Minutes - 11/20/2000 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
November 20, 2000
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.
ll. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman
Members
Trustee
Director of Community Development
Stelios Aktipis
Samuel Girgis
Barbara Payovich
David Pequet
Stephen Allen
Surendra Goel
Anthony Tappin
Alfred Savino
Robert Kallien
Member Payovich moved, seconded by Member Girgis, to waive the reading of the September 18,
2000, Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as written.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed.
Ill. PRIME GROUP REALTY TRUST - 800 -810 JORIE BLVD. — TEXT AMENDMENT TO
PERMIT HOTELS AS A SPECIAL USE IN THE ORA -1 DISTRICT AND SPECIAL USE
PERMIT FOR MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN
Bob Pugliese, Lord, Bissel & Brook, attorney for petitioner, Prime Group Realty Trust and 800 Jorie
Blvd., L.L.C., reviewed the background of the site. There are two office buildings presently on the
site known as 800 -810 Jorie Blvd. and was the location of the former Chicago Bridge and Iron
Company. Prime Group acquired the project in 1999. Presently, it is fully leased with its major
users being Ameritech and Nextlink. Today the site contains approximately 190,000 rentable
square feet of office space on 15.298 acres. The proposed hotel will add approximately 113,000
square feet to the project.
The maximum FAR (floor area ratio) is .45, which would allow 100,000 square feet of additional
office development on the site. They are proposing a five -story, 155 -room, Marriott Residence Inn
Hotel. The hotel will be limited - service. There will be a mix of single, one and two bedroom units.
The hotel also will provide meeting space and a small area where continental breakfast or a
complimentary glass of beer, wine or soft drinks is available to its guests. These amenities will be
for the exclusive enjoyment of the guests of the hotel and not the general public.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes
VOL
November 20, 2000
Part of the adjacent NICOR property, approximately .66 acres of that parcel will be used for surface
parking. The development of the proposed hotel requires 170 parking spaces, whereas an office
building of comparable square footage would require approximately 340 parking spaces. They are
able to accommodate all of the parking on the site by using the NICOR easement adjacent to the
property rather than building structured parking. A parking structure would be required if they
would proceed with an office development. Traffic with the proposed hotel will be less than half of
an office use during a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
White Lodging Services is an award winning developer and manager of hotel properties. They
have an extensive working relationship with Marriott. They are a preferred operator for Marriott and
have a relationship with them on fifty -nine properties. Marriott International fully supports this
project and there is a letter in the file from Mr. Scott Gold, the area Vice President of Lodging and
Development for Marriott International.
He also stated that he wanted to publicly note that the professional Village staff has gone out of
their way to be helpful and cooperative.
The petitioner is seeking the following: a text amendment to add hotels as a special use in the
ORA -1 District; a special use along with certain code allowances for the Residence Inn; and a text
amendment to the off - street parking requirements.
They are seeking the following allowances:
Request for relief from loading berth requirements due to the very limited food service and
on -site laundry. Marriott's experience nationwide is that they do not need any loading berth
facilities. Deliveries are made through the normal access doors. They are requesting relief
to cut down on the amount of pavement and increase the amount of green space.
2. Grant an allowance from the required ten -foot setback from parking at the property line. It
affects the area where they abut the NICOR property, because the parking is extending the
parking lot across the property line, the ten foot requirement does not serve a purpose
under this scenario. The ten -foot is there, but is moved out to the perimeter of the parking
area.
3. Grant an allowance from the requirement that no more than six parking spaces be located
in front of the building. Their front is Jorie Blvd., and anything they do will have more than
six spaces in front of the building. The view along Jorie is not impacted by what they are
proposing.
4. Grant an allowance from the requirement for landscape screening of a parking lot as it
relates to the common lot line between office /hotel property and the NICOR property where
the parking lot extends across the lot line. They are seeking to move it also along the
perimeter of the property where it serves its intended function.
5. Seeking an allowance from the requirement that parking facilities permitted on a lot other
than the lot on which the structure or use served is located be owned by the owner of the lot
occupied by the structure. Also, grant an allowance from the requirement for a recorded
covenant prohibiting any other use of the additional parking lot area to allow for recording of
an easement approved by the Village Attorney. They are proposing that it be on the NICOR
adjacent parcel subject to a perpetual easement approved by the Village. This allows
NICOR to make surface use of a property for which it cannot have no other permanent use
given the high pressure pipe line that is located within the pipe line corridor.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 20, 2000
2
VLLc
6. Seeking an allowance from the maximum Floor Area Ratio of .45 to .456.
The Zoning Ordinance requires several factors to be considered in their request. These are
addressed in detail in the submitted documents.
Scott Gold, Area Vice President, Marriott International, provided information regarding the
proposed hotel, Residence Inn. It is the premiere extended stay product in the United States. The
chain is approximately 350 hotels. 40,000 units and 25 -years old. The average income profile of
their customer is $76,300, 31 -year old executive. They also cater heavily to relocations and
weekend get -away packages for people to do shopping, dining and attending area plays and
functions. Residence Inn is an award - winning brand, voted best consistently throughout the
country for price value, amenity package, etc. White Lodging excels in hotel lodging. They are
cognizant of their guests' needs, the environment and communities in which they function.
Residence Inn does have a limited food service that is breakfast only for the guests, consisting of
hot and cold entrees (buffet style) and beverages.
Member Girgis questioned whether they were rooms or suites. Scott Gold answered that they are
suites with two separate areas for sleeping and living, including a full kitchen. This makes it ideal
for extended stay guests.
Bill Matthys, Vice President, Linden Group, project architect said that the site posed many
challenges in terms of land planning. It has produced an exciting product that fits in with Oak
Brook. It is a quality building with solid design, utilizing brick and stone accents. The main
elevation is the exposure to 1 -88, the rear elevation is similar to the front since guests arrive off of
Jorie Blvd. The height of the building is five stories, which falls within the Code limits of seventy -
five feet. The hotel is made up of 1 and 2 bedroom suites. There is an enclosed swimming
pool /spa, exercise room and sun patio and a small library/study area off the main lobby /reception
area. There is a larger hearth room, which has a fireplace and full entertainment center, a
breakfast bar and an outside tea garden. There are two meeting rooms for guests and in -house
laundry facilities.
The challenges they were faced with was the placement of the building. They placed the building
to the north edge of the parking lot. There is a 15 -16 foot barrier around the building, which will be
heavily landscaped. There is also a row of landscaped islands that will be created to separate the
office to the hotel uses on the property. They wanted to create a plush landscape feel to bring the
scale down to a more pedestrian scale to excite the guests as they arrive. As they round the office
building and come around toward the hotel, the focal point at the end of the drive will be enhanced
with some impact landscaping to draw their attention to that end. The full length of the paver
pattern drive will be landscaped with trees and other material to lead them to a path toward the
focal point. There will be an additional landscape buffer to the north and will be developed with a
variety of evergreen material and deciduous shrubbery to break up the texture and color in that
area.
They believe this plan is an excellent use of this property and that it greatly enhances the
environment of what exists there now and creates a very pleasant view for the traffic as it begins to
slow down as it approaches the toll- booth.
Chairman Aktipis asked if the roofing material was painted aluminum. Mr. Matthys responded that
it is a baked metal finish.
Bob Pugliese said that concerning delivery services, the rear access door does lead into areas
where minor deliveries would come in or out with a small hand dolly. It is a regular access door
and they expect any deliveries to come in through that rear point. There is parking there and the
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 20, 2000
3
deliveries will be coming midday after breakfast hours when they expect quite a bit of empty
parking in that area.
Rolf Kilian, Senior Vice President, Metro Transportation Group, addressed the parking and traffic
issues for the development. The permitted use is for an office building of approximately 100,000
square feet. From a parking standpoint, the Ordinance would require 1 space for every 300 square
feet, or roughly 340 parking spaces. The Ordinance requires the proposed Residence Inn to
provide 1 parking space per room for 155 spaces and 1 parking space for every 2 employees, or
15 spaces, totaling 170 spaces. This is about half of what an office building would require. The
proposed site plan provides 170 spaces to satisfy the Ordinance requirements. A comparison was
made of traffic from an office or hotel use standpoint; a copy of the report is in the file under Tab 4.
To summarize, the hotel would generate during the morning peak hour, 40 inbound and 30
outbound trips. An office building which would generate 165 inbound and 20 outbound, which is
approximately 2 '/2 times the amount of traffic the hotel would generate. The same is true during
the afternoon peak hour. The hotel would generate 40 inbound trips and 35 outbound trips as
opposed to an office building which would generate 30 inbound trips and 160 outbound trips, again
about 2 %2 times the amount of traffic generated by the hotel. The majority of the traffic will use the
existing signalized intersection to enter and exit the development. The current traffic conditions at
that intersection and the way that it functions, the existing level of service both during the morning
and afternoon is at a level of service B. With the addition of the hotel project, the level of service
will remain at level B during both peak periods, so the impact is negligible. In conclusion, the hotel
has less of an impact when compared to an office use and the access system that presently exists
will be more than satisfactory to accommodate the impact.
Chairman Aktipis asked if Metro used a comparable sized office building of 130,000 square feet
and Director of Community Development Kallien responded that he used 100,000 square feet as
the model.
Bob Pugliese said information was presented in great detail in the file. In the interest of time, he
would not review every item as detailed, but review the highlights.
1. On a proposed text amendment to add hotels as a special use in the ORA -1 District in
Oak Brook, not only do hotels and offices go side by side in terms of physical proximity
within the Village, but also in terms of the other Village zoning districts. They are
complimentary uses and tend to support each other. They have complimentary traffic
and parking patterns. This amendment makes a lot of sense.
2. In regards to the parking text amendment, which has been included in the application, is
exactly what the Village is presenting in its own text amendment presentation on the
agenda this evening. The off -site parking is being restricted to within 300 feet of the
principal use or structure.
3. In the request for a Special Use, the Zoning Ordinance calls out two standards as to
how the special use would be operated in order to protect the public health, safety and
welfare and property values. Hotels and offices do go together well. This is a first class
operation and a very careful approach has been taken in regards to the land planning.
The owner of the office buildings, which will be adjacent to this hotel will continue to own
all the land.
They believe they have thoroughly addressed all of the various allowances being sought. In regards
to the loading berth issue, he stated that they could put a loading berth in. However, they do not
have a need for it and they do have adequate green space on the site where a berth could be
added. The basis of the request is that in the operation of these hotels across the country have not
seen a need for such a berth. It is not included in any of the suburban locations because it is not
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 20, 2000
4
'Ovic-
needed and they do not like to pave green areas just to pave them, which is why they are seeking
Village approval.
The FAR they are seeking is .456 or 6/1000 over the .45 allowed. It is a slight increase over what
would be allowed for office, the impacts of hotel development are significantly less than the impacts
of an office development in terms of the amount of parking required and the amount of traffic
produced. Structured parking for an office would require more building and lot coverage. Since
they are using parking on the NICOR parcel, structured parking is not needed.
Member Pequet questioned whether there was a basement level and was advised there is no
basement.
Chairman Aktipis asked Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development, if there was a reason
why the Zoning Ordinance did not include hotels as a special use in the ORA -1 District. He
answered that was the way the Zoning Ordinance was originally written. He believes this is a
reasonable transition as the Village moves forward in its redevelopment scheme. As a Special
Use, it provides an opportunity for a hotel to make a case for a specific site on a case by case
basis. There may be some ORA sites in the community that are not good for a hotel and through
the special use process that would be realized. In this case, the site was set up for another office
building. There were concept plans presented, and it seems that they are trading a 100,000 square
foot office building for a similarly sized hotel. Also, he has had discussions with at least two of the
hotel managers in the community and they spoke favorably of this request. They do not look at this
as being something competitive, they view it as something enhancing the guests' services for the
hotels in the area, and they did not object at all.
In response to the question regarding the text amendment for a loading dock, Director of
Community Development Kallien said that it appears the petitioner has provided an alternative
means. There will be deliveries on the site, and although they are incidental they will still exist
throughout the day and week. The Village needs to have a location identified whereby the
deliveries can be expected so that they have limited impact on the traffic pattern and not hamper
the people to properly access the building. If the request should move forward, that should be part
of the recommendation to specify a substitute area for deliveries. The request seeks a waiver of
the loading dock requirements.
Chairman Aktipis and members discussed the issue to change the FAR from .45 to .456. The
number is not significant, and the Village seems to be moving in the direction of allowing a greater
FAR as presented in the Lohan Report. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the
definitions that exist in the Zoning Ordinance, there is a definition that defines gross floor area.
That definition is very simple and draws an outline around the exterior of the building multiplies
times the number of floors and that yields the amount of square footage. Practically speaking there
are some areas in the other two buildings that could be entryways and foyers that are generating
no demand for additional parking. We are utilizing the basic definition that leads us to this request
to add additional floor area ratio, which is something that will be looked at when the Zoning
Ordinance is amended. The other issue is that the Lohan Report did recommend a number of
additional steps in our floor area ratio as we move down the road to redevelopment. In the ORA -1
District there was a recommendation to go from .45 to .6; and in the other districts to go to .8 and
1.2. This shows that this is a precursor for the actual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and
to the Zoning Ordinance. There will be another request in the near future that will be seeking to
add floor area ration in the ORA -1 District, that may result in a formal text amendment to raise the
base floor area ratio in the ORA -1 District from .45 up to a higher number. With that information
known, and the stated objective of redevelopment in the community, this request is not out of line.
If the Lohan study had not been done, and there was no interest of an increased floor area ratio in
the community, this would then be a precedent setting request.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 20, 2000
5
Member Pequet responded that in light of the fact that there may be changes on the horizon, and a
ten room reduction could have a fairly significant economic impact. He would be in favor of the
increase. It is a special use permit and it is a reasonable request. Member Payovich agreed that it
is a reasonable request.
Community Development Director Kallien advised the Plan Commission that Village Engineer Dale
Durfey indicated that the stormwater management issues would come out when they do final
engineer for the site and he was confident that those issues could be addressed. However, one
item needs to be corrected on the Site Plan. There is a reference to a setback in the NICOR
property between the parking lot and property line that is less than ten feet. Our Ordinance
requires a minimum of ten feet separation from parking to the property line. Any motion should
include a requirement that the minimum setback be maintained throughout the site plan. There also
may be a need for additional details for parking space dimensions and aisle widths.
No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the proposal.
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich, that the Text Amendment to allow Hotels
as a Special Use in ORA -1 Districts as requested is deemed necessary for the public convenience
and will be 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 approval.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4-
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3-
Motion Carried.
Girgis, Payovich, Pequet and Aktipis
Allen, Goel and Tappin
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich, that the Special Use Permit to allow
development of the Residence Inn Hotel in the ORA -1 District as requested is deemed necessary
for the public convenience and will be 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 approval, subject to the following:
1. Modify the allowance request to eliminate the required loading dock by designating a specific
loading area on the plan.
2. Allowance from the required setback to permit parking at the common lot line.
3. Allowance to permit parking spaces in the front yard.
4. Allowance to eliminate the required parking lot landscaping along a lot line.
5. Allowance to permit required parking on an adjacent parcel not owned by the owner of property
containing the principal building.
6. Allowance to permit a floor area ratio (FAR) of .456 instead of the maximum .45 for the
property.
7. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted.
8. Final Engineering approval.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4-
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3-
Motion Carried.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes
Girgis, Payovich, Pequet and Aktipis
Allen, Goel and Tappin
6
QA Lt
November 20, 2000
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich, that the Text Amendment to allow parking
on an adjacent property within 300 feet as requested is deemed necessary for the public
convenience and will be 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 approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted.
2. Approval of an easement document which confirms the right to locate off - street parking on
NICOR property for the benefit of the hotel use.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Girgis, Payovich, Pequet and Aktipis
Nays: 0-
Absent: 3 - Allen, Goel and Tappin
Motion Carried.
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
Chairman Aktipis noted that Chapter 12 would not be reviewed this evening. All discussion will
focus on Chapter 3. The petitioner in this case is the Village of Oak Brook.
Director of Community Development, Robert Kallien said that much of the Zoning Ordinance for the
Village of Oak Brook, dates back to 1966. Although it has served us well, which is evident because
we have such a fine well planned community, our Zoning Ordinance is somewhat dated. As we
move through the next phase from build -out to redevelopment, some issues need to be addressed
in the Ordinance. As such, the Village Board, in 1999 asked staff to look at a comprehensive
update to the Zoning Ordinance. A comprehensive update can occur in two ways. 1. You can
replace the existing ordinance with a new code. 2. Take the approach that we are using here,
whereby we are using the framework of the existing Ordinance because it is still a good ordinance
and really fine -tune it by adding things that need to be added and change things that need to be
changed. When we are done with this process the base ordinance will look very similar to what
exists today, except that it will read better and be able to address today's issues.
One of the first steps taken is that the Village Board over the last few months has adopted a
recodification to the Zoning Ordinance. If you compare the older ordinance to the new version,
today's text is better organized. That alone, has gone a long way to improve its visual impact. The
next step is to correct some of the language deficiencies. This will be accomplished by reviewing
the Ordinance on a chapter -by- chapter basis. Over the next 12 months, it is my intent to present to
the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals one amended chapter each month.
The first two chapters presented are general zoning provisions that basically apply to all of our
zoning districts and all of the property in the community. The second relates to off - street loading
and parking that will be deferred to the next meeting. In this process we are looking to really edit
the current text. The Zoning Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC) which includes, includes the
Village Attorney has recommended some general editing to improved readability, which ultimately
enhances administration of the Ordinance. Throughout the text, there are words that are changed,
deleted or moved around so that it reads better. These are very common things that occur in an
update of a Zoning Ordinance. More specific items are as follows:
13- 3- 1 -A -2. Add language to permit allowances, which may be requested in conjunction to a
special use. Eliminates the need to process special uses, which also involve variances as two
separate cases. Such an application of allowances was used with recent review of the special use
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 20, 2000
7
-OL`L
amendment for the Village Hall expansion project, which involved a 65 -foot wide driveway for the
new Fire Station.
The Village Attorney has asked rather than making people go through the variance process, to
handle these as allowances as part of the special use. It is an easier standard to meet when made
part of a special use request. In many cases, they are not really items that test well against the
standards for a variance.
Member Girgis questioned, whether changing the language would turn every variance request into
an allowance. Director of Community Development Kallien said that ONLY if it was packaged as
part of a special use request. If someone needed a setback variation to build a new garage, that
would not be handled through the allowance process. Recently, we have been receiving special
uses that have deviations that are part of the request. Part of this has to do with the time we are in.
The original structures that were built were done under the old zoning. As we redevelop and needs
change with larger buildings, some of these things are not only reasonable, but also necessary. It
allows the Commission to handle such requests on a case by case basis and provides the legal
framework to attach these allowances to an ordinance. The Village Attorney has recommended
and believes from a legal perspective that this is a better way to handle these issues associated
with a special use, rather than through a variation request. Member Payovich asked if this was
streamlining the process. Community Development Director Kallien responded that it streamlines
the process, but nothing is being compromised or given away. Some of these things are better
handled through this new process. Many allowances are unable to be tested against the standards
that exist for variations.
Member Payovich asked if by doing the allowances, are they making it harder for the Village to
refuse something, if they deem it should be refused. Community Development Director Kallien
responded that the Village has the right through the review process to approve or deny requests.
Chairman Aktipis questioned if the procedure as it now exists is cumbersome. Community
Development Director responded that some requests are actually forced to go through the special
use variance process. The Village Attorney believes this is not necessary because it is part of the
special use. If there is no special use request, they do not have this option; they must then go
through the variance process.
Member Pequet said that the Board of Trustees still has the ability to either modify or not approve
requests. Community Development Director Kallien agreed and said that if adjacent property
owners believe an allowance is burdensome to them, they can come forward and express their
concerns.
Community Development Director Kallien noted that the recent Village special use request for the
municipal building project was changed to a special use with allowances. Originally, the variation
request was for a larger driveway, and the Village Attorney advised that it should be handled as an
allowance not a variation. A precedent exists from a legal standpoint and that is why he is
recommending that we formalize it here in the Zoning Ordinance.
Member Girgis did not feel comfortable with allowances being part of a special use request.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that it streamlines the process without lessening
the importance. There is no way to by -pass any of the Boards. Normally, the Plan Commission
does not hear variation requests. Only the Zoning Board hears them before it goes to the Board of
Trustees. In this proposal, allowances are heard by all three bodies, giving the Plan Commission
the opportunity to review the allowances and have the whole picture when recommending a special
use request.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 20, 2000
8
Q
_L,t
The members asked Director of Community Development Kallien to review this item with ZORC
and agreed to continue this item to the next Plan Commission meeting for further discussion.
13- 3 -1 -B. Since this is an update of the original Zoning Ordinance, the original special uses in
the Village need to be referenced against the date of the first Zoning Ordinance of the Village.
Member Pequet seconded by Member Payovich to recommend approval of the revised text as
presented.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
13- 3 -3 -B. Include a reference that all new lots comply with the Subdivision Regulations of the
Village.
Member Payovich seconded by Member Pequet to recommend approval of the revised text as
presented.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
13 -3 -5. This section, which establishes specific setbacks along certain streets, contradicts
some setbacks, which are listed in several of the zoning districts. Also, some of the assumptions,
which were used to establish these original setbacks, may not be valid today. As an example, the
current setback along York Road contemplates a five -lane cross section through Oak Brook.
However, today's traffic patterns and volumes do not support this original assumption. Therefore,
three alternatives are being offered for your review and recommendation. Alternative 1
recommends that portion of York Road, south of 31St Street be reduced from 100 feet from the
property line to 100 feet from the centerline. This portion of York Road is primarily residential with
many homes having direct access to the roadway. This area of York Road is now proposed to
have an ultimate cross - section of two thru -lanes with a center turn lane instead of four thru -lanes
that exist north of 31St Street. Alternative 2 recommends that the minimum setback along a street
be consistent to the setbacks contained in the underlying zoning district with the exception to
maintain the 22nd Street setback at 100 feet from the property line. Alternative 3 recommends that
the minimum setback along a street be consistent to the setbacks in the underlying zoning district
without exception.
Director of Community Development Kallien noted that in the Zoning Ordinance, there are some
peculiarities in terms of establishing extraordinary setbacks along some of the major roadways of
the community. In all of the zoning districts, there is a designated front yard setback. What also
exists in the General Provisions section, is a setback along York Road, 22nd Street and Oak Brook
Road, that is much larger. The primary reason the extraordinary setback was established was to
allow the opportunity to expand these major roadways over time. 22nd Street used to be a two -lane
road and is now a six -lane road with turn lanes. York Road used to be a two -lane road and now it's
a four -lane road with turn lanes. Oak Brook Road has portions that have been improved, the rest
will be improved over the next year or so. With the ultimate cross - sections of these roads known,
we need to look at what the setbacks are and determine if they are still relevant for Oak Brook as it
moves forward. The ZORC (Zoning Ordinance Review Committee) has had a number of issues
with the extraordinary setback as it relates to York Road, the portion of York Road, primarily south
of 31St Street/Oak Brook Road. Village Engineer Durfey has indicated that a portion of York Road
will probably be no more than three lanes. It will be one lane in each direction, plus a turn lane in
the middle. The need to place structures back 100 -feet from the property line is probably no longer
warranted with the traffic patterns that currently exist. There are a number of properties south of
31 st Street, that to improve their home, they would have to literally tear down the house and move it
back. We have an opportunity to review what we are really trying to accomplish with this additional
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 20, 2000
9
Vl_ti
setback. Maybe there is a way we can have a setback that is less, but still guarantees the space
necessary for road improvements in the area. Christ Church has been impacted over the years by
this large setback. The underlying zoning in that area, only requires 40 feet. It has impacted these
properties rather dramatically.
Harry Forge, real estate broker for the property at 3604 York Road, said that the house on the
property is approximately 100 years old. It is a narrow piece of property. If the setback
requirements remain the same, nothing much can be done with the property which also has a 60'
rear yard setback.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that when the number of people seeking a
solution or requesting variances increase in a certain area there is a need to look at the issues
impacting the property owners. This area south of 31st street on York Road could force most
everyone in that area to seek a variance in order to make any modification on their property.
William Egbert, 6 York Lake Court said that the properties in this area are all zoned R -2, which has
a 40 -foot setback, except along York Road where it is increased to 100 feet. The homes that
currently exist are all nonconforming and do not meet the required setbacks. The rear of some of
the homes does not meet the front yard setback.
Member Pequet questioned how many homes are impacted in that area. Director of Community
Development Kallien responded that there are a minimum of six which are very limited to expand or
redevelop their parcels because of the requirements of the setback that exists. These parcels are
clearly impacted.
Member Pequet said that it appears there are significant issues and would like to provide some
relief for the property owners that are impacted.
Member Girgis said that on this issue and some of the other important issues, it would be beneficial
to have the Village Attorney and Village Engineer present to answer questions and provide some
input to the Commission.
It was felt that perhaps an aerial graphic photo of the lots would assist the commission with this
issue. The members asked Director of Community Development Kallien to review this item with
ZORC and review an aerial if possible at the next meeting.
13- 3 -6 -B. Recommend a deletion of "courts" in regard to permitted encroachments into yards.
As defined, it is our opinion that the area within a court is a buildable area, which permits all
encroachments by right.
"Courts" in the Ordinance does not relate to streets, but to courtyards with structures. The Village
Attorney has recommended this reference be deleted.
Member Payovich seconded by Member Pequet to recommend approval of the revised text as
presented.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
13- 3 -6 -B. Recommend a proposal to permit solid six -foot (6) fences where a residential district
abuts a non - residential district or corporate limits of the Village. Our current standard now permits
42 -inch high fences that are 50 percent open.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 20, 2000
10
V-0-c
Chairman Aktipis said that those affected by this situation would benefit by being able to screen
their residence from viewing commercial buildings. Member Pequet questioned, if this would affect
the homes in Briarwood that abut Route 83. Director of Community Development Kallien
commented that if they felt the need to buffer the roadways, perhaps it could be considered.
Member Pequet asked what kinds of major roadways could be included, Route 83, 22nd Street, etc.
The members asked Director of Community Development Kallien to review this item with ZORC for
further clarification as to what could be established to determine which roadways would be included
and agreed to continue this item to the next Plan Commission meeting for further discussion.
13- 3 -7 -D. Clarify the timeframe habitable vehicles can be parked or stored on a property to
three consecutive days.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the text of the Ordinance only addresses
three days, it was believed that by adding "consecutive" gives it additional controls especially when
enforcement is initiated.
Member Girgis questioned how often in the year a vehicle can be parked for three days at a time.
He said that they could move the vehicle for a while then park it again for another three days.
Perhaps they need to look at how often in the year this can occur.
Chairman Aktipis asked if a link could be provided to address the number of cars allowed to be
parked on the driveway to the number of inhabitants so that there is a maximum number allowed.
The members asked Director of Community Development Kallien to review this item with ZORC for
further clarification and agreed to continue this item to the next Plan Commission meeting for
further discussion.
13 -3 -8. The original section which pertained to sewerage and water systems is deleted from
the Zoning Ordinance because it exists in the Village's Public Works Construction Standards.
Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Pequet to recommend approval of the revised text as
presented.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
13 -3 -9. The original section which pertains to types of permits associated with special uses
is deleted as it is addressed in other sections of the Ordinance.
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich to recommend approval of the revised text
as presented.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
13 -3 -8. Originally 13 -3 -10, recommend deleting specific exceptions to our height
requirements including smokestacks, silos and storage hoppers. Such exceptions were deemed to
be inappropriate for Oak Brook.
Director of Community Development Kallien stated that these types of uses are really not
appropriate in Oak Brook's development scheme.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 20, 2000
11
Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Pequet to recommend approval of the revised text as
presented.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
13 -3 -9. Originally 13 -3 -11, recommend including a reference to microcells and a clarification
that distributing equipment does not include cellular telephone towers and ancillary equipment.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that an example would be a telephone pole on
22nd Street or Route 83, small antennas are microcells designed to enhance wireless
communications. The suggestion is to allow the reference to microcells be added, but this does not
include towers, which are large.
Following a brief discussion over concerns of microcells and towers, Director of Community
Development Kallien said that to help clarify the issue, that the addition of a definition for what a
.1 microcell" is, would be appropriate.
The members asked Director of Community Development Kallien to review this item with ZORC for
further clarification and agreed to continue this item to the next Plan Commission meeting for
further discussion.
13 -3 -11. Clarifies the screening requirements for rooftop mechanical equipment. These
provisions will require that all mechanicals be completely screened in a manner that is consistent to
the design and materials found in the principal building.
The language currently says that rooftop mechanicals must be screened from any visual
appearance or right of way. It makes sense to have them screened entirely.
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Girgis to recommend approval of the revised text as
presented.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
13 -3 -14. Recommend a decrease in the minimum parcel size from two (2) acres to one (1)
acre for driveway gates. Several inquiries have been made from residents concerning a desire to
construct driveway gates on parcels that are at least one (1) acre in size.
Director of Community Development Kallien explained that this issue is regarding driveway gates
and said that it seems reasonable to include R -2 properties, which are large 1 -acre parcels.
Resident, Herbert Stade, supports the change and suggested the following change to the text:
"Gates shall be located a minimum distance of thirty feet (30) from the nearest edge
of asphalt pavement on a four (4) or more lane road, or twenty feet (20') from the
nearest edge of asphalt pavement on a two lane residential street to allow adequate
room for vehicular access to the property.
After a brief discussion, there was concern over whether this would present a problem for
obstructing traffic on some of the roads.
The members asked Director of Community Development Kallien to review this item with ZORC for
further clarification and to define specific roads this would apply. It was agreed to continue this
item to the next Plan Commission meeting for further discussion.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 20, 2000
12
12L�.
13 -3 -16. Recommend creating language to permit temporary buildings, structures and uses of
land for a time period of up to six (6) months with conditions. Currently, these types of activities
cannot be accommodated.
Chairman Aktipis questioned if this would open a floodgate of temporary structures going up.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Village has not had any requests for this,
other than tents and construction trailers that are controlled by applying for permits. The ordinance
is silent on this issue.
The members asked Director of Community Development Kallien to review this item with ZORC for
further clarification and agreed to continue this item to the next Plan Commission meeting for
further discussion.
13 -3 -17. Recommend creating language to permit telecommunications towers on any Village
owned property except property zoned CR Conservation /Recreation. Currently, new
telecommunications towers are not permitted.
The members agreed that this was a good idea on existing towers to generate additional revenue
for the Village, but were concerned over building any new towers and where they would be located.
The members asked Director of Community Development Kallien to review this item with ZORC for
further clarification and agreed to continue this item to the next Plan Commission meeting for
further discussion.
The members requested, that if possible they would either like to have the Village Attorney present
at the next meeting or would like some sort of report from the Village Attorney and Village Engineer
on the issues raised at the meeting.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Girgis to adjourn.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Director of Comm y D velopment
Secretary
January 15 2001
Date Approved
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 20, 2000
13