represented by Mr. Cappetta, as some of his 1000 clients, stated in the ad that the
property was suitable to develop 26 homes. They believe that it is 27 and that there
was staff testimony to that as well, which is the position of the developer that with
no changes in the zoning, 27, R -1, 2 -acre lots could fit on that site.
Scott Miller, Allan Kracower and Associates, said that he was a certified planner
with the American Institute of Certified Planners and has worked on this project for
quite a while When planning you cannot first look at a project in a vacuum; to just
look at the specific property and determine if you can do R -1 zoning that would not
be a problem. The fact is that you have to look at the property surrounding it, the
land use, and the intensity of those uses. There are 1-acre lots to the north, 2 -acre
lots to the east, forest preserve to the south and over time, Route 83 has become a
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 24 April 17, 2006
six -lane limited access highway. Normally in planning practice, they will see what a
village's highest intensity use allows and put that along Route 83. In this case, it
would be R -4, which would be a compatible use with it. Based on what is to the
north and east, R -4 would not be compatible for this site. They then looked at R -3
along Route 83 to see if some sort of transitional use could be accomplished within
their own property. Based on village and resident comments, they determined that
would not be possible as well. They were then down to the R -2 zoning. They feel
that the R -2 zoning is very compatible. To the north is R -2, 1 -acre lots, surrounding
the R -1, 2 -acre lots to the east is R -2 as well and determined that R -2 is a compatible
use for this site. However, they took it one -step further and looked at the use in
Breakenridge Farms in more detail and it is a high end, luxury home, large estate
type community so they felt it should be buffered with a third of their property with
R -1 as well. This would ensure that the homes that exist there are forever
surrounded by R -1 and R -1 type housing. That enabled them to transition on their
own property from those 2 -acre lots down to the slightly higher R -2 intensity lots
along Route 83. It is not only done just to increase the density, the majority of the
R -2 lots are 11 /2 acre lots give or take a little bit of area. As Mr. Cappetta said, if
they wanted to, they could squeeze in more lots in there, but that is not their desire.
They want to try to put as many large lots on the property as possible while still
making it an economically viable piece of property. The other reason they are
seeking the R -2 zoning is for buffering of the sound from Route 83. If there are a
few more homes, and they are talking about 7 or 8 total, it puts the homes a little
closer together along Route 83 that acts as a permanent sound buffer, not only for
eastern half of their property, but also for Breakenridge Farms to the east. As
history shows, the traffic along Route 83 is only going to increase over time and the
noise will increase along with that, To allow a few extra homes along Route 83 will
help buffer the homes today down the road as the traffic increases, which is the
theory from going from the 2 -acre lots, transitioning to 1' /2 acre and down to 1 -acre
lots along Route 83.
Michael Marouse, President of Marouse and Company, an appraiser for 25 years,
has done work for the village and has previously testified on this matter. Part of the
analysis done by Mr. Cappetta looked at 23 lots and the 27 -lot issue has already
been addressed. However, Route 83 has a lot of traffic with 65,000 cars a day, and
everyone is aware of the trend of development, including the plans that were
proposed across Route 83. Although it is his understanding those plans are now no
longer going forward, it is an indication of what can happen with a 9 -story building
along 35`h and Route 83 in the adjoining town. It is the trend of development. In his
analysis, in fairly consistent pricing, the 1 -acre lots would be plus or minus
$900,000 to $1 million along Route 83. The mid -level lots of 1' /z acres
approximately $1.4 -- 1.5 million, and the 2+ acre lots on the eastern end
development and most proximate to Breakenridge Farm would be $2 -- 2.4 million.
There is no question that the Fullersburg Woods area is one of the most delightful,
desirable areas to live in the entire Chicagoland area. However, from a practicality
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 24 April 17, 2006
Q'
look at the development, the lots along Route 83, particularly 2 acre lots, would be
far less desirable, would have a lower value, a longer marketing period than lots that
are farther east away from Route 83. It can be buffered with landscaping and
berming, but there is buffering and sound walls along 1 -294 and it is not the same.
Distance helps, no question about it. The other issue is that the market is starting to
soften for high value property. In the immediate neighborhood, there are 2
properties in excess of $2.5 million that have been on the market for over 185 days.
That is six months and one is closer to nine months. There was a reference in
regards to page 64 of the Comprehensive Plan, which cites developed properties
within their highest and best use. A 2 -acre lot along Route 83, in his opinion is not
the highest economic use of a property, if used as an appraiser who uses comparable
properties. If you are looking at 2 acre lots, the average price trend of development
in Oak Brook, and sales of the lots along Route 83 are going to be lower than lots
that are better located and are going to bring down the range, the price points and are
going to increase the marketing times. All three are negative impact and
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cappetta point with his analysis for
assessed value, two factors that invalidate that point is that lower value land, and in
his opinion a significantly smaller house and lower overall value house on a 2 -acre
Route 83 lot would create a lower overall assessed value and would essentially
invalidate his projections.
Mr. Callaghan prepared and passed out to the members a revised density summary
and different subdivisions in the village that have changed. The various Density
Summary Report (page 74 case file) includes, Brittwood Creek, Old Oak Brook
Hunter Trails, Fullersburg Woods, Covington Court, Brook Forest, Kanan Court,
Trinity Lakes, Forest Gate and Briarwood. The chart provides the density within the
developments that have been approved in the past. He realizes that 35th Street is not
like 31st, Midwest Road or Meyers Road, but the particular conditions of the site and
accessibility to it have been stripped away over a period of time. The private roads
in Breakenridge Farms have existed and have never been given up. That particular
development never came before any of the previous village boards; it was a pre-
existing, county -zoned property; based upon the subdivision density, in the event
that the Plan Commission would agree that this is an appropriate use for this
property based on the 3 5 units. Compared to all other developments over the last 40
years, this proposal would be the least dense development ever approved. The aerial
in the boardroom reminds him that the Village has high conditions and standards. In
deciding on buying a 2 -acre parcel, in some instances someone may look at a 2 -acre
lot and ask if first of all if the lot is maintainable. Secondly, the person is going to
look at what other 2 -acre lots are available within the community. Thirdly they may
ask themselves, if they have the where with all to buy a 2 -acre lot, and have the
affordability to do so, would you really buy it along Route 83. He respectfully
disagrees with the people that have spoken to this before those have said 2 -acre
zoning there is acceptable. Some of the people that have discussed that it is
reasonable, do not live on 2 -acre lots, they have lots that are less than 2 acres. If
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 18 of 24 April 17, 2006
Breakenridge Farms was before the Commission, and were not seeking any
variances, 4 of the lots would be nonconforming because of the streets. He is the
Chairman of the Architectural Review Committee for Ginger Creek and is well
aware that over 80% of all the lots in Ginger Creek are nonconforming. When
Ginger Creek was developed, the interpretation was that the street was in the gross
acreage. Even though he is in the R -2 district is only 35,000 square feet, so he is far
short of the acre requirement. Hunter Trails, on the eastern portion of the property
was zoned R -1, R -2. Old Oak Brook was originally zoned 2 -acre lots and was all
changed to R -2. Briarwood, the Park District, McDonald's campus, north Jorie
Blvd, the east Fullersburg Woods area, along Spring and York Road the density
increases and the zoning changes without detrimental impact to the R -1 zoning. For
Mr. Cappetta to claim that the value of 2 -acre lots along Breakenridge is the same
value as those along Route 83 is not possible, If 2 -acre lots are along Route 83 and
are selling for less than other 2 -acre lots in Breakenridge Farms that would impact
the values of other lots in town. When people buy property, they look at
comparables. If 2 -acre lots are selling for less, then people are going to expect to
buy 2 -acre lots everywhere in town for less. The cliche "here we go again" is
understood. There are significant changes that have taken place in the village over
the last 40 years. Since 1966, when Breakenridge Farms was brought into the
village, with its current R -1 zoning, as well as this property, which he considers
default zoning, because the comprehensive plan states to develop it as residential it
does not say it is to be developed as 2 -acre lots. The Comprehensive Plans and the
purpose of the zoning ordinance states when you consider properties closer to major
roadways, then we should consider higher density single- family or possibly multi-
family zoning. When looking at the aerial, it can be seen what other towns have
done adjacent to the roadway and its highest and best use for the villages. He is not
seeking anything remotely similar to what Westmont is asking for. He respects the
Commission to come back before them with its position and comments rather than
going forward. Being a friend of the village, which has been referred to by some,
may have been a detriment to him. People have commented to him that he did a bait
and switch with Forest Gate so why wouldn't he do it here. It can be confirmed by
the Village Engineer that the preliminary plat that was approved for Forest Gate and
the final plat that was subsequently approved, was the same. He asked Village
Engineer Durfey if he recalled any changes made between the two plats.
Village Engineer Durfey responded that nothing of significance had been changed.
Mr. Callaghan responded that the changes were to the curves of the road. The
amount of land for the houses, and the lakes and streets stayed the same. Many
things are thrown out there, that are just not true. He asked that the 35 units be
approved, but in the event the Commission decides not to, he would welcome some
discussion of what the Commission may believe is reasonable. All the subdivisions
designed in town have had some degree of negotiability. He was told 4 months ago
that 35 would work, but you do not always know whom you are dealing with and
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 19 of 24 April 17, 2006
some of the opposition would say if it were revised to be 30, 33, or 37 they would
support it. The problem is that the opposition and their interests is so broad that it is
difficult to negotiate something when there are numerous interests that are not
necessarily looking for the same thing, so it is virtually impossible. At first, he
thought by developing it as Breakenridge Farm, he would be able to get 28 lots.
Then he thought, if he could put 14, 1 -acre lots along Route 83, which he thought
would be acceptable, reasonable and saleable with the 1 -acre lots being in Hunter
Trails, then he would have been able to get another 7 lots; believing that 28 plus 7
would give him 35 lots. However, since his submission and with recalculations and
discussion with Bob Kallien and Dale Durfey, the ordinance states that he must take
the area of the street away, would be 27 not 28 lots. He apologized for that error. If
the Commission would feel that he realizes this now and would have to go down to
34 or 33 lots in order to get the unanimous or positive majority of this Commission,
he would be willing to do so. He is a member of this community and hopes to build
the least dense reasonable development ever approved in this village. In regards to
the trees, when he went in there to scrub it, which was really to get rid of the
buckthorn, just like the forest preserves are doing, he did the same thing. He did not
touch the sensitive area of the wetlands or the creek and provided a larger buffer
than what is required by DuPage County. He has thought about all those things and
it is not a little expense. There are 1182 trees tagged on the property, which is not
an inexpensive process and is not required by the ordinance. He did it to make sure
that he could save every tree reasonably possible.
Mr. Morrissey said in regards to the petitions, they believe they were sincerely
signed and reflect the viewpoint of those neighbors with the information that was
before them at that time. They respect that and appreciate their communication.
They did point out some of the technicalities of some of the petitions, but he wanted
the record to be clear that they believe it is a regular and ordinary way of
communication and respect the citizens that took the time to gather the petitions and
to present them. They believe that is an appropriate way for a democracy to work.
There are several pages reviewing the factors with their application. He reviewed
them at the conclusion of their direct case and would be happy to answer any
Commissioners questions.
In conclusion, he referred to page 25 of the Comprehensive Plan. They do not view
the 57 acres in the abstract; they view the 57 acres as part of the Fullersburg Woods
area and as part of the entire village. On that page, it lists 1055 acres in the
Fullersburg Forest Preserve Planning district 3. At the bottom of that page, the net
density is .71 dwelling units per residential land. In their presentation at the last
meeting, a chart was included that points out the comparison of Fullersburg Woods
lot areas to the Brittwood Creek proposal, and they gave Fullersburg a credit of .741
as the units per acre; and the proposed development being asked for approval is
.654, so they think it is entirely consistent with the plan. They ask that the
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 20 of 24 April 17, 2006
Commission provide guidance to the applicant on procedure and keep in mind the
spirit and intent of the words in the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairwoman Payovich noted before the presentation of the LaSalle Factors by the
attorneys, there were 2 comments that were made, which she said needed to be
addressed. Mr. DiCanio made a comment about the Plan Commission being liable
to elected officials. She stated to him, as well as others in the audience, that she
personally has not been contacted by any elected official in any way, on this
particular issue, and would speak the same for any of the Commissioners.
Although, some may not like their decisions on some of the issues, those decisions
have been reached on their own with guidance by the Village Attorney and no
guidance by anyone else.
Mr. Cappetta also made a comment that the last meeting went a bit awry. The Rules
of Procedure for the Plan Commission, on page 8 states, "that at any time during the
process, Commissioners may question the witnesses." She has particularly guided
the Commissioners away from doing this in the interest of time so that attorneys and
residents would have the time to snake their comments. The time they took after Mr.
Morrissey's presentation was not in any way meant to be a deliberation. They were
merely asking questions and Mr. Cappetta was probably able to use that as part of
his presentation at this meeting. There was no reason to think that was part of a
deliberation.
Chairwoman Payovich asked Attorney Cappetta to review the LaSalle factors.
Mr. Cappetta said that they have presented extensive discussion of the LaSalle
factors in the First Citizens Response and at this meeting, a copy of the LaSalle
Factors was provided in the handout.
1. The proposed development will adversely change the character of the
neighborhood.
2. The proposed zoning amendment does not promote the health, safety, morals
or general welfare of the public
3. The proposed use does not represent an appropriate or suitable use of the 57-
acre tract, since 42 lots covering 79 acres that share the R -1 district are
already developed as 2 -acre zoning.
4. There is no gain to the public other than construction which will occur with
or without the proposal
5. The length of time the existing zoning has remained unimproved, considered
in the context of land development is the result of the owners choice and not
the result of any other impact.
6. The Oak Brook Comprehensive Plan unequivocally describes the subject
property to be and remain R -1. Much discussion has been made about the
plan. Part of the plan includes a map and on the map it is clearly shown in
District 3, the subject property is listed as R -1. While it was not mentioned,
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 21 of 24 April 17, 2006
the map shows it to be R -1 property.
7. There is a high demand for low- density estate type residential homes, which
is the current zoning in the area surrounding the subject property.
8. The existing use of nearby property that should be given the greatest weight
is the adjacent property, which is inextricably tied to the subject property.
The adjacent property is the existing R -1, 207 acres of R -1 property that
appears in exhibit 7. It is not what is across town, not what is in the R -2 or
R -3, but this R -1 district.
9. If the subject property is allowed to become more dense, the value of
adjacent property will become somewhat reduced. If 2 -acre zoning is
maintained on the subject property, the adjacent property will remain very
valuable.
10. The value of property is not being diminished at all by the current zoning.
There is nothing impairing the value because of the way the property is
zoned and it is going to stay valuable property.
The testimony they have given supports the factors as he has restated them.
Mr. Morrissey responded to the La Salle Factors as follows:
• They do not ignore Hunter Trails is to the north of 35"' Street is in the R-
2 district and has one acre lots, which is located 18 feet across the
dedicated right of way for 35th Street. To the south is Birchwood, Pine,
Cheval Lane and is also R -2. They are asking the obvious. Route 83 1s
a major highway. It is man created and the highest density use of land
feasible, with 3 lanes in each direction. Common sense and other
zoning in the village would suggest that Hunter Trails being 1 -acre lots
across Route 83 would be a perfect illustration of why a one acre lot is
an appropriate extension of that zoning.
• Testimony has been provided from Mr. Marouse about the impact from
this development. They do not believe there will be any diminishment
of property value. In response to the threat of litigation and in the spirit
of being good neighbors, the name of the development was changed. In
response Mr. O'Ma.11ey's complaint of the emergency access through
Breakenridge Farms, even though there was testimony given that it was
to the public benefit of the western portion of Breakenridge Farms, it
was removed.
• They believe this property is suitable for this development and there is a
market for the 2 -acre sites next to Breakenridge Fanns. Mr. Callaghan
will stipulate that there will not be an increase to the number of lots.
• This development is the lowest density development proposed in the
village. The 14 lots along Route 83 are compatible with Hunter Trails.
• There has been talk about the 1100 acres that comprises Fullersburg.
Then look at the 57 acres in isolation and separated from everything else
in the village to retain the R -1 zoning. When it is convenient to look at
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 22 of 24 April 17, 2006
a larger panorama of that then we are to consider other factors in the
neighborhood so they will trust the good judgment of the
Commissioners to balance all of that in reviewing the application.
• The existing uses and zoning of nearby property has been discussed
extensively. It is compatible with Hunter Trails and Old Oak Brook
and Birchwood Lane. Reference was made regarding 35th Street west of
Route 83. The north side is Oak Brook and the development activities
that are going on the south side of 35th Street are troubling to everyone
given the density and type of use.
• The proposal provides an unfettered commitment to single- family
residential development, not multi- family, which they believe is in the
public good and welfare; and removes the uncertainty as to how the
property will be developed.
• The development will be environmentally friendly development and will
be essential to maintain the value of those lots as well.
• If they could find another access point they would do it, but do not have
one. They were not parties to the two prior condemnation actions.
There were different public interests that were addressed in those issues.
They are dealing with the issues as they find it and it has been offered in
prior testimony to restrict the speed of construction traffic. If the village
would decide at some point in the future that improvements were needed
on 35th Street, he would be willing to sit down in good faith and agree to
his pro rata share of improvements, should that event ever occur. The
road is adequate as it exists and they have provided undisputed
testimony to that effect.
There is also a group of standards for variations that they have been addressed in
writing. This developer has not created the circumstances that exist. They will
provide the requirements for stormwater and there is not another 57 -acre parcel with
these sets of circumstances in the village. He briefly reviewed those standards.
The applicant has not asked for relief for hardship. They have asked for it to be
viewed as the entire Fullersburg Woods area and there is a public benefit by
removing the uncertainty about how it will be used. It will be back on the tax roles
and committed to single - family consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairwoman Payovich asked the Commissioners to have any questions ready for the
next meeting. At that time, it would be the Commissioners turn to review all the
issues and come up with a fair and balanced decision.
Member Wolin asked if the final decision would be made on the LaSalle factors.
There is much material and asked that the applicant and Mr. Cappetta provide their
latest complete version of the LaSalle factors as they see it so that it would be easier
to review.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 23 of 24 April 17, 2006
Assistant AtIormey O'Connell said that it makes sense as long it is provided prior to
the meeting for review. The response should be made in summary form and limited
to the LaSalle factors as adopted by the village. The document is to be prepared and
submitted to staff by April 28, 2006.
Director of Community Development Kallien commented that the LaSalle Factors is
what is used to address the zoning map amendment. Relative to the Subdivision
plat, the Subdivision Regulations would be used to review the preliminary plat.
Village Engineer Durfey has gone through great lengths in his previous
memorandums reviewing how the plat meets or does not meet ordinance.
Member Saiyed asked who has the power to reduce the speed limit. Director of
Community Development Kallien said that would be the Village Board.
Member Saiyed asked about the emergency access off of Route 83. Mr. Callaghan
responded they are awaiting a response from the Forest Preserve District, Village
Engineer Durfey had requested the easement, because a private party cannot. If
IDOT approves the plan, they would not have a problem having the emergency
access off of Route 83. In the event that is not successful, they would do it on 35th
Street, unless there was some reconsideration from Breakenridge Farm.
Motion by Member Adrian, seconded by Member Wolin to continue the matter to
the next regular meeting date VOICE VOTE: Motion carried.
5. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to discuss.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business to discuss.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Saiyed to adjourn the meeting at
10:15 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried.
ATTEST: _
Robert Kallien, or of Community Development
Secretary
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 24 of 24 April 17, 2006
NEW BUSINESS
OTHER
BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT