Loading...
Minutes - 09/05/2006 - Zoning Board of Appeals1. 2 3. 4. MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 5, 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 Chairman Champ Davis in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Richard Ascher, Jeffrey Bulin, Glenn Krietsch, Baker Nimry, Manu Shah and Steven Young IN ATTENDANCE: Jeffrey Kennedy, Trustee, Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development and Daley Durfey, Village Engineer Acting Chainnan Ascher announced with the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals the agenda items will be taken out of order APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINU17ES REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 262 2006 Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Nimry, to approve the minutes of the July 26, 2007 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. STARBUCKS COFFEE — 2407 22ND STREET -- MAP AMENDMENT — ST oRBUCKS - 2407 22 ST — MAP TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM ORA -1 TO B -3, TEXT AMENDMENT — TO -- TO ADD THE AMENDMENT SECTION 13 -7C.2 SPECIAL USES,_ ZONE FROM ORA_I To B -3, TEXT TEXT "OUTDOOR DINING AREAS ADJACENT TO AMENDMENT — RESTAURANTS" SPECIAL USE — TO ALLOW AN OUTDOOR SPECIAL USES — and VARIATIONS — TO DINING AREA ADJACENT TO A RESTAURANT, SPECIAL USE — CONSTRUCT STAND ALONESTARBUCKS TO ALLOW A DRIVE -IN FACILITY. Chairman Davis stated that he was not present at the last meeting, but he received the DVD and reviewed the entire proceeding. He reviewed the packet VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 25 September 5, 2006 It:;a and inspected the premises. He stated that on two occasions, he had professional matters with Mr. Ted Johnson. In 1998 -1999, he was used as an expert when a client challenged a TIF; and he recently consulted with him regarding another TIF. He has dealt with many other experts in this general area as well, and asked Mr. Jafrri and his attorney, Scott Day whether there was any objection to him presiding in this matter. They responded that they had no objection. Chairman Davis also said that he would render a fair and impartial decision in this matter. Chairman Davis said that an official objection dated August 24, 2006 and a Traffic Impact Analysis dated August 17, 2006 had been received from the applicant. Chairman Davis swore in Ted Johnson, President of T3 Design Strategies, 2311 22nd Street, Oak Brook who is the authorized representative of Starbucks. At the last meeting, the zoning board members asked that supplemental traffic information be provided and asked Metro Transportation to take a traffic count at the intersection of Tower and 22 "d Street. Chairman Davis swore in Rolf Killian, Executive Vice President, Metro Transportation Group. Mr. Killian said that they undertook data collection activities that included traffic counts from Tower Road and 22 "d Street. The counts were conducted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 from 7 -9 a.m. and 4 -6 p.m. They determined that the actual peak hour occurs from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. and 4:45 to 5:45 p.m. In order to determine the impact that Starbucks would have on this intersection they obtained survey data from three existing mature Starbucks locations. The Naperville location has been in existence for eight years, which is a good site and could be used as a reference tool; Lake Zurich has been open for six years; and Lake in the Hills has been open for four years. All of the sites are mature and have been around for a while. Of the three, the Naperville is the busiest location. It is about 2/3 drive up and one -third walk in. The morning peak hours are between 7:00 to 10:00 a.m. and are the busiest hours for Starbucks. This is prior to any other retail facilities opening up down the street. The mid -day period is about half of the traffic generated and the evening is about half again. The traffic significantly decreases hour by hour. They estimate that in the morning they will generate about 100 inbound vehicle trips. Because it is a pass by use, very little new traffic will be generated. It is similar to a gas station use where you would drive in and pull out in the same direction. The reason they think it will operate this way is because there is a Starbucks by Fountain Square available for westbound traffic, so it is very unlikely that people will be turning left in and left out. They estimate that about 90 percent of the traffic will make a right turn from 22 "a Street into VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 25 September 5, 2006 Tower Drive and then make a right turn out from Tower to go east onto 22nd Street. Comparing the existing conditions with those conditions anticipated after development, they determined that the northbound traffic on Tower Road would have difficulty turning left onto 22'd Street. 22nd Street carries over 41,000 cars per day. However, local roads with traffic turning onto a major arterial, it is not unusual to have that traffic operate at a low level of service, particularly the left turns. The level of service today is level of service D, which is acceptable and drops down in the afternoon to level of service E. With the proposed development, they expect it to drop down to a level of service F. However, when you do a queuing analysis for this traffic they estimate that no more than 3 vehicles at a time will be waiting to turn onto 22nd Street. This is acceptable for a low volume roadway coming onto a high volume arterial. Given the statistics and projections, they do not believe the proposed development will have a negative impact on traffic conditions at that location. IDOT does have plans to widen 22 °d Street sometime in the future to six lanes in this area. The intersection is to be considered for a traffic signal in the future. Once that occurs, traffic conditions will change at that intersection and would not only make it easier, but safer. Member Young asked how the roads at the other sites compare to this road. Mr. Killian responded that the Naperville site was chosen for the reason that is similar to this location. It is located on 75th Street, which carries approximately 39,000- 40,000 vehicles per day, so it is very similar to this location. Member Young asked how the 100 trips were determined. Mr. Killian responded that it was based on survey data obtained from the other facilities. Chairman Davis swore in the petitioner and all its witnesses. Member Nimry asked how long it would take this store to become a mature store. Chip Beltchenko, Development Manager, Starbucks Coffee Company responded that generally it takes between 3 -5 years. Scott Day, attorney representing Mr. Jafari, (the neighbor located at 2425 22nd Street) said that there is no mountable barrier median for vehicles turning left off of Tower Drive because there is a left turn lane into the Home Depot. Because of that, a vehicle could not pull out of Tower Road and make a turn waiting upon the barrier median to then be able to enter the westbound 22"d Street traffic. Mr. Killian agreed. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 25 September 5, 2006 Mr. Day asked Mr. Killian if he was aware that there was a previous application by Home Depot for a signal at that intersection that was rejected by the Dept. of Transportation. Mr. Killian responded that it was rejected because it did not meet the warrants. Mr. Day stated that currently there is no reasonable anticipation that a traffic light will be installed. Mr. Killian agreed. Mr. Day asked if Starbucks would be willing to wait until IDOT expands 22nd Street to six lanes before they site the new facility. Mr. Beltchenko responded that he did not believe they would. Mr. Day asked if they had any information as to when IDOT planned to expand 22nd Street. Mr. Killian responded no. Mr. Day said that there is no reason for the Zoning Board to anticipate that would happen any time soon, but it was stated that the problem would go away when that happened. Mr. Killian responded that he did not state that it was going to happen soon, however it is a plan that IDOT has prepared in its long - range plans. Mr. Day said that until a signal is installed left turns could not be made safely out of Tower Drive. Mr. Ikillian responded that was true, but looking at volumes of traffic coming out of Home Depot, which are extremely low (4 -5 per hour) is an indication that it is extremely difficult to make that maneuver. He also indicated that the proposed use for this site is a pass -by use, which means that the majority of the traffic will be turning right in and right out onto 22nd Street and there will be very few left turns expected. Mr. Day said that in the report from Metro Transportation it states that level of service F indicates that it takes 50 seconds or greater to make the exit and represents forced or break down flow, exceeds discharge flow thereby causing a queue to form. Operations within the queue are characterized by stop and go conditions and delay per vehicle is greater than 50 seconds. Because of the introduction of over 100 cars per hour in the peak hours exceeds 50 seconds represents a breakdown of the traffic flow. Mr. Killian responded that is correct in the strict interpretation; however, the analysis does not indicate the location of this particular intersection with respect to signals up and down the stream that creates artificial gaps in traffic. Capacity analysis technique looks at random arrivals rather than platoon traffic. While the results would indicate the stated delay, in actuality the delays will be less than that. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 25 September 5, 2006 Mr. Day asked for Mr. Killian's calculations of the present traffic and after Starbucks. Mr. Killian responded that presently it is an E, and afterwards it would be an F. Mr. Day said that after Starbucks was operational there would essentially be a break down of the traffic coming off of Tower Drive. Mr. Killian responded that there would be additional delays and longer queues. Chairman Davis asked the difference of the delays between E and F, and at what time of day that would occur. Mr. Killian responded that it varies. Level of service E can vary from 35.1 seconds to 50 seconds. Level of service F is in excess of 50 seconds per vehicle. Level of service F would occur in the evening and they anticipate generating 40 vehicles inbound and outbound. Member Ascher questioned how many vehicles are anticipated to be making a left turn and the additional number of vehicles that would change it from an E to F service. Mr. Killian responded about 10 percent of those 40 vehicles. He said that if the level of service is currently at the upper end of the range of level E service. If the service is increased by a couple of seconds, then it could jump to the F level just by adding those seconds to the delay. Member Shah said that there is not much difference at the high range of level E and F; it is just the matter of a couple of seconds. Mike Stratas, 2311 22nd Street said that he knows both Dr. Jafari and the property owner of 2407 22nd Street Mary Ann Monty. On October 1, 1996, he wrote a letter to Dr. Jafari on behalf of Ed Monty inquiring whether he would be interested in installing a traffic signal. Dr. Jafari responded to the letter, which he read into the record as follows: "Dear Mr. Stratas, Thank you for your letter dated October 1, 1996. Please be advised that I am interested in having a traffic signal at the intersection of 22nd Street and Tower Drive. The proposal is of great interest to me. This intersection has become a very active street and I am sure that Alphagraphics facility and Venture as well as myself would benefit from this traffic signal. If there is any information that I can provide you with please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, Kianoonsh Jafari" Subsequent to that, Ed Monty hired Metro Transportation and did a full traffic study, which Mr. Monty and Dr. Jafari shared in the expense. The result of that study was that there were not enough traffic warrants to establish the light. What came out of the report was that if Alphagraphics was developed for a more intense use it probably would qualify. In addition, if they put in a breakthrough to the office building to the east in all likelihood the warrants would be established. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 25 September 5, 2006 Two years ago, Horne Depot (one of his clients) came to him and asked if Mr. Monty would still be willing to pay one quarter of the cost for a signal light, which Mr. Monty agreed. Home Depot contracted with a transportation consultant, which may have been KLOA and the results of that study were that there was not enough warrants for it. It was a level of service E and was not enough to get IDOT to agree to it. In regards to the issue of 22nd Street being increased to six lanes, IDOT has already completed the preliminary engineering for it. They have copies in their office showing the six lanes and a traffic signal, so it is well beyond the conceptual stage. They do not have the funding for it, but IDOT does intend to put a traffic signal there. Mr. Monty has always and would still agree to share the cost in a traffic signal, but he is not the cause of the traffic. They cannot think of another use that would create more of a complimentary pattern than Starbucks. Mr. Day said that there have been multiple efforts to try to obtain signalization at this intersection and multiple traffic engineers have said that it is necessary, but IDOT has refused to install the safety device. Mr. Stratas agreed with the statement. Chairman Davis questioned if Village Engineer Durfey had seen the preliminary plans from IDOT. Mr. Durfey responded that they have the preliminary plans from the Phase 1 study. Phase 1 is where they look at the preliminary engineering concepts, drainage and traffic issues; and they have a concept design. Phase 2 would be when they have actual design plans, and then Phase 3 would be the actual construction. Chairman Davis questioned what is necessary to move through the Phases. Village Engineer Durfey responded money or the lack of it. 22nd Street is a state highway and they would have to find the funding to proceed; and they have not found the money to date they inform them. Chairman Davis asked if he had seen a traffic signal on the report. Village Engineer Durfey responded that it did not meet the warrants, but it might reach future warrants if there is a development of the area. Chairman Davis swore in Mr. Day and Mr. Aboona. Mr. Day said that he represents Dr. Wan, who is the owner of the Oak Brook Surgical Center and it is the only surgical center in Oak Brook. Because of the way the roads have been configured, with the advent of I -88 a dedication was necessary for Tower Drive. The facility has been there for many years and has VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 25 September 5, 2006 W gyl been serving the community and needs safe ingress and egress. They have been placed upon a road that now faces the designation of a regional arterial roadway and with that designation; the State of Illinois is attempting to limit access to those roads. They are trying to widen out the spacing that is located between the stoplights. With that designation, you limit the ability to get out onto the road. The surgical facility has been there before the roadway obtained this strategic arterial designation and they are stuck with the traffic situation that they have, but you do not have to make it worse. They have submitted a traffic report from KLOA and there are similarities between the two reports. Everyone agrees there will be a new inflow of additional traffic on Tower Drive. Everyone agrees that the traffic on 22nd Street is going to feed the Starbucks facility. It is not going to generate brand new destination traffic; the question is the traffic that is coming in and off of Tower Drive. Both parties agree that the peak hours in the morning will create additional 70 -100 vehicles per hour, more than one car per minute. They disagree in the way that they analyze traffic movements in and out of the facility. There is an assumption built into their report that only 10 percent of the cars will turn left. If they are wrong by just 10 percent then there is already a problem because all of the numbers and the movement generations are wrong. The existing condition is a one - minute average turn movement coming out of the facility. If 100 cars are added with an average turn movement of one minute, then it has already exceeded the capacity of Tower Drive. The vehicles cannot get in or out and gridlock is achieved. There is a safety concern with vehicles being able to access and exit Tower Drive and a tremendous increase in the number of vehicles using Tower Drive at the peak hours when the traffic is worst. There is no way to turn onto a suicide lane at the intersection because with the advent of Home Depot, the mountable barrier and median was removed. There have been multiple applications and IDOT has refused. There could be a 10 -year wait for 22nd Street to become a six -lane road. If the KLOA report is believed that it would be greatly exasperated by this land use, then it should be rejected. If a decision cannot be made on which report should be believed, it should be rejected. They included accident photography in their report showing the dangers that they do not believe are hypothetical; they are real. Luay Aboona, principal with KLOA and a licensed engineer said that the studies were similar in the data collection. The difference is the assumption of how traffic will arrive. It is hard for him to believe that only 10 percent of people heading westbound would enter the facility. They believe it will be closer to 30 -40 percent. They analyzed the intersection and those making left turns would have to complete the turn in one maneuver. If a vehicle were trying to make a left hand turn into Home Depot, then someone trying to exit left from Tower Drive would miss the opportunity to turn. The additional VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 25 September S, 2006 r_�? traffic from Starbucks will increase the delays considerably and not only for the left turn to exit but also for those vehicles that are stuck behind waiting to make a right hand turn. In summary, they believe the additional traffic from Starbucks is going to add more delays to the intersection and will make it inconvenient for the future customers of Starbucks as well as the patients and staff of the surgical center. IDOT does have a lot of Phase 1 plans out for many of their routes and at this time, they are in the maintenance mode, not the construction mode. They have no money or funding to do anything. If they had the funding, it would take 5 -7 years to go from Phase 1 to Phase 3. If the signal is not warranted, they will not install one, even if it shown on the plan now. Chainnan Davis asked if the addition of the Starbucks would increase the warrants to add a signal. Mr. Aboona responded that there will be added activity, but it would not be enough to trigger a signal, which would be a volume it would meet in an 8 -hour warrant and that requires a certain amount of traffic. The reason it was not warranted with the Home Depot was when the count was done; people were avoiding the intersection and use alternate routes. At the time the count was done there were only 4 people turning left in the morning and 10 in the evening. Chairman Davis asked if someone did not want to turn left there to go into Home Depot, why would it be believed that 40 percent would want to make a left hand turn to get a cup of coffee. Mr. Aboona responded that Home Depot has an alternate access, at Starbucks there would be no way to get out except at Tower. Chairman Davis questioned that the market place would probably decide that issue. He would not wait too long to make a turn in order to get a cup of coffee. He said that is possible but it is hard for him to believe that only 10 percent would be doing it at a peak hour. Member Nimry said that you might go in once; however, if you get frustrated and cannot get in or out, you would not go back. You would go to another store because there are 4 Starbucks east and 2 west of the location. Mr. Aboona said that on the other hand, if they are willing to wait in a drive thru they might be willing to wait to make the left turn and holding up everyone else behind them. Member Nimry said that although he understood, but there are a lot of baseless assumptions being made. It is human nature that if you go someplace once and it is very difficult you would not do it again. Mr. Monty should not be held hostage because of the surgical center. If Mr. Monty opened a clinical center in VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 25 September 5, 2006 that building with 3 doctors, there would be the same traffic going in; it has nothing to do with Starbucks. Mr. Aboona said that he is trying to point out that there is a very good potential for increased delays over what has been presented by the applicant's traffic study. Member Nimry said that he agreed; and said that the new Promenade shopping mall will also be generating a lot of traffic onto 22nd Street. Everyone knows the traffic and every intersection along 22nd is a problem. Chairman Davis asked if there was a problem for those turning into the surgical center riow without the Starbucks, Mr. Aboona said that there were delays today, but it is not a problem. With the Starbucks if there were customers waiting to make the left out that would be the problem especially in the morning because that is when the traffic is more significant. However, it is also difficult in the evening because the traffic on 22nd Street is higher in the evening. Chairman Davis asked if the market itself would have an impact on the traffic. Mr. Aboona responded that it is possible, but given there is a drive -thru facility and none at Fountain Square. Member Shah said that normally people making a left turn are a very small percentage. Mr. Aboona agreed that left turns are probably 30 percent. Member Bulin said that the number used in the study was 50 percent. Mr. Aboona responded that was based on the split of traffic on 22nd Street. Member Young questioned how much revenue would be brought to the village when the store matures. Mr. Beltchenko responded that around $1 million. Member Nimry added that would be $12,000 to the Village. Chairman Davis asked if the traffic was a safety concern for Starbucks. Mr. Beltchenko responded that it is not; they are a convenience business and people will pass them by. If something is difficult to get to, people will pass them by and go to another location or to a Dunkin Donuts, BP or Panera that serve coffee. There are a lot of opportunities for coffe8 and they want to be able to serve a portion of the market from this location. Member Nimry asked what would happen if they put a no left tuns on the corner of Tower and 22nd Street. Village Engineer Durfey said that everyone would have to turn right. Member Nimry said that if the biggest issue is the left turn then everyone should turn right out of Tower Drive, then there are no other VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page "9 of 25 September 5, 2006 problems on the site. Mr. Day said that to impose that restriction would be a problem for the patients that turn left out of the facility. Nearly 20 years ago a zoning authority licensed the surgical center. Some of the patients are emergency services and situations where a 1 -3 minute delay trying to leave Tower to get to Good Samaritan Hospital can mean the difference as to whether a patient survives. The surgical center is a corporate citizen in Oak Brook. It has a previously designated land use and already generates a defined traffic demand on this particular roadway. Starbucks is a good company, but they are an institution that uniquely places extreme traffic demands at certain hours of the day. If they would be generating 3 times more traffic than Alphagraphics then a landlocked access problem has been created and it is particularly dangerous for this land use. Member Nimry said that the traffic on Tower Drive was created by the surgical center. There is a problem with traffic now and Starbucks is not there. Mr. Day responded that the records would show that 22"d Street was a full access at this location, but the access was closed off by the Department of Transportation and the sole access for this property was Towef Drive. The regulatory control over access has been government at this location not the surgical center. It has been at this location for 20 years trying to access 22"d Street with the layers of authority placed over this particular roadway. The traffic will be tripled on Tower Drive and to lust say close the left turn lane in order to accommodate Starbucks. Dr. Jafari's land use should not suffer a detriment in value in order to accommodate variances and changes in the zoning map. Chairman Davis said that he reviewed the entire proceedings and there has been no testimony. The argument regarding 100 surgeons and so forth and delays to get to the hospital is something that should be heard. Mr. Day responded that the reference is in Dr. Jafari's letter where he states that it would be difficult to lease space when the patients cannot get in and out. They do treat emergency patients at this particular facility. Dr. Jafari was sworn in. He said that he likes Starbucks, but the circumstances are that they already have a dangerous situation. There was an article in the Doings showing how bad the traffic is on 22 "d Street and how the business owners are suffering and it is well known. They have 100 physician staff and medical center that come to see emergency patients and they exit out to an emergency at the hospital. The matter of an extra minute or so can be the difference between life and death. The village is aware of the number of times they come on an emergency. The area is totally unsafe and numerous statements were submitted from people at the facility, which were about the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 25 September 5, 2006 current state of traffic and how much worse it could be. No one can get a patient out of the facility if there were an emergency. The relief was granted to them, but the village should not make it more difficult for them. Member Bulin asked if the current situation is so bad now, why the cross - access had not been pursued between parking lots at the rear of the buildings. The Starbucks has proposed a cross - access across parking lot, which seems to be a way to alleviate some of the current conditions. Cross - access should be sought from the neighbors to the east and west. Dr. Jafari responded said that he was not aware that was the type of solution that he could approach until those views were presented at this meeting. Member Bulin said that might be a good solution to seek cross access to the west. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it would be a matter of securing a physical connection with those lots and then working out easement agreements that would remain with the property. Member Bulin commented that should be easier to pursue than IDOT's solution. Mr. Day said that cross - access easements are a great idea and are most often best facilitated by the governmental institution, like Naperville that mandate in situations like this that the petitioner establish these cross - access easements. Starbucks is going to aggravate the problem so they should be obligated to go out and create the easements agreements with the adaacent property owners. The village should demand that Starbucks go out and participate in the cost and expense for the legal work to secure those property rights. The village could serve as an assist to those business communities. If the traffic is spread against multiple curb cuts onto 22'd Street, it is spread to different locations and the vehicles could go out to Manes of traffic rather than when it is reduced to 2 lanes at Tower Drive. Member Bulin noted that Starbucks has presented and provided for the cross - access so at least they are attempting to solve the issue. The surgical center could have already tried to pursue it to the west. Member Nimry added that there is a signal to the west but not to the east so there would be a benefit for cross - access to the west. Mr. Day said that Starbucks has not pursued those easements, nor have they been procured from the property owner to the east. They are only proposing the easement on their property. They have not negotiated an easement with the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 25 September 5, 2006 adjacent property owner to provide an easement that does not go anywhere and does not permit the surgical center to get those rights. The community could insist that the easement rights be accomplished before Starbucks be permitted to proceed. Member Bulin said that the surgical center already has a condition that is bad. It should be imposed that the surgical center obtains the rights to the west. Mr. Day responded that the surgical center is not asking for privilege or new rules or regulations. The village has the ability to force Starbucks to negotiate those property rights and conditioned approval of the petition on gaining the easement rights to guarantee that the patrons of the facility could use the 2 other curb cuts through the office building to the east. It should not be the obligation of the surgical center as a citizen of more than 20 years, when their property is going to be negatively impacted if this is approved. They believe that conditions should be imposed upon Starbucks. Member Bulin said that he does not understand why the surgical center would not try to alleviate some of their own problems by going to the west with a cross - access easement. Chairman Davis questioned if physicians have not been able to get where they need to be and whether it has already occurred. Dr. Jafari said that it has happened. It is every day living although he cannot remember an instance. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the village is in its very early stages of its commercial revitalization planning effort. One of the very important issues that the consultant will look at as part of the redevelopment scenario is the provision of cross - access along 22nd and Butterfield Road. Many communities do mandate a cross - access up front as part of a development proposal that is one of Oak Brook's shortcomings and doing it after the fact is difficult. It is not impossible, but it is problematic. It will take a lot of parties to agree and the consultant will assist to achieve some of that. There is a lack of physical connections between parking lots. Marshall Field and Costco have some cross - access easement, but the building to the west the Shops of Oak Brook has a lack of cross - access. Member Young: asked Dr. Jafari if his building was a trauma center. Dr. Jafari responded that the patients come there even though they are not advertised that way; or it may be they have more confidence in them. In some circumstances, the patient does not recognize how serious they are and it arises at the office. Member Young questioned how easy it would be to convert the practice over to VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 25 September 5, 2006 __O�L_ an elective surgical center. Dr. Jafari responded that they are multi - specialty and licensed by the Department of Public Health. There is a day surgery and physicians office located there. Member Young asked how much revenue was brought into the village. Dr. Jafari did not know. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there is not a property tax imposed by the village; the only source of revenue is sales tax, utility tax, telecommunication tax and miscellaneous fees. Mr. Johnson said that they have been in discussion with the owners of the office building to the east and they have not come back and fully endorsed it. The plan is to provide an area for that to occur. What they and the Village needs to happen is when the sub area plan is being developed by its consultants, a frontage or cross access road has to be designated on the plan, approved and adopted by the village. The village through eminent domain then has some teeth to make the property owners work together. The access would serve a public purpose for the village and if those areas are not provided, it could eventually be condemned. In their case, they are providing (on their entire southern property line) the necessary width for a frontage road to be placed on the property. They could continue to work with the owners to the east, but until the village has adopted it, they can only really have discussions about it. Dr. Forutan was sworn in by Chairman Davis. He said that he is not an owner of the surgical center but he just wants to see better traffic for the surgical center. He has trauma patients that he wants to get in fast, treat them, and get them out. Many times when he is on the operating table some of the patients despite the proper work up, develop problems and there are things they cannot control at the surgical center. That is the time when they have to go to Good Samaritan Hospital and get the patient to the intensive care unit, These occasions are a matter of life and death. It is a dangerous situation and getting worse and he does not want the village to make it worse than it is. There is only one -day surgical center available in Oak Brook. If it were approved, he would consider not doing surgery there and would instead advise his patients to go to Downers Grove. Chairman Davis asked if they would be transported by ambulance. Dr. Forutan said yes; or whatever conditions they are in, they race and will make a left hand turn and try to get to Good Samaritan Hospital. They cannot do that if the cars are standing there getting their coffee at Starbucks and would be blocking the exit. He said that if the village wants another Starbucks in Oak Brook rather than the surgical center, do it; and he will move his practice out of VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 25 September 5, 2006 1 :R the surgery center. The only thing he has in mind is the safety and availability for his patients. Starbucks has noticed that for the first year the numbers at new facilities are higher, which is why Starbucks wants to develop more locations in America. He asked them not ruin his practice and send his patients to Downers Grove. Chairman Davis questioned what his normal hours were. Dr. Forutan said that he did not have normal hours. He has his cell phone and could be called at any hour. Mr. Killian reviewed the existing traffic volumes on Tower Drive. In the morning, northbound on Tower Drive there are less than 5 vehicles turning left and 15 turning right. In the afternoon, there are 5 vehicles turning left and 25 turning right, which exists today during the peak hours. He said that Mr. Day talked about delays, and if we assume that IDOT widens the road and they are successful in getting a signal under SRA guidelines of major arterials, IDOT would give preference to the major arterial and penalize the minor street or driveways with a signal control. The signal cycle that would be used in a situation like this would be between 2 and 3 minutes. During the peak hours it is most likely 150- second cycle, which means that the majority of the green time would be allocated to 22" d Street. Tower Drive that has a low volume of traffic would be given very little green time. That would mean that the delay on Tower Drive would exceed the delay they are estimating under stop sign control. When talking about delay, IDOT is not concerned about delay on side streets; they are concerned about progressing traffic on their arterial streets and minimizing delay for the 3 -4,000 cars an hour that travel on 22'd Street. Chairman Davis asked if he had addressed the safety concerns of the surgical center. Mr. Killian responded that he would ask if the patients are transported by ambulance, because they are obviously given priority with lights and sirens and does not wait for other vehicles to exit. He is not sure what the safety issue is in an emergency situation like that he cannot see patients driving themselves to the hospital or a doctor driving them to the hospital. Mr. Johnson said that in summary, they would like to demolish an existing building that contains 6,250 square feet that was built in 1968 and they want to cut the size down by one - third. They want to put in a 1,925 square foot Starbucks. They have presented testimony regarding standards for amendments, variations, and special uses. They are not asking for anything that really does not exist within the corridor and they believe that their land use is complimentary. If Mr. Monty leased his 6,000 square foot, building with doctors under ORA -1 it would exacerbate the problem with the traffic. The VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 25 September 5, 2006 property to their east is B -3 and they believe that Tower Drive makes a very sensible, planning demarcation between zoning districts. They believe the request for outdoor dining and the drive -thru are complimentary and consistent with those land uses in the corridor today. The cross - access agreement would allow anyone to use it. Mr. Stratas said that Mr. and Mrs. Monty suggested that the applicant will use good faith to negotiate with the neighbor to the east and would pay their fair share in the event of the installation of a traffic signal. Mr. Day said that there is only one opportunity with redevelopment and this is the one opportunity to require cross - access easement as a condition of approval. He strongly recommended that it be mandated that cross - access easements be negotiated with the petitioner as a condition of approval. The safety concern is simple the objectors of the 55,000 square foot surgical center generates about 20 traffic movements per hour. They are suggesting that the existing 6,000 square foot building, if converted to a doctor's office would create a traffic problem and that is an absurd argument. There will be over 100 new movements per hour at a critical time that it is punched in at this location, if approved make sure that it is spread over at least 3 access points instead of 1. Have the cross - access easement as a condition. Mr. Johnson said that with respect to safety he would suggest that the village look at the parking that is currently allowed on Tower Drive if they are going to be putting traffic. Tower, which is a village street, should be a village street and not a private parking lot. The cross - access agreement would be problematic if the neighbor to the east says no. If the village would be behind them and help them, that would be very beneficial. If need be the village could use the powers of eminent domain to get property owners to work together. Chairman Davis asked if a good faith agreement would be acceptable. Mr. Stratas agreed. Chairman Davis said that the Commercial Revitalization would be advised to take whatever action they can to alleviate traffic conditions that they have heard on this issue. Member Nimry asked Village Engineer Durfey, that if this is a trauma center would that enhance the chances of getting a signal, because according to the doctor, he would move his business somewhere else because it is a trauma center. Would that use enhance the chance to get a traffic light at that location? Village Engineer Durfey said that he is not aware in the past where that has come into play so he does not know if it would or not. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 15 of 25 September 5, 2006 Member Bulin said that on page 40 -40.a staff had gathered information on parking at the surgical center and the use of the street for parking was one of the concerns. Director of Community Development Kallien said that one of the issues that came up at the last Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was that the potential realization that the Alphagraphics or Starbucks was going to degrade the access onto Tower Drive and the ability to get patients in and out of the surgical center. One issue they could study was Tower Drive parking and the parking that was utilized at the medical building. They went out 22 different times, by three different people and all used the same criteria. They analyzed the number of cars that were parked on Tower Drive and it was their estimation that approximately 10 -11 parking spaces depending on how the cars were oriented. Dr. Jafari has 2 small parking lots in the front of the property, one is a handicapped and the other is a smaller lot. There is a much larger facility to the south of his property. They went out and analyzed how many cars were parked and how many vacant spots were seen in the three locations. On average, on the 22 visits, 5 `/2 out of the 11 spaces were parked on Tower Road, but there were as many as 55 on average available parking spaces in the three lots. Member Bulin asked what the criteria was years ago when they granted the parking on Tower because supposedly there was no parking in the lot. Director of Community Development Kallien said that at that time it was Village Manager Veitch and Dr. Jafari presented them with the request for the ability to park on that street; and the Village Board at that time approved it. He said that the aerial photograph provided in the Starbucks case file dated May 13, 2006 shows the available parking in Dr. Jafari's parking lot, which really seemed to be quite the norm during the 22 times the village visited the property. Member Nimry said that there is a safety issue on the road going in or out and although Trustee Sanford was not able to attend this meeting and that the study should be given to him along with the recommendation that the parking along the street be revoked. These are based on the village study and the safety issue that has been brought up by Dr. Jafari so that the road is left wide open and free of cars. Director of Community Development Kallien said that would take a separate action by the Village Board. Chairman Davis said that was something the Village Board could look at, but is not before the Zoning Board of Appeals in the present action. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 16 of 25 September 5, 2006 Dr. Jafari said that the study presented by the Village was probably a recent one. There was a reason why parking was allowed on the street when the village approved it. During the summer, some of the physicians are on vacation and some patients chose to come to see the doctors less often. In addition, one of the very busy orthopedic surgeons vacated the building and there is a vacancy. Once the full capacity is resumed, they will be in the same situation as when the village approved the parking on the street. He appreciates the considerations given for the needs of the patients and physicians, but do not make it more difficult for the patients and physicians because of the fact that they are objecting to further utilization on the street; so they should not be punished for it. Chairman Davis said that the applicant has addressed the standards, which are set forth in writing in the case file. Map Amendment Motion by Member Krietsch, seconded by Member Nimry, that the applicant has addressed the required factors on pages C to C.2 of the case file and to recommend the request for a map amendment to rezone the subject property at 240722 d Street fxom ORA -1 to B -3. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7-- Members Ascher, Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. Text Amendment Motion by Member Shah, seconded by Member Bulin, that the applicant has addressed the factors on page E of the case file, and to recommend approval of the requested text amendment to Section 13 -7C.2, of the Zoning Ordinance to add "outdoor dining areas adjacent to restaurants" as a Special Use in the B -3 District. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7— Members Ascher, Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. Special Use — Drive -Thru Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Shah, that the applicant has addressed the standards on page G of the case file, to recommend approval of the requested special use for a drive -thru subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the property in substantial conformance with the revised Elevation and Site Plan dated July 12, 2006 on page 23 of the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 17 of 25 September 5, 2006 case file. 2. Suggest that the owner use reasonable efforts to negotiate a cross - access easement to satisfy the concerns raised. 3. If signalization at the intersection of Tower Drive and 22nd Street is installed, the property owner agrees to pay 25% of the costs of the installation to be shared between the property owners utilizing that intersection. 4. The village to consider the imposition of cross - access easement requirements in the Commercial Corridor Revitalization Project ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7— Members Ascher, Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. Special Use -- Outdoor Dining Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Young, that the applicant has addressed the standards on page G of the case file, to recommend approval of the requested special use for an outdoor dining area adjacent to the restaurant subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the property in substantial conformance with the revised Elevation and Site Plan dated July 12, 2006 on page 23 of the case file, bollard design on page 22, Building design on page 18 and Outdoor dining area with table and umbrella design as shown on page 16 of the case file and the following conditions imposed by the Plan Commission, 2. Operation between April 1 and October 15 of each year. 3. Tables and chairs to be removed during the winter months. 4. No live music or other live entertainment is allowed in the exterior seating area. 5. No wait service to be provided to the exterior seating area. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes. 7-- Members Ascher, Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. Variations Motion by Member Shah, seconded by Member Young, that the applicant has addressed the standards on page I of the case file, to recommend approval of the variation to Section 13- 7C -3.c to allow an approximate 31 -foot encroachment into the required 100 foot setback on 22nd Street; and approval of the variation to Section 13- 12 -31 to allow an approximate 5 -foot encroachment into the 10- foot setback required for the parking along Tower Drive. The variations are VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 18 of 25 September 5, 2006 subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the property shall be in substantial conformance with the revised plans submitted on page 23 of the case file. 2. That the owner grants the Cross - access easement to the Village as provided on the plans submitted should it be obtained. 3. Additional landscaping to be provided. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7— Members Ascher, Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. Chairman Davis called for a 5- minute recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9:43 p,m. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. CUBELLIS MGDF, AS AUTHORIZED BY PANERA BREAD, ON CUBELLIS BY PANERA BRLEAD - BEHALF OF MID - AMERICA ASSET MANAGEMENT — 1600 16th 1600 IG ST - sU - STREET — SPECIAL USE — SECTION 13 -7A -2 — OUTDOOR DINING OUTDOOR DINING ADJ TO A ADJACENT TO A RESTAURANT RESTAURANT Chairman Davis swore in Wally Funk, Cubellis MGDF, architects for Panera Bread, Chris Skiles, Senior Construction Manager for Panera Bread and Peter Dugan from Cubellis MGDF. Mr. Funk reviewed the request. They are located at the Oaks of Oak Brook located at 16th Street and Route 83 on the south end of the strip. They are seeking an outdoor seating area with 28 seats. It would be located along the south and east edge of the space, occupying what is currently a walkway. They will not be doing any additional expansion to the building. They will provide a protective barrier along each area. It will be an ornamental railing with decorative finished piers to address some of the safety concerns. There will be 6 tables on the south side and 3 tables on the east side. Access will only be from the exterior and maintaining a clear entrance at the corner and a clear exit way at the south side. Chairman Davis noted that the matter was presented to the Plan Commission and approved unanimously, subject to the conditions set forth on page 7 -7.a of the case file. He asked if they were agreeable to those conditions. Mr. Funk agreed. Chairman Davis questioned whether there was vehicular traffic surrounding the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 19 of 25 September 5, 2006 seating area. Mr. Funk responded that there is a two -way traffic aisle, which runs adjacent (east /west) to the area. There is and a traffic aisle that runs north/south directly across from the small area. There is very little traffic in the area. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Chairman Davis noted that the standards for approval of a special use were presented in writing on page C of the case file. Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Bulin to recommend approval of the requested Special Use for an outdoor dining area adjacent to a restaurant, subject to the following conditions. 1. The 28 -seat outdoor dining area is to be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted on pages J, K, L and M (Sheet A- 0.1, A -0.2, A -0.3 and A -0.4,) as prepared by Cubellis MGDF and dated July 13, 2006. 2. Access to the outdoor dining area shall be from the sidewalk that borders the restaurant. 3. The ornamental railings will be provided at the perimeter of the seating areas. The railings will be augmented with piers to provide protection of the seating space. 4. The outdoor dining area to be operational between April 1 and October 15`x' of each year. Tables and chairs are to be removed during the winter months. 5. No Live music or other live entertainment is allowed in the exterior seating area. 6. No wait service provided to the exterior seating area. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7— Members Ascher, Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 -- None. Motion Carried. B DOUBLETREE HOTEL ON BEHALF OF PFC OAK LLC c/o DOUaLETREE HOTEL - TEXT PYRAMID ADVISORS LLC THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY — AMENDMENT- - TEXT AMENDMENT - SECTION 13-11-11A.2 — TO PERMIT TO PERMIT ADD'L SIGNAGE FOR ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE FOR HOTELS LOCATED IN THE ORA -2 HOTELS TN ORA -2 DISTRICT DISTRICT Chairman Davis swore in Michael Newman, General Manager of the DoubleTree Hotel and Masaru Trakiguichi, the attorney for the hotel. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 20 of 25 September 5, 2006 Mr. Newman provided a brief overview of the hotel and the requested text amendment. Their company is Pyramid Hotel Group in Boston and they purchased the hotel from Hyatt in February of 2005 for just over $20 million. Immediately following the purchase, they rebranded the hotel to a DoubleTree brand, which is a Hilton family brand of hotel and began a $15 million renovation. The scope of the renovation took about 8 months and completely renovated 427 guest rooms, 35,000 square feet of public space as well as landscaping that was in excess of $200,000 to date. The only projects remaining are the build out of the gift shop, the Avis rent -a -car and a barber shop and an executive board room. They have the plans together for that and hope to complete it within the next 6 -8 weeks. The only other existing project that they have is the building sign. The current situation is that the hotel is zoned in the ORA -2 District, which with the existing language in the ordinance does not allow a sign to be mounted above 35 feet on a building. The ordinance allows the building at its current height and they would like the signage to be in line with the allowed height building. There is a monument sign on the pond, which can be seen when you are directly in front of the building. With the maximum height allowed in the ORA -2 District you can hardly see the sign if you are traveling north on Spring Road as shown on the exhibit page G of the case file. There is a direct competitor directly across Spring Road. if you were traveling north on Spring Road, with the allowed signage in the district the logo can barely be seen. The proposed text amendment would allow them to raise the sign on the building so that it is identifiable to the public and potential customers and local visitors as shown on Exhibit, page H of the case file. They would like to have the same signage language as their direct competitor across the street. The hotel sits on 24 acres and is the largest in Oak Brook. Next year they are estimating about $20 million in room sales that would make them the most profitable hotel in the Oak Brook area. Their goal is to become a 4 -star, 4- diamond hotel, which would be the only one in the western suburbs. Chairman Davis that the proposal includes the exception that it would apply only to hotels in the ORA -2 District. Mr. Newman stressed that the $35 million investment they have made will take them 6 -7 years to recover that from a profit margin. They want to be part of the community and be a good neighbor. They want to be part of the new revitalization of Oak Brook and they have a strong commitment in what they have invested and do not want to do anything that would be distasteful or something that would look out of place. They want a class looking hotel and what they believe is one of the finest products from a hotel standpoint in the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 21 of 25 September 5, 2006 ",--a Oak Brook area. Chairman Davis noted that the landscaping is a magnificent improvement. William Lindeman, 11 Pembroke Lane, was sworn in and said that generally he is opposed to any change in signage at this particular time. He asked the board to slow down and delay this matter at least until generalities can be discussed with the consultant for the commercial revitalization and the community beautification plan. It would be inappropriate at this time. The village is spending $200,000 for a consultant so we should make use of him. The hotel has been there for 30+ plus years and has done well without a sign. He felt that the millions spent may have addressed some of the reasons why the previous owner did not do as well as he did. He is not aware of the ORA -2 being in need of extensive revitalization. There is the McDonald's property, Commerce Plaza and the hotel. He thinks that they are doing fine with the signs that they have. He objected specifically to the design of the sign. They are introducing multiple colors, Christmas colors, they are including their logo, and it is excessive as to what is needed to accomplish what they are looking for. The Renaissance has their own logo and colors also, but they put forth an effort to be a little more aesthetically pleasing with their signs. You have to respect the restraint in the signage exercised by other buildings around the shopping center, such as Executive Towers, The Marriott, and Regency Towers. They have no building mounted signs. Other hotels in Oak Brook that are in competition with this hotel would be excluded from having a multi -color sign. There is a DoubleTree Hotel in Downers Grove that has a solid green sign and is a very large and illuminated, but it is not red and green. The ground sign at the entryway is a single color. From the information, he has gathered from various sources, you cannot discriminate against other businesses in a zoning district based on the type of business they are operating. You cannot allow something for a hotel that you do not allow for an insurance company or a bank. He understood that a sign could be placed at 35 feet. However, the interpretation of the ordinance does not address intensity of lighting. The Private Bank on Jorie Blvd is the greatest intensity possibility and was approved for whatever reason, either for a lack of knowledge as to the differences of intensity or whatever. The intensity of the light for DoubleTree has not been addressed and if approved it could be aesthetically poor. The answer may be to place conditions governing the sign to control the intensity. Is there a specified height for the signs in ORA -2 district? Chairman Davis said that there are various restrictions within the ORA -2 district that would not be changed and that the Hotel would be subject to. The only change being sought is a change in the height limitation. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 22 of 25 September 5, 2006 Director of Community Development Kallien said that he met with Mr. Lindeman last week and went over many of these issues and indicated to him that the request is to amend the text to allow the height to be increased. The applicant has not chosen to vary or waive any other provision of the Code relative to the signage requirements. When the sign permit comes into the office it shall fully meet the letter of our sign provisions. We do in fact have an illumination provision in our Code and it is properly stated in that any property that has signage that abuts a residential district, the illumination is V2 foot - candle at the property line. In his view, he does not think there will be any issue whatsoever. Documentation will be required from the sign company, but in terms of meeting all of the other provisions of the Code they are in line here. Mr. Lindeman said that he wished to express his dissatisfaction with the lack of controls in the present sign ordinance. It is his hope that the consultant reviews the sign ordinance and put restrictions on. He is aware and understands the restrictions of light over flowing into a residential area. For future reference, he would like the members to look at the intensity on the PrivateBank sign and judge for themselves as to whether it is excessive. He said that he is not aware of any two -color signs in the Village, especially near the shopping center, which is a shining example of good taste and attention to the aesthetics. The Zoning Board has an obligation to support the people that have been in the village for a long time, have exercised this restraint, and not continue to plaster the buildings with additional signage. Chairman Davis questioned whether the colors were a part of the hotel logo. Mr. Newman responded that they were. It is an international recognized brand and is the standard logo as presented. The DoubleTree in Downers Grove has been for at least 10+ years and at that time, it was the color and the logo, but it since has changed. The monument sign is what they have for the roadside. There are different policies and procedures to be followed for different signs. It stays consistent with what is seen on the pond sign in red and green. It will be a tastefully done sign and they will follow the Code to the letter. Chairman Davis noted that there are many protections to the Code and the comments made are useful for future planning. Chairman Davis noted that the standards had been presented in writing on pages C -C.1 of the case file. Member Young asked if they changed the color of the sign, would water down their trademark. Mr. Trakiguichi responded that it would. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 23 of 25 September 5, 2006 Member Krietsch questioned whether the approval was for their specific signage request. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that they are amending the signage provisions in the ORA -2 District to allow for an exemption for hotels, which at this time there is only one hotel. However, with the McDonald's property there was some discussion of some other hotel being constructed. There were really two ways to approach this request. They could have sought a variation or they could have looked at a text amendment. When they reviewed the most recent sign changes that have been made most recently in the Code; there was the McDonald's property at 22"d and Spring Road and the Oak Brook Promenade. Actual changes were made to the text on both of those to accommodate more signage for restaurants under a special use and on the Promenade, they were allowed to be placed higher on the building based upon the changes in the elevations, due to the increased heights. Using that same rationale we looked at the text. There may be opportunities for other hotel development in this corridor. The Code does allow for the exact same uses as are in the shopping center, but the sign rules are so much different. We looked at how we are accomplishing a successful end to their needs. The exhibits presented depict the allowable signage on both buildings looking north down Spring Road and there is a significant difference between the DoubleTree and the Renaissance Hotel. One would not know there is a difference in zoning from one side of Spring Road to the other. They are allowing the field to be changed in terms of the height. There has been no change to the quantity of the signage, the color, or any of the other dynamics of the requirements. The site is limited to 240 square feet of signage, which can be allocated with a series of ground and wall signs. They are meeting that and they will meet the lighting and all other provisions of the sign code. As part of the revitalization effort there will be discussion on how signage should be handled in the future as we see redevelopment in our various areas. Motion by Member Krietsch, seconded by Member Young that the applicant has addressed the required factors on pages C to C.1 of the case file to recommend the request for a text amendment as proposed on page A.1 of the case file. The language to be added to Section 13- 11- 11 -A.2 is as follows: "..., except for hotels in the ORA -2 zoning district, which are exempt from the 35 foot height limitation, but which must comply with all other aspects of the provisions herein." ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7— Members Ascher, Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 24 of 25 September 5, 2006 6. OTHER BUSINESS: OTHER EUSnMESS 7. There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Krietsch, seconded by Member Bulin to adjourn the meeting at 10:16 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, Di ector of ommunity'Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 25 of 25 September 5, 2006 "--Lz ADJOURNMENT