Loading...
Minutes - 08/01/2006 - Zoning Board of AppealsMINUTES OF THE AUGUST 1, 2006 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Acting Chairman Richard Ascher in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Acting Chairman Richard Ascher, Members Jeffrey Bulin, Baker Nimry, Manu Shah and Steven Young ABSENT: Chairman Champ Davis and Member Glenn Krietsch IN ATTENDANCE: Robert Sanford, Trustee; Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development and Thomas Sheahan, Police Chief Acting Chairman Ascher announced with the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals the agenda items would be taken out of order. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JTJNE 28 2006 Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Nimry, to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2006 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: BUSIN lNESS us There was no unfinished business to discuss. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. KITSUTKIN — 506 WOOD ROAD —VARIATION —SECTION. 13 -6$- KITSUTKIN -506 WOOD ROAD - 3F 2(a) A SIDE YARD SETBACK ABUTTING A STREET -- TO VARIATION - SIDE ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE YARD - AALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE Acting Chairman Ascher swore in Dimitri Kitsutkin, the petitioner and owner VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 20 August 1, 2006 of the property at 506 Wood Road and Mike Cody, Cody Design Group, Inc., Naperville, Illinois, the project architect. Mr. Kitsutkin reviewed the request. He purchased the property in February of 2006 with the intention of redeveloping the lot. There was obvious knowledge of existing variations for the addition and knowledge that it would require a variation to be developed. They have been able to design the plans, which will reduce the existing variation and allow them to meet the required front yard, side yard setback and rear yard setback. The only variation they are requesting is the setback abutting Wood Road, which would be the same variation that was approved in 1992. The lot is zoned R -2 which are typically 1 acre parcels. This lot is only 15,000 square feet, which is about 2/3 less than the minimum requirements for the R -2 district. They were still able to design the new house to meet the existing setbacks, with the exception of the one requested. In his opinion, the existing house does not coincide with the neighborhood. It is an old home and the new home would beautify the area and conform to the neighborhood. Acting Chairman Ascher noted to the Zoning Board that consideration might want to be given that this property was annexed into the Village as a nonconforming lot. Mike Cody, the Design Architect said that the narrow lot is 74 feet wide, which presented challenges in the design. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request and no letters of opposition were contained in the case file. Member Nimry questioned that there are approximately 17 lots in that area that are about the same size. He questioned if everyone one of those homes wanted to do something they would be required to come in and request relief, which would be comparable to asking for relief from the R -2 requirements to the R -3 requirements; is there something the Village can do about this situation. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that 2 houses have been built on Wood over the last several years that did not require variances. In some cases, there are ways to accommodate redevelopment. This particular lot has double frontage requirements; therefore, it has an inherent hardship in coming close to the setbacks. If additional variation requests would come from lots on Wood Road, then we could possibly recommend to the Village Board that instead of dealing with these issues on a case -by -case basis, maybe it should be reviewed more comprehensively to determine what might be the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 20 August 1, 2006 correct zoning. Member Nimry noted that behind the property there is a 40 -foot frontage, so it would stick out. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it would. However, the existing house already encroaches. The conditions will remain somewhat similar, but there would be a much nicer and more modern home in its place. Member Bulin said that the R -2 district has side yard setback of 18 feet, but this property shows a 10 -foot setback. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in the Zoning Ordinance, there is a provision that says for lots that were created prior to 1966, and are very narrow; they can have a setback that is 10 percent of the lot, but not less than 10 feet. That provision is used quite a bit in this area as well as in Timber Trails. Member Bulin noted that the elevations do not match the floor plan and although they do show the design intent, they do not depict the structure of which they are seeking a variance. Mr. Cody responded that the elevations were drawn for a home that was a little narrower and they have developed the site plan and will keep with the same context. They plan to go further in the design when directed by Mr. Kitsutkin. Mr. Kitsutkin responded that they had designed the home with the elevations shown when submitted for review to the Village. However, they would have needed to seek 2 variations. They discussed it with staff and had a meeting with the architect to try to find a solution to provide less of an encroachment, which is shown in the floor plan. Taking into consideration the amount of work that is required, they left the previous elevation to give an idea of what would be built. It will be smaller, but will have exactly the same design. The elevation was designed for this lot, but was not updated for a version with less of an encroachment. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the original submittal had an encroachment out to Washington. The site plan was very difficult to determine the setback since the lot goes out to the middle of the street. Once that was identified with staff, they needed to shrink the house. Member Bulin said that the detached garage has a shared driveway and VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 20 August 1, 2006 7i� questioned if it were a prescribed easement on the property. Mr. Kitsutkin responded there was. Acting Chairman Ascher asked who would occupy the structure when it is constructed. Mr. Kitsutkin responded that they have not decided yet whether they want to move into the house because they have 2 small boys and where they are currently living is very close to the school. This neighborhood is where they want to be, but there are a couple of factors that come into play. At this point they are about 75 percent leaning toward moving into the house. Acting Chairman Ascher asked if there was a homeowners association and Mr. Kitsutkin responded that there was not. Acting Chairman Ascher noted for the record that all of the neighbors were notified of the request and no one appeared in objection to the request. He also noted that the applicant is required to address certain standards for approval of the variation and the applicant explained this very well in writing. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the variation as requested by the property owner must comply with the plans as approved by this variation. If the property was sold and they desired to build something different, they would be required to seek a new variation. Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry that the applicant has addressed and satisfied the required standards in writing on pages C -Cl of the case file to recommend approval of the variation to Section 13- 6B- 3F.2(a) as requested for the property at 506 Wood Road to allow the construction of a new residence subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction to be completed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted on pages H and Hl case file. 2. Allow the reduction of the required 40 -foot side yard on Wood Road to approximately 22.9 feet. 3. Elevations are to be refined to comply with the approved site plan and floor plan. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 — Members Bulin, Nimry, Shah, Young and Acting Chairman Ascher Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 2 — Chairman Davis and Member Krietsch. Motion Carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 20 August 1, 2006 14 OW - S B LUBENOW -- 16 ROBIN HOOD RANCH -- VARIATIONS — SECTION LUi3ROBIN EN OW- 13- 6B -3F(1) and (3) — TO REDUCE A PORTION OF THE FRONT AND RANCH - REAR YARD SETBACKS — TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF VARIATIONS - To FRONT + REAR SEVERAL ADDITIONS AND REMODELING OF THE EXISTING YARD SETBACKS -- RESIDENCE ADDITIONS AND REMODELING Acting Chairman Ascher swore in Tim Lubenow, the petitioner and owner of the property at 16 Robin Hood Ranch, Richard Olsen, Project Architect and a neighbor Carl Hanke that would provide testimony. Mr. Lubenow reviewed the request. They purchased the property in March of 2006 with the intention of renovating it for their family. They are faced with 4 hardships. The first relates to the R -2 zoning, which generally applies to lots that are one acre or greater. This lot is just over one -half acre in size. There are also unique features that restrict ones ability to add on to the existing floor plan. The second is that it is an irregular shaped lot. The third is the positron of the home on the lot. The fourth hardship they encountered was the fact that they were not made aware of any of the encroachments prior to buying the house. They had asked the previous owners of record if there were any limitations or encroachments on the setbacks and were told there was none. They obtained a plat of survey that did not indicate any encroachments on the setback. On the old survey, there is no mention of any setbacks to the west and south. As they went through the process, they had their own survey redrawn and it demonstrates where the encroachments should have been included on the plat of survey they received at closing, which was on file with the Village of Oak Brook and DuPage County. They are asking for four areas that require a variance. 1. The first one relates to a previous area of the house, which was granted a variance in 1988 when one of the previous owners built a master bedroom and sought an 11 -foot encroachment into the rear yard. The Zoning Board at that time granted the request, However, when the structure was actually built it encroached by approximately almost 16 feet as they finally discovered when they had their plat of survey redrawn. They are seeking to build a second story over the previously granted encroachment. 2. The second area relates to building an enclosed porch over an aging patio that is in need of repair. They believe that having an enclosed porch is more beneficial because they face the woods in the rear and that would provide a harsher environment in regards to insects. In order to appreciate the house they would like to build an enclosed porch over the existing patio. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 20 August 1, 2006 Moo 3. The third area, requested is to build a window seat over the master bedroom, which would match the existing eaves on the house. The eaves on the house were never drawn on the initial plat of survey and extend 3 feet. The 3 -foot eave encroaches over the setback to the front of the house and the rear. Their design would have eaves that are 12- inches, which will improve the setbacks in several areas when it is remodeled. 4. The last request is for a front window that would encroach approximately 1 -foot 9- inches; whereas the current structure as it is built has eaves that encroach approximately Meet. When they finish the plans will actually improve the setback encroachment by approximately one and one -half foot. Mr. Carl Hanke, 11 Robin Hood Ranch, resides directly east of the property and said that they are probably the most affected property by this variation and are very much in favor of it. It would be a welcomed addition to the neighborhood and they hope that the Village approves the request. In June, the Robin Hood Ranch residents had a meeting with a quorum and they voted in favor to support the application. He is concerned that if the petition is denied the property may be sold to a developer that would build a starter castle, which would be rather large and obtrusive. He said that he hopes this nice development proceeds. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to the request. Member Bulin said that it is much easier to vote on a variation when the drawings are complete and accurate. Member Nimry said that it was noted in the file that the Village had talked to the Robin Hood Ranch Homeowner Association regarding possibly changing the zoning in the neighborhood from R -2 to R -3 however, the association rejected the idea. He said that the Village might need to consider beginning to reflect reality. If most of the lots in the neighborhood are really R -3, a strong recommendation should be given to the Village Board to change it to R -3. Residents are required to go through this hassle when the properly is zoned R -2, when it should be zoned R -3. It would make it easier to rebuild; or whatever the case may be. The file contained many pictures of homes in the neighborhood and there may be many teardowns in the future. He asked if it would be easier for redevelopment if the property were zoned R -3 rather than R -2. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that this subdivision VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 20 August 1, 2006 e. was created prior to Oak Brook's inception. It is zoned R -2 and the vast majority of the lots do comply more with the R -3 requirements than the R -2. Earlier this year he did have an opportunity to speak with a number of residents during a meeting with the group. They discussed the benefits or what could be the negatives of R -3 versus the R -2 zoning. There is some apprehension on behalf of some of the owners that by converting to an R -3 scenario, if someone would buy 2 or 3 of the lots they could then come in, resubdivide, and end up with more lots than presently exists, which is a dilemma that could be faced. However, the fact is that the subdivision is somewhat dated as well as some of the homes. If the zoning remains R -2, it is his opinion that the Village will receive more requests similar to this one. Member Nimry said the process is costly for the homeowners. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that the homeowners did not create the problem. The imposition of the zoning in essence creates the problem. Member Nimry questioned how it could be made easier for these homeowners. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it could be made known to the Trustees. It will be reflected in the minutes and Trustee Sanford has heard what the issue is. Member Bulin said that he is not in favor of the request to change the zoning to R -3. There are lots in the Robin Hood Ranch area that back up to true R -2 lots. The problem is that there is some intermingling of R -2 with R -3 so any zoning map change would be very inconsistent and difficult to do. The advantage of the R -2 is that there is a review process for review through the Village so that there are not teardowns for McMansions. The people that have the true R -2 lots in this area would prefer that it stay R -2 to avoid any subdividing of larger parcels. There are some parcels that are over one acre. If they were switched to R -3 then they could get 2 lots out of these parcels. Member Nimry said that he understood that reasoning, but if the bulk of the parcels fit R -3 zoning then we should reflect the reality of those lots. Member Bulin said that the zoning maps were created arbitrarily. The designation that someone came up with R -2, one acre zoning, was arbitrarily done by a previous Board. However, that was determined when the map was made; they determined that the larger parcel was the better good for this area as R -2 rather than R -3. At this point, it may be better to stay with this and many VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 20 August 1, 2006 people in the area would object to a change to R -3. Mr, Hanke, said that he has lived in the area for 40 years and knows the neighbors quite well and they are not in favor of rezoning, They want it to stay the way that it is because the possibility of a developer coming in and buying two lots, then he could build three houses, would totally change the character of the neighborhood, They hope that proposal is of more interest to people on York Road who want to redevelop, which is a long way away from them, They don't think they should be dragged into their zoning problem. He does not think anyone is in favor of a zoning change in Robin Hood Ranch. They will have to live with these little problems and potential variations on future additions. They do not officially have an architectural review committee. The Lubenow's posted their plans on the front door, they had a meeting and they satisfied all the residents and they like their plan. Acting Chairman Ascher noted that all of the neighbors were notified and a letter was also contained in the file that was sent by the Lubenow's to the neighbors. The Zoning Board is required to see that certain standards are adhered to and he noted that the standards have been addressed in writing in the case file. Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry that the applicant has addressed and satisfied the required standards in writing on pages C -C.3 of the case file to recommend approval of a variation to Section 13- 6B -3F.1 and Section 13- 6B -3F.3 as requested for the property at 16 Robin Hood Ranch to allow the construction of several additions and remodeling to the existing residence subject to the following conditions: 1. Allow the reduction- of the required 40 -foot front yard setback to approximately 38.3 feet for a portion of the front yard. 2. Allow the reduction of the required 60 -foot rear yard setback to approximately 45 feet to accommodate a second story addition above the existing nonconforming house, to build a screened porch and remodeling as shown on the plans as submitted. 3. Construction to be completed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted on pages on pages L -L1, Site Plan and building plans on page N and of the case file. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 -- Members Bulin, Nimry, Shah, Young and Acting Chairman Ascher Nays: 0 -- None. Absent: 2 -- Chairman Davis and Member Krietsch. Motion Carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 20 August 1, 2006 C STARBUCKS COFFEE -- 2407 22ND STREET — MAP AMENDMENT — TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM ORA -1_TO B -3, TEXT AMENDMENT — SECTION 13 -7C.2 SPECIAL USES, TO ADD THE TEXT "OUTDOOR DINING AREAS ADJACENT TO RESTAURANTS" SPECIAL USE — TO ALLOW AN OUTDOOR DINING AREA ADJACENT TO A RESTAURANT SPECIAL USE — TO ALLOW A DRIVE -IN FACILITY. Director of Community Development Kallien provided a brief description of the request. The property is located at the southeast corner of Tower Drive and 22nd Street. The site is currently occupied by Alpha- Graphics is zoned ORA -1 and is .77 acres, which is less than one acre. Directly east of the property is B -3 zoning; to the north is Oakbrook Terrace and aligns up with the Home Depot; and to the west is more traditional office space and zoning. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building in order to construct an approximate 2000 square foot stand -alone Starbucks, with a drive -thru and limited outdoor seating area. Access would be directly off of Tower Drive and would exit back onto Tower before accessing 22nd Street. The applicant is seeking rezoning to B -3, a text amendment to add outdoor dining as a special use in the B -3 district, a special use for the outdoor dining and a special use for the drive -thru; and a variation to locate the parking lot setback, from 10 feet to approximately S feet. The Plan Commission had asked that the Police Chief appear at this meeting to answer any questions relative to provide testimony relative to the safety issue. Acting Chairman Ascher swore in Ted Johnson, President of Design Strategies, 2311 22nd Street, Oak Brook is the authorized representative of Starbucks, Chip Beltchenko, Development Manager, Starbucks Coffee Company, Michael Achim, Construction Manager, Starbucks, that would provide testimony as well as persons in the audience. Ted Johnson, President of Design Strategies, 2311 22nd Street, Oak Brook a certified planner and a licensed landscape architect is the authorized agent of Starbucks and Ed Monty, who has been the property owner for the last 38 years. Chip Beltchenko, Development Manager, Starbucks Coffee Company, said that he is responsible for real estate functions. Michael Achim, Construction Manager/Project Manager, Starbucks in the Midwest. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 20 August 1, 2006 STARBUCKS — 2407 22N° ST — MAP AMENDMENT — TO REZONE FROM ORA- I TO B -3, TEXT AMENDMENT SPECIAL USES — and VARIATIONS — TO CONSTRUCT STAND ALONESTARBUCKS Mr. Johnson reviewed the site plan, aerial pictures, exhibits, and some of the points raised at the Plan Commission. He reviewed the zoning designation in the area. He said that the subject property is zoned ORA -1. He noted that the zoning is B -3 just east of the property and ORA -1, everything south of 22nd Street and directly east is in the B -3 district. They are requesting to rezone their property to B -3 for the proposed use and they believe that Tower Drive is an appropriate zoning demarcation from the change from ORA -1 to B -3. The Plan Commission agreed and recommended approval. There is an existing structure on the site with approximately 6000 square feet. The lot size is approximately 120 by 280 feet in depth, containing less than an acre, roughly 33,000 square feet. The proposal is to demolish the present structure and develop a free standing Starbucks approximately 2000 square feet with a drive -thru and an outdoor seating area. The proposal is for a freestanding building. On the north end of the building is the proposed outdoor dining area. There is a drive -thru with a window on the east side of the building. The site has 2 access points off of Tower. Employee parking will be on the south side of the drive -thru. There will be a patron parking area located on the west side of the building. During discussion with staff and with knowledge of the sub area corridor plan and how there could be some alternate road networks to alleviate traffic congestion on 22nd Street, the thought of cross - access between properties was brought up earlier in the year when they started the project. To address that, they provided in their site plan at the very southern end of the site and directly north of the Village's water tower. There are reserving a 30 -foot easement to accommodate a potential future cross - access drive to the property east of the site that would allow them to gain access to Tower Drive. It will be important as the overall corridor plan develops, to see how the cross access from other properties adjacent to public streets work out. By providing that 30 -foot easement, they have requested a reduced front yard setback from 100 feet to approximately 69 feet. They believe that the request for the rezoning from ORA -1 to B -3 is consistent with the land uses in the corridor. He said that a written response to the map amendment factors was submitted in the file and presented to the Plan Commission, which recommended approval. The proposal also includes the request for a text amendment for outdoor dining in the B -3 district. The ordinance currently has a provision for outdoor dining as a special use areas in the B -1 and B -2 District. They feel that outdoor dining in the B -3 District is also appropriate, consistent and complimentary to existing uses with the 22nd Street Butterfield Road corridor. A written response to the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 20 August 1, 2006 1:� text amendment factors was submitted in the file and presented to the Plan Commission, which recommended approval. There is a special use request for is a request for an outdoor dining area. There are 2 areas for access. There is an access from the building to the outdoor dining area as well as a pedestrian access from the parking lot to the outdoor area. One of the concerns from the Plan Commission was the protective barrier that would be provided from the traffic the parking area and the drive -thru area. In the case file, the details are provided. They have proposed bollards as part of the fence around the entire outdoor area. Every six feet there will be a bollard that will be installed in concrete, which will basically be the post for the railing. The other special use is for the drive -thru facility. One of the concerns at the Plan Commission meeting was the stacking area. They presented traffic and usage information as to how the drive -thru at 3 other Starbucks facilities has been used. Typically, this type of freestanding Starbucks facility has provision for 6 spaces. In this particular site plan they were able to provide for 9 vehicles. The information from the 3 other stores, which are mature stores. One is 4 years old and one is 8 years old from Deerfield, Lake Zurich and Naperville. The information showed the hourly usage and the 9 spaces were well sufficed for the usage that occurs at the drive -thru facility. The target time is approximately 45 seconds for a vehicle to be at facility. The highest use was between 7 and 8 a.m. In Naperville, there were 62 cars for that hour. After providing that information to the Plan Commission at their second meeting, they also recommended approval for the special use for the drive -thru facility. They are seeking a variation request to the required 100 -foot front yard setback to approximately 69 feet due to the lot configuration and size. It is a very small lot when you look at all of the other parcels in the corridor. They identified only 4 other lots that did not have the depth from 22nd Street all the way back to the tollway. Most of the lots along the south side of 22"d Street, from 22nd Street to the tollway or the ComEd right of way, which is adjacent to the tollway. The four that do not are Walgreen's, the subject property, the office building directly west of the subject property and an office building on Camden Court and 22nd Street. In each of those cases, the 100 -foot setback is not met. He reviewed aerial photographs and Sidwell maps. Walgreen's has a setback of approximately 70 feet. The office building at Camden has an approximate 75- foot setback and the office building directly west has a setback of approximately 50 feet. Their request is consistent with what is developed in the corridor on the smaller lots that do not have the depth that a majority of the lots have. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 20 August 1, 2006 The other request is for a reduction in the parking lot setbacks on Tower Drive. They meet the required building setback. Because the lot width is 120 feet, it is very difficult to get driveway, parking, building, and a drive lane within that area. The Ordinance requires 10 feet and they are proposing 5 feet. If the intent of the 10 feet is to provide an area for landscaping to screen the parking lot, then they could easily, and have suggested, a more intense landscape screen within the 5 -foot, which would meet the intent and spirit of the ordinance. The variation standards were provided in writing in the case file and addressed 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: Subject property is 120 x 280 and is 33,000 square feet. They are proposing a Starbucks requiring the 2 variations as they have been outlined. They have provided for a future cross across road located at the south end of the property. The limited size of the property and the provision for cross access is desired by the Village to create exceptional situations that are further burdened by the strict application of the zoning setback. 1. b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: They believe the unique circumstance is the limited lot size and lot width of the subject property as well as it being a corner lot. 1. c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: Numerous smaller businesses in the 22 "d Street corridor have similar situations. The front yard setback as well as the Tower Road setback, if granted would be consistent with what is developed in the corridor and would not alter the essential character of the surrounding property. The neighbor to the west of their has a smaller setback on 22 "d Street than what they are seeking. 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: The hardship is due to the lot size, configuration and it is a corner lot. 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: Based upon a review of the Sidwell maps there are no other 33,000 square foot, with a lot width of 120 feet that are in the B -3 District. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 20 August 1, 2006 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 proposed site plan which incorporates the required variation has been designed as to not have an adverse impact on other properties or improvements in the adjacent area. 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: The proposed site plan which incorporates the reduced setbacks provides sufficient open space, vehicular turning radii and adequate vehicular circulation as to not impair adjacent properties or endanger the public safety. 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 existing building is physically obsolete with limited parking. The purpose of the variation to allow redevelopment of a small corner lot consistent with the trend of development along the 22nd Street /Butterfield Road corridor. Any redevelopment of the parcel would require similar variations. 2. f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. RESPONSE: The difficulty is based on the physical characteristics of the small corner lot and has not been created by any person. That concluded the required standards and factors. Nicholas Vangel, 35 Royal Vale Drive, said that he has been a resident of Oak Brook for 30 years and he knows what goes on, on 22nd Street. It is a very difficult situation with the traffic and it would be exasperated by this proposal. He has shared the usage of the surgical center, which is west of the proposed site. He has also used it as an office for his business, which they had to relocate in part, because of the terrible times they experienced in the winter. Tower Road is almost an intersection. If you look across the street, it almost goes into the Pompeii restaurant that makes it difficult. Also, going eastbound on 22nd Street it is narrow because it goes from a 3 -lane to a 2 -lane road. At 5:00 p.m., you cannot exit, let alone to add additional traffic. He understands the proposed stacking lane for 9 cars, but that is not the biggest problem. After the cars exit, they will be stuck because it is between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m, which is a most difficult time. If you start at Walgreen's and go down to the new development at Meyers, you could walk across the cars in February at 5:00 p.m. It makes it VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 20 August 1, 2006 I 60W -0 �P" I ' " difficult for ambulances, police department or for anyone with any type of emergency. Although, he feels for the owners of the property and how difficult it must be for them, but to change something and make it worse because of their needs is not fair to the rest of the people who use the street. He does not office there anymore because they outgrew the space. It is difficult from everyone's point of view, but he does not think to exasperate an existing situation is going to help. Michael Forutan, 21 Natoma Drive, 18 year resident of Oak Brook, and is a trauma orthopedic surgeon. He does have an office at the surgical center day hospital on the west side of Tower Drive. He commutes from home going west on 22 "d Street and makes a left hand turn on Tower Drive between 7 :00 -7:30 in the morning when his surgical cases start. He truly has a hard time to negotiate the traffic to make a left turn. It is a dangerous risk and terrifies him to make the left turn. There is no traffic light or signal. He has to drive on the median and stay there at the risk of being hit until he has the mercy of the people heading east on 22nd Street to make a left onto Tower Drive. This is the exact time that the traffic picks up for the Starbucks business. It is also impossible to make a right hand turn safely onto Tower during the afternoon rush hour due to the merging of the lanes from 3 to 2 lanes. The village granted parking on the west side of Tower Drive, which is the current situation. The existing building on the east side of Tower does not have many customers and a Starbucks, which would have many customers it, would be much worse. He does not have an objection to the setback request; it is getting in and out of Tower. Chris Sutter said that he is a driver for the surgical center and has been there for almost 10 years and has seen many accidents. Sometimes he has to wait 5 minutes in order to get access to 22nd Street and is worse during the winter with the traffic for the mall. Kamram Salehi, Administrator at the Oak Brook Medical and Surgical Center, 2425 22 "d Street, said that he learned of the matter last night but felt strongly enough to put together a map and a petition today signed by 25 out of 26 people that work in the building that were approached. The person that would not sign it said that she thought the traffic and parking were going to be bad, but that she loved Starbucks so much that she would not sign. He read the petition and submitted copies for the record. He reviewed their issues with the traffic, reduction of 3 to 2 lanes and the merging traffic. There has been an accident with a fatality as well as many other accidents at the intersection. The parking situation for the buildings on Tower Drive is very difficult. Although he likes Starbucks, if there are 40 cars in the lot the natural overflow would be to the surgical center parking area, which would be an inconvenience issue. Adding VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 20 August 1, 2006 �J traffic flow increases the danger for the people who work at the center. It would be better for Starbucks customers to be at a different location. Kianoosh Jafari, 27 Royal Vale an Oak Brook resident for 32 years and his office (Oak Brook Surgical Center) has been there since 1990. He has enjoyed being a business neighbor with Mr. Monty, who has been an excellent neighbor. He hopes that the opposition does not reflect anything more than public safety. He is concerned because he deals with the patients every day. The senior citizens drive together and really have a hard time walking and driving. Public safety is the issue and he has personally participated at the scene of a fatal accident. He requested that the Zoning Board continue the matter to allow them along with their attorney to present further evidence. Mike Stratus, 2311 22"d Street a 14 -year corporate resident, and a former Briarwood Lakes resident, currently residing in Burr Ridge and is on the Planning Commission there. He said that he has a unique perspective of the situation and is familiar with all the parties both for and against the project. He had an office in the back of the AlphaGraphics building. There is tough traffic there, but none of it is the result of the zoning of the property. It is the result of Dr. Jafari's medical building. It is the proverbial 5 pounds of baloney in a 3- pound bag, in that they do not have a enough parking. They park on Tower Drive and are the ones that are exacerbating the situation. Mr. Jafari is a very good man and has been a great neighbor to Mr. Monty. Mr. Monty is a 35 -year resident who has owned the property with a 6,000 square foot building for 22 years. He is looking to reduce the building size by one - third, to less than 2,000 square feet. Mr. Monty approached him over a year ago and asked what would be the most responsible thing for Oak Brook that could go on that site. They discussed many uses, including banks, which have limited traffic and hours, but do not generate any sales taxes. They talked to McDonalds first and took every step to act responsibly in order to redevelop the property. Ultimately, Starbucks was selected. Good corporate citizen, small building, tremendous landscaping, and Mr. Monty will receive less in rent from Starbucks than what he is currently receiving from AlphaGraphics, so money has not been a motivation. He not only had an office in the AlphaGraphics building, but currently offices in the building next door. The access being provided is for the future benefit of REEF and does not do anything to benefit the subject property. Mr. Monty has been a good neighbor to everyone he has ever known. Ninety percent of what he has listened to at this hearing is in regards to the traffic situation. About 7 years ago, at Mr. Monty's request, Mr. Jafari was contacted and Kimco, (the owners of the property now occupied by Home Depot) regarding the possibility of a signal at the intersection and offered to pay VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 15 of 20 August 1, 2006 one - quarter of the cost. Mr. Jafari offered to pay a quart and half was offered by the owners of the property now owned by Home Depot at a cost of $250,000. Mr. Monty paid for the traffic report and IDOT determined from its review that the warrants had not bee established. After the Home Depot store had been operational for a while, they approached him (2 -3 years ago) and offered to pay for one --half the cost of a light if the warrants could be established with IDOT. He contacted Mr. Jafari at that time and Mr. Jafari did not have any interest in paying anything toward the cost of a light. He found that curious and as he listened to Mr. Jafari and employees /tenants just talk about the traffic, when in his view, it has all been created by the surgical center business and Mr. Monty has done nothing over the years, but to mitigate and pay for more than his fair share of it. Mr. Monty is leasing the property to Starbucks. He is not selling the property, which he has owned for over 20 years, he wants his children to have it. When he originally decided to lease it, after he contact McDonald's, the next person he called was Mr. Jafari, because he knew he would need it for parking since Mr. Jafari's customers were parking in the AlphaGraphics lot; Mr. Jafari, declined. Acting Chairman Ascher said that the Plan Commission reviewed the matter and wanted the Zoning Board of Appeals to have the Chief of Police speak about the traffic and accidents at that location. Tom Sheahan, Chief of Police said that he visited the site on 3 different occasions; once early in the morning, mid --day and in the afternoon. Everyone who lives and works in Oak Brook knows that 22nd Street is quite busy in the morning, particularly eastbound. It is also quite busy in the afternoon hours between 4 and 6 p.m., both east and westbound. In the middle of the day, it is still a fairly busy thoroughfare, but traffic moves pretty well. Saturdays and Sunday, when the shopping center is open it can be fairly busy as well. The subject property is on the south side of the street at 22nd Street and Tower Drive and there is not a traffic standard there. Presently it is difficult whether you are going west or east now in the early morning or afternoon hours. He reviewed some accidents statistics. He heard about and searched for a fatality, but they did not have one; it may have been on 22nd Street, but under the jurisdiction of Oakbrook Terrace. They reviewed approximately 18 months of statistics and in the vicinity there have been about five accidents related to Tower and 22nd Street (2 of the 5 were listed as private property, which would have been on Tower or in the parking lot. Three were on 22nd Street. One of those was a vehicle exiting Home Depot and two were rear end accidents in the eastbound lanes on 22nd Street). With the adjacent properties there have been another six accidents. Drive. In terms of accidents themselves, there have not been a lot of accidents. It is a unique situation especially in the morning and afternoon, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 16 of 20 August 1, 2006 in that the traffic is so heavy that making a left hand turn is very difficult, but it is not like making a left hand turn onto a highway. The traffic here is backed up that someone essentially must give you a break to get in or out of the subject property. In his estimation, the traffic is extremely heavy on 22nd Street particularly in the early morning and afternoon. It has been brought forth to the Village and iDOT and there are at least some plans out there that call for an expansion and traffic standards along 22 Street and various routes to improve traffic patterns. In summary, the statistics of 5 or 6 accidents over an 18 -month period are not unusual for 22nd Street, York Road or any other busy thoroughfare. Member Nimry asked if there was any difference between Tower and the entrance at Costco or any other entrance along 22nd Street, because he has a difficult time to get in anywhere along 22nd Street. He questioned if it was any different at Tower. Chief of Police Sheahan responded that the village as a whole is trying to address the entire 22nd Street corridor for long term planning, and has for several years and may be close to it. However, there is nothing unique about Tower and 22nd Street; it is all very busy. Director of Community Development Kallien said that 22nd Street is on the books for expansion to rectify the merging from the 3 lanes to 2 lanes. The state plan is for 3 lanes in each direction with a barrier type median and controlled traffic signalization. It is on the books as a plan, but the village is not aware of any funds that have been allocated towards it. It will be a very expensive project and there are many projects ahead of it. The village is in the very early stages of undertaking a commercial corridor revitalization planning effort. They are really looking at all of 22nd Street, Butterfield and all other commercial areas to see how they can be developed into the highest and best use while fitting in with the traffic levels and not cause adverse problems. Any redevelopment along 22nd Street is going to be impacted by the discussion with Dr. Jafari's building. You can go to any intersection or major driveways and issues exist; and the effort is going to try to look at possible solutions. They know that state improvements are going to be necessary. They are going to look at what should be the proper zoning; are there ways to provide cross - access so that people can get to other buildings along the corridor without going onto 22nd Street. It is a very intricate process and the issues are very complex and will require collective solutions. Trustee Sanford said that the major area they have gotten involved in was the approval of the Promenade. One of the major considerations that went through was that there was a traffic signal at the entrance and it was in an area where there are 3 lanes in each direction. The traffic is going to be at its height when VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 17 of 20 August 1, 2006 there is the least amount of traffic because shopping typically starts at 10:00 a.m. There are four majors issues that have been identified on 22nd Street. One is the restriction from Camden to the Butterfield Road intersection down to Midwest Road where the road has been restricted down to 2 lanes in each direction and the traffic is horrific. From an accident standpoint, there are not many accidents when traffic does not move. When they talk about a solution to the traffic with IDOT, there are unresponsive. From a village standpoint you want to get cars in and out of the shopping center as easily as possible and make it friendly to business. The best that IDOT has come up with is to repave 22nd Street, which will not do much. The idea of widening it is the only solution and if IDOT accomplished that within 10 years, they would be moving quickly. Acting Chairman Ascher asked about the process of warrants. How long would it take and is it feasible, given the location of the other intersection at Summit. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it is on the books for future signalization. When the roadway is approved, it has been identified for signalization. However, the whole issue of warrants is, would the adjacent property owners pay for the signal, how many accidents have there been and to what degree is the severity of the accidents. They usually do things, unfortunately when something negative occurs. Member Nimry said that although he did not want to read something else into this; it was stated by the Chief that there is nothing unique about the accidents at Tower and 22nd Street; and everyone knows that 22nd Street is bad. His concern is that there is a private business will lose the parking on Tower, which is being used as a parking lot by the surgical center clients; and is this a case as stated earlier of a 5 pound ham packed in a 3 pound bag? Director of Community Development Kallien responded that about S years ago Dr. Jafari requested and the Village Board ultimately granted the parking on Tower. Some of the rationale was that it was safe and some limited spaces could be accommodated. Member Nimry said that the construction of Starbucks is the one that would suffer because the Village gave the street to the surgical center as a parking lot, which is not right. Trustee Sanford said that the only near term solution that the traffic engineers have looked at would be the use of intelligent traffic signals, which would be coordinated to change with the flow of traffic and the number of cars lined up at a traffic light. At best, it is predicted that it would increase the move of traffic VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 18 of 20 August 1, 2006 by approximately 20 percent. However, 22nd Street is the major problem. Member Nimry noted that the village is also looking at developing access roads behind the properties, and asked if that was part of the expansion of 22'd Street. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that is something being looked at during the Village's 22 "d Street planning process. Cross - access between buildings has not been provided for very well in the past. Traffic is forced onto 22' Street, which just makes the situation worse. The subject property is a very small .77 -acre parcel that is being influenced by a significant amount of traffic, which it is impacted by and will contribute to the existing problem. The only thing that may reduce some of the conflicts would be to restrict some traffic would be to make access to Tower right in /right out, which would create problems for Dr. Jafari's business, as well as for some problems across the street. It is like a quagmire as to what do we do. Member Young said that he would like to see a traffic study that looks at the proposed traffic in and out of the site that in the community that is of a comparable size. He also requested an economic study to justify the need for another Starbucks in the community. Member Bulin questioned whether the rezoning fit in with the commercial revitalization plan. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he did speak and reviewed the proposal with the consultant and with the limited information provided, said that it would not be in conflict, In terms of traffic and other issues, those are things that the consultant would look at and render a recommendation. In terms of land use and redevelopment, they thought it was consistent on the surface. Member Nimry said that there is a Starbucks across the street by Champs and if he were traveling west, he would go into that one, rather than this one and then continue traveling west and logically would stop at this location when traveling east. He asked for a sales forecast. Mr. Belchenko responded they hope to be doing $1 million by the time it is a mature store, between 4 and 8 years old and the average in the market is approximately $800,000. They believe they will be getting approximately 80 percent of their business from eastbound traffic. They are a convenience business and do not create traffic; they pull off existing traffic. Mr. Achim said that they would provide a traffic study, but it would be difficult to provide one using one in the community because there is not a drive thru in Oak Brook. This was their opportunity to provide in Oak Brook a drive -thru to VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 19 of 20 August 1, 2006 i� 91 7. meet their customer's needs. They certainly would not put their customers in a location that was not good as well. Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry to continue the public hearing to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The applicant was requested to provide a he following information: 1. Traffic Study forecast using mature store traffic information 2. Map showing surrounding Starbucks locations. 3. Any additional information from Dr. Jafari to be submitted within two weeks. VOICE VOTE: Member Bulin opposed. Motion Carried 4 to 1. OTHER BUSINESS: There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Young to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert K en, Director f Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 20 of 20 August 1, 2006 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT