Loading...
Minutes - 02/01/2005 - Zoning Board of Appeals1. 2. 3 H 5. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 1, 2005 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON APRIL 5, 2005. CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Champ Davis in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:34 p.m. R (-)T .T . C A LL . - ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members George Mueller, Robert Sanford, Manu Shah and Steven Young. ABSENT: Member Richard Ascher IN ATTENDANCE: Director of Community Development, Robert Kallien, Jr. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2004 REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 4, Kill Motion by Member Mueller, seconded by Member Sanford, to approve the minutes of the December 7, 2004 and the January 4, 2005 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals Meetings as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. RASKIN /SOSANI — 42 YORKSHIRE WOODS — TITLE 13 OF THE RASKIN /SOSANI - 42 YORKSHIRE WOODS VILLAGE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE — VARIATION — SECTION - VARIATION - TO 13- 6C -3F.3 — TO ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT IN THE REQUIRED ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT IN FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THE REQUIRED FRONT AND REAR ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY HOME YARD SETBACKS Peter Tromp, Tromp Architects and Joseph Sosani, the petitioner and owner of VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 12 February 1, 2005 the property at 42 Yorkshire Woods were sworn in by Chairman Davis. Mr. Tromp reviewed the request. On October 22, 2004 the current homeowners, Joe Sosani and Anya Raskin provided a bid for the property. The following week on October 27, 2004 their bid was accepted. The property was purchased with the knowledge that the house would need to be remodeled, updated and added to in order to accommodate their family, which includes their 3 children, mother -in -law and live -in nanny. The current plat of survey, which is dated February 13, 1984, stated that the front building setback is 35 feet. This was with the knowledge of the homeowner. The house is located as close as 33 feet to the front property line. They had assumed that the additions would not be a problem because it appeared that the house was grand fathered because of the 35 foot shown on the plat of survey and the proposed additions would not be extending any further than the existing house already was. Mr. Tromp said that he was hired on November 17, 2004 to design and provide construction for the proposed work. At that time he investigated the site requirements and noted that the existing house was nonconforming to the Village of Oak Brook zoning regulations due to the front and rear yard setbacks and that the existing lot area was less than the required size. After investigating various design schemes they came to the conclusion that it would be required to seek a variation to the front and rear yard setbacks, in order to minimize the impact on the current plan and utilize the existing structure as much as possible. Joe and Anya became the property owners as of January 18, 2005. Currently they are paying for two mortgages and hope to sell their current house as soon as possible in the spring. The variations they are seeking are to the front and the rear yard setbacks. The front yard variation request is the result of putting on a new second floor onto the existing one story house. The second floor will have four bedrooms, two baths, a laundry room and a playroom. In addition, there will be a balcony off the master bedroom. The front yard is also affected by extending the existing two -car garage and adding a half car garage to the side of it. The front and rear yard is affected by putting and filling in between the existing structure for a walk -in closet and dressing area. In support of the request the following was stated: ■ The existing house was built in 1947 per the county's zoning requirements. As a result, the existing home is non - conforming with Oak Brook setback requirements. ■ The existing lot size is non - conforming to the R -3 zoning requirement, which is a minimum of 25,000 square feet. The existing lot is VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 12 February 1, 2005 approximately 17,522 square feet, which is 70% of the required lot size. • The configuration of the existing lot is unique and quadrilateral in shape. The lot lines area not parallel resulting in various lengths of setbacks to the house. • The homeowners would like to maintain as much of the existing house as is possible and add to it to gain the area they will need for their family. There are aspects of the house that are unique, such as the existing family room and basement. These are unique and worthy to maintain the economic and characteristics of the house. • They have investigated different alternatives and in order to work with as much of the existing house as possible a variation is required. • In order to have the house conform to the current setback requirements it would need to be demolished and relocated on the site. The alternative would be a major financial burden, since the original intention was to expand the existing house. • The intent of the proposed additions is to not exceed the current non- conforming front and rear yard setbacks. The walls will be in line or behind the remaining existing walls. The required 12 -foot side yard setbacks and the 40 -foot height regulations will be in compliance with the proposed addition. • They are proposing to extend approximately one -foot over the existing roof overhang. That is because the existing overhang is one foot in the front, but is necessitated in order to tie into the rear portion of the house, which has a two -foot overhang. This is the only extension they are seeking beyond the existing nonconformity. The walls will be in -line, if not behind the current conditions. • The homeowners desire to live in this house that was constructed in 1947. • In order to accommodate the family size, additions are proposed to expand and update the house while maintaining the established flow of the existing floor plan. The design will enhance the neighborhood and is consistent with the context and character of the neighborhood. There have been additions constructed next to and across the street that are similar in scope and size to what they have proposed. • The proposed design will enhance the utility and value of the property. • The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 12 February 1, 2005 property values within the neighborhood. The adjacent neighbors have reviewed the plans and have approved the proposed expansions. A letter of approval for the requested variations has been provided from the Yorkshire Woods Property Owners Association. Chairman Davis summarized that there is an existing nonconformity and the proposed additions only go beyond the existing nonconformity by one foot along the front of the house. Mr. Tromp agreed. Chairman Davis asked how they viewed the nonconformity of the size of the lot. Mr. Tromp responded that he considered that the size and shape of the lot was the reason the house was placed on the lot the way that it was. If it were a larger lot, then it probably would have been behind the setbacks. Chairman Davis asked why they received a 1984 survey. Mr. Sosani responded that is what was given to them. When they purchased the house the new survey still showed 35 feet. Chairman Davis noted that was something that should be remedied with the surveyor. Mr. Sosani said that the bank had to verify it for the loan approval. Chairman Davis noted that there was an approval letter from the homeowners association. He also noted that the homeowner association also represented the approval of the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Sosani said that he went to the neighbors and spoke with them. He said that they walked around the house and he showed them exactly what he wanted to do. He said that they looked at it and they all approved it. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Sosani if he showed all his surrounding neighbors the plans. Mr. Sosani responded that he had shown them the plans. He also noted that one of the neighbors is an architect and is on the homeowner's association review committee. Member Young asked if the other properties that were granted variations were for similar shaped properties. Mr. Tromp responded that he did not know whether variations were granted to the other properties. He just noted that they had built similar additions. Mr. Sosani added that his lot is the smallest lot in the neighborhood, so he did not think that the other lots would have required a variation. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 12 February 1, 2005 No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the requested variation. Chairman Davis said that it appears the petitioner has addressed the standards as required in great detail and they are provided in writing on pages E -E.1 of the case file. It appears that the situation is unique by reason of an existing nonconforming use and an odd lot size and there is a hardship that is not of the present owners own making. In addition to satisfying the standards, the homeowners association and neighbors do not object. The request does not appear to jeopardize the public health, safety or general welfare of any party. Motion by Chairman Davis, seconded by Member Shah to recommend approval of the variations as requested subject to the following conditions: 1. To reduce the front yard setback from 40 feet to approximately 307" and to reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to approximately 35'9" and the proposed addition is to be in substantial conformance with the Site Plan labeled Sheet 1, dated December 29, 2004 on page K of the case file. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Members Mueller, Sanford, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 - Absent: 2 - Member Ascher. Motion Carried 5. B. OAK BROOK PROMENADE — 3001, 3003 AND 3121 BUTTERFIELD ROAD SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BUTTERFIELD ROAD AND MEYERS ROAD) — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE - ZONING ORDINANCE — MAP AMENDMENT, TEXT AMENDMENTS, VARIATIONS AND SPECIAL USE — TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LIFESTYLE CENTER Chairman Davis said that it was his understanding that an overview was going to be presented and the applicant would be seeking a continuance to another meeting where testimony would then be given. Mary Riordan, Attorney for the petitioner NAI Hiffman, which is the development agent for the property owners St. Paul Properties, Inc., introduced Ryan Murphy, Detail Leasing for NAI Hiffman and Joy Pinta, an Associate with her law firm. Ms. Riordan said that the project is an 18.2 acre project located at the southwest corner of Meyers Road and Butterfield Road. The site is VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 12 February 1, 2005 OAK BROOK PROMENADE — 3001, 3003 and 3121 BUTTERFIELD RD — MAP AMENDMENT, TEXT AMENDMENTS VARIATIONS and SPECIAL USE — TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LIFESTYLE CENTER improved with 3 office buildings. The property is owned by St. Paul Properties. There are two three -story office buildings and a one -story brick office building. Right now the occupancy rate of these buildings is only 30 %. In the office market including, Downers Grove, Lombard, Oak Brook and Oakbrook Terrace, the office vacancy rate is about 30 %. The market is over built for this area. The existing buildings are competing with Class A buildings, with new lobbies, health clubs, restaurants and other amenities. These are older buildings that cannot compete so as a result they have a very high vacancy rate. The property is somewhat unique in that there is an approximate 5 -acre pond on the site. The pond serves not only the detention, but it is an online pond, which actually provides detention for properties upstream. There are also floodplain and floodway issues around the pond an in front of the property, which is part of their hardship. Along with that at the back of the buildings there is a 100 -foot ComEd easement with the high- tension wires. They can provide parking under them, but they cannot build under them. There is also almost one acre of floodplain at the front of the property that cannot be filled in. They really have about 12 acres available to do the kind of project they want to do. The project is the Oak Brook Promenade and is being planned as a Lifestyle Center; a high -end boutique type retail with inviting amenities to be attractive to people to come in, sit and spend time. There will be extensive landscaping, beyond what the ordinance requires; streetscapes, with benches, planters and attractive facades. Some of the cornerstones is going to be high -end sit -down restaurants. In the plans, locations A and B will have outdoor seating along the pond. They area trying to use the pond feature as much as possible to enhance the development. Part of the project is going to be to landscaping a good part of the pond. They will be adding low voltage lighting and will redo the path around the pond. They are proposing that the buildings be demolished; that the whole property be redeveloped with 180,000 - 190,000 feet of office, retail and sit down restaurants. There would be about 20,000 feet of office, which will be specialty office; approximately 128,000 feet of retail and about 30,000 feet of high end sit down restaurants. The parking has designed to coexist with the particular uses. They are looking at the project to be approximately a 50 million dollar investment in order to complete the project. There are going to be high - end tenants, but they will not be competing with the Oakbrook Center. They have talked to the people at the Oakbrook Center and they have a VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 12 February 1, 2005 waiting list. This is a different type of tenant than what the mall will be. They need to have a minimal square footage or they cannot attract the kind of tenants they want to attract. At the same time they have the limitations of the pond, the floodway and the high- tension easement in the back of the building. They have tried to create what they need to do in terms of critical mass and at the same time be mindful of all of the restrictions on the property. Two of the existing buildings presently have an underground garage. One of the ways they have tried to address the parking requirements was to reuse the underground garages. It will be a controlled access. It will continue to be used for employee parking and valet parking. Right now the property generates no revenue for the Village because there is not a local property tax. They are anticipating when the project is fully built and after a couple of stabilized years they will generate in excess of one million dollars in sales tax per year. The project will not have any impact on the taxing districts. Economically they believe it will be a positive impact for the village. The property is located on the far west edge of town, across Meyers Road to the east is the Inland building, which is also zoned ORA -1; immediately to the west is a ComEd substation, also zoned ORA -1. Immediately north of the property is the Village of Lombard and the development to the north is zoned B -3 planned development (according to the Lombard zoning map), which is the Fountain Square restaurants and retail. To the south the property is bounded by the tollway and to the south of that is a residential area. To the west is the Yorktown Shopping Center and down farther to the east is the Oakbrook Center. Given the state of the buildings right now they think the development will be a positive impact on the value and character of surrounding properties. They do not see any negative impacts. Included in the materials is a traffic study by KLOA, which concludes that the current improvements will handle the traffic being generated by the project. Because they wanted this project to be quality and unique they brought in Henry Klover Architects from Kansas City. They have a reputation for doing high quality Lifestyle Centers. They have spent a lot of time on the renderings and the facades. Exhibit 11 are the elevations of the proposed buildings. They looked at various properties within the village and tried to incorporate some of the features that are currently in the Village into this VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 12 February 1, 2005 design. They tried to pull together a lot of the common elements of the Village. Included in the packet is a spiral bound book, which is the design criteria. The center will be owned a single owner. All of the leases will incorporate the book. The book specifies what kind of materials can be used, what kind of lighting, how the freestanding buildings need to be addressed. The architectural plans will need to be submitted to the owner, who will approve them before they every go to the Village. The approval will mean that they are in compliance with the design standards along with all the ordinances they have asked the Village to approve. There is no way that a tenant could come and build something that Is not in conformance with what has been shown. There are certain uses in the B -1 District that they have asked to be ,excluded. The proposed zoning district is B -1, which they believe is the most appropriate zoning district for the project they are proposing. B -3 had too many uses that they would not want to see on the project. On page 11 of the narrative for the map amendment they have listed the uses to be omitted. They plan on having very strict architectural controls, operational controls and use controls on the project. With a $50 million dollar investment, they want to make sure they maintain the quality of the project. Chairman Davis asked what a "lifestyle center" would be. Ms. Riordan said that it would be center where they do not have the big shops. The largest store would possibly be a specialty furniture store of 12- 15,000 square feet. They are smaller stores and a lot of features in the center designed to attract people and keep them there. The whole layout of the center with a pedestrian circulation path made with pavers and the landscaping to get people to come in and keep them in the center. A lot of attention was paid to making it easy for people to walk through and cross over the project. There is a lot of landscaping and discreet signage. Chairman Davis asked how traffic would enter and exit the site. Ms. Riordan reviewed the main entrance to the site, which is at an existing signal that they will not be changing at all. There will be a right in right out on the western border of the property that also exists. There is an existing driveway to the east that will be moved slightly to the west because of the flood plain. She reviewed the access to the south entryway. Technology Drive is behind the buildings on the south and leads to a signalized intersection on Butterfield. As people use it more they will become familiar with that exit. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 12 February 1, 2005 Ms. Riordan said that they expect the outdoor dining to be similar to the indoor dining with white linen tablecloths. They will be controlled. Patrons will only enter through the restaurant. There will not be any music and they will be enclosed with fences. There will be the nice amenity to view the pond without any access to it and will be strictly controlled. The outdoor dining will be a nice use of the property during the spring, summer and fall. Because it is a two -story project they are seeking a text amendment for relief to the building height. In the B -1 District 30 feet is the maximum allowed; they are asking for 50 feet. They need that in order to create a 2- story center. They will not be facades; they will actually be used for 2- story retail, office, a possible 2 -story restaurant. They have also asked for a text amendment to allow for a tower feature. In any district a design feature is allowed to be 15 feet higher than the structure height, they are asking that it be changed to 25 feet, which could result in a design feature going to 75 feet. To stay in scale with that they are asking for a variance for their signs. Currently the Code allows 30 feet in the B -1 District; they are seeking 36 feet in height which will allow them to stay in scale with the 2 -story building. They are seeking enough flexibility in the signage for their retailers so that the signs can be unique for their property without being too standardized and there is a certain kind of feel they are trying to create. The signs are all spelled out in the design criteria. There will not be any building or box signs. They want to create a downtown streetscape kind of feel. The signage at the entryway will be a monument sign identifying the project and the tenant ID will be at the corner to give people an idea what is there. The development of the project would require the following relief. • A map amendment to change the zoning from ORA -1 to B -1. • Three text amendments. First, to add "health clubs" as a permitted use in the B -1 District; second, to amend the height of the buildings, and third, to amend the height of the design feature. • A special use for outdoor dining adjacent to restaurants. • Nine variations. A variation to the building setback for building K, the code requires a 60 -foot setback and they are seeking 50 feet; a variation to the sign height and projection from 30 feet to 36 feet; a variation to the landscaping to provide unique planting without providing a bay; also one tree for every 40 spaces, but the south VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 12 February 1, 2005 end, they may not be every 15 feet. The caliper of trees will exceed what the ordinance requires; they are requesting to have ornamental trees in certain areas instead of shade trees over the parking garages and by the high tension lines; a variation to the drive aisles, under the existing ORA -1 the width is 24 feet, which they have. Under the B -1 District it is 27 feet and they are requesting to keep it at 24 feet; a variation to the 10 -foot parking setback along Technology Drive; the last variance is to the Subdivision Regulations regarding monumentation which is heard by the Plan Commission. She said that they are excited about the project and will provide a complete review at the next meeting. Chairman Davis asked what the timing issue was for the construction of the project. Ms. Riordan responded that they want to be in the ground in June 2005. The plan is to be able to be able to open by Thanksgiving of 2006. Member Sanford asked for clarification of the Executive Summary regarding occupancy rates. Ms. Riordan responded that the surrounding areas have a 30% vacancy rate and they have a 70% vacancy rate. Member Sanford questions what problem there would be if the signs remained as required under the present code. Ms. Riordan responded that because of the height of the buildings they would not look right. The signs would be too low to be in scale with 2 -story buildings. Member Sanford commented that it would be an aesthetic issue. Ms. Riordan agreed. Member Sanford said that the Plan Commission brought up the safety issue of the pathway around the pond. Ms. Riordan said that there will be heavy landscaping around the edge of the detention pond. It will keep birds and animals out of the pond. They also believe it will be substantial enough to keep small children out as well. That issue will be discussed more in depth at the next meeting. Member Sanford said that on page 26 the projected real estate taxes were listed over a number of years. He asked if that was anticipated real estate taxes increasing or if any special tax relief was included in those numbers. She said that the number was expected to be the total real estate tax once the property is fully assessed as based on by conversations with the York Township Assessor and there is not tax relief included in that at all. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 12 February 1, 2005 Member Young said that he would like to see a study of the traffic study on Meyers Road. The increased traffic flow in that area is probably going to create major snags. If there is increased traffic flow around the pond and he would like to know about protective measures to keep vehicles from going in the pond. Ms. Riordan said that they have looked at the pond in terms of trees and landscaping trying to make it pretty impossible for a car to go into the pond. They have tried to avoid bollards and between the architect and the landscape architect. Member Young questioned the lighting on the neighboring condo as well as the residential neighborhood behind it. Ms. Riordan said that there is a photometric study in the materials. There will be two different kinds of lighting; practical lighting for the parking lot and decorative lighting. If you look at what they are allowed to do and what the project will do this will be a much less intense project and will be much lower than what they are allowed to build. There will be less intensity on the lighting. What they have proposed will actually be an improvement in terms of the lighting. The photometric has been designed to make sure there is no light spillage at the property line. Director of Community Development commented that if Oak Brook had a Planned Unit Development process in place the applicant would not be seeking variations. He said it would allow them to create a development scheme that would allow them to ask for certain relief but it would be packaged as one request. The burden of proof of unique circumstances is lessened tremendously. Many projects in Oak Brook take on the characteristics of a planned unit development, such as Oakbrook Center, that was done under straight zoning. As a result of the applicant's request a number of other property owners have shown some interest in pursuing development projects also. The areas to the east of this project may see some additional opportunities for mixed use development. Member Mueller asked if there would be a problem in reducing the drive aisles from 27 to 24 feet. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Village Engineer has reviewed it. He said that is what is there right now and believes that it can work. Once people come to the center, they want them to stay parked and walk to the various buildings because driving within the center defeats the purpose of the layout. Ms. Riordan said that they hope for it to be a pedestrian friendly site. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 12 February 1, 2005 Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Mueller to continue the public hearing for the Oak Brook Promenade to a Special meeting scheduled for February 22, 2005. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: There was no other business to discuss. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Mueller, seconded by Member Shah to adjourn the meeting at 8:34 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert L. Kallien, Jr. Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 12 February 1, 2005 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT