Loading...
Minutes - 03/06/2001 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES March 6, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. Acting Chairman George Mueller Members Louis Aldini Manu Shah Ayesha Zaheer Chairman Champ Davis Members Paul Adrian Richard Ascher Director of Community Development Robert Kallien Trustee Alfred Savino Member Aldini moved, seconded by Member Shah to appoint Member Mueller as Acting Chairman. VOICE VOTE: All in Favor. Motion carried. ll. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Aldini moved, seconded by Member Shah, to waive the reading of the February 6, 2001 regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Ill. OAK BROOK HINES DEVELOPMENT L.L.C. - 700 -800 COMMERCE DRIVE - TEXT AMENDMENT - TITLE 13 of the VILLAGE CODE - REVISION to CHAPTER 10A -3- A to INCREASE THE MAXIMUM F.A.R. in ORA -1 DISTRICTS FROM .45 to .60 All those present to represent the petitioner in this matter were sworn in by Acting Chairman Mueller. Danielle Cassel, Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe, 203 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, attorney for the petitioner, briefly reviewed the request and background of the property. The purpose of the proposed amendment would be to increase the maximum allowable F.A.R. in the ORA -1 District from .45 to .6. The genesis for this amendment request began last year when Hines was considering the buildout of some space within the current walls of their 700 Commerce Drive building. Hines purchased the property in early 1998 and the existing building at 800 Commerce Drive is occupied by McDonald's and has for many years. The 700 Commerce Drive building is a brand new building that is 100 percent leased. They need to address some immediate tenant concerns to build out just under 15,000 square feet within the basement. The collective F.A.R. between the buildings would reach .4706. The current maximum in the ORA -1 District is .45. They were advised by staff that the Village ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes March 6, 2001 7 was thinking of increasing the allowable F.A.R. in the ORA -1 District due to the Lohan Report and traffic impact study. It seems like the general direction the Village is heading towards is .60. Roger Heerema, Project Architect, Wright Architects, 819 S. Wabash Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, described the essential components of the site plan. There are no changes proposed to the site plan and no proposed additions to building. They are reconfiguring some space within the building. On the lower level there is a floor plan that has approximately 55 parking spaces. The balance of the area is open storage, a fitness center and a cafe, which is at grade. Not all of the parking spaces area being used and coupled with the internal demand existing within the building, they are looking to find a little more reconfigured space from parking and storage usage to office usage. They are proposing on the south end of the building to convert the area from parking and storage usage to leasable office space. Windows will be added to bring in natural light. They will preserve the stone- like character of the building base. John Reiter, Project Manager, Hines, Three First National Plaza, 70 West Madison, Suite 440, Chicago, Illinois, reviewed the reason for the request. 700 and 800 Commerce are both 100% leased. McDonald's leases 100 percent of 800 Commerce and they are trying to accommodate future tenant needs. The .48 F.A.R. will accommodate what they want to do in the lower level. The .6 will allow for future expansion and advance in the spirit of the Lohan Report suggestion. Member Aldini asked if taking out the masonry to provide windows in the lower level, would it compromise the structural integrity of the building? Roger Heerema answered that although the base looks like it is stone, it is in fact precast concrete, there is a actually a veneer wall and it is possible to add the windows without modifying the building structure. Director of Community Development Kallien stated that the .6 F.A.R. would impact all parcels zoned ORA -1. The Plan Commission was cautious as to how the Village proceeds with this request. The Lohan Report fairly well documents the impacts that can be expected by such a change. The Village hopes to further scrutinize the Lohan Report, which could then be incorporated into an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Member Aldini said that the sensible thing to do seems to solve the petitioner's current problem would be to increase the F.A.R. to .48. However, to increase the F.A.R. to .6 opens the door for other properties and he wondered whether there might be a rush to expand other ORA -1 properties. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the .48 increase would be very beneficial to this property, but the may actually be negligible to other properties. Many of the existing ORA -1 properties are built to the maximum. In order for them to take advantage of the .6 F.A.R., they would need to consolidate with other parcels or redevelop, which would then require a new parking deck in many instances. John Reiter said that right now the buildings are just below the .45 maximum allowed, if allowed to build to .48 F.A.R. they have more than enough parking, however to be able to build to the .6 F.A.R. in the future would require additional structured parking. Member Shah said to go from .45 to .6 would mean a 33% increase. How would a 33% increase impact other properties, traffic and roadways? Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Lohan Report breaks down the community into districts. It appears there could be another million square feet of office space in district 2, which would result in a substantial number of new cars to be added to the system. The current Village ordinance contains provisions which state that traffic studies are required as part of any permits for any increase over .45. There may also be some off -site roadway improvements made to accommodate another million square feet. In this district there would probably be some required roadway improvements that would go well beyond what is proposed for this immediate proposal. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes March 6, 2001 _2 V� 1 Acting Chairman Mueller said that if they go to .48, that would have a minimal impact, but .6 could be totally different. Member Shah agreed that the .48 would have a minimal impact, but .6 would mean a different landscape. Director of Community Development Kallien said that many people on the various boards have reviewed the Lohan Study, but the applicable recommendations should be put forth as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Member Shah said that .48 will serve present needs. Acting Chairman Mueller said that the .6 could be the trigger to start reconstruction. Robert Waite, 3609 Madison, President of the Fullersburg Woods Homeowner Association, commented that the request made by the petitioner has been based on the Lohan Report and many residents would not know that such a document exists. It is not the Comprehensive Plan, and there is only one adopted Comprehensive Plan that currently exists. He said that what the petitioner has proposed is spot zoning, and to approve this request would be precedent setting. He further complained that he had to purchase a copy of the Lohan Report for $10.60 from the Village and the copy was so crummy that the maps cannot be read. He is deeply concerned that the Village is going ahead with spot zoning and one of the primary concerns is traffic congestion if higher density is approved. The Village seems to be approving higher density one case at a time, defying the Comprehensive Plan. As a long time resident, when the first comprehensive plan was adopted he had no trouble getting a copy of the plan. He believes to approve this request is wrong because it is precedent setting, and the Village would be allowing higher density without a traffic study. The traffic in the area is getting worse without increasing the density. Director of Community Development Kallien that what the petitioner is proposing is not spot zoning, it is a text amendment to the ORA -1 zoning district to increase the F.A.R. and any party in the community has the ability to request an amendment to the zoning ordinance text. The only other way to accommodate this request would be for the petitioner to seek a variation. He commented that he was correct in stating that Lohan study is not an approved document. However, we are using information that was requested by and presented to the Village, so there is some basis for it. As such, the petitioner is trying to utilize that to make a case for making this request for an incremental change in the F.A.R. Member Shah said that there is not a problem with the .48 increase, since it will have a minimal impact. The request to .6 is almost a 33% increase, and the possibility would exist for others to utilize it. There is no rational way to approve the .6 because the impact is so huge. Member Aldini suggested that the Zoning Board stay with the recommendation of the Plan Commission to approve the request to .48, which the Zoning Board agrees, is an acceptable increase to meet the petitioner's present needs. If in the future there are other requests they can be reviewed on an individual basis. No one in the audience spoke in support of the proposal. Acting Chairman Mueller noted that the petitioner has responded to the factors as listed on page C through C.3 of the petition file as required for recommending approval an amendment. The Zoning Board of Appeals is in receipt of the Plan Commission findings. Member Zaheer moved, seconded by Member Aldini that the proposed Text Amendment is deemed necessary for the public convenience and will be operated so that the public health, safety and welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in which it is located. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes March 6, 2001 3 The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment to increase the maximum permitted F.A.R. to be increased from .45 to .48. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Aldini, Shah, Zaheer and Mueller Nays: 0- Absent: 3 - Adrian, Ascher and Davis Motion Carried. IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK- ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 12 OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING Director of Community Development, Robert Kallien noted that this is a continuation of the public hearing from last month. The Village is proposing an update to the Zoning Ordinance and the next item before the Zoning Board of Appeals is Chapter 12, Off - Street Parking and Loading requirements. The Plan Commission has not concluded with its hearing, so the public hearing before Zoning Board of Appeals should be continued until it is in receipt of the Plan Commission findings. He said that an important element of this chapter relates to the need to include structured parking. Over the years a number of parking decks have been built and they are going to become the norm as Oak Brook moves into its redevelopment stage. Oak Brook has a good track record for high quality buildings, which are an asset to the area. With the addition of structured parking there is an opportunity to ensure that those structures are also assets to the community. There are some structures that are very nice and others that are just average. We would like to include language in this chapter that helps the Village achieve its objective of having aesthetically pleasing and well - designed parking structures that are consistent with the principal building. He asked the members to observe parking structures and to call the office if they notice any impressive structures. Member Aldini said that there is a new parking deck in Rosemont on the east side just off the tollway. He thought that it was a new office building, until he drove up to it and realized it was a parking garage. Director of Community Development Kallien said that we would call the community to find out if the language in their ordinance allowed them to require that type of structure. Member Zaheer said that perhaps language might be added, which includes architectural elements that are complimentary or similar to the principal building. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it is hard to regulate taste, but before the Village is an opportunity to influence future development. Most developers do show a willingness to work with a community to provide a good building. Member Zaheer moved, seconded by Member Aldini to continue the public hearing on the review of the Zoning Ordinance. VOICE VOTE: All in Favor. Motion carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes March 6, 2001 4 V. ADJOURNMENT Member Aldini moved, seconded by Member Shah to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. - Director of Cominur ity lbevelopment Secretary April 3, 2001 Date Approved ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes March 6, 2001 5