Loading...
Minutes - 05/31/2005 - Zoning Board of Appeals (2)MINUTES OF THE MAY 31, 2005 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON AUGUST 2, 2005. 1. 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 Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7 :34 p.m. Chairman Davis noted that the meeting has been rescheduled from June 7, 2005. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Richard Ascher, George Mueller, Manu Shah and Steven Young IN ATTENDANCE: Trustee, Robert Sanford and Director of Community Development, Robert Kallien, Jr. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR ZONING BOARD_ OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 3, 2005 Motion by Member Ascher, seconded by Member Shah, to approve the minutes of the May 3, 2005 Regular Zoning _Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. INTER CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT — 2221 CAMDEN COURT — INTER CONTINENTAL DEV TEXT AMENDMENT and SPECIAL USE — TO ALLOW DRIVE -IN 2221 CAMDEN CT— BANKING FACILITIES IN THE ORA -1 DISTRICT - TITLE 13 OF THE TEXT" AMENDMENT and SPECIAL USE — VILLAGE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE DRIVE-IN BANKING - ORA -1 DISTRICT Chairman Davis swore in Aristotle Halikias and Patricia Halikias, of Inter Continental Real Estate and Development and representing the owner, Republic Bankcorp Co. in their requests. Aristotle Halikias said that they are representing the owners of 2221 Camden Court located in the ORA -1 District, in their request for a text amendment; special use and variation to the setback requirement in order construct a drive -in VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 9 May 31, 2005 banking facility at that location. They are no longer seeking two of the other variations as listed on the application. They will only be seeking the variation to the side yard setback. Mr. Halikias provided some background information. The site is at the intersection of Butterfield Road and 22 "d Street. The road on the north side is Butterfield and on the south is 22 "d Street; the south west end of 22 "d Street is Camden Court, which is a small dead end cul -de -sac that acts as a drive for 3 office buildings, including 2221 Camden. Their building sits on the southeast corner of the intersection and is approximately 100,000 square feet in total square footage. Unlike other buildings in Oak Brook it is plagued with a great deal of vacancy. 75% of the building has been vacant for over 5 years. The new owners have obtained a request from a new tenant to accommodate approximately 75% of the first floor for a bank. The tenant is seeking to relocate its retail and corporate headquarters to this location, which is contingent upon the requirement of a drive -in facility and is the primary reason for the request. The drive -in facility would consist of 3 drive -ins in a horseshoe configuration off of the entrance into the parking lot for the property. The drive -thru would accommodate 3 bays and stacking for approximately 26 vehicles. Because the building is located on the corner, it has the difficulty of having 2 front setbacks. Although Camden Court is a very short street and is a dead end cul -de -sac it has the requirement and burden of a 100 -foot front yard setback. In order to construct the drive -thru they will need to reduce the required setback to approximately 64 feet instead of the required 100 foot setback, because of the location of the existing structure. However, if this were treated as a side yard, the side yard requirement would only be 30 feet. The first and second floor of the building has been completely vacant for about 5 years. The new tenant is requesting the drive thru for their bank and would lease approximately 75% of the first floor in order to relocate its facility into Oak Brook. It is the buildings owner belief that providing a retail component to this location would bring new attention to the building as well as the Camden Court area and thus bring more tenants and increase the occupancy rate for the building. The new drive in facility would also require the filling and expansion of the existing retention pond as well as providing an additional retention. pond to compensate for the filling of the existing pond. Based on the preliminary engineering it is believed they can accommodate all the detention requirements. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 9 May 31, 2005 Staff has signed off that the detention can be accommodated as well. Chairman Davis reviewed the requests being sought by the applicant and asked that the zoning amendment factors be addressed. He noted that they were addressed in writing on page I of the case file. Text Amendment Patricia Halikias addressed the factors as required standards as follows: (a) The character of the neighborhood. Response: The character will not be changed in any way by allowing a drive in banking facility. The area is mainly office with some retail areas which is consistent with what they are proposing. (b) The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restriction. Response: The current zoning allows for financial institutions, but does not address a drive up facility. The current market trend is that most banks today require drive up banking facilities; so this would conform from the economic trend. (c) The extent to which the removal of the existing limitations would depreciate the value of to other property in the area. Response: There would not be a negative impact to the surrounding properties. (d) The suitability of the property for the zoned purposes. Response: The current zoning allows for financial institutions so they believe that the drive -in banking is suitable for the permitted use of a bank. (e) The existing uses and zoning of nearby property. Response: The bank will have office and retail components which are consistent with the area. It will offer a drive up facility that does not exist in the immediate area. They believe this will be a benefit to the building as well as the community. (f) The length of time under the existing zoning that the property has remained unimproved considered in the context of land development. Response: This is not a relevant factor (g) The relative gain to the public as compare to the hardship imposed on the individual property owner. Response: They believe the drive up facility will be a gain to the public as it VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 9 May 31, 2005 will offer a convenience to the community. (h) The extent to which the proposal promotes the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public. Response: They believe as designed it promotes the health, safety and welfare and provides a convenient banking service to the community. (i) The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan. Response: It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is a complimentary use to financial institutions. 0) The community need for the use proposed by the property owner. Response: The community need for the proposed drive in banking facility is a convenience to the community. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the requested text amendment. The only people in the audience were Village Trustee Sanford and resident Nelly Naguib writing for the Oak Brook Civic Association. Chairman Davis questioned what retail uses existed in the area. Mr. Halikias responded that at that intersection there is office on all 4 corners, with the exception of the northwest corner where there is a restaurant. There is no further retail on Camden Court. Chairman Davis noted that the reason for the applicant's request for a continuance from the last meeting was to address the Village Engineer's issues regarding the traffic pattern. He asked for an explanation. Mr. Halikias responded that originally the plan had the entrance to the drive -in across from the existing entrance to the building on the west side of Camden Court. The Village Engineer pointed out that in certain hours (e.g., evening rush hour) if traffic was exiting Camden to go onto 22nd Street and traffic was also trying enter Camden in order to access the drive -in; there was the possibility that vehicles could be backed up onto 22nd. They recognized that was a possibility so they relocated the entrance to the drive -in to come in from of the existing parking lot and created the horseshoe for stacking, so that any possible back up would be contained on their property as opposed to any public streets. The revision as now proposed eliminates the need for 2 of the variations that were being sought. Member Young noted that the design for the proposed drive -in, compared to other drive -in banks; is very good from a security standpoint. It is strategically placed and convenient for its customers. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 9 May 31, 2005 Director of Community Development Kallien commented that in regards to other retails development, about %a mile to the west on the north side of the street is the Fountain Square development and across the street from that is the proposed Oak Brook Promenade. Chairman Davis said that it appears the petitioner has sufficiently addressed the factors that need to be satisfied in order to recommend the text amendment and are detailed on page I of the case file. Motion by Member Ascher, seconded by Member Young to recommend approval of the text amendment as requested adding "drive -in banking facilities" as a special use in the ORA -1 District. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Members Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 - None. Motion Carried Special Use Chairman Davis asked that the special use standards be addressed. Ms. Halikias addressed the special use standards as follows: (a) is not applicable. (b) Is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected. Response: The proposed special use for a drive -in banking facility has been designed so that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected. (3) Would not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located. Response: The proposed special use will not cause injury to the value of the property. They believe that it is located so it will bring exposure and awareness to the neighborhood and will hopefully promote more tenancy in the area. Chairman Davis questioned that it would not impact the characteristics of the neighborhood. Ms. Halikias responded that it would not. The drive up canopy itself consistent architecturally with the building and has a very small impact overall on the appearance. Chairman Davis asked if there should be any language inserted with respect to the detention areas. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 9 May 31, 2005 Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the size and location of the detention facilities as reconfigured are designed so that it meets the Village's regulations for storm water. It was Village Engineer Durfey's opinion that it meets the regulations. If the special use is approved by the Village Board, the applicant will need two additional actions by the Village; one would be the approval of a building permit for the actual construction and an engineering permit approving the storm water. Chairman Davis asked for a timetable standpoint. Mr. Halikias responded 4 -5 months, No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Chairman Davis noted that the Plan Commission recommended approval of the special use by a vote of 5 to 0. Chairman Davis said that it appeared that the petitioner had addressed the standards as required to recommend approval of the special use and are detailed on page J of the case file. Motion by Member Mueller, seconded by Member Ascher to recommend approval of the special use subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the proposed text amendment to the ORA -1 District to permit drive -in banking facilities as a special use. 2. The proposed construction is to be in substantial conformance with the revised plans in the case file on page 24, dated May 17, 2005 prepared by Tech Metra Ltd. and page 25, dated May 23, 2005 prepared by Roake and Associates, Inc. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Members Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 - None. Motion Carried Variation Mr. Halikias explained that there is a required setback of 100 feet from streets in the ORA -1 District. There are two 100 foot setbacks on this property even though Camden Court is a dead end cul -de -sac. They are seeking to reduce the side yard setback on Camden Court from 100 feet to 64 feet. (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. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 9 May 31, 2005 Response: The property has been approximately 80% vacant for some time. A bank is interested in occupying 70% of the first floor and would require a drive in banking facility to support its banking efforts. 1(b) The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Response: The plight of the owner and the building is due to the unique situation that the property is fronted by streets on two sides, of which Camden Court is a dead end cul -de -sac and acts primarily as an access drive, along with the current soft office market, which has plagued the area and caused the building to be under utilized and not viable. 1(c) The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The drive in banking facility will not alter the essential character of the area and would be in character with a financial institution. The proposed facility is in scale with the office building design and the traffic pattern. 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 it the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. Response: Camden Court is a dead end cul -de-sac and serves as an access drive for the properties. The required side yard setback on a corner lot is 100 feet. Due to the existing physical characteristics Camden Court primarily acts as a service drive to the 3 buildings. 2(b) The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning classification. Response: The condition for the proposed variation is due to the unique physical circumstances of Camden Court and the subject property. 2(c) The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. Response: The variation, if granted, will not be injurious or detrimental in any way to the public welfare of other property owners in the neighborhood. It would benefit the area and the community by providing a need for a drive up banking facility, which is not currently available in the immediate area. 2(d) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 9 May 31, 2005 air to adjacent property, or substantially increase danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair the property values within the neighborhood. Response: The proposed variation will not impair the supply of light and air to the adjacent property. The drive up facility is an open canopy hat has minimal impact of supply of light. The proposed drive up facility will be well lit and provide plenty of stacking space for the cars so that it can be operated safely. 2(e) That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property. Response: The proposed variation is not based upon a desire to make more money, but on generating viability to the subject property was well has the immediate area, which has been in a distressed state. 2(f) That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. Response: The hardship has been caused by current and existing economic trends in the office market not any one having an interest in the property. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the requested special use. Chairman Davis noted that proper notice had been given to all the property owners. He asked if any comments or objections had been made. Ms. Halikias responded that they had not received any. Chairman Davis said that it appeared that the petitioner addressed the standards as required to recommend approval of the variations and they are detailed in writing on page 26 of the case file. Motion by Member Shah, seconded by Member Ascher to recommend approval of the variation to the side yard setback from 100 feet to approximately 64 feet. The proposed construction is to be in substantial conformance with the revised plans in the case file on page 24, dated May 17, 2005 prepared by Tech Metra Ltd. and page 25, dated May 23, 2005 prepared by Roake and Associates, Inc. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Members Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 - None. Motion Carried VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 9 May 31, 2005 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 191 7. There was no new business to discuss. OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman Davis welcomed Trustee Robert Sanford as the liaison to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Davis reminded everyone that our next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting has been rescheduled to July 12, 2005. Chairman Davis also acknowledged that George Mueller may only be sitting on the Zoning Board of Appeals through July because he will be moving out of Oak Brook. He has served on the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals for a total of 14 years; 1991 -1999 on the Plan Commission and 1999- 2005 on the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Davis thanked Member Mueller for his dedication on the Zoning Board of Appeals over the last 5 years. There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Shah, seconded by Member Young to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: ---- -- Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 9 May 31, 2005 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT