Minutes - 05/05/2009 - Zoning Board of AppealsMINUTES OF THE MAY 55 2009 REGULAR MEETING
OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN
ON TUNE 212009
1. CALL TO ORDER: CALL To 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 Govenunent
Center at 7:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL
Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons
PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Jeffrey Burn, Glenn
Krietsch, Baker Nimry and Joseph Rush
ABSENT: Members Steven Young and Wayne Ziemer
IN ATTENDANCE: Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES; MINUTES
REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 6, 2009
Motion by Member Krietsch, seconded by Member Rush to approve the
minutes of the January 6, 2009 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as
amended. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business to discuss.
5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS
A. BLUM — 3000 COOLIDGE STREET — VARIATION — TO REDUCE Blum - 3000
COOLIDGE sTREMT
THE EXISTING 100 -FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONFORM _ VARIATION -
TO THE R -3 DISTRICT 40 -FOOT FRONT YARD REQUIREMENT REDUCE FRONT
YARDSETBACK
Chairman Davis swore in Charles and Catherine Blum, petitioners and owners
of the property. The applicant was seeking a variation to change the existing
I00 -foot front yard setback to 40 feet so that it would be consistent with the
other homes in the R -3 zoning district.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 14 May 5, 2009
Mr. Blum, reviewed the request and provided the history and background of the
property located at 3000 Coolidge
In 1992, they purchased the property at 3000 Coolidge from Sandy & Jonathan
Keehn, who at that time, lived next door at 3006 Coolidge. Their residence had
a screened porch at the minimum side yard setback facing the Blum lot to the
north. The Blum's were told that that the 100 -foot front yard setback was
specified on the plat because they used the porch frequently and did not want
anyone to build very close to the area where it might impact their enjoyment.
They also had some 40 -foot spruce trees adjacent to the porch that they wanted
to protect.
The Keehn's sold the property at 3006 Coolidge nine years ago (2000) to a
developer. The developer demolished the house and cleared the lot. Four years
ago, the current neighbor built a house with a 40 -foot front yard setback. A
side entry drive and garage now occupy the space where the Keehn's spruce
trees and screened porch once stood.
Over the past four years they have explored many construction options to
further enjoy their Oak Brook residence. They now feel the unusual
circumstances of the Keehn's 1992 extraordinary 100 -foot front yard setback
are no longer pertinent and that the extraordinary front yard setback stipulated
presents a significant hardship to any feasible addition to thc-ir residence and
continued enjoyment in this village. All the houses on Coolidge street have an
approximate 40 -foot front yard setback.
They discussed their situation with the neighbors, who were in agreement with
their position and letters were submitted in support of the request.
They are seeking a 40 -foot front yard setback consistent with the R -3 zoning
requirements in their neighborhood.
Mr. Blum reviewed the variation standards 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 unusual 100 -foot front yard setback is imposed only on this
parcel, in their subdivision and would probably restrict the value of the
property if at any time in the future they wished to sell this property. The
extraordinary setback impedes the value of the property.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 14 May 5, 2009
lb) The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.
RESPONSE: When the property was purchased in 1992, the plat contained a
100- foot front yard setback specification, not the 40 -foot minimum
requirement under R -3 zoning, because original seller used their nearby
screened porch frequently and did not want anyone to build close to this area
where it might affect their ambiance and mature spruce trees' root structure.
The porch and trees were removed when a developer bought the neighbor's
land in 2000. The current neighbor built a garage and side entry drive in the
area where the trees and porch were.
lc) The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality.
RESPONSE: The variation, if granted, would more likely improve the
character and zoning consistency of the locality, since their residence is oddly
the only one on the street with a front yard setback greater than 40 feet
2a) , 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 regulations were to be
carried out.
RESPONSE: They have a natural ravine woodland prairie in the backyard, the
useable backyard lawn is small, they have a masonry deck attached to the back
of the home, and the master bedroom and bath encompass th% entire back of
the 2nd floor of the house. These are significant reasons in addition to the
layout of the existing home, and why it is not economically feasible to
construct any addition to the back of their home.
2b) The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would
not be applicable generally to the other property within the same
zoning classification.
RESPONSE: The petition for variation is to allow the front yard setback of
their property to be treated consistently with properties in the same zoning
classification. Theirs is the only property in the area with the extraordinary
I00 -foot front yard setback restriction.
2c) 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: They did not believe that granting the variation would be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or
improvements in the neighborhood whatsoever.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 14 May S, 2009
2d) 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: They did not believe the proposed variation will impair an
adequate supply of light whatsoever to the closest neighbor to the south and the
only other neighbor to the west. Additionally, there should not be any increase
in the danger of fire or other endangerment with the proposed variation. They
believe the proposed variation, being consistent with all the other front yard
setbacks on the street, could only increase the property value within the
neighborhood.
2e) That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a
desire to make more money out of the property.
RESPONSE: The purpose of the variation requested is to provide for greater
utility of their residence by feasibly allowing for construction options of an
additional bedroom/office, and further enhance their neighborhood experience.
Having built a comfortable, modest home in 1992, they now have a larger
family and would like to enlarge the space more in line with the average Oak
Brook home today.
2f) That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any
person presently having an interest in the property.
RESPONSE: The original seller created the hardship when he imposed the
100 -foot setback to protect his personal interest at that time. In 2000, the
original house and circumstances were no longer existent. The original seller
has no current interest in their property whatsoever.
Member Rush said that he did not understand why the board at that time ever
approved the request, because it was an issue that could easily have been
handled with covenants. The idea of zoning is to create all property in a district
the same, as much as possible. The 100 -foot setback imposed created an
oddball lot. He suggested rescinding the original imposition of the 100 -foot
setback.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that there were only two
avenues for Mr. Blum to proceed for relief. One was to seek the variation as
presented; the other would have been to amend the previous subdivision plat.
Under that scenario, it would have taken both property owners to accomplish
that. This is a hardship for the applicant, who did not impose the 100 -foot
setback on the plat.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 14 May 5, 2009
Member Rush expressed concerns that the variation would only allow the
construction of the addition to the existing house, but would exclude any other
accessory structures in the future.
Chairman Davis noted that the applicant was not seeking relief to build a
specific plan, but rather to have a 40 -foot setback in order to be consistent with
other lots in their subdivision. A variation would run with the land.
Director of Community Development Kallien -said that he talked to Village
Engineer Durfey, who has been with the village for over 30 years and he could
not recall another situation like this one.
Chairman Davis noted that this lot was an anomaly because of the specific
desire of the person who originally owned the two lots at that time and imposed
the restriction in order to protect his view and the spruce trees.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the person who imposed
the restriction of the 100 -foot setback is gone and the original house no longer
exists.
Mrs. Blum said that the lot had been sold twice prior to the construction of their
next -door neighbor's home.
Member Krietsch questioned whether a letter of approval had been received
from the next -door neighbor.
Gail Polanek responded that she had personally spoken with the next -door
neighbor at 3006 Coolidge and when he called, stated that he supported the
request to change the setback.
Mr. Blum added that the next -door neighbor's wife had also signed one of the
letters supporting the request and that they also received a letter of support from
the only other neighbor at 3005 Coolidge that could see the subject area.
Director of Community Development Kallien commented that the Village of
Oak Brook is the neighbor to the north and did not object to the request.
Chairman Davis said that the applicant had addressed the standards in writing
on pages C -C.1 of the case file and in his testimony as required in order to
recommend approval of the requested variation to change the 100 -.Coot front
yard setback at 3000 Coolidge to 40 feet.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 14 May 5, 2009
Motion by Member Rush, seconded by Member Nimry, that the applicant had
addressed the standards as required in order to recommend approval of the
requested variation to change the existing 100 -foot front yard setback at 3000
Coolidge to 40 feet. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: 5 — Members Bulin, I<rietsch, Nimry, Rush and Davis
Nays: 0 —None
Absent: 2 — Members Young and Ziemer. Motion Carried.
5. B. THE CLUBHOUSE OAK BROOK — 298 OAKBROOK CENTER— THE CLUBHOUSE
OAK BROOK - 298
SPECIAL USE — OUTDOOR DINING AREA ADJACENT TO A osC - SPECIAL USE
RESTAURANT -- OUTDOOR DINING
AREA
Chairman Davis swore in Mark O'Sullivan, General Manager of The Clubhouse
restaurant. He noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals was in receipt of the
Plan Commission recommendation and that they unanimously approved the
requested special use, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. O'Sullivan said that The Clubhouse would like to amend its existing
special use for outdoor dining that was granted in 1998. In the summer of
20081 the Barnes and Noble (located next to The Clubhouse) asked for and
received permission to use part of the Clubhouse property for construction of
their new facility in the Oakbrook Center. This caused significant changes to
the facade, planter and railings on the existing west side patio. They believe by
amending the existing special use permit it would be an opportunity to improve
both the appearance and safety of the current patio that would not only protect
the public safety and welfare, but would increase it. Pages J, K, N and O of the
case file depict the existing and new railings that would be used. Part of the
area was given to Barnes and Noble so that their design could be completed.
The design change is primarily to provide for a more visually pleasing aesthetic
between their restaurant and Barnes and Noble, and also would provide better
safety for the public by replacing the current wrought iron barriers with
permanent steel barriers.
The first request is to change the current barrier and design in order to improve
the visual appearance and allow it to flow uniformly with the new
barrier /fencing that had been installed at Barnes and Noble. The second part of
the request was to make it a permanent barrier system; primarily for safety
concerns because they believe a permanent barrier would provide more safety
and stability than a temporary barrier. Taking the barriers in and out each year
tends to lessen their structural integrity. When the new permanent
barrier /fencing is installed they will re -core all of the holes in the cement.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 14 May 5, 2009
While amending the request, they believed this would be the perfect
opportunity to expand the outdoor seating area to a similar area on the southeast
side of the restaurant. The outdoor seating expansion would allow The
Clubhouse Oak Brook to better compete with neighboring restaurants with
substantial outdoor seating that have been constructed since the original special
use was approved in 1998, most notably those located in the Lombard area,
especially down Butterfield Road where at least 20 new restaurants have been
constructed since 1998. The Clubhouse would also be better able to
accommodate and serve its clientele and the public interest, which previously
had to be turned away due to inadequate seating availability. The increase in
revenue that this would provide had become especially important in these
difficult economic times. The patio generated revenues of almost one - quarter
million in 2008.
They were also seeking some other small changes to the special use by allowing
outdoor portable heaters. They did not plan to utilize them at this time, but
would like the ability to do so should the need arise. Heaters are already in
place at other locations within the Oakbrook Center. If utilized, they would
ensure that the health, safety and welfare of the public are protected
They were also seeking to change some of the previous conditions, by allowing
all of the service stations to be maintained inside the restaurant due to sanitary
concerns. He spoke with Ramesh Patel, with the DuPage County Health
Department who agreed with this change as well.
In 1998, the patio lights were on the same circuit and since that time the
Oakbrook Center has changed the patio lights so that they are on a separate
circuit, so there is no longer a need to cover them, they can be turned off when
the patio is in use.
He noted that Chuck Fleming, the Senior General Manager of the Oakbrook
Shopping Center LLC approved the request, a copy of which was in the case
file.
Chairman Davis noted that the Plan Commission recommended approval of the
request subject to several conditions.
Mr. O'Sullivan addressed the special use standards 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: Not applicable for this case.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 14 May 5, 2009
Is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health,
safety and welfare will be protected; and
RESPONSE: The outdoor dining area would be operated in accordance with
the rules of operations submitted and would protect the public health, safety and
welfare. The Clubhouse has been operating an outdoor seating area since 1998
without incident or harm to either the public or its patrons.
2. Would not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in
the neighborhood in which it is located.
RESPONSE: The granting of the additional outdoor dining area would have no
negative affect to other property. The second outdoor seating area would
improve the visual appeal of the property by adding a symmetrical look to
coincide with the approved existing outdoor seating area. An adequate walkway
would be provided so that pedestrian traffic is not affected or impeded and
snow removal would not be hindered in any way.
Member Nimry, commented that he would like to see the plan reviewed by the
Fire Department.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that he would have the
Fire Department review the plan as part of the permit process.
Director of Community Development Kallien noted that there was one feature
of the old special use as well as many of the other special uses that are in place
regarding time constraints. The provision is where they set up on April 1 and
they are removed on October 15 of each year. The Village has been incurring a
lot of problems with that restriction due to the nice weather that occurs in the
fall. Last year the department received numerous calls, especially from the
Promenade, Kona Grill, Grotto and McCormick and Schmick, which could not
have their seating areas open when it was 75 degrees outside at the end of
October and early November. Across the street, among others, Red Stone in
Oakbrook Terrace had a lot of outdoor dining business. Over time we may
have some of these developments come back and seek an amendment to modify
the time constraints, especially those uses that are self - enclosed with a defined
patio area and its own access from inside the restaurant. The timeframe
imposed is almost an impediment.
Chairman Davis questioned whether there would be an easier way than to
require each outdoor dining area to come back to seek this change.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it was not in the
Code, but is contained in many of the special use ordinances that have been
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 14 May 5, 2009
approved. The Oakbrook Center originally started the outdoor dining process
and was passed on to each ordinance. No one objected to the restriction until
recently. In the new requests, the timeframe has been removed. In the case of
The Clubhouse, snow removal is not an issue because it will, be a permanent
barrier. Some of the older restaurants in Oakbrook Center have an area right in
front of the restaurant where there is a single area of chairs and tables, so it may
be tight for snow removal, which was some of the rationale of the timeframe
restriction.
Chairman Davis noted that the applicant addressed the standards as required for
the approval of the special use in writing on page D of the case file and in his
testimony The conditions of operation were spelled out on pages 7.a. and 7.b
of the case file.
Motion by Member Nimry, seconded by Member Bulin, that the Zoning Board
of Appeals concurred with the findings of the Plan Commission and that the
applicant addressed the standards as required in order to recommend approval
of the special use for the outdoor dining areas adjacent to the restaurant as
requested, subject to the following conditions.
1. The development of the outdoor dining areas shall be in substantial
conformance with the revised plans as submitted and approved.
2. The perimeter planter/barriers will be permanent and constructed in
accordance with the plans submitted.
3. The restaurant will be responsible for maintaining and cleaning the
outdoor areas and shall comply with all applicable requirements of the
DuPage County Health Department.
4. The outdoor dining areas will be operated in accordance with the
following amended rules of operation:
a. The outdoor seating will expand to not only include an outdoor seating
area located on the Southwest side of the restaurant, but also an
outdoor seating area on the Southeast side as well. No more than 40
seats may be provided on each patio for a maximum of 80 seats.
b. A permanent barrier system of painted steel to match the existing
newly installed railing near the entrance to Barnes and Noble will
replace the copper and iron planter boxes previously in place. Each
six -foot section will feature a metal flower box that is water tight with
internal drainage to allow for live greenery and seasonal flowers. In
the winter, the metal flower boxes will incorporate material
appropriate for the winter season. The barrier system will be anchored
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 14 May 5, 2009
into the concrete and locked together. They will meet or exceed the
barricade standards approved or required by the village.
c. The emergency egress gates shall open out only and be three (3) feet
wide and labeled "Exit Only."
d. Access to the outdoor dining areas shall be through the restaurant
only.
e. Portable heaters may be used.
5. Comply with all other applicable rules and ordinances of the Village of
Oak Brook.
6. Add the provision "Not withstanding 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, Nim.ry, Rush and Davis
Nays: 0 —None
Absent: 2 -- Members Young and Ziemer. Motion Carried.
5. C. LABRIOLA CAFE — 3021 BUTTERFIELD ROAD -- SPECIAL USE �- 3021 UT cAl:ia
3021 BUTTERFIEI.D
OUTDOOR DINING AREA ADJACENT TO A RESTAURANT RD - SPECIAL USE --
OUTDOOR DINING
Chairman Davis swore in those that would testify at the hearing. He noted that
the Zoning Board of Appeals was in receipt of the Plan Commission
recommendation and that they unanimously approved the requested special use,
subject to certain conditions.
Nicholas Andrews, General Manager of the Labriola Bakery Cafe reviewed the
request for special use approval for an outdoor dining area to be located in front
of their restaurant. It would allow them to increase their seating for an
additional 28 patrons outside. They feel as though the cafe has met with some
great success since they opened in November 2008. In the spirit of their
French bistro style cafe, it lends itself very well to outdoor seating. They felt
that this would be a good fit to the Oak Brook Promenade, as there are currently
three other outdoor dining areas. The seating would be located inside metal
fencing, which would also be protected by permanent 650 pound concrete
barriers that would be decorated as planters to protect the dining area fTom the
vehicles in the parking lot.
Chairman Davis noted that the Plan Commission recommended approval
subject to the conditions on pages 8 -8.a of the case file.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 14 May 5, 2009
Mr. Andrews responded that they were agreeable to those conditions and
reviewed the special use standards 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: The public would have the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors
while dining. It also enhances the ability for further retailing with the other
neighbors in the Promenade. It also gives patrons the opportunity to enjoy the
landscape.
2. Is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public
health, safety and welfare will be protected; and
RESPONSE, The design and implementation of the outdoor dining area and
barrier system would be operated to protect the public health, safety and
welfare.
3. Would not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in
the neighborhood in which it is located.
RESPONSE: There would be no injury to other property in the area as a result
of the outdoor seating area.
Member Bulin asked whether there was a requirement that these outdoor dining
areas have an egress gate, since half of the outdoor dining area does not have an
egress gate.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that this issue was
somewhat unique in that part of the outdoor dining area would be accessed
through the restaurant and the other area is more of a seating area. A reason for
the egress gate may involve the liquor license that someone would come from
the outside and get in, instead of utilizing the front door. Most of the areas are
set up so that the only way you could access the dining area would be from the
restaurant. This property does have a liquor license. If approved as proposed,
it would be up to the restaurant manager to police that. This requirement has
been set up since the very first outdoor dining was approved along with the
timeframes.
Member Bulin questioned whether a gate was needed on either side of the
dining areas.
Gail Polanek added that historically, part of the reason for the gate was that
access to and from the outdoor dining areas was only accessed through the
restaurants. In order for patrons to exit the outdoor dining area in case of
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 14 May S, 2009
emergency, an egress gate was required, with the stipulations that it opened out
only and was not used as an entrance into the restaurants.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that it was a building code
issue, but in this case the only way people could utilize the west dining area
would be through an opening or a gate that would open both ways. By
allowing the opening then full access would be gained to the outdoor dining
area.
Member Nimry noted that if necessary, a gate could be added and moved to the
west side of the west dining area.
Mr. Andrews said that they would prefer to have it open on both sides. To his
knowledge, in the past, the outdoor dining areas have had emergency gates to
exit only for the purpose of maintaining a safe environment for the control of
alcohol and the underage drinking for those establishments that check ID cards
for minors on the way in. For their purposes they have a` liquor license but only
sell beer and wine to compliment some of the menu items and do not cater to
the young. The need for a gate of any kind is really unnecessary and is
included in the plan entirely for acceptance and approval of the outdoor dining
area.
Director of Community Development Kallien asked if people were waited on at
the tables or did they go inside to order their food.
Mr. Andrews responded that the patrons go inside to order their food.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the difference in
this particular restaurant that sets it apart from the Clubhouse and other similar
restaurants is that patrons are brought to their seats and the food and drinks are
actually ordered and served at the outdoor dining tables. So, there is a
differentiation on how some of them operate. Some restaurants want to
maintain a controlled environment.
Member Krietsch said that nonnally the motions are subject to permitting
requirements pursuant to all other codes of Oak Brook.
After a discussion among the members, it was determined to make a slight
modification to the approval so that the gate could be eliminated, but an
opening would be required in its place.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 14 May 5, 2009
Chairman Davis noted that the standards had been addressed in the testimony
presented and were provided in writing on page D of the case file. The Plan
Commission unanimously approved the request for the text amendment
Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Rush that the applicant
addressed the required standards to recommend approval of the requested
special use to allow an outdoor dining area adjacent to a restaurant as requested,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The development of the outdoor dining area shall be in substantial
conformance with the revised plans as submitted and approved.
2. The perimeter planter/barriers will be permanent and constructed in
accordance with the plans submitted.
3. The restaurant will be responsible for maintaining and cleaning the
outdoor areas and shall comply with all applicable requirements of the
DuPage County Health Department.
4. The outdoor dining areas will be operated in accordance with the
following rules of operation:
a. A maximum of 28 seats may be provided in the outdoor dining
areas and located adjacent to the building in the front area on both
sides of the front entrance.
b. The emergency egress gate, if any, located on the northeast side of
the front door shall open out only. If a gate is not installed, then an
opening will be provided in the fence to allow patrons access out of
the dining area. The northwest side of the outdoor dining area will
have an opening in the fence for easy access into and out of the
area.
c. A minimum four foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the outdoor dining
areas will be maintained at all times.
5. Comply with all other applicable rules and ordinances of the Village of
Oak Brook.
6. Add the provision "Not withstanding 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, Rush, Young and Davis
Nays: 0 — None
Absent: 2 — Members Nimry and Ziemer. Motion Carried.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 14 May 5, 2009
,1-�
6. OTHER BUSINESS OTHER BUSINESS
7.
Director of Community Development Kallien mentioned that an Appeal has
been filed with the Village and may be on the June 2, 2009 agenda.
On June 3, 2009 there will be a joint special meeting with the Plan Commission
and Zoning Board of Appeals for a public hearing on the Planned Unit
Development Regulations. It will be a new tool to process developments in the
Village. Instead of applying for various types of relief, special use, variations,
etc., it would allow give and take between the developer and the Village. The
village consultant will provide a presentation and review of the proposed
regulations.
There was no other business to discuss.
Motion by Member Rush, seconded by Member Bulin to adjourn the meeting at
8:30 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried
ATTEST:
Robert Kallre ire Co munity Development
Secretary
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 14 May 5, 2009
Iz-uc-
ADJOURNMEN'r