Minutes - 02/15/2005 - Zoning Board of AppealsMINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 15, 2005 SPECIAL
MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF
THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS
WRITTEN ON APRIL 5, 2005.
1. CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER
The Special 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 7:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL
Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons
PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members George Mueller, Manu Shah
and Steven Young.
ABSENT: Member Richard Ascher and Robert Sanford
IN ATTENDANCE: Director of Community Development, Robert Kallien, Jr.
and Village Engineer Dale Durfey
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES
There were no minutes available for approval.
4. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS
A. OAK BROOK PROMENADE — 3001 3003 AND 3121 BUTTERFIELD OAK BROOK
PROMENADE — 3001,
ROAD (SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BUTTERFIELD ROAD AND 3003 and 3121
MEYERS ROAD) — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE - ZONING MEELD RD —
MAP A AMENDMENT,
ORDINANCE — MAP AMENDMENT, TEXT AMENDMENTS, TEXT AMENDMENTS
VARIATIONS and
VARIATIONS AND SPECIAL USE — TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL USE — TO
OF A LIFESTYLE CENTER ALLOW THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A
LIFESTYLE CENTER
Chairman Davis swore in all parties that would testify at the public
hearing.
Mary Riordan Attorney with the law firm Mary Riordan, Ltd., provided an
overview of the project. The project is located at the southwest corner of
Meyers Road and Butterfield Road. The site is improved with two three -
story office buildings and a one -story brick office building. The property is
located on the western edge of the Village boundary, with the exception of
the ComEd power station.
She introduced the development team who are part of this project that
would be speaking at the hearing. Phil Wolf, Manhard Engineering is the
Project Engineer; Wendy Schulenberg, Landscape Architect; Hdnry
Klover, Klover Architects of Kansas City, Missouri; Nick Smith, Manhard
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 21 February 15, 2005
Engineering; Don O'Hara, Traffic Engineer, KLOA and Joy Pinta, an
Associate with Mary Riordan Ltd. She also introduced representatives
from NAI Hiffman, Mike Van Sant, Ken Erickson and Ryan Murphy.
They are acting as agent for the property owner who is St. Paul Properties,
which is located in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Ms. Riordan asked that the book containing all of the applications and
exhibits be made part of the official record. Along with the 3 office
buildings on the site there is an approximate five -acre pond. The pond
serves not only the detention, but it is an online pond, which actually
provides detention for properties upstream. Along with that, at the back of
the buildings there is a 100 -foot ComEd easement with high- tension lines
so nothing can be built under it. There are also floodplain and floodway
issues around the pond and in front of the property, which is part of their
hardship. Out of the 18 acres, there are probably about 11 usable acres. In
order to redevelop the property and provide adequate parking and the
critical mass that they need to have, they need the relief requested because
so much of the property is unbuildable in terms of building locations.
Right now the occupancy rate of these buildings is only 30 %. In the office
market including, Oak Brook, Downers Grove, Lombard, and Oakbrook
Terrace, the office vacancy rate is about 30 %. The buildings are very much
underutilized. In order to build this project the developer is looking to
create a critical mass of retail, in the area of 170,000 - 190,000 square feet.
That is necessary to attract tenants since they all want to be where there are
other tenants to draw shoppers. The project is proposed to be an
approximate 180,000 square foot project with a F.A.R. of .22. The property
is currently zoned ORA -1 and they are requesting that a map amendment
be approved to rezone the property to B -1.
They are estimating approximately 128,255 feet of retail; about 20,000 feet
of office and about 30,000 feet of high -end sit down restaurants. The
parking is designed to coexist with the particular uses. In order to develop
the property it will cost approximately $50 million of private investments.
The property is owned by St. Paul Properties in Minnesota and they are
looking to develop it along with NAI Hiffman.
The project is designed to attract high -end specialty tenants. There will be
one owner and all the properties will be leased. One owner will be in
control of all elements of the project. The Design Criteria Booklet in the
file outlines all of the details. These design criteria will be bound into all
of the leases. So what will be built is what is being presented at this
hearing.
Right now the property generates no revenue for the Village because there
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 21 February 15, 2005
is not a local property tax. They are anticipating when the project is fully
developed and after the first stabilized year 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 consistent with surrounding
land uses and this is a good use for the property. The B -1 zoning district is
an appropriate district for this property.
Phil Wolf, Manhard Consulting
He said that originally on the site there was an existing culvert that came
through the property and was released to a creek and then discharged back
into a six -foot diameter culvert going back underneath. The buildings were
permitted back in approximately 1974 and as part of the original
development there was a lot of filling in done when the pond was actually
constructed to provide some compensatory storage for the flood plain that
was filled in and some detention volume at that time. In order to work
with the new plan at this time they would have liked to have filled in some
of those areas of flood plain, but each area that you look at to fill in,
because of the depth of the flood plain at that point there is approximately
six times the area or the volume has to be created for each area that gets
filled. There are substantial constraints with the ComEd easement and the
gas lines. What they look to do is to adjust the existing pond that is there to
make up for the small amount of additional pervious that would be added,
but in particular to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance of today
versus what was in place when the buildings were constructed. They
worked hand and hand with Village Engineer Dale Durfey throughout the
design. The existing structure that goes out under Meyers Road they are
looking to actually lower the water level within the pond providing some
additional storage; and for the small amounts they are filling they are
replacing per the ordinance at 1 '/2 to 1. They have carved out an area at
the base of the pond to the south and have gained substantial additional
volume. When the buildings were constructed approximately 4 -acre feet
of detention was provided in the pond. About 40 -acre feet of storage were
provided in compensatory fill was placed at that time. The additional
developments they are placing on the site at this time doubles the volume
of the detention and more than compensates for the additional runoff that
will occur from the small amount of additional pervious that has been
added.
Donald O'Hara, rip ncipal with KLOA Inc., 9575 W. Higgins, Rosemont
He said that they were retained to do the traffic study, which is on tab 27 of
the case file. He highlighted some of the important aspects of the traffic
planning for the site. They studied Butterfield Road and Meyers Road.
The access today, the right in right out is noted as intersection A,
Intersection B, is the signalized intersection and the third driveway, listed
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 21 February 15, 2005
as C, is the right in right out onto Butterfield Road. The Village requires
400 feet distance between driveways and the existing driveway does not
meet that criteria and neither will the proposed driveway. They have met
with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) relative to the
access width and access plan and they have given preliminary approval.
The idea behind moving the right in right out access plan a little to the west
is so that it lines up with the buildings, which allows for a direct
connection.
They conducted traffic counts at the intersection of Butterfield and Meyers
Road and it is at capacity. They also conducted traffic counts at the three
driveways to the existing office buildings. They are underutilized today
and the volumes were relatively low. They used the ITE trip generation
rates for the proposed land uses and assigned them to the various
driveways by the directional distribution with the majority of the traffic on
Butterfield Road and 28% being on Meyers Road (13% from the north
15% from the south). The analysis went through each driveway and
although they would like to see improvements, the State of Illinois has said
that they have no plans in the near future to improve Butterfield Road so
they are stuck with what they have relative to the intersection at Butterfield
and Meyers. The County has recently upgraded the Meyers Road
intersection. All of the issues relative to access, from going to and from
Meyers going into the driveways found that externally there really are not
any improvements that are necessary relative to this development. The
signalized drive will be sufficient when it is striped as a separate left and
through right. The right in right outs will function as they are supposed to.
The second form of relief they are seeking is to the aisle width of the
parking lot from 27 feet down to 24 feet. Existing today on the site it is 24
feet wide and the current Village ordinance requires 27 feet under this type
of land use. It is straight forward as relative to what most parking
recommendations are as for a 60 -foot parking bay; that is an 18 -foot depth,
24 -foot aisle and 18 -foot depth for the vehicles. They will be in total
compliance with the parking regulations.
Member Young asked about the potential impact of traffic during rush
hour going southbound on Meyers Road. He asked what was the potential
delay.
Mr. O'Hara responded that on Table 3, page 11 of the traffic section of the
book Under existing conditions during the a.m. peak hour, the level of
service at Butterfield and Meyers Road is level of service C. The average
vehicle delay in seconds is 31.3. Under future conditions, during the a.m.
peak hour, the level of service remains level of service C and goes from
31.3 to 32 seconds. The calculation is based on the Highway Capacity
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 21 February 15, 2005
Manual relative to 1900 vehicles for capacity per hour. The peak hour
factor is .9. During the p.m., which is probably the more critical one,
under existing conditions it is at level of service E and the vehicle delay is
60.0 and in the future, it remains E, but the site is adding .9 seconds to the
average delay. This is very typical of intersections that are at capacity. As
you add vehicles the delay is increased significantly, because the headway
between vehicles as the queues get longer it takes a longer stretch for the
start up so the seconds of delay as your volume increases will increase the
delay. The Butterfield Road at site access is at level of service B today,
with a 19.8 second delay. With the proposal it will go to 19.7 seconds,
which is a little better and that is because of directional distribution and
how they are getting into and out of the facility.
Member Young questioned the use of the access drive at the rear of the
property. Mr. O'Hara responded that it was used by the employees and is a
viable alternative because you can come out to another signal at
Technology Drive.
Chairman Davis questioned if there were concerns at other hours of the
day. Mr. O'Hara responded that the belief is that if the highest volume is
taken care of for the peak hour, the other hours take care of themselves.
The peak hour for this development is actually about 1 p.m.
Member Young asked if there was an increase in traffic accidents as
reported by IDOT. Mr. O'Hara responded that he asked about accident
data and they were not concerned about it because they had just gone
through with the County, relative to the improvements and accidents were
supposed to be part of the study conducted for Meyers Road and
Butterfield Road and the pond is there. He said that he is not trying to
downplay it. He said the opportunity is always there.
Henry Mover, Klover Architects
He said that he is located out of a suburb in Kansas City and that there
were many challenges on this site and out of challenges comes opportunity.
The existing pond cuts off a piece of the property, but it also created the
opportunity for something they could use and have a lot of character and
value. The high- tension lines across the back created a shield that is not
attractive or something they wanted. There is also the ComEd station on
the other side of the property. The original intent was to try to create a
village. The whole idea with a life -style center is to try to create a
gathering point; an image for the city of suburbia. The design was to use
the buildings to shield the utilities that go across the back of the property.
They have taken advantage of the pond and created outdoor seating areas
along the edge of the pond. The intent was to have the restaurants along
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 21 February 15, 2005
that area.
One of the considerations of the site was to have nice smooth circulations
paths and there is a wide island through the middle that has decorative
plantings and the desire was to set up really strong circulation with wide
pedestrian areas. There is no direct connection to the pond from the area
as it is shielded by the buildings and the railing system. The only way you
can get there is to actually walk around the outside.
There are two existing underground parking facilities. They had the initial
problem because one of them is on caissons. They will use them as valet
parking and parking for the office spaces. There will be a connection
added between the two underground facilities. They will control exit and
access to the garages.
The site lighting is a nice shoebox fixture to direct the light downward and
designed to have 0 -foot candles as they go just to the property edge. The
u -shape design of the center will also control the light projecting off of the
project as well because it will be screened by the buildings. The power
lines on the back side of the property will require lower fixtures as well
because they are limited by the utility company as to how high the lights
can be. There is also a series of decorative fixtures to create an ambience
of the pedestrian walkway.
In a lifestyle center they try to create higher quality finishes on the ground
that people can touch and feel. They spent the money to bring in textures
and brick materials and add areas for the pedestrians to sit and gather.
They created areas where there are seating nodes that are protected by
green areas and plantings. There is a large area as wide as 36 -feet deep;
there are planters and seating walls as well as bollards to try to protect the
pedestrians as they come around.
They always start a project investigating communities and what images are
historic to it. When they met with staff a few of the buildings was pointed
out. There was a bit of an old world character to the community there were
certain elements that they saw such as the Rocca Jewelers, the eyebrows,
detailing and of some of the brick patterns that they wanted to carry into
the center It is important to them to create an image and a character.
Most buildings were not built at one time; they were built over a time with
a series of architects and sometimes over a period of centuries. They try to
create a skyline and a character element.
Years ago, everyone wanted a 10 -foot ceiling in retail. Nowadays the
higher end retailers, under the ICSC rules are called lifestyle tenants,
which are retailers that are directed toward image, such as the Gap, The
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 21 February 15, 2005
Limited, etc., that have a higher end design. One of the things they require
is higher height; they want more volume inside the space to put a lot of
character into it and they spend a lot of money on it. When they design a
center they create height and part of the request was to increase the height
from the 30 feet allowed by ordinance, to the more traditional 50 feet and
the additional 30 feet for the tower. That is intended to allow them to do
various things. They will be able to get the height required for two -story
retailers, but also to allow for character elements such as the skyline.
Signage is very important. They go to great lengths to try to encourage
people to not just stick a standard illuminated sign with straight box letters.
They encourage them to have character, elements, designs and marquees to
the signs. The intent is to try to get people to do something different.
They are also asking for marquee signs that are not just on the building
itself, they are actually out on the awnings and architecturally separated
that have character and interest. The tenants are each required to install
blade signs so there is a 30 -inch projection for the blade signs for each
tenant so when the people walk by they are perpendicular. Most signs are
directed toward distance, while the idea of the blade signs is to deal with it
on a pedestrian scale and level. Again they do not want box signs. They
want something interesting to provide some character. The monument
signs are on tab number 6. It is not a typical monument sign it is not just a
square box; it is being built almost as a structure that is in character with
the project itself. There are two signs, one is labeled A, which is a
monument sign at the corner of Butterfield and Meyers Road and is going
to be non- illuminated internally but will be pin mounted and would have
the sign ground mounted lit and then down below would be the signs for
the tenants; and then the actual logo itself would be a halo type sign. The
second sign is more of a monument type sign located at the entrance and is
more of identification for the entrance to the center, which is labeled as
sign B.
One of the concerns that staff had was to make the pedestrian connections
safe. Exhibit 9 shows that there are straight, horizontal and vertical paths.
There is a sidewalk coming off of Building K that connects around the
center. There are also valet points on the site, with archway signs to
encourage people to go to those areas.
The outdoor dining areas will be high quality, and the Design Criteria
Booklet requires white tablecloths with high quality railing systems and
lighting, and planters to take advantage of the outdoor pond and the
amenities that come with that.
He reviewed the elevations, including the locations of the restaurants, the
areas where there will be two -story offices, and the location of the tower,
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 21 February 15, 2005
which is designed to be above the two -story retail. There is a skyline to it
using a variety of designs and textures. The elevations facing the pond
were reviewed; the rear of the property has the same elevations as the
front. By making the buildings taller there is a natural character that comes
along with this type of architecture. They are trying to be true to the
historic proportions, imagery, types of windows; and the signage by the
very nature of making the buildings taller to accommodate the retail
tenants, has pushed the signage up as well. Signs want to be above the
windows; they do not want to be down below them. To stay with the 30-
foot requirement would be a bit arbitrary; it would actually be getting into
locations below the structure where you want the windows and for the
tenants to do things with.
Member Young asked what would be put in place from a filtration
standpoint to keep people from throwing cups or other debris into the
pond? Mr. Klover responded that from the higher end restaurants there
would not be items such as paper plates or such debris that might be flying
into the ponds. He said that with this quality of restaurants he did not
seeing this as being an issue. Ms. Riordan added that if that would happen
they would call the police.
Chairman Davis asked if the tenants were lined up yet and what process is
followed in the design of the tenant spaces Mr. Klover responded that the
design intent is there. The tenants are allowed to deal with the entrances
and the storefronts. Within the Design Criteria they have the ability to
work within the signage and their entrance. The fagade and materials are
already selected. Ms. Riordan added that they will require that the tenants
go to through the developer to review and approve the proposed signage
and permits and approve them prior to the plans being submitted to the
Village for permit.
Chairman Davis asked what the timeframe was for the project. Ms.
Riordan said that they are hoping to start demolition of the office buildings
between June and July 2005 and are anticipating a 12 -month construction
schedule and hoping to open by the fall of 2006.
Wendy Schulenberg, principal with Daniel Weinback & Partners
They are a landscape architectural firm in Chicago. Landscaping is very
important in a lifestyle center and the major goal is that the landscape
meets the same quality as the buildings and the overall concept for the site.
The first step is to look at the existing vegetation on the site. There is a lot
of mature vegetation around the pond. There is a scattering of other
vegetation throughout the site and a number of existing shade trees. The
goal is to maintain as many of the existing trees around the pond as they
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 21 February 15, 2005
can. Along Meyers Road there are overhead power lines and shade trees
had been planted that have been topped off over time. They may take
those out as well as any other tree that may be in a poor condition. Because
of the scope of a development like this there are large areas that will need
to be graded and they will be losing a good majority of the vegetation.
There are some honey locust, some very nice ginkgo trees, maple and quite
a bit of ash trees on the site. There is about 12 -13 of those trees that they
feel they can relocate. There is a concern that there is going to be an ash
borer that is going to attack the ash tree sort of be the next Dutch Elm
disease and is going to wipe out all ash trees in the near future, so they are
not going to spend the money to relocate ash trees. Most municipalities are
not allowing ash trees to be planted anymore and a lot of the really big
trees on this site are ash trees.
There is dense vegetation at the corner of Meyers and Butterfield and the
views into the site are somewhat limited. The new sign will be at the
corner and they will probably thin out some of the existing trees so that
you can get a better view into the development. They want to create this
nice image with the new buildings and the restaurant areas overlooking the
pond and they want people to look in and see that.
There is a guardrail along Meyers Road that may have been put in when
the roadwork was done along Meyers Road. As far as cars coming into the
development the guard rail will help as well as the vegetation along
Meyers Road as you come towards Butterfield Road as added protection.
As far as landscaping is concerned they will have very strong entry points
The places where they have the signs and the major roadway entrances
they will add a lot of color to those locations. They also have perimeter
planting that will go in along the site. The requirements are for screening
along the street as well as on the perimeter of the site. They will be
providing the screening hedge as asked for in the ordinance. They are
looking to do a thinner area of landscape that is required to be 10 -feet; they
have 6 -feet in most cases. They will be able to provide what is asked for in
the ordinance but it would be in a less wide area.
Coming into the site entry (where the monument signs are located) there
will be a lot of color, perennials, shrub roses, etc. to call attention there.
There will be landscaping along the entrance roads and there will be a
hedge to line the various parking lots to meet the requirements and then
also the site perimeter.
Member Young questioned whether the landscaping would block traffic
views coming in or out of the development? Ms. Schulenberg responded
that they would be making a clear view. They will be graded to allow clear
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 21 February 15, 2005
openings so that you can look into the site. The plantings actually start as
you get in a little further into the site.
Member Young asked with snow removal and placement along the ridges,
how difficult would it be or not to see oncoming traffic in or out of the
development? Ms. Schulenberg responded that is sort of a maintenance
and operations issue. It will be important that there be places that cannot
be stockpiled with snow so that views are not blocked for people coming in
or going out of the site; or any intersection within the site.
The pond is a huge amenity to the site. There is an existing gravel path
that circles around the pond right now. They will be changing the shape of
the pond due to detention work and it will be extended to the south. Their
goal would be to take the existing path; repair it and extend the path so that
it would come out at either end. They do not want to extend the path
behind the restaurants; they want to try to keep people from being able to
climb up into the restaurant even though no one would ever climb up into a
restaurant like this, it would never happen. There are existing shrubs, they
are going to add to it and clean it up, add new benches and low voltage
lighting along the path to provide some lighting. It is not a jogging path. It
is more of a path for someone who is out shopping or waiting to get into
the restaurant to take a short walk around the pond area.
There are different sections to the pond. There is the section along Meyers
Road where there is an existing guardrail. There is a pretty steep slope
going down to the pond. The section along Meyers Road where the
overhead lines exist they will really clean up the area and replace some of
the trees that are in bad shape from being topped off due to the overhead
lines with ornamental trees, something that is the right size for being under
the lines. The trees along Butterfield Road will remain pretty much as it
looks right now. There will be some upgrading along the path.
Behind the restaurants there will be decks that come out over the pond area
(Exhibit 20). There will be a green screen over the decking material with
vines planted which basically develops into a green wall, so the green will
be extended up around the bottom of the deck areas. The pond edge will
be treated in a different way. It will basically be lawn grass, some areas of
perennials and will make it a more natural pond area. Page 23 shows the
pond edge and it will make for a much more natural feeling and provide a
much more lush appearance than currently exists. Technically it will keep
the geese from walking down into the pond, which is one of the reasons
they are trying to do it; it is not totally successful, but it helps It will also
help to keep small children from getting into the pond as well. It is
actually pretty difficult to walk through the grasses to get into the water.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 21 February 15, 2005
The ordinance requires that there be a divider island every three bays and
they have a situation for about 90 feet they will not have that divider. They
actually go four bays in one location and part of the reason for that is they
did not want to take one of the islands and shift it down because it was so
important to the pedestrian connection, so they are seeking a small relief to
not have that divider island for that very short distance.
They are trying to do very large islands and are trying to plant trees that are
larger than required. They will be planting some of the relocated trees in
the parking lots. They want the parking lot to have an image of being more
mature rather than having a few small trees in all of the islands. The goal
would be to get some of that size along the storefronts and salt and pepper
them around the site to get that mature image all around the site.
The ordinance also has a requirement to provide a tree every 15 parking
spaces. In 75% or more of the site they meet that requirement. There are
some areas where they have 16 spaces while some are 17. There is an area
in the back where it gets up over 20. As an overall number of trees they
exceed the number of trees required, but they are not spread around so that
they are every 15 spaces. The requirement is to provide 10% green space,
however they are providing 11% green space throughout the parking lot.
There are a couple of unique areas they have to deal with; they have the
ComEd easement and the parking structures. In the central area where
they have the parking structure (Exhibit 18) and you do not want to plant
large islands with raised planters because it makes visibility bad in the
parking lot. They are taking the image from in front of the storefronts,
which is a little more paved and have it come across with raised planters
that would be built in place. There will still be trees but they would use
ornamental trees instead of shade trees because of the limited soil depth.
They would also look at providing ornamental trees in the ComEd
easement as opposed to shade trees because of the height restrictions.
The storefronts are the most important part of the development. They are
going to be introducing all kinds of raised planters that would be spotted
all along the storefronts and there will be a lot of seasonal color
throughout. There will be bulbs, annuals and freestanding planters with a
lot of color and more designing character. They want to have that lush
feeling that will work with all of the paving textures and storefront
materials. There will be bollards along the storefronts where there are cars
with head in parking to protect the pedestrians walking along the front.
They want people to be able to get in and out. They do not want to block it
off completely, but they want to make sure that they have a safe walkway
along the entire storefront. The site will be irrigated and will have
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 21 February 15, 2005
professional maintenance. There will be hardy material that can tolerate
salt and survive in a shopping environment.
Map Amendment
Ms. Riordan reviewed the standards for the map amendment. She said that
they are seeking a map amendment to change the zoning district from
ORA -1 to B -1.
1. Character of the neighborhood
• The character of the neighborhood is primarily commercial
and business. The property is bounded on the west by the
ComEd Substation that is also zoned ORA -l; the Fountain
Square to the north is zoned business PUD in the Village of
Lombard; immediately to the east across Meyers Road is
the Inland office buildings that is also zoned ORA -l.
Yorktown Shopping Center is to the west; Oakbrook Center
is to the east;
• Rezoning this property to a B -1 District is consistent to the
surrounding uses and keeping with the character;
• The project as proposed will be better and enhance the
surrounding neighborhood; and if there is any impact on
surrounding land values it will have a positive one.
• They are requesting the following uses, although permitted
in B -1 District, will not be permitted in the project;
■ Servicing of motor vehicles; regular barber shops;
photo studios; generic drug stores; grocery stores,
except for gourmet stores such as Dean & Delucca or
Fox & Obel; traditional hardware stores; Laundromats;
shoe repair; sporting goods store, other than specialty
clothing; public utility uses; nursing homes, telephone
equipment buildings; municipal type uses; cocktail
lounges not associated with a restaurant; post offices
and dry cleaning operations.
2. The extent to which property values are diminished by the
particular zoning restrictions.
The property values are reduced because of the ORA -1
zoning office use which is only 30% occupied. There is a
devaluation of the property due to the existing zoning given
the surrounding market.
3. The extent to which the removal of the Existing Limitations
Would Depreciate the Value of Other Property in the Area.
■ The removal of the ORA -1 will improve the value of other
property in the area
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 21 February 15, 2005
4. The suitability of the Property for Zoned Purposes
® They believe the material presented in their petition
demonstrates that this property is suitable for a B -1 use.
5. Existing Uses and Zoning of Nearby Properties.
■ It is consistent with surrounding retail property uses.
6. The Length of Time Under the Existing Zoning that the
property has remained unimproved considered in the context of
land development.
■ The property has been zoned ORA -1 since 1976 when the
office buildings were built.
7. The Relative Gain to the Public as Compared to the Hardship
Imposed on the Individual Property Owner.
■ These buildings generate no tax revenue to the Village and
are a drain on Village services. This will provide nice
shopping and a dining experience and will generate
significant revenue for the Village.
8. The Extent to Which the Proposal Promotes the Health, Safety,
Morals or General Welfare of the Public.
■ The general welfare will be improved because of the $1
million dollar per year in sales tax that will be generated.
There will not be a demand on services for the schools,
parks, libraries, etc.
9. The Relationship of the Proposed Use to the Comprehensive
Plan.
■ The comprehensive plan shows the use for the property as
office. However, maintaining office space on this site would
be detrimental to the community.
10. Community Need for the Use Proposed by the Property
Owners.
■ The proposed use meets the Village's standards for a map
amendment. (The detailed standards are listed under the
map amendment tab of the booklet on pages 1 -15 of
Narrative in Support of a Map Amendment.)
Chairman Davis said that it appears the petitioner has adequately addressed
the standards and has substantially satisfied them in connection with the
requested map amendment, subject to the exclusion of the permitted uses
as set forth in the booklet on page 11 and 12 of the Narrative in Support of
a Map Amendment.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 21 February 15, 2005
Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Mueller to recommend
approval of the applicant's request for a map amendment as requested.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: 4 — Members Mueller, Shah, Young and Chairman
Davis
Nays: 0 —None
Absent: 2 — Member Ascher and Sanford. Motion Carried.
Text Amendments
Three text amendments are being sought:
1. Section 13 -7A -1 — To add "health clubs" as a permitted use in the
B -1 District.
They are requesting that health clubs be added as a
permitted use in the B -I District. It will allow the petitioner
to include an upscale health club to the center.
Ms. Riordan said that the standards are the same for the text amendment as
they are for a map amendment. The significant issue is the impact on
surrounding land values and this would have a positive impact not a
negative one. (The detailed standards are listed under the text amendment
tab of the booklet on pages 3 -6 of the Narrative in Support of Text
Amendments.)
Chairman Davis said that it appears the petitioner has adequately addressed
the standards and has substantially satisfied them in connection with the
proposal to add "health clubs" as a permitted use in the B -1 District.
Motion by Member Mueller, seconded by Member Young to recommend
approval of the applicant's request for the text amendment as requested.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: 4 — Members Mueller, Shah, Young and Chairman
Davis
Nays: 0 —None
Absent: 2 — Member Ascher and Sanford. Motion Carried.
Chairman Davis
2. Section 13 -7A -3B — Amend text to change Structure height from 30
feet to 50 feet.
Ms. Riordan said that they are requesting this in order to accommodate
their project. It was testified that this is more consistent with the trends in
retail. The standards are the same for the text amendment as they are for a
map amendment. The significant issue is the impact on surrounding land
values and this would have a positive impact not a negative one.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 21 February 15, 2005
Under the current zoning they could have a building as tall as 76 feet, so
the request is a much lower use than what is permitted now. There will be
a benefit to surrounding land uses because this prevents that kind of height.
The Village just recently raised the height restrictions in the residential
areas, so this is consistent with what is going on within the Village.
Director of Community Development Kallien pointed out that all of the
ORA -i properties could go up to 76 feet, however few have utilized it.
(The detailed standards are listed under the text amendment tab of the
booklet on pages 3 -6 of the Narrative in Support of Text Amendments.)
Chairman Davis said that it appears the petitioner has adequately addressed
the standards and has substantially satisfied them in connection with the
proposal to increase the height limitations from 30 feet to 50 feet in the B -1
District.
Motion by Member Shah, seconded by Member Young to recommend
approval of the applicant's request for the text amendment as requested.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: 4 — Members Mueller, Shah, Young and Chairman
Davis
Nays: 0 —None
Absent: 2 — Member Ascher and Sanford. Motion Carried.
Chairman Davis
3. Section 13 -3 -8 — Amend text to allow design elements from 15 feet
to 30 feet.
Ms. Riordan said that this text amendment addresses non - occupiable space.
The Ordinance currently allows 15 feet and they are requesting that it be
amended to 30 feet for ornamental purposes only and shall in no event be
occupied. This change will affect the tower. (The detailed standards are
listed under the text amendment tab of the booklet on pages 3 -6 of the
Narrative in Support of Text Amendments.)
Member Young questioned if any aviation lighting would be placed on any
of the buildings.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that up and down the
tollway none of these structures will exceed the height of the high- tension
lines and none of them have the lighting on them
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 15 of 21 February 15, 2005
Director of Community Development Kallien said that he brought up a
concern to the attention of the Plan Commission and Chairwoman
Payovich included it in her letter to the Zoning Board on page 19.a, item 3
as follows: "The amendment to permit an additional 30 feet of height
above the maximum permitted by the district for appurtenance may be
appropriate for the proposed Oak Brook Promenade but may be excessive
when compared to the other developments in the community. This
provision may be limited to redevelopment projects of a particular size,
scale or location. Appropriate language is to be added as determined by the
Village Attorney." Right now the limitation is 15 feet for anything above
the principal height. In this particular redevelopment project the petitioner
has shown that 30 feet requested is okay. However, he does not want
someone else to be able to build a 30 -foot high elevator shaft, or something
else. This language somehow needs to be tied to a development project
and perhaps the Village Attorney can come up with some language to
limit.
Chairman Davis said that it appears the petitioner has substantially
addressed the standards and has satisfied them in connection with the
proposal to allow design elements from 15 feet to 30 feet, subject to
appropriate language to be added as determined by the Village Attorney so
that it does not impact the request by this petitioner.
Motion by Member Mueller, seconded by Member Young to recommend
approval of the applicant's request for the text amendment as requested.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: 4 — Members Mueller, Shah, Young and Chairman
Davis
Nays: 0 —None
Absent: 2 — Member Ascher and Sanford. Motion Carried.
Special Use
The Special Use is for outdoor dining adjacent to restaurants. They have
designed them with strict criteria to protect the public health, safety and
welfare.
Chairman Davis said that it appears the petitioner has substantially
addressed the standards and has satisfied them in connection with the
proposed special use.
Motion by Member Mueller, seconded by Member Young to recommend
approval of the applicant's request for the special use to allow outdoor
dining adjacent to a restaurant subject to the following conditions:
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 16 of 21 February 15, 2005
1. The development is to be in substantial conformance with the
approved plans, including the location, size, design and operational
guidelines for each outdoor dining area.
2. Additional safety mechanism designed for the outdoor dining area
proposed for building K and as described by the petitioner to be a
low masonry wall barrier that would provide protection as an
integrated design that would be part of the building, including
pilaster and brick which would be difficult. for a car to get through.
3. Establish a maximum seating capacity for each of the three outdoor
dining facilities at the time of permit.
4 Subject to the restrictions imposed in connection with other special
uses for outdoor dining that have been granted by the Village.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: 4 — Members Mueller, Shah, Young and Chairman
Davis
Nays: 0 —None
Absent: 2 — Member Ascher and Sanford. Motion Carried.
Variations
Ms. Riordan said that they are requesting 8 variations. For all of the
variations requested, none of the conditions were created by the petitioner.
The hardship conditions are the five -acre pond; the .5 acre of floodplain on
the property; and the 1 -acre ComEd easement with high- tension wires
along the southern boundary of the property. This has resulted in a limited
amount of space that they are trying to get the project to work. The
variations they need are because of that.
Section 13- 7A -3(C) (1) (c) Lot Area Requirement — Yards —
requires that buildings in B -1 district shall not be erected within
a sixty foot (60') setback from the right -of -way. Petitioner is
requesting relief from this requirement to allow for a fifty -foot
(50') setback, which impacts Building K.
2. Section 13- 11- 7(A) -4 Sign Height — which governs signage for
the B -1 zoning district, requires that all building signs be
properly affixed to the building walls, that the blade signs shall
not extend outwards more than twelve inches (12 ") or project
higher than thirty feet (30'). Petitioner is requesting relief from
this requirement to allow for blade and fin signs that may
project outward not more than thirty inches (30 "). Petitioner is
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 17 of 21 February 15, 2005
also requesting that signage be allowed to project up to thirty -
six feet (36') from the curb, rather than the thirty feet (30')
allowed by Code.
3. Section 13- 12 -4(C) Design and Maintenance — Interior Parking
Lot Landscaping — requires that a landscaped divider be
provided for every three (3) bays of parking Petitioner is
requesting relief from this requirement for four (4) parking bays
to the west of building `B." In order to accommodate the
required number of spaces, Petitioner will not have the required
divider every three (3) bays. Petitioner will provide landscape
screening of the parking area along the Tollway and Meyer's
Road. It is important to note that the Project as designed is
approximately 50% open space.
4 Section 13- 12 -4(C) Design and Maintenance — Interior Parking
Lot Landscaping — requires that interior shade trees be planted
with a maximum spacing of forty feet (40'), provided that at
least one tree is located in the area occupied by every fifteen
(15) interior parking spaces. Petitioner is requesting relief from
the requirement that at least one tree be located in the area of
every 15 parking spaces. Petitioner is exceeding the overall
tree requirement of one tree for every 15 parking spaces for
Project and many of the shade trees planted will be larger than
the required 4 " -6" caliper to continue the feeling of a more
established landscape.
Section 13- 12 -4(C) Design and Maintenance — Interior Parking
Lot Landscaping — requires that interior shade trees be planted
in the parking areas. Petitioner is asking for relief from this
requirement and asking to be allowed to plant ornamental trees
above the underground parking garage and within the
Commonwealth Edison easement. Tree planting is restricted in
these areas due to limited soil depth, and the overhead lines
respectively, although ornamental trees will be planted
wherever possible.
6. Section 13- 12 -3(C) Off Street Parking Regulations — Size and
Aisles — requires that aisles for parking accessory to non - office
uses are twenty -seven feet (27'). Petitioner is requesting relief
from this requirement. Petitioner has designed the parking
areas with twenty -four foot (24') drive aisles (which is the
Village's requirement for office parking) to minimize the
asphalt areas. The 24' aisles allow for larger pedestrian and
hard scape /l and scape areas.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 18 of 21 February 15, 2005
Chairman Davis asked the basis for the difference. Director of Community
Development Kallien responded that typically retail spaces have a high
turnover of traffic coming and going. The larger aisles facilitate the
greater number of cars backing in and going into spaces. In an office
complex people basically come in and stay for the day, which is why they
can get by with the lower number. This project may take on some of the
characteristics of an office complex, in that it has been designed for people
to come and spend an extended period of time on the site and walk.
7. Section 13- 12 -3(H) Off Street Parking Regulations — In Yards —
requires that off - street parking spaces, open to the sky, in
nonresidential districts be no less than ten feet (10') from the
nearest lot line. Petitioner is asking relief form this requirement
to allow for parking on the western side yard and southwestern
rear yards (along Technology Drive). If Petitioner were
required to meet Code for these setbacks, because of the
physical hardships in existence on the Property, there would be
inadequate parking for the Project.
8. Section 13- 12- 3(E) -4 Off Street Parking Regulations — Access —
requires that the spacing between separate driveway entrances
on a lot be no less than forty percent (40 %) of the length of the
lot line adjoining the street, or found hundred feet (400'),
whichever is less. There are three entryways into the Project
off Butterfield Road. Entry A on the western Property line
allows access to employee parking and rear parking and
building entryways; Entry B is a full signalized entry drive
approximately two hundred ninety -two feet (292') to the east of
Entry A and serves as the main point of ingress and egress for
the Project; and Entry C is approximately three hundred forty
feet (340') to the east of the signalized drive. The spacing
between Entry A and Entry B is one hundred eight feet (108')
less than the required 400' feet required by Code and the
spacing between Entry B and Entry C is sixty feet (60') less
than required by Code. Petitioner is asking relief from this
requirement because approximately 40% of the footage on
Butterfield Road fronts the regional detention pond. Therefore,
the Property does not allow for a four hundred foot (400') space
between Entries A and B nor does it allow for a 400' space
between Entries B and C. The three entryways, however, are
important to efficiently handle the incoming traffic for the
Project.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 19 of 21 February 15, 2005
Gtandarde
1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if
permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the
regulations governing the district in which it is located.
RESPONSE: If they are required to meet the parking they need the
reduction of the aisles or it would result in less critical mass. They
also would not be able to have the quality of the design or
architecture to attract the tenants they are looking for. (In the
Narrative in Support of Request for Variations each standard is
addressed for each variation requested)
2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.
3. The variation if granted will not alter the essential locality.
RESPONSE: The variances are due to the hardship conditions.
The tension wires, the pond, the flood plain and the limited
available buildable area and they will not alter in any significant
way the character of the neighborhood.
4. 2.a. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or
topographical conditions of the specific property involved
would bring a particular hardship upon the owners as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of
the regulations were to be carried out. RESPONSE Because of
the hardship condition this would not be feasible without the
variances being sought.
5. 2.b. The condition upon which the petition for variation is
based would not be applicable generally to the other property
within the same zoning classification. RESPONSE: The project
is unique. They do not think there will be other B -1 projects that
come in with this kind of development asking for these specific
variances.
6. 2.c. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements
in the neighborhood in which the property is located.
RESPONSE: The granting of this variation will have no negative
affect to other property whatsoever.
7. 2.d. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply
of light and air to adjoining property, or substantially increase
the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or
substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood. RESPONSE: They think the project will have a
positive impact on surrounding property values and will have no
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 20 of 21 February 15, 2005
negative impact at all on the safety, quality of light or property
values.
S. 2.e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively
upon a desire to make more money out of the property.
RESPONSE: The project is not feasible without this relief.
9. 2.f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been
created by any person presently having an interest in the
property. RESPONSE: The hardship was created by third parties,
none were created by the petitioner.
Director of Community Development Kallien commented that the variation
request for the 30" blade sign is allowed in the Oakbrook Center. Those
are the blade signs allowed under all of the canopies.
Ms. Riordan clarified that a portion of the setback along Technology Drive
is zero.
Chairman Davis said that it appears that the main standards, plus the sub
standards for the grant of eight variations have been sufficiently and
substantially addressed.
Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Shah to recommend
approval of the applicant's request for each of the eight variations as
requested. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: 4 — Members Mueller, Shah, Young and Chairman
Davis
Nays: 0 —None
Absent: 2 — Member Ascher and Sanford. Motion Carried.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
There was no other business to discuss.
6. ADJOURNMENT:
Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Mueller to adjourn the
meeting at 9:25 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried.
ATTEST:
Robert L. Kallien, Jr.
Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development
Secretary
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Special Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 21 of 21 February 15, 2005
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT