Loading...
Minutes - 03/02/2010 - Zoning Board of Appeals2. 3. 4. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 2, 2010 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON APRIL 6, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: CALLTO ORDER The 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. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Jeffrey Bulin, Natalie Cappetta, Baker Nimry, Joseph Rush, Steven Young and Wayne Ziemer IN ATTENDANCE:. Mark Moy, Trustee, Robert Kallien, Jr:, Director of Community Development and Michael Hullihan, Village Engineer/Public Works Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINU`M REGULAR. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3. 2009 Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Bulin to approve the minutes of the November 3, 2009 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION AND ZONIN G BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 30.2009 Motion by Member Rush, seconded by Member Young to approve the minutes of the November 30, 2009 Joint Special Meeting of the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. ZUBI — 3719 MADISON STREET — APPEAL DECISION OF THE ZUBI - 3719 MADISON ST - CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER — FENCE HEIGHT — NATURAL APPEAL - FENCE GRADE HEIGHT - NATURAL GRADE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 17 March 2, 2010 A-i-K Chairman Davis opened the public hearing on the matter and noted that the evidence portion of the hearing had been closed at the previous meeting. The only thing remaining was the closing. Mark Daniel, 136 West Vallette Street, Suite 3, Elmhurst, Illinois, Attorney for the petitioner, Michael and Nina Zubi (Palos Bank and Trust) said that one of the important circumstances was that the fence in question was legal in as much as the height was concerned. The issue is the determination of grade. Director of Community Development Kallien said that this issue has been somewhat unique in Oak Brook. The current regulations for fences is 42- inches in height and 50 percent open as measured from natural grade and has existed in the regulations since 1976. Prior to that time, the ordinance was silent to the regulations for fencing. The situation with the Zubi property is somewhat unique in that there had been fill added to the property in conformance with a grading plan, but the fill occurred after the initial construction of the fence had started. Things usually occur in a different sequence. The ordinance is very clear in that the Village Engineer has the authority to establish elevations based on previous grades and new grades for single family homes. In his interpretation of the Code, it is not clear, if that provision extends to accessory structures, such as fences, accessory garages, etc. In his opinion there is a contradiction in the Code, which he had mentioned in the initial materials contained in the case file, as well as to Mr. Zubi. Aside from the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals as a result of this appeal, it would be appropriate to clarify the language to end any ambiguity or contradiction. The village would certainly not want to go through this situation with another property in the future. The two departments have worked out the details with coordinating the review so the situation cannot be repeated. Director of Community Development Kallien read the definition for `natural ground level' within the Zoning Ordinance definitions as follows: "The existing elevation, prior to any movement of organic or nonorganic matter which would require the issuance of a permit under the ordinances of the village, or the proposed elevation as depicted on a subdivision grading plan approved by the village, or as otherwise reasonably determined by the Village Engineer." The language gives the latitude of the Village Engineer to establish these grades. In Section 13 -3 -8 of the Zoning Ordinance, describes "structure height" as follows: VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 17 March 2, 2010 �!L "No structure shall be erected, converted, expanded, reconstructed or structurally altered to exceed the height limit measured above the natural ground level, as determined by the Village Engineer, for the district in which the structure is located." Located further down in that section it states: "...Structure height may be measured from a base elevation other than natural ground level only with the express approval of the village." After reviewing the Code, there were references made to the Community Development Director, specifically as well as the Village Engineer, specifically. When it mentions the Village the interpretation has been made it the past that is a reference to a higher body, which would be the Village Board, which is where the contradiction lies. Chairman Davis said that it could mean the Director of Community Development's approval or the Village Engineer, or some other entity. Director of Community Development Kallien said that was the basis of the issue. Mr. Daniel said that although they were in a position where they needed to create a legal record with factual details, the determination to be made would be whether the Zoning Board of Appeals would affirm the decision or reverse the decision of January 23, 2009, as stated in Mr. Kallien's letter. There are impacts of affirming a decision and if that is the case, the Zubi's would look at their remedies and would either go to the Village Board for review or through the circuit court. Unfortunately, the Zubi's have been dealing with litigation with their neighbors and that litigation has driven a lot of the decision making here because of vested rights and arguments that are prevailing in the circuit court. Affirming the decision may create a further problem. Reversing it doesn't necessarily cause any harm. There are two grounds on which a decision can be reversed. First, it could be found that the Zubi's are correct and that the letter of January 23, 2009 should not have been issued. Secondly, even if the Zoning Board believes that that letter is correct, it could find that under the circumstances that it involves a matter that is almost two years old and that the fence construction was almost 99 percent complete; depending upon how the project progressed. There was fill and final landscaping that was accomplished and was done later after the letter was issued. It was properly done because there was an approved grading plan. Taking the approved grading plan and the structure that was approved, there was compliance with the ordinance. There is not an issue of the height of the fence from the ground level that exists on the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 17 March 2, 2010 X,C4 site now. The question is, what the ground level is; is the ground level what exists currently. Under Mr. Kallien's interpretation, someone would file an application for a determination of natural grade, after natural grade is determined by engineering and after plans have been submitted, and as engineering is progressing. It was a special situation during this process; not just because of the nature of the determination of natural grade, without a plat of subdivision, special use, etc., but a single family permit for construction with a demolition involved. The demolition issues and planning for the property, when those issues arise, they tend to set off the application for accessory structures and for a final grading plan. There was an existing house located in the front that had to be removed. In addition, there were issues with the neighbors to the north, not only litigation, but also a change in circumstances as the project on the property progressed. These included tree removal, grading in an easement area that was a new easement area and the installation of a drainage system. Regardless of what occurred, there is a storm sewer in the easement area and the construction of that storm sewer was considered by the staff from engineering department, which helped to plan and design the front yard area in a way that would coexist with the sewer system to the north. Much of that occurred after the permit for the fence was issued. There was a level elevation that was uniform across the base of the fence. The intent was to have a fence of uniform elevation. The grading around the fence was a question that was under review by the engineering department. As mentioned by Mr. Kallien, in Section 13 -2 -2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the natural ground level can be reasonably determined by the Village Engineer. According to the plan that was approved, they believe that it was reasonably determined by engineering. According to that section of the Code, if you count up the number of inches from the approved grade, then the fence is compliant with the code. Section 13- 3-8 of the code, also states, "...measured above the natural ground level, as determined by the Village Engineer." They believe the Village Engineer made a determination. In subsection C, there is another reference to natural ground level, and the Village Board level comes up in circumstances where there is a disagreement, but they were in agreement with the Village Engineer so there was no need to go to the Village Board. If the ordinances are interpreted in a way that requires Village Board approval, in all instances to protect people from this ambiguity, it has certainly been an inconvenience to the Zubi's and the village. If the Code is interpreted in a way that as to affirm Mr. Kallien's decision, it is going to set up a separate application process where natural grade or natural ground level has to be determined in almost every instance by the Village Board and that is not what the village engineers are here for, because the village has a great staf. The berm located on the property running west to east parallel to the north lot line are the result of communications that the engineering staff had with the neighbors, and it progressed, as it should, so the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 17 March 2, 2010 A44--- village did the right thing. The Village Engineer issued the grading plan with approved grades and they are at a point that they actually have compliant grading, development pursuant to that grading plan, and a compliant fence above that, which meets the height requirements. Under the circumstances, he asked that the decision in the January 23, 2009 letter be reversed. They do not believe that it would set a precedent that would create a problem for the village. They believe that the Zubi's are correct in their assertion that the letter was written in error and in substance the Zubi's are correct. The engineering department did what it was supposed to do in this instance. This issue arose nearly two years after the issuance of the permit and to have well over $200,000 in planning and construction expended, such a letter was a shock and surprise to the Zubi's. Some members may feel tom between the two neighbors, but a reversal on the appeal can be justified on the basis that the construction went on and progressed in reliance of the permit issued. In all fairness, the fence should be allowed to remain regardless and it is not necessary to say either of the neighbors is wrong. As Mr. Abel pointed out, the fence fits with the development of the property and does not cause a problem in planning for the area. No one has said that the fence height is illegal; the question is the natural ground level and how it was determined, given the development. The Zubi's believe it was determined, given that the village engineers appropriately determined it through the grading process. The decision could still be reversed based on faimess. He thanked the Zoning Board of Appeals and staff for their time and effort for during this lingering process. Chairman Davis asked when the Village Engineer determined the natural ground level and in what format. Mr. Daniel responded that the final decision had not come until after the fence had been constructed. The revised site - grading plan was approved on February 11, 2009, which was after the issuance of the permit (exhibit V), but had been under review by the village for months prior to that. Chairman Davis asked when the plan first went to the village. Member Bulin noted that the grading plan was dated November 19, 2008. Chairman Davis noted that the email to Mr. Kallien (exhibit G) was sent prior to the issuance of the fence permit. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 17 March 2, 2010 TZ1K- Mr. Daniel agreed and said that the email attachments (exhibit G) showed the proposed fence and that the above ground portions of the fence are shown having a solid line and the dashed lines indicated below ground so that he would know fill material would be brought in. Member Bulin responded that he did not know how Mr. Daniel could draw that conclusion. Chairman Davis questioned if the natural grade was the same as the guest house as shown on exhibit G. Mr. Daniel responded yes, and that was the other portion of the argument. Member Rush noted that on page 1 Lh of the case file there was a picture and questioned whether that showed the approved engineering grade, because it appeared that dirt had been brought in. Village Engineer Hullihan responded that the approved plan from engineering was dated March 10, 2009 and that the picture being referred to as l Lh, pretty much conforms to that approved grading plan. Member Bulin noted that the pictures had been taken on September 4, 2008. Village Engineer Hullihan responded that the approved plan appears to pretty much conform to what is seen on the picture. Member Rush questioned how that could be determined because it was obvious that the grade had been changed. Village Engineer Hullihan showed each member the approved grading plan. Member Ziemer noted that the construction period is a long duration. Member Bulin noted that the approval came after the grades were established when the fill was brought in. Village Engineer Hullihan responded that he did not approve anything, and the person that approved it was an engineer in training, who was not the Village Engineer. Member Rush said that he had trouble correlating the approval with the picture on l Lh of the case file. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 17 March 2, 2010 R� Village Engineer Hullihan noted that the picture correctly depicts the grade. Member Rush added that the grading plan did not show fill, yet the picture does. Village Engineer Hullihan responded that is why engineers are hired. The plan was approved by Phil Laures of the engineering department on March 10, 2009. Member Ziemer noted that was the final approved grading plan. Village Engineer Hullihan agreed, Member Rush said that he did not see how the picture correlated with the plan, because there is nothing on the plan to indicate fill would be brought in. Village Engineer Hullihan responded that it did not make any difference when the fill was brought in; it was a topographic depiction on the approved plan of March 10, 2009 and generally matches what is in the picture being referred to and what is out there now. Member Bulin said that the picture shows the fill installed prior to the engineering approval. Village Engineer Hullihan agreed. Member Nimry noted that based on that, it was installed without a permit. Village Engineer Hullihan said that it was done without an approved grading plan. Member Ziemer said to address the issue moving forward setting aside the details for a minute, there were two parallel paths going on. The architectural one with the actual fence and the other being the civil with the grading of the ground, which were running parallel to one another and basically without a tie to each another, necessarily. in addition, to clarify the village, and who that might be, it seems as though we would want to tie both the sequence of the granting of the approval and the correlation between what is the approved grade, so that this type of situation would not occur again. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ' Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 17 March 2, 2010 R� Director of Community Development Kallien agreed; and said that there were two paths ongoing between the civil and the construction of the building permit. From the owners' perspective, they knew what they wanted all along on the property; but when the individual reviewed the fence permit, who is no longer working with the village, it was his impression, from the reviewers comments, that he was unaware of the substantial amount of fill that would be added to the property. Therefore in the future, the review and issuance of building permits must work hand in hand with the civil work and the engineering work that goes on. Member Ziemer noted that one was approved before the other and they need to coincide, so that this type of situation does not happen again. Village Engineer Hullihan noted that he has been the Village Engineer since August 1, 2009 and since that time permits have not been issued for moving any earth until the final grades are determined. There is a modification to the Village Code that he is recommending to do away with "natural grade" and to substitute the terms `ordained grade" because natural grade is an ambiguous term, which really does not mean anything. Ordained grade is more accurate term because it is the approved grade and is much more accurate. The ordained grade is what is ordained by the Village Engineer and an approved set of grading plans. The language that exists right now is "natural grade" and can only be taken as an approved grade by the Village Engineer. He was not the Village Engineer at the time the plans were approved, but one of his staff was, so all he can do is to back up the approval that was made at that time and to accept that approval as ordained grade, natural grade or approved grade. Chairman Davis reviewed the options for proposed motions. This is the first appeal that the Zoning Board of Appeals has had since he has been on this board. One of the prongs for reversing the decision was based on the fact that the applicant believes the fence is compliant based upon the ordained grade/natural grade as approved by the village, regardless of when it was approved. The other argument would be that regardless of whether or not the fence is compliant, the applicant believes there was detrimental reliance on the approved fence permit, and that, two years later, in an unfortunate situation, it would be unfair to the petitioner and would be a basis for reversal of the decision. Mr. Daniel agreed with acceptance of the appeal options for reversal of the decision as described by Chairman Davis. There were no other comments made by the members. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 17 March 2, 2010 AuG Motion by Member Ziemer, seconded by Member Cappetta to accept the appeal and to reverse the decision of the code enforcement officer. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 3 — Members Cappetta, Ziemer and Chairman Davis Nays: 4 — Members Bulin, Nimry, Rush and Young. Motion Failed. Motion by Member Rush, seconded by Member Ninny to deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the code enforcement officer. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 — Members Bulin, Nimry, Rush and Young. Nays: 3 — Members Cappetta, Ziemer and Chairman Davis. Motion Carried. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. FULLERSBURG HISTORIC FOUNDATION — TEXT AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 8 OF ZONING ORDINANCE — AMEND TEXT TO PERMIT RECONSTRUCTION OF HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT Member Bulin asked the Board to consider continuing the public hearing to the next regular meeting to allow additional time to meet with those in his community whose properties back up to the York Tavern that have concerns. He would like to address those within the community before the public hearing discussion begins. He also received the case file materials on Saturday evening and would like additional time to review the information, since the matter had been before the Plan Commission for quite some time and he would like to have adequate time to review it prior to the hearing. Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Young to continue the public hearing to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled to April 6, 2010. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Nimry, Rush, Young, Ziemer and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. NEW BUSINESS FULLERSBURG HISTORIC POUND - TA - TO PERMIT RECONSTRUCTION OF HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES 5. B. ITT TECHNICAL INSTITUTE AS REPRESENTED BY AGENT. ITT TECHNICAL TRANSWESTERN ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. SBMS TRATHS+WUN - 2000 -C3 JORIE PLAZA. LLC — 800 JORIE BLVD — SPECIAL USE — SPECI xNONR SIDENTIAL SECTION 13 -10A -2 SCHOOLS: NONRESIDENTIAL. POST BCC,L,UREATE BACCALAUREATE SCHOOL. SCHOOL Chairman Davis swore in those that would be providing testimony. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 17 March 2, 2010 � jfL Zachary Fox, for Transwestem appeared as agent for LNR Illinois Partners, Inc. an Illinois Corporation, as Manager for SBMS 2000 -C3 Jorie Plaza, LLC an Illinois Limited Liability Company, the owner of the property located at 800 Jorie Blvd. Also present was Larry Brueck, currently the Director of the ITT Technical Institute's Burr Ridge campus and future Director of the Oak Brook campus. Mr. Fox reviewed the request stating that they are seeking a special use to allow the ITT Technical Institute to operate a school at 800 Jorie Blvd, which is . located in the ORA -1 District. On February 15, 2010 the Plan Commission, by a vote of 6 to 0 unanimously recommended approval of the request, subject to three conditions: 1. ITT Technical Institute shall occupy approximately 21,107 square feet of space in the building located at 800 Jorie Boulevard in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted on page E of the case file. 2. Comply with all other applicable rules and ordinances of the Village of Oak Brook. They understand that all building permits, including signage are not included as part of the request. 3. Security issues are to be addressed at the time of building permit by obtaining the input and recommendations from the Oak Brook Police Department regarding public safety. This is also the primary focus of ITT and the building managements to ensure the safety of its students. To address the concerns they plan to install a state of the art security system, including a motion detection alarm system. They will also be updating the alarm and suppression system, emergency exists, fire extinguishers, adding lighting, etc. The subject property is a two - building complex consisting of 800 and 810 Jorie Blvd. and totaling 197,000 square feet. At the present time the 800 Jorie building is about 86 percent vacant, with one tenant that occupies 17,000 square feet. The 810 Jorie building has 50 percent occupancy and is a separate building in the complex, which is not connected to the other building. ITT Technical Institute operates 125 locations in 37 different states across the U.S. and is a publically traded company on the New York Stock Exchange. They offer information technology, drafting and design, electronics technology. School of business and criminal justice would also be offered at the Oak Brook location. They would be looking to occupy 21,107 square feet of space with a separate VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 17 March 2, 2010 A,cl annex to the building and is not accessible from the main entrance of the complex. Approximately 25 percent of the space would be for administration offices and 75 percent would be used for about 11 classrooms, resource center, computer labs, an internet caf6, and lecture and theory rooms. Many of their course offerings are focused on information technology. Pending approval of the special use, the 6 -year lease term is anticipated to begin on July 1, 2010. Their main hours of operation would be from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday in order to cater to an after hours student crowd who maintain occupations and cannot afford the time away from work to get their education. They would also have classes and offerings from 8:00 am. to 5:00 p.m., which would be split between morning and afternoon classes. They are anticipating approximately 85 staff and students for the sessions between 8:00 am. to 5:00 p.m. and 165 students and faculty from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. One of the major concerns of the Village was the available parking on the site. Included in the file is a revised parking matrix, which lays out the current parking situation, how it would be with ITT in place as well as how it would be, should they lease the remaining space. This matrix uses more aggressive numbers than the previous matrix submitted in the case file. Their parking is, well within the required standards. They have accounted for that control through the lease agreement and ITT is allotted 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet during regular business hours, which is the current standard parking ratio for the building. After regular business hours they are allotted 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet. They meet all parking requirements per the Village. As far as traffic concerns for other tenants in the area, there is a stop light in place at the Jorie entrance. The increase in traffic would be no more than a normal office lease given the time structure that ITT operates. Member Young questioned the language in the special use and asked whether a syllabus would be required ahead of time guaranteeing that they would not have more than 20 percent of the course offering as a prerequisite to admission to post baccalaureate programs. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the language has been in the Code since 1966. It has been used by Lewis University on two separate occasions. It is our only available language, although not perfect. It is not a typical public education school. It is an educational facility that provides course work beyond what would be expected in K -12 grades. The extra provisions are added protection and there does not appear to be any conflict. In the B -2 District there is language that just talks about schools and does not VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 17 March 2, 2010 2L�C- contain any additional caveats. We could eliminate the 20 percent requirement from the Code, but he did not think it would be necessary. Member Young said that maybe there would be a way to provide better language as part of an amendment. With the economy the way that it is now, a lot of people are going back to school and to limit a tenant to 20 percent as part of an educational offering, is probably a detrimental thing for them. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that there are many instances where better wording could be used throughout the code and within the coming years there may be a complete rewrite of the code and all of those issues will be addressed. There was a brief discussion among the members on the 20 percent language in the code and its interpretation. It was agreed that it should be exempted. Member Cappetta asked how many students they could have. Mr. Fox responded that the lease controls the number of students, by the allowable number of parking spaces. Chairman Davis said that the applicant addressed the required standards for a special use in writing and in his testimony. Richard Allison, 31 Robin Hood Ranch questioned the thrust of the marketing efforts and where ITT anticipates what areas the student body would be generated. Mr. Bmeck responded that the drive would be similar to where it is now in Burr Ridge. Currently, they draw from the city, suburbs, south side and north side, which is a wide variety of areas. They did not anticipate that would change their marketing strategies. Motion by Member Nimry, seconded by Member Young to recommend approval of the special use to allow ITT Technical Institute to operate a non residential post baccalaureate school at 800 Jorie Blvd. as proposed, subject to the following conditions: 1. ITT Technical Institute shall occupy approximately 21,107 square feet of space in the building located at 800 Jorie Boulevard in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 17 March 2, 2010 12A-44�-- 2. Comply with all other applicable rules and ordinances of the Village of Oak Brook. 3. Security issues are to be addressed at the time of building permit by obtaining the input and recommendations from the Oak Brook Police Department regarding public safety. 4. Exempt the 20 percent provision in the definition of school from the special use and recommend the village consider amending the language. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Nimry, Rush, Young, Ziemer and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. C. YORK ROAD DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS LLC — 1800, 1802, and 1806 YORK ROAD — VARIATION TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY MARKETING SIGNAGE ON THE PROPERTY Chairman Davis swore in the applicant providing testimony. Robert Oldenburg, Irgens Development Partners, represented the applicant, York Road Development Partners, LLC He reviewed the proposed development on the site that is a total of 2.37 acres, which currently has three addresses consisting of 1800, 1802 and 1806 York Road. They, are in the process of consolidating the three parcels into a single parcel. The property is surrounded by I -88, the ramp between I -88 and the I -294 ramp and York Road. In December they received Village Board approval to rezone the property from residential to the 04 District, a special use permit to construct a medical office building, variations and concept plan approval for their project. On January 29, 2010 they closed on the purchase and are now the fee simple owner of all three parcels. Their plans have not changed and they still plan to develop a 3 -story, approximately 74,000 square foot medical office building. They are now marketing the project in the hope of securing enough tenants to move forward with construction of the project. They are seeking variations in order to place two additional marketing signs on the property. Currently there is a v- shaped sign that faces York Road, which is 4 feet by 6 feet and conforms to the new sign regulations that were recently adopted by the village. They are requesting the ability to place two additional VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 17 March 2, 2010 A "e- YORK ROAD DEVEL- 1800, 1802, 1806 YORK RD- VARIATIONS - ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE temporary marketing signs on the property. One would be placed on the west end of the property line facing I -88 and one on the south property line facing the connector ramp between I -88 and I -294. There are three components to the request. 1. To allow two additional temporary marketing signs from what is currently permitted. 2. To allow the size of the signs to increase from 24- square feet; to allow two signs to be 8 feet in height and 16 feet wide. The purpose of the increased size is that is the minimum size in order to actually be visible from the interstate, which is the entire basis for their request. Exhibit K and L in the case file include a couple of renderings based'on actual elevations of the area and how the proposed signs would be visible while driving on the interstate. 3. To allow the signs to be placed 5 feet from the property line. Currently the Code does not allow signs to be located less than 25 feet from the property line. However, in this case, the property is surrounded by tollway property on all sides, except York Road on the east side. There is approximately 60 to 70 feet of land on the west and south property line that is owned by the toll authority, which is before the grade drops off to go down toward the actual interstates. By allowing them to be located 5 feet from the property line would be advantageous for everyone in that it would help to minimize the visual impact from York Road by pushing the signs as far as they can to the end of the property line. The signs will be oriented in such a way to be positioned away from York Road. The actual face of the signs will not be visible when driving down York Road. Chairman Davis asked if there was a time element to the request. Mr. Oldenburg responded that they did not identify a time element in the actual application, but they are amenable to discuss a limited time period. Member Rush questioned at what point the signs would come down, if they are temporary. Mr. Oldenburg responded that the intent is to help them lease the building, and they would like to leave the signs up as long as allowed by the boards, or preferably when the building is leased, then they would be removed. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 17 March 2, 2010 Director of Community Development Kallien said that the new sign code allows temporary signs to be in place for a one year period and then it could be renewed. In this case, because of the high visibility of the signs, the village should be very specific about the timeframe. He would like to add that the sign needs to be maintained to its original state. Over time, even with the best intentions, the signs can begin to look unsightly and the landscaping would apply. Chairman Davis asked what type of landscaping would be required for a temporary sign. Director of Community Development Kallien responded there could be some ground cover around the base. When McDonald's leased the property to the Hawks Soccer they added wood chips and added a tree and some vegetation, around the sign which met the intent of the Code. Member Ninny said that the proposed sign would be 8 feet above the ground, so there would be 4 wooded posts sticking up. He agreed with the recommendation made by Mr. Kallien, to allow it for one year with a renewal. If it has not been maintained the fast year, then it would need to be removed. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the sign will be maintained regardless. The sign should be as good and reflective of what the end product will be. The developer is willing to make a $20 million investment in the property and they do not want to have a tacky sign displayed. Member Nimry questioned if the sign would be up only through construction, or until the building would be leased. Mr. Oldenburg responded that their goal is to install the signs as soon as they can, and the signs would stay up through the construction period, assuming the twelve month time period expires and an extension would be in place. Director of Community Development Kallien commented that with the underground parking, he would expect the construction of the building to take between 12 to 18 months. A 12 month period, with a 12 month extension for the signs, would not be unreasonable. Chairman Davis noted that the standards had been submitted in writing on page E of the case file. Mr. Oldenburg said that they believe the signs would have a minimal impact on VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 15 of 17 March 2, 2010 �/L the Oak Brook owned side of the property along York Road. The signs are being oriented towards the tollway and they plan to maintain the signs and make sure that they are attractive from all sides. Member Young questioned whether they were wood or metal and noted that the wind sheers along the highway could weather the signs quickly. Chairman Davis questioned whether the sign code contained language for the maintenance of the signs. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it did but he did want it to be made part of the recommendation. The signs could be illuminated in accordance to the new sign code, which requires that the source of the light is to be shielded. The issue at hand is that they are requesting two additional, larger signs to be placed closer to the property line. They are not seeking any other relief for lighting. Member Ziemer noted that the signs would require a building permit, which would have requirements for bracing the signs, etc. Director of Community Development Kallien agreed. Mr. Oldenburg added that they intend to include additional necessary bracing in place to accommodate the wind from the tollway and insure that they will look nice. Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Rush that the applicant had addressed the required standards and to recommend approval of the 3 proposed variations to allow two additional 8 foot by 16 foot temporary marketing signs to be located 5 feet from the west and south property line as requested on the subject property as follows: 1. The development will be in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted. 2. Approval of the one year timeframe and the possibility of an additional renewal of one year. 3. Landscaping is required to be around the base of the signs and the signs and landscaping are to be maintained as required by the new sign code. 4. Not withstanding the attached exhibits the applicant shall meet all village ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specially varied or waived. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 16 of 17 March 2, 2010 /Z "C- 7 ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Nimry, Rush, Young, Ziemer and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Rush to adjourn the meeting at 8:52 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried ATTEST: Robert Kallien, Dire or of Com ty Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 17 of 17 March 2, 2010 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT