Loading...
Minutes - 08/05/2008 - Zoning Board of Appeals2. 3. 4. 5. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 5, 2008 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON October 7, 2008 CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chainnan Champ Davis in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Jeffrey Bulin, Baker Nimry, Joseph Rush, Steven Young and Wayne Ziemer ABSENT: Member Glenn Krietsch IN ATTENDANCE: Robert Sanford, Trustee, Gerald Wolin, Trustee and Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINIS1 EI) BUSINESS A. PARKS — 3701 MADISON STREET — VARIATION — ZONING PARKS - 3701 MADISON ST- ORDINANCE SECTION 13 -3 -613 FENCE VARIATION - FENCE Scott Day, Day and Robert, P.C., Attorney for the Applicant, requested a continuance of the public hearing to the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Motion by Member Rush, seconded by Member Nimry to continue the hearing to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. INSITE GOSHEN LLC, INSITE FREEPORT LLC, INSITE OAK INSITE - TEXT AMEND TO PERMIT BROOK LLC -- TEXT AMENDMENT — AMEND TEXT TO PERMIT A A GROUND SIGN W/ GROUND SIGN WITH TENANT NAMES IN THE B -2 DISTRICT ON TENANT NAMES IN VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 22 August 5, 2008 ''e PROPERTIES LESS THAN 5 ACRES AND VARIATION TO ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 13 -11 -8A TO ALLOW A GROUND SIGN TO BE LOCATED LESS THAN 40 FEET FROM THE STREET LINE Chairman Davis swore in those that would testify in this matter. Scott Day, Day and Robert, P.C. Attorney for the applicant reviewed the request for the text amendment. In the B -2 District, a very large sign would be allowed to identify the building and services, but would not allow the names of the tenants on the sign. The parcel is about 3 acres of a former 19 -acre development located on the northeast corner of Route 83 and 16"' Street and was originally developed as the Oak Brook Bank. The overall site includes J. Alexander's to the north and a shopping center including the Container store to the west. There is a common entrance from 16"' Street to the site with stormwater detention facility in the center. There is also a stormwater detention facility located north of 16`I' street and south of the bank property. It is a large green dish- shaped space that provides stormwater detention. There are large contours in the grassy area, where the proposed sign would be located. With the exception of this property, the other parcels totaling about 16 acres were rezoned to B -1, which permits signs listing the tenants in the stores. The remaining parcel, which is the subject property, is limited to the signage in the B -2 district. This is the only B -2 zoned property in the village that is not located in the Oakbrook Center and the only other property that the sign restriction would apply. The original property was for a single user, Oak Brook Bank and used as its corporate headquarters. MB Bank then bought the property and used it as a branch bank with its corporate headquarters located elsewhere and they had thousands of square feet that they were not utilizing. InSite purchased the property from MB Bank. The current regulations specify that "there cannot be more than 2 freestanding ground signs on each of the boundary streets surrounding any shopping center in the B -2 District, located not less than 40 feet from any street line, provided that each sign shall not exceed a total area of 1000 square feet and 30 feet in height." He asked that the board envision a sign 30 feet tall by 33 feet wide, located 40. feet from the street; and on the sign, it would say, "We sell real estate, We sell industrial buildings, We lease industrial buildings, and We lease office space." A sign like that is lawful under the existing code for this property. However, simply listing the names of the tenants would be considered illegal. They reviewed different ways to do address the issue and solve the problem. They considered rezoning, however, the B -1 District would allow favorable sign regulations, but would not allow a 3 -story office building, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 22 August 5, 2008 THE B -2 DIST - VARIATION TO ALLOW A SIGN TO BE LOCATED LESS THAN 40 FT FROM THE STREET LINE, so they would be a nonconforming use. Reviewing the office classifications there were some favorable sign provisions available, but they would then have setback problems for the property. They became aware that the village was in the process of reviewing its sign ordinances and might be doing so for some time. Considering that, they drafted a very restrictive text amendment in the B- 2 District. They believe they are- the only parcel of property that would be less than 5 acres in size. They reduced the total square footage down to a maximum 15 foot height and a total of 200 square feet. The Plan Commission recommendation was the actual dimensions of the proposed sign. The proposed text is as follows: "2. In a retail /commercial development containing less than five (5) acres, a maximum of one (1) ground sign, which identifies the name and address of the development and may also identify the names and services or merchandise of each of the tenants located in the center, may be erected in addition to signs affixed to the building wall; provided that the sign shall not exceed a total area of one hundred twenty -six (126) square feet and no more than sixty -three (63) square feet on either side and shall not exceed ten feet six inches (10'6") feet in height." Their client concurred that they could accept the conditions of the recommendation revising the proposed text amendment. The variation being sought is relief to the 40 -foot requirement to have a ground sign set back from the street line. If the sign is erected facing east and west the request would be for a reduction to a 31 -foot setback, if the sign is set as shown in the original application (facing 16th Street), the request would be for a reduction to a 26 foot setback from the street line, because of the shape and size of the stormwater detention facility. Placing the sign to comply with the 40 foot setback, places the sign over the top of the rim and down into the stormwater detention facility, which would then take up some of the space currently used for storage. Greg VanLandingham, InSite Real Estate Development, said that they have been a resident in Oak Brook since 1996, originally at 1603 16t' Street. They purchased the site located at 1400 16"' Street in June of 2007. They moved to this site in February of 2008 and are located with their corporate offices that are on the third floor. They are retail, industrial and office developer and have been in business for approximately 30 years. In that time, they have developed approximately 400 locations across the country and are in approximately 39 states. They own approximately 52 retail locations across the country. They have 21 industrial facilities with approximately 14.5 million square feet of VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 22 August 5, 2008 industrial space and two office buildings. They have a Class A office building in Burr Ridge and the building located at 1400 16th Street. They have redeveloped this building into a multi- tenant building. Originally the building was intended to be for a single tenant, owner - occupied building as the Oak Brook Bank corporate headquarters and branch location. When they purchased the building, they leased back a portion of the building to MB Bank, who currently occupies a portion of the first floor and a portion of the basement, totaling approximately 7 percent of the building. InSite currently occupies a portion of the third floor and the second floor is empty right now as well as the remaining portion of the first floor. They have added $4.5 million in improvements on their floor alone. Permits have been issued by the Village to do a lobby modification and an exterior modification to the rear of the building to provide for a better aesthetic that faces toward Oak Brook Club in the amount of $1.2 million. They are making a huge investment in this building and are trying to attract additional high -end tenants on the office side. It has gone from a single tenant owner /occupied building to a multi- tenant building, which has caused the necessity to have a ground sign and actually be able to identify the tenants that are located in the building. They are proposing one ground sign approximately 10 feet high by 6 feet wide with four tenant panels. Mr. Day said that they have submitted documentation and testimony showing compliance with the text amendment and variation standards. They requested those documents be submitted for the record as testimony at this hearing. Chairman Davis noted that the standards for each are located in the case file under pages C and F. Text Amendment Standards: 1. Character of the neighborhood RESPONSE: It is a very commercial area and most of it is B -1 with multi - tenant panel type signage. It is an intensely automotive driven area. The patrons of this commercial center are arriving by automobile and need to locate the identity of the buildings. They need visual identification for the location of individual companies at an appropriate distance from an automobile. 2. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions. RESPONSE: Multi - tenant office buildings do not do well in this type of atmosphere without the ability to be able to identify the individual tenants. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 22 August 5, 2008 They know from the business inside, that the tenants they are attempting to negotiate with are seeking outside identification of their commercial enterprises as part of their leasehold estate. InSite would like to be in a position in Oak Brook to provide that for them. 3. The extent to which the removal of the Existing Limitations Would Depreciate the Value of Other Property in the Area. RESPONSE: To the contrary, they believe the relief would make their property consistent with the surrounding parcels. 4. The suitability of the Property for Zoned Purposes RESPONSE: It is an outstanding office building with extensive remodeling done on the interior. It has always been an attractive building from the exterior. It is very suitable for commercial enterprises for the corporate headquarters of InSite and for the tenants that are seeking Class A 'office space in the community. 5. Existing Uses and Zoning of Nearby Properties. RESPONSE: Discussed and described in testimony. 6. The Length of Time Under the Existing Zoning that the property has remained unimproved considered in the context of land development. RESPONSE: Not Applicable. 7. The Relative Gain to the Public as Compared to the Hardship Imposed on the Individual Property Owner. RESPONSE: As testified, under the current text in the B -2 District signage regulations a 30 x 33 foot sign could be constructed describing the goods and services for unnamed tenants. The gain to the public is much more with a smaller sign identifying the tenants. 8. The Extent to Which the Proposal Promotes the Health, Safety, Morals or General Welfare of the Public. RESPONSE: The proposal aids the safe travel for motorists to locate businesses that will be in the building. 9. The Relationship of the Proposed Use to the Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: They are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 22 August 5, 2008 10. Community Need for the Use Proposed by the Property Owners. RESPONSE: Oak Brook has always had the reputation for being a strong center for corporate businesses and corporate headquarter locations. They believe they are continuing that tradition. Variation Standards: Mr. Day reviewed the variation standards for the record 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: If they are required to comply with the 40 -foot requirement, the sign will be over the rim and located within the stormwater detention facility, which would interfere with the stormwater detention function and be invisible to the general public. 1. b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: The issue was addressed in their testimony. 1. c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: If granted, it would be consistent with adjacent properties. The additional supplemental standards would be addressed as requested by the Board. William Lindeman, 19 Pembroke Lane spoke in opposition to the request stating that it was his belief that MB Bank used up the signage on the building. He did not believe the request was appropriate for an office building. He reviewed signage from several office buildings throughout the village. The sign proposed is larger and more aggressive than other signs. He questioned the direction the sign would be facing. Mr. Day responded that the proposed signage was displayed at a meeting with the neighborhood. They received a written objection by one of the neighbors requesting that the face of the sign be turned with one panel facing east and the other facing west. By doing that, it eliminates a conflict with a Village easement and the sign could be moved back from 26 to 31 feet. The applicant believed that the objector was correct and would revise their original request. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 22 August 5, 2008 Member Rush suggested that if possible, the sign could be moved back further form the road. Member Bulin noted that the change would bring the sign into the downward slope and could interfere with the detention facility. Member Young questioned whether a suggestion should be made regarding a limitation for signage on the side of the building. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the property is zoned B -2 and the way that signage is calculated in the B -2 District is very different from other districts. The B -2 District allows wall signage to be 2% of the gross floor area of the building, which is a lot of signage. What exists on this building is nowhere near the maximum allowed. Member Nimry noted that some of the residents of the Oakbrook Club do not believe that some of the wall signage is needed and should be taken down. He noted that the letter from the village consultant, Houseal Lavigne supported the request. He said that additional landscaping should be provided around the base of the sign. The Plan Commission noted that the applicant provide a more neutral color for the sign. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the sign code requires landscaping around all ground signs. Member Young asked if it has been difficult to attract clients to this area. Mr. VanLandingham responded that currently, other than InSite on the third floor, MB Bank is the only tenant in the building, they occupy about 7 percent of the total building, and the rest is vacant. They have had a lot of interest in the building, but one of the major concerns of potential tenants is identification. Without the ground sign, they are unable to provide that. It is a major concern that is keeping tenants from leasing the space. Chairman Davis questioned the Plan Commission comment that the sign not look like a building directory. Mr. Day responded that the proposed sign has been modified based upon the comments made by the Plan Commission. The original application contained colored logo's that matched the individual tenants. There has been an overall reduction in the size of the size and an overall muting of the tone of the text. The resulting sign is in black, white and grey tones. In response to the VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 22 August S, 2008 comments relating to MB Bank, they have a long term lease with MB Bank and under those terms they have a full right to all of the signage on the building. MB Bank would not be listed on the tenant panel. As landlord they have requested that the signs located on the east side of the building be removed, but they do not have any contractual leverage to force them to comply with that request. The signs have been permitted by the Village, but they will encourage them the signage on that side of the building. Director of Community Development Kallien clarified that the Code requires that "the bases of all permanent ground signs to be effectively landscaped and maintained in good condition at least 3 feet beyond all sign faces." TEXT AMENDMENT Chairman -Davis noted that the Zoning Board was in receipt of the Plan Commission recommendation to approve the request by a vote of 4 to 0. He noted that the standards for a text amendment were addressed in the testimony presented and in writing on page C of the case file. Motion by Member, Nimry seconded by Member Young that the applicant addressed the required standards to recommend approval of a text amendment to amend Section 13 -11 -8A of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed text to be added would read as follows: 2. In a retail /commercial development containing less than five (5) acres, a maximum of one (1) ground sign, which identifies the name and address of the development and may also identify the name and services or merchandise of each of the tenants located in the center, may be erected in addition to signs affixed to the building walls; provided that the sign shall not exceed a total of one hundred- twenty six (126') square feet; not to exceed sixty -three (63') square feet on either side and shall not exceed ten feet 6- inches (10'6") feet in height. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 -- Members Bulin, Nimry, Rush, Young, Ziemer and Davis Absent: 1— Member Krietsch Nays: 0 — Motion Carried. VARIATION Scott Day stated that if it is physically possible to move the sign back another foot or so and still meet the sight line requirements they would do so. Chairman Davis noted that the standards for a variation were addressed by the applicant in the testimony presented and in writing on page F of the case file. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 22 August 5, 2008 eiz_t Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry that the applicant addressed the required standards to recommend approval of a variation to the required 40 -foot setback for a ground sign from a street line to be reduced to 31 feet as requested subject to the following conditions: 1. Subject to approval of the proposed text amendment. 2. The ground sign is to be constructed in substantial conformance to the revised signage details and elevations drawings as shown on pages 12, 13 and 15 of the case file. 3. Subject to engineering approval. 4. Appropriate landscaping to be provided as required in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. 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: 6 — Members Bulin, Nimry, Rush, Young, Ziemer and Davis Absent: 1 — Member Krietsch Nays: 0 — Motion Carried. B. FALCO — 2901 OAK BROOK ROAD — MAP AMENDMENT — TO FALCO - 2901 OAK BROOK - REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM R -2 TO R -3 MAP AMEND - REZONE R2 TO R3 Chairman Davis swore in those that would testify in this matter. John Brechin, Attorney for the applicant reviewed the request for the map amendment. The subject property is located on the south side of 31" Street and adjacent to the Dana Park Subdivision that was recently rezoned to R -3, which is what their request is. The rationale for Dana Park was the economic unfeasibility of R -2 zoning for a variety of reasons and is the reason they are seeking rezoning from R -2 to R -3. The change would allow 4 lots and a road, instead of 3 lots and a road. If the request would be approved, they would be required to go through the subdivision process. In the Plan Commission minutes, it was noted that there are problems with the property that must be addressed. He urged the Zoning Board that those issues are a separate matter and they would be required to show that they could meet all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. The Plan Commission would review the subdivision. They did consider filing an application for the subdivision approval, but thought that would be cumbersome and presumptuous of map amendment approval. There is a significant amount of floodplain on this property and Dana Park, The Village Ordinances properly require that it be VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 22 August 5, 2008 maintained with sufficient floodplain storage as well as compensatory storage for stormwater so that it does not become a burden to this property or nearby properties. In light of those requirements and the amount of floodplain, under R -2 zoning there are buildable lots, but even though they are 1 -acre lots, a significant portion of the property becomes unbuildable because it is devoted to the storage of stormwater or flood water. In this market, what they have found is that when the prospective buyer is presented with a 1 -acre lot and only 2/3 of the property is usable it becomes unmarketable. The real estate market is a very demanding market where buyers have the upper hand and if they cannot use what they are buying, the property becomes less desirable. This property is within the Downers Grove School District and that became a negative factor in the Dana Park Subdivision, which is also a factor for this property. He reviewed the actual sales history of properties within the Downers Grove School District. In the past year, they found that the properties listed for sales between $1.2 and $2.2 million there were 38 listings and 6 sales or properties under contract. For properties listed for sales between $2.2 and $3.2 million there were 4 listings with no sales and no properties under contract. These numbers are over a year period and although the numbers are small, it is significant because of the time period that is covered. Under the current zoning, the prospective sale price for homes built on this property would be in the area of $2.2 to $3.2 million. None of the properties within the Downers Grove School District that has been offered at those prices has been sold and are not under contract. If the property size is reduced under the R -3 zoning, essentially the cost of the subdivision is divisible by 3 lots instead of 2 lots, which means the subdivision development costs per lot goes down. Reducing the size of the lot also reduces the purchase price so that the property would fall into the $1.2 to $2.2 million sales range. It does not guarantee a sale and the property owner does not receive any more profit, but gives them a chance to get into the sales market and to attract potential buyers. The worst thing that could happen would be for the property to remain under developed, as it has been for the last year. Mr. Brechin noted that the standards were submitted in writing on page C of the case file. He reviewed the amendment standards as follows: 1. Character of the neighborhood RESPONSE: The character of the neighborhood in the area is uniformly residential, being R -2 to the north and R -3 to the south and west. With the exception of the kennel across Meyers Road and the Village's well house, which is immediately west of the subject property. With the exception of the Dana Park Subdivision, which does not have homes yet, most of the homes in the area are 20 -35 years old, including Midwest Club, which was developed in VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 22 August 5, 2008 the late 1970's early 1980's and is zoned R -3. They believe what they are proposing is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 2. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions. RESPONSE: The current R -2 zoning makes the property commercially unfeasible based upon the statements given in his testimony. The flood plain issues have been present in the past and would be present in the future. They believe it is important to properly manage the flood plain issues, which they can do under R -3 than to cut corners and live with R -2. 3. The extent to which the removal of the Existing Limitations Would Depreciate the Value of Other Property in the Area. RESPONSE: The development would have any negative impact on other properties in the area because the property as proposed is consistent with other property. The R -3 designation for this property would in no way, shape or form diminish the value of any nearby or surrounding properties. 4. The suitability of the Property for Zoned Purposes RESPONSE: R -3 is a common zoning in this area and therefore they believe that R -3 is appropriate and suitable for this property. 5. Existing Uses and Zoning of Nearby Properties. RESPONSE: Discussed and described in testimony. b. The Length of Time Under the Existing Zoning that the property has remained unimproved considered in the context of land development. RESPONSE: Two years ago, the subdivision plat was approved for this property. The owner has attempted to implement the subdivision, but it became clear shortly after the approval that there was not any market for R -2 zoned lots that had significant encumbrances due to the flood plain and storrnwater detention. The same issue affected the Dana Park Subdivision and from the topography perspective, the subject property is very similar to it. 7. The Relative Gain to the Public as Compared to the Hardship Imposed on the Individual Property Owner. RESPONSE: As testified, the property cannot be developed under R -2, which means that it would not be developed if the R -2 zoning remains. If rezoned R- VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 22 August 5, 2008 3, the gain to the public would be to give the property owner a fighting chance to reasonably develop the property consistent with the neighborhood and allow alternative quality housing to be available in Oak Brook. The property if developed would help to increase the assessed valuation to the Village. Although Oak Brook does not have a municipal tax, there are other taxes that are paid, so the greater the assessed valuation the less proportion burden there is for the property owner in terms of satisfying the tax needs of the Village and other units of government that tax properties and it spreads the burden more uniformly and fairly. 8. The Extent to Which the Proposal Promotes the Health, Safety, Morals or General Welfare of the Public. RESPONSE: The proposal would help to expedite the implementation of project, which would be in the best interest of the property owner and the public. 9. The Relationship of the Proposed Use to the Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: It is entirely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which calls for single - family residential development of the property. 10. Community Need for the Use Proposed by the Property Owners. RESPONSE: The phenomenon of the real estate market over the last few years is that properties are very slow to be sold. The ability to be able to develop the property would create another product for the Village so that someone who wants a brand new home as opposed to an existing home, would have that alternative. If they cannot develop it that alternative would not be there. Joe Falco, son of the property owner Vito Falco said that his father has lived in the house since the early 1980's and prior to that, they lived in Ginger Creek and have been part of the Oak Brook community for over 30 years. If the lots were subdivided, he would hope to occupy one of the lots himself-. In the past, they came to the Village and received approval for an R -2 development. After all the actual costs were gathered to develop the property, they realized that the costs were too high and was not marketable as R -2, so the plan was put aside. Based on an R -3 development, they believe it could be achieved. Based on a market analysis prepared by Pepitone Realtors that should a map change to R -3 be granted the plan would be marketable. Currently a lot based on R -2 zoning, with a 6500 square foot house would have an approximate marketing price of $2.7 million. A lot based upon R -3 zoning with a 4500 square foot house would have an approximate marketing price of $1.9 million. The Downers VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 22 August 5, 2008 Grove School District does not support houses over $2.2 million. Over the last 12 months, 4 had been listed and none sold, whereas, 38 homes were listed between $1.2 and $2.2 million and 6 were sold or under contract. Under the current R -2 scenario, the asking price would be unobtainable. Under the R -3 scenario, it would not be a sure thing, but it would give the family a fighting chance to live in the desirable Oak Brook area. He thanked the Board for its time and consideration of the request. Mr. Brechin concluded that although a subdivision plan was not before them, they did listen intently about the concerns for the irregular shaped lot, the flood plain, water and the usable space. They have already started addressing some of what was proposed in the concept plan and are hopeful that, if R -3 zoning is approved, they would return to the Plan Commission with a more attractive and an attempt to address the concerns that they perceived. Chairman Davis noted that the Plan Commission did provide comments regarding the lot configurations and the buildable area, yet they did unanimously approve the map amendment. It seems that they were leaving the more difficult issues to be reviewed through the subdivision process. Member Nimry questioned the narrow road provided to access the lots onto the site and questioned its safety. Mr. Lin, Ridgeline Consultants, 1661 Aucutt Road, Montgomery, Illinois, said that they had just started designing the subdivision and would continue to work with the Village Engineer and the consultants to make sure that the flood plain issue is addressed. The vacation issue has already been addressed and they would not being seek any variances. With respect to the recent storm, the flood plain would be designed based on the Village code, so that the house would be sitting at least 2 feet above the 100 -year flood elevation, so based upon that the house would not be flooded. Member Nimry noted that his concern was the one narrow entrance to 4 homes. Road. In others, there are is a flat surface that someone could get over; in this case you could not and in an emergency, how would a fire truck get up the hill? Mr. Lin noted that the existing road would be improved based upon the Village codes, which would be 28 -feet from back of curb -to -curb. It would be substantially improved from what currently exists and will be engineered to comply with the code. Member Young questioned what would really be changed. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 22 August 5, 2008 "1-� Mr. Brechin responded that currently the site is approved for 3 homes. Under the R -3, the proposal would be for 4 homes. In both cases, an existing home would remain on the site. The private street that would be installed would be fully in conformance with all requirements for public rights of way and streets. If the change in zoning is approved the engineering for this property would be substantially similar to what was previously approved by the Village, which conformed to all the Village requirements. They are not aware of any variations being needed. The new subdivision would conform to all Village requirements, including flood plain, stormwater, etc. They do not believe there is any circumstance that would preclude any emergency vehicles from exiting or entering the property. When the Village Engineer previously reviewed the road, it conformed to the Village requirements and that would be their goal, if they receive the approvals to subdivide the property again. Member Bulin noted that on the plat of survey the front yard setback on lot 2 shows a 50 -foot front yard setback, but the other lots are 40 feet. Mr. Lin responded that based upon the Zoning Ordinance, under R -3 the lot width within the buildable area must be at least 100 feet. In order to attain the 100 feet, the building setback line had to be pushed further back. Member Bulin noted that some of the issues are engineering issues that even under the R -3 scenario, much of the lot provides flood plain detention or retention, so a lot is still trying to be sold that can be perceived by most people as being able to be flooded. In the proposal, most of the lots still have a lot of unbuildable area. He noted that it was a difficult site. He was on the Plan Commission when it went through the process under several scenarios and was still a difficult site to work with and he had stated at that time that it might be a site that was just not meant to be developed to the extent it is trying to be developed. He voted against the Dana Park Subdivision request to rezone the property. The properties were economically feasible before, but now that the economy has changed and it is not economically feasible. By the time the project may be ready, the economy and residential market may turn around again, where the applicant may desire to be back into an R -2 scenario. It is a difficult site and the Plan Commission would need to review many issues. He said that he was still not in favor of it. Member Nimry asked for a background on the history of the property. Member Bulin said that the Falco subdivision went through several meetings at the Plan Commission. There were detention, retention, wall and roadway VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 22 August 5, 2008 issues. He voted against the Dana Park and felt that these two properties should have remained R -2. He agreed that the property backs up to an R -3 District, but it also abuts a R -2 District. When initially approved, the economic conditions were feasible for R -2 development at that time, and unfortunately things changed and that is not to say that in a few years things may turn around again and it may be a viable project as R -2. He would almost rather see it as an R -4 with smaller lots and still be able to take care of the necessary detention and retention and was one of the reasons why he is not in favor of the rezoning. Chairman Davis noted that he was not familiar with the subdivision process, but would assume they were somewhat burdensome. Member Bulin responded that they are burdensome and eventually they did meet all of the conditions as a viable project and now they are at ground zero based upon the economic climate. He can appreciate that, however, there is nothing to say that it would not turn around again. Chairman Davis noted that his view would be different because of what he views to be two safety factors. The matter must still go to the Village Board for approval and the subdivision process appears to be complicated and if there are any problems with the development of this property it would surface during the subdivision request, which is a safety valve. Member Bulin said that approval of the map amendment might set up another problem in the future. Chairman Davis responded that if there were problems, it would have to be dealt with again, which would be the job of the Plan Commission. Member Rush said that if the request were approved, seeing the plan proposed, he would have a difficult time approving it. He understood that just the zoning change were before them, not the plan. Having sat in on the meetings with the Plan Commission at that time, he heard all the issues and did not see that they were any different here. Chairman Davis commented that he the issues with the subdivision are issues that are not before the Zoning Board of Appeals did not imply that the issues were being shirked by the Zoning Board, but would have to be resolved by the Plan Commission. Member Nimry noted that the Village has been through this process with this property before and it is not something new. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 15 of 22 August 5, 2008 Member Rush noted that they have an approved subdivision, but that they want to change it. Member Nimry questioned what would happen if the zoning would be changed to R -3 and they go through a subdivision process and it did not work. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that under that scenario, if they could not meet the subdivision regulations then it could not be approved. If they could not meet the lot sizes or setback requirements, under that scenario they would need to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variation. They would have to prove hardship and unique circumstance and this board would probably be quick to remind them that they created the situation in the first place. He agrees with Chairman Davis that by approving the map amendment does not guarantee that this parcel can be divided as proposed. They must meet a whole set of regulations, which the Plan Commission would review and make a recommendation. The Village Board would render the final decision. Member Bulin said that the rezoning would be approved based upon a plan that is feasible or not feasible. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it may be more difficult since there appears to be focus on the plat, when the question is whether the parcel does qualify for a map amendment, considering the standards that were included in the packet and a key consideration is the impact on surrounding property and zoning. An influencing factor would be with what happened at Dana Park, which is directly adjacent to the property, also went through the process several times, and was successfully rezoned from R -2 to R -3. Member Bulin commented that prior to Dana Park it was very clear that there was R -2 zoning around this property. Chairman Davis commented that the key issue is that the surrounding area is residential. If someone were trying to add a business district in the middle of a residential neighborhood then it would impact the character of the neighborhood and would be important. Member Bulin commented that was his argument with zoning the property R -4. It is a difficult site to work with and R -4 may offer a better potential to develop smaller lots and be able to deal with the flood plain issue. So why not try to make a good site out of a bad site. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 16 of 22 August 5, 2008 Director of Community Development Kallien commented that one of the ideas with the Dana Park Subdivision was to rezone the property to R -4. As part of that discussion there was concern expressed that they would be interjecting a zoning category in an area that has no R -4 anywhere adjacent to it. The nearest R -4 is located in Saddle Brook, which is almost a mile away. Member Bulin added that it is a difficult site and perhaps it should remain R -2 because of all the problems. Member Nimry questioned whether any variations were approved with its approved subdivision. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he did not recall any variations. The challenge for the property was the extensive amount of flood plain that had to be accommodated on the property. The Plan Commission was also very interested in the walls that would hold back the detention facilities. Mr. Brechin said that the approved subdivision was in full compliance with the Subdivision Regulations, except for the requirement for sidewalks and a public street, which is not uncommon in Oak Brook. . Member Ziemer commented that the property is contiguous to R -3 properties to the south and west and by doing this, the stormwater management side would be fully improved to current standards for the entire subdivision. The stormwater to the east provides a buffer for the transition. The details for the plat need to be worked out, but the concept of the plat has some validity. Mr. Brechin said that in response to the comment to leave it as it is; it could be left that way and there would be no requirement to provide for any floodplain or stormwater management. The subdivision process invokes those issues. It can be left as it is and that would allow the flood plain and stormwater do what it wants to do, without any active management, or have the floodplain managed consistent with the best engineering practices. That would occur if the property is developed and subdivided, which would make it into a mechanism where it can be developed and controlled, consistent with the goals of the Village for proper stormwater floodplain management. Another point was made that there would be some irregularity to the zoning map. Ginger Creek already abuts the R -3 district. Mr. Lin said that if the property were developed, the stormwater controls would be significantly improved. The controls would significantly reduce the amount VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 17 of 22 August 5, 2008 of water that goes downstream, which in the case would be Ginger Creek. Chairman Davis noted that the applicant addressed the standards for a map amendment and they have been satisfied. They were presented and in writing on page C of the case file and in testimony. The issues should not be clouded by the subdivision development. The sole issue before the Zoning Board is whether the LaSalle factors have been satisfied and the request for the map amendment should be approved. Motion by Chairman Davis, seconded by Member Ziemer that the applicant addressed the required standards to recommend approval of a map amendment to rezone the property from R -2 to R -3. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 2 — Ziemer and Chairman Davis Nays: 4 — Members Bulin, Nimry, Rush and Young, Absent: 1 — Member Krietsch. Motion Failed. Chairman Davis called for a five minute break C. MACY'S — TEXT AMENDMENT — AMEND TEXT TO PERMIT MACY'S - TEXT AMEND - PERMIT OUTDOOR SALES EVENTS IN THE B (BUSINESS) DISTRICTS OUTDOOR SALES EVENTS IN THE B DISTRICTS Chairman Davis swore in those that would testify in this matter. John Brechin, Attorney for the applicant reviewed the request for the text amendment. The goal of the proposed text is to allow Oak Brook businesses to have these types of events for a limited duration, provided all of the activity was within the buildable area of the lot, and that sufficient parking is provided at all times; and that reasonably safe ingress and egress is provided at all times. It would be reviewable by the Village Board pursuant to the presentation of a site plan and any other documentation required on a case -by -case basis. The Village would have the ability to impose conditions. They have limited the events to 14 days so that there is not more business going on the outside than on the inside. They believe that it is a workable framework. Other properties that could not comply with the requirements of the text would not be able to apply for such an event. Macy's has the unique ability to allow for these types of events. The motivation is the malaise in the economy. It is difficult to get people to an establishment and to get them to spend money. The promotion for the event and the sales would be a benefit to the village and to the general public. The village as well as many other municipalities is very dependent upon sales tax. They view this amendment as a very safe and efficient way of creating a vehicle manageable by the village, which would enhance the ability VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 18 of 22 August 5, 2008 of merchants to increase sales and thereby enhance the ability of the village to recoup additional sales tax. Curt Moody, Store General Manager, Macy's Furniture Gallery, has been the manager of the Oak Brook store for 2 1/Z years. Prior to that, he was the manager for 10 years at the Vernon Hills and Lake Forest stores for Marshall Fields and has been with Fields for 37 years. When he was on the North Shore, the Old Orchard mall they held this kind of event for many years. The numbers he heard in terms of sales revenue that came out of these events had always left an impression on him; $2.5 million out of a rug event when things were going gangbusters was a reality. When he came to Oak Brook, he wanted to do something like that here and was informed that the Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance did not allow that venue. It would be good for the community, their customers and store staff to help make money in a very down . economy. It would be an opportunity to drive additional business. It would be done in keeping with who they are as Macy's and respectful of the Village and its reputation. BBT has put on 30 of these events and this venue has been tried and true for a long time. This end of town has not explored this venue. The rugs in the store are rolled up and are difficult to view. By having a parquet floor in the tent the rugs can be displayed and allows the customers to look at the rugs see them laid out and they can view many more varieties of rugs than in the store. It is possible to stage this type of event with much more inventory than what can be displayed in the store day in and day out. There would be about $55,000- 70,000 invested in advertising. Some of the diagrams were from the Old Orchard event. They only use inventory that is sold in their store. The same team members from the store sell the rugs. The sales hours would be the same as for the store. It would be the type of quality event that the Village would like to have. Sales should be between $500,000- 750,000. Jim Gallagher, Party Time Productions, Addison, said that their portion of the event is facilitating the permit for the event. They take care of all the municipality requirements. They put up fresh inventory as depicted in the photos. The units are engineered to be peaked or tent style structures and are engineered to withstand wind loads of up to 70 mph. Everything is grounded; it is weather tight for storms; temporary power is coming in to the tent that handles the power for lighting, cash registers, and night security. Everything meets code, flame certificates are provided, which goes through the permit process in order for the event to take place. They have been doing this with BBT for approximately 10 years throughout the Midwest, but have been in business for about 25 years. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 19 of 22 August 5, 2008 ,--� Mr. Brechin noted that security would be provided around the clock and would be on the site all through the night. The cost of the tent is around $75,000 and is first class. The parameters of the proposed text is sufficient for their purposes and some other properties purposed, but it provides the protections that the village should have to make sure that these events are not undertaken on sites that cannot handle them due to insufficient parking, access, setbacks, etc. It creates the ability to provide sales opportunities without the obligation of the village to do so in order to ensure that proper obligations are met. Chairman Davis noted that not all events would require a tent or an event of this size. It could be scaled down to individual properties. He questioned the length of time for the event. Mr. Moody said that the requested time allows them to hold the sale over two weekends. It also gives people time to take the rug home and try it out. Chairman Davis noted that it appeared to be an onerous requirement to be required to go to the Village Board for approval of an event. He questioned the ability to have an event approved by the Community Development Department, because he could not imagine going to the Board of Trustees every time an event would be sought. Mr. Brechin responded that since it is something new they did not want to put the burden on staff to grant approval for something and then have a board member have an unsatisfactory experience with a sales event. They were trying to give the Village Board the greatest ability to absorb what was being proposed and address any concerns that they would feel. In the future, the Board may wan to draft and amendment to change the approval to the Director of Community Development to review and approve the request. Chairman Davis said that it is an expensive and burdensome process to go before the Board of Trustees for something like what is being proposed and strikes him as overkill. Mr. Brechin said that they were trying to be conservative in the event that a neighbor would like to know about it and comment if a proposed event would affect their traffic flow, etc. A body would have the ability to evaluate those statements and make an informed decision. Trustee Sanford agreed with Chairman Davis that it should really be a permitting process issue. If it does not work and there is a problem, no future permits would be issued. If it is done by approval of the Board of Trustees then VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 20 of 22 August 5, 2008 U - NO N it may be etched in stone to some extent. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the applicant is seeking a more cautious route in that outdoor sales in Oak Brook are non - existent except under some very limited conditions such as some in the mall and outdoor dining. They did not want something that could go out of control and under this scenario, if there is a good track record of events that are beneficial to the community and have very little impact, then the Village Board may want to modify the text to make it a little easier. Trustee Wolin said that he did not think Macy's would object to the permitting process. Requiring Village Board approval creates an additional step for them. At this point in time, it is a new concept and they are not sure what the reaction would be to the tent sale. If it goes okay with no trouble and brings people into the community and the sales tax revenues go up then it could be made a permitting process at that time. It is not a secret that sales tax revenues are down substantially. It sounds like Macy's is convinced that this would bring additional revenue to them and hopefully get people to go into their store to buy more things, and perhaps to bring people to other businesses in the area. Mr. Moody added that at the Plan Commission meeting it was mentioned that when an event like this is held it helps restaurants and other surrounding businesses. It also brings in shoppers that might not have been in the neighborhood, which is a plus. The other businesses in Old Orchard want to know when an event like this is being held because they have always felt like they had a nice bump in their sales traffic as well. It is good for Macy's and they believe it would be good for surrounding businesses. Trustee Wolin commented that he believed it was worth a try to see if it works. If it works then it could be made a permanent process at that point. Member Nimry questioned if there would be additional signage for the event. Mr. Moody responded there would not be. Member Nimry noted that this would impact the police and fire department and would increase the fees. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that the fire department is part of the permit review process. Member Young noted that emergency services would not be expected to stand VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 21 of 22 August 5, 2008 6 7. by the tent during an event. Mr. Brechin noted that they would be required to comply with all other ordinance requirements and permits. There will not be any temporary signs. Chairman Davis noted that the standards for an amendment were addressed by the applicant in the testimony presented and in writing on page C of the case file. The amendment is to permit the outside sales as presented on page 8 -8.a. of the case file. Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry that the applicant addressed the required standards to recommend approval of the text amendment to Section 13 -7 -3B as presented. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Bulin, Nimry, Rush, Young, Ziemer and Davis Absent: 1 -- Member Krietsch Nays: 0 -- Motion Carried. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Davis expressed a speedy recovery for Mr. Lindeman who had taken ill during the meeting. He also thanked Member Ziemer and Member Young for their quick efforts to assist Mr. Lindeman. There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Rush to adjourn the meeting at 10:13 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried ATTEST: Robert Kallien, Di ector of Co unity Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 22 of 22 August S, 2008 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT