Loading...
Minutes - 04/03/2007 - Zoning Board of Appeals2 a 4. 5. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 3, 2007 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON JUNE 5, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Champ Davis in the West Wing Training Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Baker Nimry, Jeffrey Bulin, Glenn Krietsch and Steven Young ABSENT: Member Richard Ascher IN ATTENDANCE: Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF DECEMBER. 5 2006 Motion by Member Krietsch, seconded by Member Nimry, to approve the minutes of the December 5, 2006 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 6 2007 Motion by Member Krietsch, seconded by Member Nimry, to approve the minutes of the March 6, 2007 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to discuss. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. INSITE OAK BROOK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP — 1603 161H STREET InSite Oak Biook Ltd Partnership — 3603 -- B -1 DISTRICT — TEXT AMENDMENT — PERMITTED USES — ADD 16')'st —B -I Dist, Text BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TEXT AMENDMENT — anden Speci let Uses Special Use — Drive -In VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 29 April 3, 2007 I M___ I SPECIAL USES — ADD DRIVE -IN BANKING FACILITIES, SPECIAL Banking Facility, Vai cation —Sign Regs USE — TO ALLOW A DRIVE -IN BANKING FACILITY VARIATION TO SECTION 13-11-7A,5 — SIGN REGULATIONS Chairman Davis swore in all parties that would testify. Scott Day, Day and Robert, P.C., Naperville, Attorney for the petitioner InSite Oak Brook Limited Partnership, said that the owner of the parcel is Columbia Holdings, and InSite is a wholly owned partnership made up of the owners of the property. The property is located at 1603 16th Street on the southwest corner of Route 83 and 16th StYeet. To the north is a retail strip center and another retail center is located on the northeast corner. These three parcels along with the recently zoned property known as the Promenade make up the B--1 District in the Village of Oak Brook. The site is 12,000 square feet improved with a 2 -story office building that has had multiple tenants. One of the tenants was the PrivateBank and within the last year relocated to forie Blvd., and sought a petition with the Village to obtain a drive -in banking facility. They have been looking for a banking tenant since that time and have been unable to find one. The application is to change the 12,000 square foot facility with 40 parking spaces to a 4,000 square foot one -story bank facility with fewer than 30 parking spaces and a drive- through facility. The request includes a text amendment to permit banking facilities and drive - through facilities, a special use to construct a drive- through facility and a variation for a sign. Chairman Davis asked whether PrivateBank was violating the Zoning Ordinance when they were located on the site. Mr. Day responded that they were not. They had an office type of facility and did not have drive- through banking. Customers did conventional banking operations, but this is an area where the definitions associated with financial institutions have changed so much since the crafting of the ordinance that with facilities such as Washington Mutual and American Express, meet the definitions of multiple uses, some of which are permitted in the B -1 District and some of which do not currently. The language being sought is the definition currently used within the Code for banking institutions and drive through banking. Tom Cervenka, InSite Real Estate reviewed the background and history of the site. In 1988, Town and Country built the building. In 1996, InSite bought the building and has occupied it as their headquarters since that time. In 1997, The PrivateBank moved in and at that time was a very small starter bank with very few tellers and no need for a drive through. They operated at the location for nearly 10 years and moved in 2006 to another location in Oak Brook; and the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 29 April 3, 2007 space has been vacant since that time. They have attempted to market the site to other banks but cannot get them interested without the proper zoning in place. Baaiks have changed significantly in the past 10 years and now almost every bank requires a drive through facility. In addition to that the site needs additional visibility with signage. Their current plan is to demolish the existing building. The concept plan is for a 4,000 square foot bank, which is typical in the market place. The plan also shows 3 drive- through lanes. The parking provided is per Code. The sidewalks are situated so that pedestrians will not have to cross in front of the drive - through to reach the bank. Text Amendment Factors Mr. Day reviewed the factors for the Text Amendment for both of the requests as follows: 1. Character of the neighborhood RESPONSE: The B -1 District is isolated to this area. The MB bank is just to the other side of the retention pond (northeast corner), within the B -1 District. American Express and Washington Mutual are operating within the shopping center to north. Directly east is the Oakbrook Center Mall. They are confronted with the Route 83 roadway, with 69,000 cars per day and is a high traffic strategic regional arterial roadway. Because of the way that the property was brought into the Village, the intersection at 16'h and Route 83 is restricted. There is no feeder system to the parcel. Virtually all of the traffic is traversing along or across Route 83 and access into the residential neighborhood to the west (Oakbrook Terrace) is restricted. The parcel is isolated within Oak Brook. It is a non - pedestrian friendly area and is a motor driven area. The access is retricted to automotive traffic or to a pedestrian that wishes to traverse to cross Route 83. 1. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions. RESPONSE: This property is a poor retail site. It is 8 /10 of an acre in size. To introduce the type of utility as exists to the north would introduce a significant conflict. The retail development to the north has all of its service and delivery off of the rear of the property, immediately adjacent to the residential area. This site would essentially have those types of uses thrusted in front of the residential neighborhood. Because it is isolated office and not clustered with other office in the area, the uses that are currently permitted in this zoning district would not be appropriate for continued use. 2. The extent to which the removal of the Existing Limitations Would Depreciate the Value of Other Property in the Area. RESPONSE: The fact that the development to the northeast with banking and a drive through facility, has not impacted the value of other property in the area and they believe that is proof sufficient as it would relate to this property. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 29 April 3, 2007 3. The suitability of the Property for Zoned Purposes RESPONSE: Within the B -1 District there is a multitude of uses, and most are retail in nature and banking would be the best for this particular parcel. 4. Existing Uses and Zoning of Nearby Properties. RESPONSE: They have reviewed on the map the surrounding uses and zoning. 5. The Length of Time Under the Existing Zoning that the property has remained unimproved considered in the context of land development. RESPONSE: Although marketed, the property has been without a tenant for almost one year. 6. The Relative Gain to the Public as Compared to the Hardship Imposed on the Individual Property Owner. 7. The Extent to Which the Proposal Promotes the Health, Safety, Morals or General Welfare of the Public RESPONSE: By reducing the size of the building from 12,000 to 4, 000 square feet and eliminating the parking spaces. They believe the banking facility would be an improvement and a convenience at this location. S. The Relationship of the Proposed Use to the Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: They believe the proposed uses would be compatible with the uses for the property in the Comprehensive Plan. Special Use Standards If the text amendments are approved, they are seeking a special use. Mr. Day reviewed the special use factors as follows: 1. Is of the type described in subsection Al of this Section, is deemed necessary for the public convenience at that location. RESPONSE: MB Bank is located across the street and believe that this is an appropriate location. They believe that finding has been met and would be fitting at this particular site. 2. Is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected; RESPONSE: It is a somewhat unique parcel of property. The site plan shows that the south 37 -38 feet of the parcel is not in the Village of Oak Brook, it is in Oakbrook Terrace and has been set aside pursuant to the Annexation VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 29 April 3, 2007 Agreement regarding easement rights and open space usage. There is heavy foliage on the property and technically Oak Brook does not have jurisdiction over this portion of the site, although it must remain part of the whole lot as stated in the Annexation Agreement and no conveyance can ever be undertaken without the property as part of the whole. They are planning to use the existing curb cut to enter the facility. There is a large section of dense foliage along Monterey Avenue (Oakbrook Terrace) as it relates to the western portion of the property that would remain in a landscape setting. The south 37 feet would remain in a landscape setting and there is heavy landscape and foliage along Route 83, which was also part of the original petition when the property came into the Village of Oak Brook. 3. Would not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located. RESPONSE: They believe this has been established by their testimony. Variation Mr. Day said that the property is less than 3 acres in size and is the only B -1 parcel in the village that is less than 3 acres in size; and it is also the only B -1 parcel in the village that cannot have a ground sign. The structure of the sign ordinance appears to focus the attention for commercial facility signage to be placed upon the exterior walls of the facilities, which is extremely functional and practical for structures similar to those on the northeast corner of Route 83 and 16`h Street with extensive signage and are clearly visible from Route 83. The subject parcel cannot do that because of the acreage limitation. The parcel has a unique problem related to its topography. When the site was originally approved by the Village there was a specific requirement associated with the approval that mandated berming and foliage to be placed in the Right of Way along Route 83. As a result, there is berming that separates the parcel, a significant grade change above the street elevation and the property is less than 3 acres in size. With the berming and foliage mandated by the village, the structure, signage or any identifying factors is visible from Route 83. It is a unique parcel in that it is the only parcel in the village that these signage requirements apply. Variation Standards The variation standards were provided in writing in the case file and addressed by Mr. Day as follows: 1. a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 29 April 3, 2007 D regulations governing the district in which it is located. 1. b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. 1. c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: Because of the unique features associated with the topography of the parcel, if you try to focus on the wall signage requirements allowed by ordinance for a one -story structure, it will not be seen. Daily, 69,000 vehicles pass by the facility going 45 miles per hour. It is an automotive driven site. The signage that is permitted for this parcel would not be visible. It would be a difficult parcel to identify and would place it in a significant economic hardship in order to reduce the square footage of the site down to one story and still maintain all of the foliage and berming on the parcel at this location. 2. a. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out. RESPONSE: This was addressed in their testimony. 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: This is the only property in the village that this would be applicable. 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: This is the only property in the village that this would be apply and the other two parcels across the street are large enough to have a ground sign. This property would then be consistent with the other parcels. 2. d.The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RESPONSE: Signage along the Route 83 frontage at this spot would not be visible to the residential parcels to the south or west. As it relates to the traffic VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 29 April 3, 2007 along Route 83 would actually increase the safety because those looking for the facility would know exactly where to turn in if ground signage were present and visible. 2. e. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. RESPONSE: This is the result of the history of this particular piece of property and to reduce it to a one story structure requires a different way to identify it with signage. Chairman Davis asked about the location for the proposed sign. Mr. Day responded that it would be located at the edge of the property and compliant with the Code in terms of size, height and lettering. It would be a ground posted sign. There is currently not a tenant for the property. They intend to maintain ownership of the site and go through a ground lease negotiation. They would be the recipient of the approval and the tenant would be subsequent to that. Chairman Davis noted that both text amendments and special use were brought before the Plan Commission. Mr. Day responded that the Plan Commission supported the request unanimously and there were no questions or opposition from the public. Approval was conditioned on development with the site plan as proposed and compliance with the rest of the Code provisions and Building Regulations. Chairman Davis referred to a letter from Director of Community Development Kallien, dated March 29, 2007 and asked Mr. Day to address those issues. Director of Community Development Kallien said that after the Plan Commission meeting several calls were received and the issues relate to the concerns raised in the calls and should be addressed. Mr. Day responded to each as follows: 1. All of the existing landscaping and vegetation along the west and south sides of the property needs to be maintained if the site is redeveloped as a bank use. Response: The foliage along the west property line is extremely dense. The current air conditioning chillers are currently located in that setback. They believe the foliage can be maintained or recreated and the petitioner is prepared to commit to that. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 29 April 3, 2007 Chairman Davis questioned the distance of the residences to the site. Mr. Day responded that they are across Monterey Avenue to the west and south. There is a built in 37 -38 foot setback and then the next house to the south. 2. What will be done to limit/mitigate the potential impact from car lights on the residential property to the south using the drive -thru, night deposit or ATM? Response: As it relates to the property to the south, there is foliage in the 37 foot setback. Oak Brook's ordinance prohibits solid fencing that would eliminate the opacity. They have a unique opportunity since it is Oakbrook Terrace property to potentially install a fence that would be in the City of Oakbrook Terrace in order to mitigate or diminish light from the traffic at the location of the drive -thru. However, the property to the south there are no windows along that side of the home. The utility of that area is for storage of motor vehicles. The windows point to the east toward Route 83. If the fencing would be permitted by Oakbrook Terrace on that portion of the property located in Oakbrook Terrace, they would be happy to install one. 3. What will be done to limit /mitigate the potential impact of the noise on adjacent residential properties form patrons using the drive -thru, night deposit or ATM? Response: Most of the drive -thru facility close about 6 p.m. and Monday through Saturday. As it relates to the noise the Village has a maximum decibel level that is measurable at the property line and they will not exceed it. 4. There is a potential safety issue for those using the night deposit or ATM especially during the night time hours as someone could hide in the landscaping and surprise an unsuspecting patron. Response: This issue could apply to any commercial use and not sure if there is anything they .could do to prevent crime other than what the police department already does. 5. If additional lighting is added for security for patrons of the night deposit or ATM, what impact will those lights have on adjacent properties? Response: Most municipal codes have a permitted candle power at the property line that can not be exceeded so the regulations are already in place to govern this. 6. What would be pro's /cons of flipping the drive -thru from the west to east side of the building? VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 29 April 3, 2007 Response: Currently traffic comes in off of 16"' Street, and enters through an existing curb cut and enters the site. With the proposed building the traffic would enter the same way and would enter the drive thru, traverse to the south and around the building heading back north then west to exit at the entry. Banking facilities are set up because of domestic automobiles in the United States have the driver on the left side. As such, the site is somewhat limited. Currently, they can use the area off of the east side of the property for parking transit and drive thru's and still satisfy the setbacks. If it is flipped they will start to encroach in the area set aside for the extensive foliage, to try to protect the residential properties. Although it sounds like a good idea, but from a practical design standpoint, it cannot be accommodated and still meet the other criteria for the site. Chairman Davis swore all parties that would testify. Ingrid Durham, an Alderman in the city of Oakbrook Terrace, said that her ward is directly adjacent to this property. Alderman Thomas was also in attendance at this hearing and they both live on Monterey Avenue, which is directly to the west of the property. They have talked to people in the area and some of those within 250 feet have received letters. Their consultant came to the Village and spoke with Mr. Kallien. The existing landscaping and vegetation is not as lush as one would think. There are open areas along the west side and during the winter the south side is quite bare. Pictures were passed around for the members to review. If possible, they would like to see fencing and dense landscaping added. Oakbrook Terrace believes that it would be appropriate to have a bank on the site and do not have any objection to that portion of the request. They would like this property owner to be a good neighbor to the residential area that is on two sides of the property. In regards to the drive -thru, they are concerned about exhaust fumes from the cars, the idling of the cars waiting, the lights from the cars that will be shining south from the property. Other concerns are the volume of the speakers from the drive -thru and the speakers in the ATM, which will be facing west and going out toward the residents across the street. If there is a dedicated ATM lane, those operate 24 hours a day with lighting at its location. They questioned the location and type of enclosure the garbage would be in. The shopping center by Panera has light that shines through the windows and their garbage pick up is at 3 a.m. There is not a lot of screening in that location. The owner of the property to the south of the property has 2 bedrooms located on the north side. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 29 April 3, 2007 Mr. Day responded that there is a significant setback off of Route 83. If the canopy is relocated into a 66 foot setback off of Route 83, it will conflict with the setback off of the east end of the property. The setbacks are different off of the rear end of the site. There is a greater flexibility to put the canopy on the west side and with the foliage the western properties will be protected and with fencing and foliage will protect the property without windows to the south. Pictures displayed showed that there were no windows visible on the side of the residence facing the building and the owner's vehicles are stored there. Member Nimry said that if the building is moved west 20 feet there would not be an encroachment in the setback on Route 83. Mr. Cervenka responded that the problem is that when the building is moved, a lane must still exist for the vehicles to access the drive -thru and the canopy will still encroach into the eastern setback. Director of Community Development I <allien commented that the thru lane on the west side of the building could be within the setback area. Mr. Cervenka responded that could be done, but it would disturb a lot of existing vegetation that they are trying to maintain. In addition it would be doubtful that they would be able to provide adequate parking per Code and would force pedestrians to traverse from the parking area to access the building. Member Nimry said that he did see that there was not much foliage on the south side of the building. Mr. Cervenka said that they would be willing to construct an opaque fence on the northern most part of the property, but Oak Brook Code would not allow it. The dense landscaping could be extended in front of the drive aisle and along the western side. Ms. Durham said that in Oakbrook Terrace when there is commercial abutting residential they require an opaque fence. They would prefer to see and opaque fence and additional landscaping along the entire west and south side of the building. They would also like to see a lighting plan to ensure that the lighting will remain on the property. They would like to see the drive -thru placed on the east side of the building rather than close to Monterey Avenue. That location would also reduce the exhaust from cars sitting and idling in the drive -thru lanes. They are also concerned about the sound coming from the drive -thru speakers. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 29 April 3, 2007 Mr. Cervenka noted that the speakers would only be in use during the day when the bank is open, which typically is during the week until around 6 p.m. and on Saturday to around 1:00 p.m. He added that the house on the south side was constructed around 3 years ago, when Route 83 was what it is today. Ms. Durham noted that Town and Country had bought 4 houses on the east side of Monterey because they wanted to increase their business and come into Oakbrook Terrace and it was denied. They eventually sold the property to someone who built houses because their Comprehensive Plan said that it should remain residential. William Lindeman, 11 Pembroke Lane said that he had addressed a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He commented that it was his point of view that all the hardships presented at this meeting are result of the refusal of the property owner to accept the fact that this is an office building. It is a conforming building and it is apparent that they have chosen to abandon an attempt to continue its use as an office building despite 17 years of full occupancy. They have chosen to speculate that a bank will come forth and complete this. Their reluctance to offer the drive -thru lanes on the east side is because banks generally choose to maximize signage in the windows so that would eliminate the additional signage. He is opposed because this parcel is less than one - fourth the required area for a ground sign and the minimum requirement is 3 acres. They may want a ground sign based on poor visibility, then afterwards remove the foliage, and have great visibility for an additional building sign. He finds it curious that Private Bank operated there successfully for a number of years as well as Town and Country. After six months of trying to lease it they proclaim that they have to have approval for a hypothetical situation where a bank will rent from them. He said that it is premature to act on this when the village consultant is reviewing the commercial revitalization. The Plan Commission chose not to address the signage issue, which is not noted in their meeting minutes, even though he reviewed the file. Chairman Davis noted that the signage issue was not before the Plan Commission because they do not hear variation matters. Mr. Lindeman responded that the matter was referred to the Plan Commission by the Village Board and it was unclear why it was not on their agenda. Mr. Lindeman said that his objection contains many issues including the issue of fairness of proposing something that maybe detrimental to the adjoining VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 29 April 3, 2007 N -, . mv- properties and they may not get the same consideration if they were residents of Oak Brook. He saw the house to the south and it is a very expensive house. He also noted there was a lot of rubbish on the vacant lot. Chairman Davis noted that Mr. Lindeman's letter would become part of the file. He also added that the Revitalization Committee is not ready to file a report or a recommendation on these matters. There have been meetings at which, he noted Mr. Lindeman has attended. He asked Trustee Sanford if he were aware of any signage requirements for Oak Brook discussed at any of these meetings. Trustee Sanford responded that in order to maintain commercial viability of areas there will be a need to change some of the signage requirements. Chairman Davis noted that from one of the meetings it was discussed that signage requirements in Oak Brook was one of being too restrictive. Trustee Sanford agreed that was true in some of the instances and it would be necessary for the revitalization plan to be a fully functional plan. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Commercial Revitalization task force and planning effort is going to result in a number of recommendations that may change land use and zoning. One of the recommendations will be toward changes in the sign regulations. Not all properties have the same visibility and frontage requirements. The current regulation does not address the unfairness of properties with multiple frontages. The village has had companies that want to locate here and signage is usually an issue that becomes an impediment. Signage will continue to be on the front burner as the planning effort moves forward. Mr. Lindeman said that he would feel more comfortable to hear the authors of a planning study grant their recommendations to changes. He is surprised that the square footage of the requested sign could be 160 square feet. Mr. Nimry said that the parking lot size is going to be increased dramatically, and there is a dramatic drop to the topography and questioned if there could be a stormwater issue created on the existing house to the south. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the site is currently served by an underground pipe detention system that will remain in place. Additionally, a site that is smaller than one acre, even in a heavy storm, would not flood anyone out. VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 29 April 3, 2007 Member Young said that examples were given of WaMu and AmEx, but they are not banks and do not have drive -thru operations at their locations. Mr. Day responded that he was correct, and said that he did not mean to misstate or mislead anyone, but that the activities conducted in those facilities are very similar to the activities that were conventionally called banking activities at the time the zoning definitions were written. There has been such a metamorphosis of the banking industry that in many regards institutions that are currently conducting things that were previously called banking, didn't do so twenty years ago. He was suggesting that there has been an alteration of land use. At the time the B -1 District and banking facilities themselves were prohibited. The question from the Chairman was whether or not PrivateBank was violating the zoning ordinance, and he does not think they were. The activities met the definition for the uses in the district. Mr. Cervenka said that it was a walk -in facility with a significant number of offices on the first floor, with two or three tellers and an in -wall night depository. Mr. Day said that this site is not a destination land use and will be used as a convenience stop and will not add traffic. Member Young asked why banks were not included in the regulations. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that he did not know. However, he noted that changes have been made to the zoning ordinance that has added banking to several of the districts. It has been added to the 0 RA -1 District and drive - thru's have been added to the ORA -2 District. Banks were dust destined to the B -2 and B -3 Districts. Member Young questioned whether it was time to review the standards in the B District. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it was; and that Trustee Sanford mentioned that one of the things being reviewed by the Commercial Revitalization is to review our zoning. It may be that one of the impediments to revitalization is that we may not have the proper mix or alignment of zoning districts. This piece of property is really and orphan piece, which is a very small commercially zoned piece. There is really no other piece of property in Oak Brook like this except for the small site known as D's Diggety Dog (2121 Butterfield) because of the size of the property. This property is so small that whoever would want to locate here would have to VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 29 April 3, 2007 conform to the setbacks and parking requirements. Any other relief would require a review by the Plan Commission, Zoning Board and approval by the Village Board. Member Young noted that lighting, sound and other standards are required by the federal government banking standards; otherwise it would not be a chartered bank. Director of Community Development noted that the Village also has standards for lighting and sound in the Ordinance. Mr. Bulin said that previous reviews always had specific plans and studies, and this one does not have that because it is based on a hypothetical with a concept plan. He would like to see a landscape, lighting plan, pedestrian safety, etc. and that schematic nature cannot be judged. Mr. Day responded that they do not have plans that are more specific; however, specifics could be attached in regards to landscaping, lighting, etc. If the tenant would seek to do something that contradicts what has been approved, they would need to seek another special use. Chairman Davis said that the Plan Commission approved it with conditions. Mr. Cervenka said that they are having a difficult time marketing for banks because of the zoning requirements. Mr. Cervenka explained that the landscape on Route 83 is not on their property. There is a lot of dense foliage, and if more is desired they can make that requirement by the tenant. Member Krietsch said that residents have concerns regarding the proposed location of the drive -thru and approval would only be based upon a concept plan. He also questioned the economic advantage of the current structure compared to that of the proposed 4000 square foot structure, which would be significantly smaller. Mr. Cervenka responded that he was not in a position to respond to the economics of the project. He did say that they have been marketing the stricture as office space over the past year, but there has not been a lot of interest. It may be the intent of the owner to demolish the building when the actual lease is structured and to deliver a flat site at time of leasing. The lessee would build their structure. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 29 April 3, 2007 Director of Community Development Kallien noted that the village adopted a demolition and construction site management regulations that regulates commercial and residential structures. Staff would review the requirements with the applicant of infonning the neighbor and maintaining the construction site. The regulations also cover the construction process ensuring that the impacts on the neighbors are limited. Text Amendment Chairman Davis noted that the standards for the proposed text amendments have been sufficiently addressed by the applicant and are also in writing on pages D -D.1 of the case file. Motion by Member Krietsch, seconded by Member Young that the applicant has addressed and satisfied the applicable standards required to recommend approval of the requested text amendment to add "banks and financial institutions" to the permitted uses in the B -1 District. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 -- Members Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Young and Chairman Davis Absent: 1 — Member Ascher Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Nimry that the applicant has addressed and satisfied the applicable standards required to recommend approval of the requested text amendment to add "drive -in banking facility" to the special uses in the B -1 District. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 — Members Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Young and Chairman Davis Absent: 1 — Member Ascher Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried Special _ Use Chairman Davis said that the request is to construct a drive -in banking facility and the standards are contained on page G in the case file. Motion by Chairman Davis, seconded by Member Nimry that the applicant has addressed and satisfied the applicable standards required to recommend approval of the requested special use for a "drive -in banking facility" subject to the following conditions: 1. Subject to approval of the text amendment. 2. To be constructed in substantial conformance with the site plan contained in the case file. 3. Additional sufficient and dense landscaping to be added and extended VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 15 of 29 April 3, 2007 along the west side and extending to and along the south side of site, subject to Village staff approval. 4. Either sufficiently dense landscaping to serve as a fence or an opaque fence to be installed along the south side of the property (on the Oakbrook Terrace portion of lot). The purpose of the fence would be to keep the lights from the cars and lighting from the property from affecting the residential property. 5. Lighting shall not exceed the standards set in the Zoning Ordinance, which is a .5 foot candle as measured at the property line. 6. At time of building permit, noise decibel information is to be submitted that would be reviewed and acceptable by Code. 7. Notwithstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all village ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically varied or waived. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 2 -- Member Nimry and Chairman Davis Nays: 3 — Members Bulin, Krietsch and Young Absent: 1— Member Ascher. Motion Failed Director of Community Development noted that typically when a vote fails and there are members absent that could change the outcome of the vote, then the matter would automatically be continued. Currently there are only 6 members on the Zoning Board of Appeals, so the only change that could occur in the outcome is that it would be a tie vote and then the motion would still fail. Variation Chairman Davis said that the request is for a variation to Section 13- 11 -7A5 to allow the construction of a ground sign. The standards for the proposed ground sign have been sufficiently addressed by the applicant and are also in writing on pages K -K. I of the case file. Member Nimry said that the applicant will need a ground sign, because a building sign would probably not be seen from Route 83 and suggested the condition that the area of the sign be reduced from 160 to 80 square feet since there will be only one tenant. Motion by Chairman Davis, seconded by Member Young that the applicant has addressed and satisfied the applicable standards required to recommend approval of the requested variation to allow a ground sign, subject to the following conditions: 1. To be constructed in substantial conformance with the site plan and sign elevation plan contained in the case file. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 16 of 29 April 3, 2007 2. The sign shall be limited to a maximum of 80 square feet for a 2 sided sign. 3. All other provisions of 13 -11 -5C and 13- 11 -7A.5 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be followed relative to the design and construction of the ground sign. 4. Notwithstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all village ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically varied or waived. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 — Members Krietsch, Nimry, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 1 — Member Bulin Absent: 1 — Member Ascher. Motion Carried. Chairman Davis called for break at 9:10 p.m. The hearing resumed at 9:21 p.m. 5. B. 11.1 WINDSOR DRIVE OAK BROOK PROPERTIES, LLC and 2010 1111 WINDSOR /2010 SWIFT DRIVE - SWIFT DRIVE INVESTORS BY INTERWORK ARCHITECTS --111 VARIATION PARKING - WINDSOR and 2010 SWIFT DRIVE — ORA -1 DISTRICT — REGULATIONS VARIATION TO SECTION 13 -12 -311 AND 13- 12 -4B.2 — PARKING REGULATIONS Chairman Davis swore in all parties that would testify. David Wigodner, Inter-work Architects reviewed the request. ADT is a tenant in 2 buildings at 111 Windsor and 2010 Swift. Both buildings were developed in the 1960's -70's when it was an office and industrial area. The use by ADT (now owned by the Tyco Corporation) has evolved into an office use with some limited warehouse in the 2010 Swift building and the nature of the variances is the results from that. The properties have enough parking area available to allow for their current office use, along with some planned expansion in the 2010 building. There is adequate parking between the two sites to meet the zoning regulations requirement. The zoning ordinance requirement of 3.3 spaces per 1000 square feet requirement does not necessarily mirror office occupancy that many people need today. The variations they are seeking will allow further development of parking lots on the site to start approaching 5 per 1000. There is land available on the two sites to allow it, but there are issues in the zoning ordinance relating to green space buffer between neighboring sites and placement of parking within the rear or side yard in order to use the two sites sufficiently. Although the two sites are leased by ADT, they are owned by two different entities. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 17 of 29 April 3, 2007 The parking on I I 1 Windsor exceeds the parking required by ordinance. The 2010 Swift site is slightly below the requirement. They achieve the required 3.3 per 1000 established by ordinance, but they are trying to achieve more than that. They have a large front yard setback as required in the ORA -1 District. They also have a fair amount of site to the sides. In trying to find a way to maximize this their goal is to try to maintain to the greatest degree possible, the setback on the front yard of the Swift Drive site, but make better use of the land between 111 Windsor and 2010 Swift. The proposed parking takes a small section of the green space at the rear of the 111 Windsor building and converts it into parking. They repave another area and extend the parking from the 111 Windsor site onto the 2010 Swift site, with the property line running through a drive aisle. It became a zoning issue, because by doing that, they are not maintaining the 10 -foot green buffer at the rear yard of 111 Windsor and at the side yard of 2010 Swift. They want a drive aisle to be located there in order to maximize it and get the efficiency they need to get the parking levels they are after. They are not supposed to park within 10 feet of the rear yard. When they projected the property line forward a very small piece of the last space was actually in the rear yard. There are some existing parallel and diagonal parking spaces striped along the drive and they are not sure, how those were arrived at because the drives are not as wide as they should be, to allow a two -way lane and parallel parking. The other area is to be restriped in order to meet the standard for an office building, because they were originally striped wider than required for an office building. The variation request is about the parking between the buildings. Chairman Davis asked specifically for the variations being requested. Mr. Wigodner said that where parking is located in the side yard of the 2010 Swift site, because of the location of the drive aisle they do not have the 10 -foot landscape buffer between that parking and the I I I Windsor site, because the drive aisle takes up that space. The same thing happens at the rear lot line of the 111 Windsor site, the drive aisle takes up that space as well. Rather than creating a 20 foot (10 feet on each side) landscape buffer, that is where they want to place the drive aisle, so they lose their ability to put that buffer between the two sites. When they extended the 10 -foot parking one of the parking stalls at the west side of the 111 Windsor site crept into the 10 -foot rear yard. In Village Engineer Durfey's review, he noted that their extension of the existing line of parking actually crept into a required piece of setback on the west side. They were mistaken and it did not come up in meetings with staff. They did not realize they were missing an issue so it is not requested and they think with some subtle minor changes they can configure to get the parking out of the side yard. It is the same variance for landscape screening on each site VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 18 of 29 April 3, 2007 and the final variation request is that they encroach very slightly, (approximately 8%z by 17.6 foot stall), there is a small triangle 2 feet long by 1' /x foot was poking into the ten -foot rear yard. Chairman Davis noted that the written standards are contained on page D of the case file. Variation Standards The variation standards were provided in writing in the case file on page D and addressed by Mr. Wigodner as follows: 1. a. 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: The nature of this site and the entire district has moved away from the industrial piece that it once was when it was developed. It is a mix of office with very limited warehouse, which requires more parking. They were seeking to do this on this site. Not having the required parking, really limits its use from how it is being applied right now. They meet the requirement of the ordinance; however, the requirement of the ordinance does not meet the needs of the user. Because of its older configuration, the geometry of the site created these small pockets of green, where they could turn them into parking lot. 1. b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: The combination of ADT's use and the number of cars needed to meet their use requirement, the age of the structure, and placement of it on the site, which started out as a very limited office component and more warehouse space. That, combined with separate ownership of the two sites put them in the position of not being able to view this as a single site, even though it is for a single user. Therefore, they could not consolidate the site so that there would not be any yard restrictions. The series of things make up the unique circumstance; including the geometry imposed by the older buildings they cannot accomplish it without the variance. 1. c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: It is in an area that has already starting to move this way. It is very consistent as you go up and down Windsor and Swift the buildings have all run into parking issues as they have moved more towards office use. Some of the larger buildings have added parking structures, but in general, they have all moved in some direction like this. They believe the use of the land between the two buildings for parking is consistent with what is happening in this area, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 19 of 23 April 3, 2007 W-A'ow although their reasons may not be the same as they are for other sites, it should not reflect negatively on what is going on in that area. Member Bulin questioned the issues raised by Village Engineer Durfey. Mr. Wigodner responded that there were a few mix -ups on their end, but they would see them corrected. Referring to the March 19, 2007 Memorandum (page 7 of the case file) he responded as follows: 1. Drawing P -2 A. — The parking counts will be corrected. B. — It is actually a single line of landscaping and a series of concrete parking bumpers. C. — They will correct the dimension. 2. Drawing P -1 A. — To be corrected. B — To be corrected. C -- To be corrected. 3. To be corrected. 4. They hope that the long row of parking that has been there as long as the building does not meet the required setback from the west property line. They hope that existing condition would be viewed as existing and not be a condition that they would need to change. 5. They were marked on the site and have been removed and the plan will be corrected to show this. 6. The area has been striped that way for a long time, prior to the ownership of either of the current owners and would like those left as is. 7. The drive aisle is paved to the south lot line and would like it to remain as is. To change it would not be a positive to the development. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the property at 2020 Swift obtained a variance for parking in the front yard and had some of the same quirky parking space layout issues that this site has. Mr. Wigodner said that one of the things they explored before applying for the variation was whether it made more sense to look at parking in the front yard. Some limited parking exists in the front yard of 2010 Swift, but it is per Code. They felt that the elimination of green space between the two contiguous lots made more sense than asking to pave over the front yard and made more sense aesthetically. The green buffer that exists throughout the park makes more sense than trying to screen the two sites with common tenants from one another. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 20 of 29 April 3, 2007 Other issues: 1. They can address that issue. 2. They would prefer to leave that as is. It is an existing parking lot with a row of parking bumpers located there, along with a very narrow landscape area and is backed up to the tollway. If they were developing a new lot, it would need a curb, The problem is that they have a very short section of 4 -5 parking spaces that is in line with it. They would like to work with Mr. Durfey and extend that short piece and not run 17 -18 spaces without curb and then a little piece with it, so it does not seem consistent. He already addressed the final item. Member Nimry asked whether these items would be documented if waived. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the age of the area should be looked at, which is 40 -50 years old. When the buildings were constructed, it was a different use back in those days and today it is more of an office use. He could see this area being redeveloped within a number of years with the commercial redevelopment plan. They are in the file as notation and could be left alone. Chairman Davis said that these issues are not issues relating to the variation request, but that does not mean the Zoning Board approves of the violations. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it would be his recommendation if this were to move on, as a positive recommendation to the Village Board, one of the Zoning Board's statements could be that it is recognized that there are certain nonconformities that you would recommend be allowed to continue. If the properties were ever redeveloped, they would then be required to conform to the regulations that exist at that time. Mr. W igodner said that they are not requesting that these be approved. Chairman Davis questioned whether there was anything contained that would be an issue if ADT were no longer a tenant in the buildings. Mr. Wigodner said that a cross access agreement should exist and be recorded between the sites. The owner of the 111 Windsor property has a lease agreement with ADT until 2010 that stipulates when they vacate they would like the parking lot restored. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 21 of 29 April 3, 2007 John Huntington said that he was responsible for the management of the building at 125 Windsor that abuts the property. He sought information on the specifics of a portion of the request and the impact on his property. He said that it appears right now that there is no buffer between the lots. He said he would question more that this approval would be done to accommodate a common user rather than 2 properties owned by separate people. The question would be what happens when the buildings become separately used. He agrees that there needs to be a recorded perpetual cross access easement as well as a cross maintenance agreement with lien rights if one of the property owners does not contribute his share of the cost of repairs and improvements to be maintained in the parking lot. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that the Village has Property Maintenance Regulations that would encourage them through our process to come into compliance. He said that the variation approved goes with the land, not the tenants. If approved, those properties will have to live with that variation in place or seek some type of different variation arrangement at a later date. This area will be ready for redevelopment in the future. Hopefully, all of this will be corrected in future. It is short term and provides an area that has seen vacancies and tenants come and go, to provide a commitment for two buildings for an extended period of time. Variation 111 Windsor Drive Request: Motion by Member Krietsch, seconded by Member Nimry that the applicant has addressed and satisfied the applicable standards required to recommend approval of the requested variation to Section 13 -12 -3H and 13- 12 -4B -2 to allow parking within 10 feet of the rear property line and to eliminate 5 feet of green space along a portion of the rear property line, subject to the following conditions: 1. To be constructed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted and as revised at this hearing. 2. A perpetual cross access agreement should be required. 3. Notwithstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all village ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically varied or waived. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 — Members Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Young and Chairman Davis Absent: 1 — Member Ascher Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 22 of 29 April 3, 2007 Variation 2010 Swift Drive Request: Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Bulin that the applicant has addressed and satisfied the applicable standards required to recommend approval of the requested variation to Section 13- 12 -4B -2 to eliminate the requirement for a 5 foot landscape buffer for parking in the side yard, subject to the following conditions: 1. To be constructed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted and as revised at this hearing. 2. A perpetual cross access agreement should be required. 3. Notwithstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all village ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically varied or waived. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 — Members Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Young and Chairman Davis Absent: 1 — Member Ascher Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried 5. C. COMMONWEALTH REALTY ADVISORS by MID- AMERICA ASSET COMMONWEALTH REALTY ADVISORS MANAGEMENT — 1600 16TH STREET — B -1 DISTRICT - 1600 16TH STREET VARIATION TO VARIATION TO SECTION 13- 11 -7A.5 — SIGN REGULATIONS SIGN BEGS Chairman Davis swore in all parties that would testify. Jean Klein, Development Manager with Mid - America Asset Management said that they are the managing and leasing agent for the Oaks of Oak Brook Shopping Center. It is located in the B -1 District at the northwest corner of Route 83 and 16'h Street. The center was built in 1989 and was purchased by their client Commonwealth Realty Advisors, in 1992. They are seeking approval of a variation to Section 13- 11 -7A.5 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a ground sign 19 feet in height with 8 tenant panels. Currently the Zoning Ordinance allows a 16 -foot sign with only the name of the center and the address. The reason for the requests relates to several challenges at the shopping center. When it was developed, the building was set back from the main road. Over the years, several of the tenants have had financial struggles and is one of their main issues as a result is being able to retain tenants. Their GLA (gross leasable area) is currently 67,141 square feet and of that 19, 984 square feet is vacant, which is a 30% vacancy factor, which is a really high vacancy. Over VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 23 of 29 April 3, 2007 the years, they have lost those 19,800 square feet of tenants; and although they have recently acquired Panera and have been able to renew a few leases, they have lost tenants due to the tenant's lack of exposure. They would like to be current with other centers within the B -1 district and add a sign that is a little bit larger than allowed. It would be architecturally pleasing and works with the shopping center design and would allow tenant panels, which would help their tenants. Another struggle they have is when people pass by on Route 83 (going north or south), if you miss the shopping center, there is no quick way to turn around to come back. They fear that the loss of tenants has been the result of losing shoppers to the center, because they end up going elsewhere. The other centers in the B -1 District are greater than 10 acres and those sites are allowed two ground signs that can be up to 30 feet in height, which allows the name and address of the shopping center along with the name and services of their retails stores. The applicant has proposed a 19 -foot sign with 8 tenant panels. Member Bulin questioned the dimensions of the current sign. Ms. Klein responded that it is 18 feet at its highest point and the base is 6'4 ". Chairman Davis questioned whether it is a two -sided sign and she responded that it is; and would be identical on each side. Member Bulin noted that the surface area for the existing sign is around 147 square feet on each side. The new sign would be approximately 172 square feet per side. Ms. Klein noted that the proposed sign would be internally illuminated. Member Nimry questioned the design of the new sign and said that the new sign does not fit with the image of Oak Brook; and does not compare in style with the existing sign. He noted that the Village's Beautification Committee has picked out some very traditional signs for Oak Brook. The proposed sign would stick out and could result in a need to change the sign. The black border throws the sign off. Ms. Klein said that the sign was designed to match the existing building. Director of Community Development Kallien said that most of the shopping centers have a uniformity of signage on the building with a level of consistency. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 24 of 29 April 3, 2007 The plastic tenant panels do not seem to be consistent with what is currently on the buildings. Panels affixed to the sign face are more desirable than removable panels. Todd Jackson, Principal at American Sign and Lighting said that the proposed sign incorporates the design element at the existing building. It would be impossible to place individual lettering for 8 tenant panels on a sign of this size. The height would end up restrictive and would not be readable or visible from Route 83 as vehicles pass by the intersection, which would result in ineffectiveness of the sign. The letters on the current sign are front lit. It is a standard channel letter and the front face illuminates. A sign this size, with 8 tenant panels, starts to look cluttered and the size of the letters on each of the rows, limits the height of letter, which then restricts the visibility for a monument sign. Member Bulin noted that there are 23 tenant spaces and asked how they arrived at using only 8 panels. Ms. Klein responded that they did not want a huge sign so the tenants listed on the sign would be based on individual language in their lease agreements. Some would have rights to a pylon sign, if ever constructed and would be based upon square footage. They would not want a sign with 23 tenants listed because it would not look right. Member Young questioned that by leaving that type of lighted sign, would there be the possible risk of causing an accident along Route 83. Ms. Klein responded that she did not think that would be an issue. There is a stoplight and other signage all along Route 83 that is very similar and probably 3 times as large and there are existing streetlights. The existing sign is also illuminated. Mr. Jackson said that it might reduce the possibility of an accident because someone might be looking for Panera, not knowing which shopping center it was in. As they drive down Route 83, they see the monument sign and at the same time the street; they then slow down drastically to make the turn lane into the center. With the panel sign, it could be seen at a greater distance and would allow them to slow down and have more time to safely make it to the turn lane. Ms. Klein reviewed the architectural elements with the members and said that they would be agreeable to modify the color of the exterior sign. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 25 of 29 April 3, 2007 Chairman Davis requested and was shown the architectural feature on the proposed sign that matched that of the center. Ms. Klein reviewed the variation standards in writing in the case file and as follows: 1. a. 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: The Oaks of Oak Brook shopping center is realizing an impact from the lack of retail signage on the property that is consistent with industry standards. Tenant retention is a serious concern as well as leasing the existing vacancies and attracting new tenants. Their vacancy rate is at 30 %. Numerous potential tenants have turned down the site due to lack of visibility and signage. They do have existing tenants that are requesting additional signage because their businesses are suffering due to the lack of visibility. There is a letter in the case file from an existing tenant and had one from another tenant. There were also 2 tenants present in the audience to speak in support of the signage request. 1. b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: The existing sign on the property is not consistent with other retail centers in Oak Brook. The Oak Brook Court across the street is also zoned B -1, but has over ten acres of land. They are therefore granted higher standards for the number of signs, height and square footage allotment. The buildings at that center also have the rear of the buildings facing Route 83 and also have the ground sign and signage on the front of the buildings. 1. c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: The variation, if granted does not alter the character of the locality and will enhance the center and the locality. The sign has been designed to enhance the existing building. Gail Gregor, Stylish Stems, which is a shop in the Oaks of Oak Brook Shopping Center said that she is a florist and, unfortunately most people do not know that. She said that what Jean (Klein) testified to, is absolutely true. On a daily basis, they receive phone calls from either people that are trying to find them or people they give directions to because they have never heard of them. It is also an issue with their vendors, because when they try giving them directions, as to how to actually get into their mall. As far as the signage goes, there is a sign directly across the street, that has the tenant's names and they VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 26 of 29 April 3, 2007 really feel that it would significantly increase their visibility. Having eight tenants listed is better than none. Her space is one of those that would benefit and she was testifying to plead the cases for the other tenants as well. They would like some recognition. Maybe the mall they are in is the one with Panera and that would let people know the mall is there and other tenants could be found as well. Approval by the Village would be doing a great service for all of the tenants by allowing the sign. Elizabeth Martin, Manager of the American Express Travel store located in the Oaks of Oak Brook Shopping Center. Her sentiments echoed those of Gail. For years they have dealt with, what the florist shop is now dealing with, which is pretty much that people cannot seem to find them. The mall is set back on top of a hill and cannot be seen from the north or the south. There have been many tenants over the years that have expressed a strong desire to have signage on Route 83. Unfortunately, many of those tenants are no longer with the shopping center. Their store has struggled over the years from this location to build a clientele by phone, and have succeeded in doing that. Fortunately, they have gained a foothold at this location because of their phone business. As a result, those people are now clients and now know where they are. They would like to build that business and remain at the Oaks of Oak Brook, and they really do believe that signage would help to promote that. The Village's consideration of the request is greatly appreciated. Member Krietsch said that he is very familiar with the shopping center and has patronized it for many years. He agrees that the center does have an issue and has always had vacancies. He believes a sign is needed, but does not like the one that has been proposed. Perhaps something similar to the sign designed across the street, where they used the actual letters /fonts of the tenants. The sign as proposed looks cheap. Ms. Klein said that they typically have the sign contractor go to the actual tenant and get their artwork and the exact style and font is used in making the tenant signs. Member Nimry said that the Zoning Board is not complaining about the lettering or the font that will be used, but rather the foundation and the whole frame for those tenant signs is unacceptable. The existing sign being used now, if squared and the tenant signs were added to it would look great. The proposed frame looks cheap and does not belong in Oak Brook. The sign across the street has more life to it and has brick, not an aluminum casing. Ms. Klein said that she understands, however one of the standards required is that it is to be aesthetically pleasing with the center. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 27 of 29 April 3, 2007 Chairman Davis said that he did not have the same problem with the sign design as some of the members do, and he noted that there are different tastes for different people. Mr. Jackson said that one of the reasons the other sign across the street was more aesthetically pleasing is because it is a much bigger sign (around 30 feet or so) and the letters can be seen on it. Director of Community Development Kallien said that might be something that should be considered. If an identity is going to be created that more clearly matches the center and provides better looking letters, perhaps additional height should be considered. When looking at what exists across the street, 19 feet may not be a lot, At this center, the buildings should have been located up against Route 83, just like the Container store across the street; but they are not, so you have to compensate somehow. In this situation, the building is set back much further and the sign as proposed may not do what it needs to do; maybe it needs to be taller than proposed. Ms. Klein responded that was also their challenge as well. They did consider going higher, but did not know if it would look out of place. Director of Community Development Kallien commented that standing 200- 250 feet south of the intersection, a 30 -foot sign exists on one conger and across the street, the sign at the Oaks of Oak Brook would be almost half its size. No one is objecting that a sign needs to be there, the issue is in the sign details. Member Krietsch said that it is not up to the Zoning Board to design the sign. Chairman Davis said that the Zoning Board would like the applicant to come back to the next meeting, which would give them time to address the comments and concerns raised. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that several members said that they liked the appearance of the sign across the street. If some of those characteristics are taken, the main element would be the height. Mr. Jackson said that he would like the board to keep in mind that this mall would like to have its own identity and not be like the sign across the street. Any sign designed in similarity to the one across the street would not resemble this center. Member Bulin suggested that they take some of the elements in regards to their existing structure using the clipped corner, the gable and develop that further into the design. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 28 of 29 April 3, 2007 4- 31 7. Chairman Davis said that there is no dissension regarding the need for the tenants being identified. The issue appears to be the character of the sign and if it was of the Oak Brook type design. Member Krietsch said that he believes they absolutely need signage, but do not like the proposed sign presented. Member Bulin noted that a 24 -foot sign might be the right thing. If the photographic work would show more of the intersection or mall to see a comparison of the signage across the street and see if there is a balance, which should give the applicant as much power that has been provided for the shopping centers across the street. He said that signage is needed on the site and it may be more than they have requested. Chairman Davis said that the Zoning Board of Appeals would be willing to continue the matter to the next meeting date to give the applicant an opportunity to revise the proposed plan or go forward with the proposal as submitted. The applicant agreed to the continuance. William Lindeman made a comment that was like, Community Development Department lacked the ability to review the aesthetics... (trailed off) (He spoke from his chair in the audience and most of what he said was inaudible.) Director of Community Development Kallien said that for the record, he strongly resented the comment made by Mr. Lindeman. Motion by Member Krietsch, seconded by Member Nimry, to continue the public hearing to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Krietsch to adjourn the meeting at 10:41 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, Dire omm unity Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 29 of 29 April 3, 2007