Loading...
Minutes - 09/07/2004 - Zoning Board of AppealsMINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 7 2004 REGULAR ® MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON OCTOBER 5, 2004. 1. CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Champ Davis in the West Wing Training Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Richard Ascher, George Mueller, and Robert Sanford ABSENT: Members Manu Shah and Steven Young IN ATTENDANCE: Director of Community Development, Robert Kallien, Jr. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JUNE 29, 2004 Motion by Member Ascher, seconded by Member Mueller, to approve the minutes of the June 29, 2004 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting as written. The June 29, 2004 meeting was rescheduled from July 5, 2004 due to the holiday. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 4 UNFINISHED BUSINESS: There was no unfinished business to discuss NEW BUSINESS 5. NEW BUSINESS: A. BHARGAVA/GRAWAL — 722 FOREST GLEN LANE — VARIATION BHARCAVAicRAW AL - 722 FOREST — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE - ZONING ORDINANCE GLEN LANE - SECTION 13- 6D -3F -3 — VARIATION TO THE REAR YARD VARIATION - REAR YARD SETBACK SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A ROOM ADDITION Chairman Davis swore in Pradeep Bhargava, the petitioner and owner of the property at 722 Forest Glen Lane. Mr. Pradeep Bhargava said that they purchased the home a couple of years VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 16 September 7, 2004 i ,- ago. They really like Oak Brook and intend to stay. The lot is only 14,000 square feet and the zoning district minimum is 18,000 square feet. The plat on page J of the file shows the position of the house on the lot. To add any addition to the existing house, which is only 2800 -2900 square feet, there is no other option without receiving a variation. There are very few options available to add onto the house. They are looking to build the addition on a slab located at the rear of the house. The backyard is about 40 feet deep, but it is about 160 feet wide. The proposed 18 foot encroachment will only be about 21 feet of the length of the backyard. There was a discussion regarding the existing setbacks for the property. It was determined that the rear yard setback is 30 feet. The property abuts 2 streets so there are two frontages. Chairman Davis confirmed that there are two neighbors and there is a letter in the file from the Homeowners Association. He asked if there were any objections from any of the neighbors. Mr. Bhargava said that he spoke to the neighbors and not one has objected. He has received a letter from the Forest Glen Homeowners Association, which has given preliminary approval of the variation requested. The Members reviewed Mr. Bhargava's response to standards on page F of the case file. Chairman Davis said that in the petitioner's response to the standards it appears that the hardship is believed to be that his lot is much smaller than the other lots. Mr. Bhargava said that the hardship exists due to the location and layout of the house when it was built. The backyard would be more accessible to them by adding the room addition. He said that the location would also help with the flow of the house. Member Mueller asked if the addition was one story. Mr. Bhargava responded that it would be a one story addition with a cathedral ceiling. Chairman Davis asked if they had ruled out placing it to the side of the lot. Mr. Bhargava responded, yes they had because it would look very odd on the side of the lot and would not work with the flow of the house.. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 16 September 7, 2004 Chairman Davis asked about architectural plans being submitted. Mr. Bhargava responded that he did not have plans prepared because they are very expensive; and based on the decision would determine whether he would be able to go forward to be able to build the addition. He did prepare a rough drawing by hand. He said that it will have a cathedral ceiling with skylights and windows. Member Ascher confirmed that the property is zoned R -4 and the setbacks are 30 foot front, 10 foot side and 30 foot rear. Member Ascher said that his only problem is when the next neighbor comes in and asks for 10 or 20 more feet. The Code has been set up to set some sort of standards. When people buy houses they should be aware of those. He drove by it and it is a very nice property and does not see the addition as a big problem. However, he would hate to be sitting on the Zoning Board when the next neighbor shows up also asking for a variation he asked where do you stop? Mr. Bhargava responded that there are very few houses in the area that have the same problem. The rest of the lots are much bigger and deeper lots. There is a lot of construction going on all the time, but they do not wneed to come in for a variance because they have the land to work with. He said that his lot is the exception. He said that he discussed it in detail with Harry Peters from the Homeowners Association. He is very stringent and knows what goes on in the subdivision and he clearly stated to him that this lot is very different. This is a corner lot and most of the other lots in the subdivision have substantial back yards. Chairman Davis said he also drove by the property and does not believe there are many corner lots and there can be particular hardships with corner lots. The addition would not be exposed by being located in the rear. He said that he is going to assume that the Homeowners Association is quite familiar with all the properties in the Subdivision and if they thought that they this would be setting a precedent in the neighborhood they would not want to give an approval. Mr. Bhargava said that he drove around and it appears that the other lots have substantial backyards. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 16 September 7, 2004 Director of Community Development Kallien said that the setback on the site plan does not make sense for this lot. The property is zoned R -4 and should have a front yard setback of 30 feet, not 40 feet as noted on the plat of survey. The ten feet on each frontage cannot be gotten back short of demolishing the house. Traditionally corner lots are bigger because of the two frontages, this one is not. Member Asher confirmed that Forest Glen Subdivision was part of Oak Brook when this house was built. Member Sanford said it is a very attractive home and asked if the standards meet the hardship when someone did not know what the setbacks were when they bought the home. Chairman Davis said that while it is a consideration to know the setbacks when you buy property, you still have the right to seek a variation, whether or not you knew the setbacks at the time of the sale. The concern is whether there would be a flood of additional requests, if this one is granted. He cannot think of any time, that anyone has ever come in asking for a variation because someone else received it. Member Sanford asked if it meets the standards for a variation when the lot is small. Chairman Davis said that it is important to meet the standards and to not set a precedent. The circumstances need to be unique to this piece of property. Based on the testimony, the minimum lot size is 18,000 or 15,000 under certain circumstances; this lot is 14,000 square feet, which is much smaller than most of the lots in the Forest Glen Subdivision. Member Ascher said that should this be approved, he would want it stated that if anyone comes in to request a variation that it be noted that the exception was made due to the lot being a 14,000 square foot corner lot. Director of Community Development Kallien said that a question would be what type of hardship would be placed upon the property owner to locate the addition in the front of the home. Most homes are oriented that it would be difficult to add to the front of the house. There are also a number of large trees in the front of the home. Mr. Bhargava said that the exterior would match the existing house. The addition is not a significant amount of area. The home is restricted by VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 16 September 7, 2004 large setbacks and they have very few options to build onto the house. The proposed area is approximately 18 x21 feet and they believe that it is the best place to put an addition. A list of the materials was given to the Homeowner Association to ensure that they met the standards of the Association. There are no blueprints yet. The blueprints are $2500 and they felt it was better to see if they can even do it first. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Chairman Davis motioned, seconded by Member Mueller to recommend approval of the variation for the construction of a room addition as requested by approximately 18 feet into the rear yard setback. The standards have been addressed on Pages F and F1 and the situation is due to unique circumstances which include that the lot is undersized being 14,000 square feet and the R -4 zoning district minimum standards are 18,000 square feet; it is a corner lot; and from an aesthetic standpoint will not impact other homes in the neighborhood. The homeowner association has given its preliminary approval. There is a rough sketch of the proposed addition on page G of the case file and the addition is to be built in substantial conformance with the plan submitted. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 3 — Members Mueller, Sanford and Chairman Davis . Nays: 1 — Member Ascher Absent: 2 — Members Shah and Young. Motion Failed According to the Zoning Board of Appeals Rules of Procedure, if a motion fails to receive four (4) votes in favor of the application, a motion denying the application shall be formally entered on the record. However, if the votes of absent but eligible members, when added to the number voting in favor of the applicant, would total four (4) or more, the matter shall be postponed to the next meeting of the Board. If the motion to approve an application fails to receive four (4) affirmative votes at the next meeting, a motion denying the application shall be formally entered on the record. Chairman Davis said under the Rules this matter will be continued to the next meeting on October 5, 2004. Member Sanford asked at what point plans would be drawn. 00011 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ DIME [][]that normally there are conceptual Chairman Davis said that normally there are conceptual drawings of the proposal in the case file. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 16 September 7, 2004 . Mr. Bhargava said that the plans would need to be provided at the time they applied for permits to the Village and to the Homeowner Association for architectural review. If they think It is not appropriate for the subdivision they would not approve it, even if they receive the variation. Member Ascher said that he looked for drawings and he wondered why the presentation would not be made to the Zoning Board. This Board is responsible for granting the variation not the architectural review committee. He would have felt much more comfortable having had plans to review. Reading the material he thought he could see how it would work. When he looked at the plan and a statement was made that the only way to get to the patio was through the garage around the side of the house. If the variation is granted, what will happen after the plans are drawn (that would not be seen by the Zoning Board), that there would be some way to access the back yard. That is why he thinks it is important to see the plans, approve it based upon the plans and be assured that what is will be built. Instead of granting an architectural committee the right to supersede the Zoning Board of its decision. He would be reluctant to change his decision unless he could see the plans that are going to be presented to the architectural committee. It may cost $2500, but the variation has a certain amount of expense, but there are certain things that need to happen to grant a variation. Most people bring in plans and final drawings, so that when . the Zoning Board gives their approval they know what they are recommending and what it will look like. Chairman Davis and the other members agreed. Mr. Bhargava responded that he was told this would be adequate. He said that he is trying to preserve everything in the backyard there will be doors to access the backyard from the east and west. The room will be attached to a dinette between the kitchen and the family room. They will preserve the backyard and said that he was told blueprints were not absolutely necessary for this hearing. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in reviewing the Code there is no explicit requirement to provide detailed plans. Most applicants do take that next step to ensure that the Board's are comfortable with what the request actually is. When the applicant presented this, he felt it was sufficient to give an understanding of what was requested The Zoning Board is well within its power to require additional plans in order to make a decision. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK iZoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 16 September 7, 2004 7 , T5�� • • I] There was a general discussion regarding the construction timeframe. Mr. Bhargava submitted a list of all the materials and construction. It is a 0 very simple room. After reviewing this document Member Ascher said that a deck was listed " that is not shown or mentioned in the variation request. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the deck would require a variation, but an at -grade patio would not. Chairman Davis asked if the petitioner had mentioned the construction of the deck with the neighbors. Mr. Bhargava said that he has and they did not have any objection. He also added that he could remove the deck from the plan. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it is important to show how the addition will look from the outside. Member Ascher added that if he came back with a deck shown on the plans it may be approved. Chairman Davis said that a patio is not part of the structure, but that a deck is part of the structure. If he intends to add a deck, the application needs to be amended to reflect that and it should be shown on the plans. Member Mueller said that seeing how it would look from the exterior would be beneficial to the Board. A discussion ensued regarding documents that the members would like to review. It was suggested that the petitioner submit the following documents prior to the next meeting: 1. Amend the application to include the proposed deck. 2. Submit architectural plans, to include the deck. 3. Plans showing the proposed exterior. The matter will be on the October 5, 2004 agenda. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 16 September 7, 2004 5. B. 970 LLC and CF 2020 SWIFT LLC — 2020 SWIFT DRIVE — 911 LLC and CF 2020 Swift LLC — 2020 VARIATION to FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL Swift Dr— Variation - PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD. Front Yard setback Chairman Davis swore in Keith Sherry, Attorney for the petitioners, who are the owners of the property located at 2020 Swift Drive. Mr. Sherry said that the petitioners have owned the property since the beginning of 2004. The property is grossly under parked and currently there are 65 parking spaces. As required under the current Zoning Ordinance it should have approximately 93 spaces, based on a 51,000 square foot building. Approximately 11,000 square feet of the building would be used as office space and 40,000 square feet as warehouse space. The property is known as the old Polaroid building, which has been neglected and vacant for quite a while. They believe the reason the building has been vacant for so long is because it is so under parked. There are no current users of the property that can utilize the building due to the nature of the parking situation. The uniqueness of the hardship of this property is that the building is much too large for the land that it is on. The building is situated in such a way that it is very difficult for the property owner to make use of the existing parking or to provide adequate additional parking. There is nowhere to provide a parking deck on the property. There really is no alternative other than to put additional parking in the front. A conceptual drawing provided in the case file is a rendering of what they may do to the facade. It would be quite an upgrade to the building. They will be removing approximately 6,000 square feet of building so that the end result will look similar to Exhibit H in the case file. The variation they seek is to put 32 parking spaces in the front instead of the 6 parking spaces currently on site. The owner does understand that in large part the purpose of the Ordinance is the allowance of only 6 spaces in the front is to maintain an attractive appearance from the curb of the property. It is a nice looking industrial park and they will heavily landscape the area between the road and the additional parking that will be added. They intend to preserve the intent of the Ordinance. The building is obsolete under current standards. They cannot lease or sell the building in its current state. He stressed that the hardship and the uniqueness of the situation, the size of the building and the way that it sits VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 16 September 7, 2004 1-- Z on the property. There would still be 65 feet of green space between the curb and the easternmost border of the additional parking. Chairman Davis asked what portion of the building would be removed. Mr. Sherry responded that it was a portion of the south side of the building. The building is oriented to Swift Drive; the east side is really the front of the building. The south side of the building has docks that they are planning to remove. Chairman Davis asked if there were other distribution centers in the area. Mr. Sherry responded that he did not know. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that most of them have been converted to office /warehouse combination. Years ago, most of them were manufacturing and the Zoning Ordinance allowed for these unique parking standards that tied the number of parking spaces to the number of employees. What it did not take into account was that as businesses came and went the number of employees could change. This building does meet the FAR of the ORA -1 District; however, it just does not have adequate parking. If it were converted to all office, they would need almost 200 spaces. Chairman Davis questioned where they would get the 93 spaces needed? Mr. Sherry said that the variation requested would provide 74 spaces and they would still have an issue of being under parked. In their attempt to comply with the Ordinance they cannot provide any more parking, which is why this is so critical. If they could put more parking in they would, and they would like to. However, if they take anymore of the building away then they are really reducing the usefulness of the property as a whole. Chairman Davis reviewed the conceptual drawing with Mr. Sherry. Chairman Davis said that he went and viewed the site today. He saw parking on the south side of the building. Mr. Sherry said that they intend to dramatically increase the amount of parking on the south side of the building. Mr. Sherry said that they are using diagonal parking, which is more shallow in order to keep as much green space as possible. Chairman Davis commented that there is no room to park in the rear due to VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 16 September 7, 2004 the truck pattern. Mr. Sherry agreed. Member Sanford said that is currently where the bulk of the parking is located. The spaces by the loading docks are almost useless, because the large trucks cannot maneuver with the existing plan. Chairman Davis asked what the legal status was for a facility that does not have sufficient parking as required by Ordinance. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it is a legal nonconforming use. They are allowed to continue it but cannot expand it. They cannot change the use that would make it further in less compliance. Chairman Davis said that the proposed variation would make it more in compliance with the Ordinance. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the amount of green space that currently exists between the east property line and the existing asphalt drive is approximately 60 feet. They will be taking an additional strip of approximately 15 feet of green space. Director of Community Development Kallien said that originally the applicant envisioned seeking more parking spaces than what they are currently seeking. They had subsequent meetings with the Village Manager and the Trustee Liaison and based on previous cases and as a result of that meeting, it was modified to add angled parking and fewer spaces. The original request would have left only 35 feet of green space. Chairman Davis asked if there were other properties in the area that had smaller green spaces. He is concerned that they would be changing the character of the neighborhood. He drove by there and there is a lot of green. He said that he appreciates what they are doing because the Polaroid building is an eyesore, but he is concerned about the amount of green area and how the rest of the neighborhood would look. Mr. Sherry said that they understand how important that was especially after the meeting at the Village. They went back and tried to find a compromise. So instead of using perpendicular parking, which would have given them more parking, but took away more green space, they provided diagonal parking. They had hoped that 65 feet of space between the street and the easternmost boundary of the parking lot coupled with the heavily landscaped would keep the character of the neighborhood while allowing VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 16 September 7, 2004 the owners to put an asset back into operation that was falling into • disrepair by the day. Member Ascher questioned the total number of spaces being sought. Mr. Sherry said that in his letter of explanation he was trying to make the point that under the requirements set in the Ordinance they should have more parking than what they are asking for. Under the standards today, they would be required to have a minimum of 98 parking spaces. They were trying to show the serious nature of the lack of parking. They are not sure if the building was built to code. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it could have been built to Code; however, the parking spaces were equated to the number of employees that were in the building. Mr. Sherry said that under today's standards the number of parking spaces needed would be 98 minimum. Director of Community Development Kallien said that they are trying to become more complying to the Code than they currently are. They discussed if there was an opportunity to take away more of the footprint, but that creates more challenges for them construction -wise. The problem is that the footprint is too large for this property. The building has never been used as all office; it was always used as a manufacturing warehouse. They also explored the possibility of leasing parking spaces from other buildings. Member Mueller asked if there was any intent to use it as all office. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that literally it cannot go to all office. Mr. Sherry said that the market would take care of the use. It will mainly be an industrial use coupled with a partial office use to support whatever industrial use is there. It is an industrial building, but it must have a fair amount of office space too. Director of Community Development Kallien said that on Page F of the case file, the applicant discusses an appropriate ratio of use for this building. A building permit could not be issued for all office for this building. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK goZoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 16 September 7, 2004 t Mr. Sherry said that the owner does not envision this being used as an all - office facility. Any tenant, who needs an office building of this size, would not lease the building as a straight office building, simply because enough parking could not be provided. Member Mueller asked how much industrial space was still available. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that most of the warehouse space is in the Windsor Drive area. It is very limited and is dwindling in the area. The market out here does not support it. Most warehouses today are very large. Mr. Sherry said that the owners own a portfolio of at least 30 industrial properties and have sold at least that many in the last two years so they are very familiar with the industrial market in Chicago. A tenant will not lease this property if there is not enough parking; however they believe there are still enough users out there that will find a use for this. With this building, in this location, there are still many tenants that would be there. Chairman Davis called for a short break at 9:03 to review the letter and review the Zoning Ordinance. The meeting was reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Sherry to address the standards, which are detailed on page G -G.1 of the case file. Mr. Sherry reviewed the standard that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. The shape of the property as shown on Exhibit I shows that the shape of the parcel of land coupled with the size and shape of the building is a unique situation in that most buildings of this size have been built on pieces of property much larger than this; which would be a natural remedy for this situation. In large part that is why this property has this unique circumstance. As far as not altering the character of the neighborhood, it is a very nice looking industrial park. They can appreciate the intent of the Ordinance, which is to preserve not just green space, but to make it a unique looking industrial park. The setbacks are large and there is a lot of greenery. A property like this, in this location, near the major roadways is going to be attractive to quite a few tenants, but not with the current parking situation and not the way the building currently looks. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK • Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 16 September 7, 2004 They hope that the 65 feet between the curb of Swift Drive and the ieasternmost border of the parking will still be a significant amount of green space. They believe the landscaping as proposed will result in it being one of the prettier properties on the street. There are a lot of properties with grass frontages. They will have a lot more trees and shrubbery than most of the properties. The owner takes the ownership of the property very seriously. All of their properties throughout the Chicago area are well maintained. Member Mueller asked if they shared this proposal with any of the neighboring properties. Mr. Sherry said that other than the notice, they have not talked to their neighbors. Chairman Davis asked what was sent to the neighbors and was advised that Page 6 of the case file has a copy of the resident letter. Chairman Davis said that the notice does not tell much. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it is the standard notice used and that all adjacent property owners were notified and no calls were received concerning this matter. Chairman Davis asked if the other properties in the area have sufficient parking. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that some do and some do not. The CenterPoint property has converted a large portion of the building to a storage facility; it is a large building which requires very little parking. If the use is ever converted to another use, they will have the same difficulty. ComEd added a small parking deck to satisfy their parking requirements. This possibility was discussed with the petitioner, but they are very limited by their land. Member Ascher said that if the other buildings have a similar problem, they may seek relief also. Director of Community Development Kallien said that is one of the considerations to look at. Some buildings are becoming antiquated and their usability is limited, so should relief be granted to keep the area vibrant, perhaps all issues should be looked at. Five years ago when he came to the Village, he was brought out there on a maintenance issue. This building was vacant and the grass was very high, we cannot have that because it is bad for everyone. If we can keep these buildings used and viable, that is our goal. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 16 4 September 7, 2004 Mr. Sherry said that the majority of the landscape is new and they will . commit to provide any additional landscape necessary. Director of Community Development Kallien said that at a minimum perhaps a 3 -foot high berm should be added, there should be substantial conformance with the landscape plan provided and a minimum of 3 caliper trees to provide a reasonable buffer. Member Mueller said that although notices were sent out, once ground is broken that is when neighbors become concerned. Chairman Davis said that is a concern of his as well as Mr. Kallien's comments regarding the fact that something needs to be done with the building. We should not have obsolete buildings; those need to be eliminated. The whole area is an industrial area and to notify only those within 250 feet does not seem adequate in a case like this. Everyone in that area should be notified to ensure that it does not change the character of the neighborhood. In the case of a residence that seems adequate, but there is a lot of green in this area. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that on the October agenda, there will be a case on public notice requirements. Some of this discussion is very relevant to that. The Village wants to require that a sign • be placed so that anyone that drove past the property would know that there is a pending public hearing and could call for information and details. It is not currently a requirement of our notification requirements. Mr. Sherry said that essentially they would take an additional 15 feet of green space in exchange for a building that will no longer be obsolete and totally renovate the exterior. He hopes that the neighbors given the choice, there would still be 65 feet of green space in exchange for that. They will completely redo the fagade. The concept plan will be substantially similar to the rendering. Member Ascher said that if this passes, he would like to see a provision attached to it that all of the neighbors would be notified of this project prior to it going to the Village Board. Director of Community Development Kallien said that all the neighbors will be mailed a letter indicating the specific request with a copy of the site plan and invite them to comment and inform them of the Village Board meeting. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK • Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 16 September 7, 2004 • Chairman Davis said that would satisfy the Zoning Board's concerns of the notice to the neighbors and they will have a more informed opportunity to give input to the Village Board. Chairman Davis said that it appears that the standards have been met in writing and in testimony by the petitioner for the grant of the variation as requested. No one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the request. Motion by Member Sanford, seconded by Member Ascher to recommend approval of the variation request for additional parking in the front yard at 2020 Swift Drive as proposed. In making this recommendation, the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the petitioner has addressed the standards as required by Village Code, which are fully stated on pages G and G.I of the case file and subject to the following conditions: 1. Letters of notification to be sent to all properties along Swift Drive informing them of the specific proposal along with the number of parking spaces that will be added to the front yard. 2. Sufficient landscaping is to be installed as provided in the rendering • on Page L and additional landscaping added if necessary to screen the new parking spaces along Swift Drive. 3. Director of Community Development Kallien will survey the property and confer with the Village Engineer as to whether a 3- foot berm should be added to the landscape. 4. The variation is to be in substantial conformance with the Proposed Site Plan on Page H of the case file, Sheet No. P -1 B, dated June 25, 2004 by Heitman Architects. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 — Members Ascher, Mueller, Sanford and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — Absent: 2 — Members Shah and Young. Motion Carried. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: There was no other business to discuss. OTHER BUSINESS VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK • Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 15 of 16 September 7, 2004 c • 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Mueller, seconded by Member Sanford to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, D' r of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 16 of 16 September 7, 2004 ADJOURNMENT