Loading...
Minutes - 11/01/2005 - Zoning Board of AppealsMINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 1, 2005 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK AS WRITTEN ON JANUARY 3, 2005. 1. CALL TO ORDER: CALL To ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chainnan Champ Davis in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7 :30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Roza, CALL. Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Richard Ascher, Baker Nimry, Jeffrey Bulin, Glenn Krietsch and Manu Shah ABSENT: Member Steven Young IN ATTENDANCE: Robert Sanford, Trustee and Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF October 4, 2005 Motion by Member Shah, seconded by Member Krietsch, to approve the minutes of the August 2, 2005 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: There was no unfinished business to discuss. 5. NEW BUSINESS MINUTES UNI;INISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. THE ENVIRONMENTS GROUP — 1110 JORIE BLVD — SPECIAL USE G E EN II1RONMENTS — DRIVE -IN BANKING and VARIATION TO THE FRONT YARD SPECIAL USE and VARIATION DRIVE -IN SETBACK BAMCING Chairman Davis swore in the petitioners Fred Schmidt and Don Pikul, with The Environments Group; Nick Giuliano, Managing Director and Hugh McLean, Vice Chairman of The PrivateBank. Mr. Schmidt reviewed the proposal for a drive -in banking facility at 1110 Jorie Blvd. They plan to move early next year from their current location in Oak VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 6 November 1, 2005 Brook (16th Street and Route 83). The drive -in being requested as the result of a client request. The proposal for the special was reviewed by the Plan Commission and received unanimous approval. He reviewed the design and noted that the bank will occupy about 40% of the first floor of the building. The elevation drawing provided showed a small elevation to the front of the building. The drive up is a convenience for their customers so they can do banking from their car during regular business hours; there is no ATM located in there. Mr. Pikul reviewed all options available on the site prior to requesting the variation to the front yard. They studied many different locations for the drive- in bank and found out that there are many easements on the property that they did not know existed. On the north side of the building was a transformer. There was also an entrance to the building at that location so they would be mixing vehicles and pedestrians, which they try to avoid and it would eliminate some of the existing parking. They also tried the west side of the building in the parking lot, but the location was very narrow and cars would be trying to make a u -turn to get in and the same problem would occur by moving it next to the building. An entrance is also located there and again they would be mixing vehicle and pedestrian traffic. On the very north side of the building they could make the drive -in an accessory use but there was a problem with the distance from the building for the pneumatic tube and there were also the existing easements. They did not want the pipe located above ground and when they tried to locate it below ground they found there were some 30" high- pressure gas mains running through the easement. They talked to the gas company about locating it in the easement in the rear and were advised that it would be very difficult and did not appear - likely they would agree to an easement. The east side of the building also had an issue with distance and they would have lost visual contact of the customer with the bank. There was a problem with the parking and routing the vehicles through the lot. Nothing seemed to work for a variety of reasons. The only thing that seemed to work was to locate it in the front of the building. By locating it the front yard they are not losing any parking, would not disturb the traffic flow and have completely separated vehicle and pedestrian traffic. People will drive in and will enter directly into the drive -in. They will also be right outside the tenant without blocking any other tenants. There is also queuing space for two additional cars. The proposed plans have been on display in the building lobby for a couple of months for the existing tenants to view. Mr. Giuliano added that the building ownership has advised the tenants of the proposed plan and to their knowledge there has been no objection. The tenant VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 6 November 1, 2005 across the hall will be vacating the space. Mr. Schmidt said that with all the restrictions on the site the only viable solution was to locate it in the front yard. The canopy is a modest structure and uses the same material and design as the existing building. It does not infringe on the other tenants. They will be adding some additional landscaping. In regards to traffic flow, the location allows right or left turns onto the site from Jorie Blvd. There is ample queuing for vehicles, and will not impact the other tenants views or usage of the building. Based on other PrivateBank branch locations, they anticipate one or two users at the drive up per hour. The drive up will only be open during the banking hours of operation and will be closed at 5;00 p.m., so there will not be any traffic when the bank is closed. It will be used strictly for banking transactions. It will not create any additional traffic to what the bank would already generate. The only difference is that some of the clients will choose to drive through rather than going into the bank. The proposal does not eliminate or create an impact on the existing parking spaces or the use of the lot. There is a complete separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The location in the front allows for visibility from a security standpoint. There is lighting inside the canopy and it is screened with a low fence and shrubbery to soften the appearance from Jorie Blvd. The proposal will cause a minimal impact on the neighbors and the tenants in the building. There will not be any queuing along any property lines. They believe this proposal is an appropriate solution and design. Member Bulin asked if the canopy was connected to the building. Mr. Pikul responded that it is not attached to the building; it is a freestanding structure. There will be a 4 -inch stainless steel tube between the two structures in order to transact business. Hugh McLean, Vice Chairman, The PrivateBank, said that they have operated the bank in Oak Brook for 9 years and are currently located at 16th St and Route 83. They are currently in 4200 square feet without a drive -in. It has been their most successful suburban office and they need more space. The new location would give them 6600 square feet of space. They have 14 employees today and this would give theirs a capacity for 20 and a nice opportunity to expand in Oak Brook. Their message is that they want to extend their services to successful self - employed people and their businesses. They have one basic rule and do not want to sound exclusionary, but their clients must have a minimum deposit balance of $25,000. Their reach is across DuPage County, but they are in Oak Brook for an important reason. Oak Brook was their second office and they VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 6 November 1, 2005 M-wom now have 8 with the headquarters located downtown. They wanted to be in Oak Brook as a way to define them. They have approximately 450 clients and have operated in quarters on Route 83 where there is sensitivity about the parking lot and their record has been a good one. They are anticipating being in the new facility between March and April of 2006. There will not be an ATM in the drive -in, but there will be one located in the vestibule for the use of their customers. Member Krietsch asked if any consideration had been given to adding queuing space in the drive area. Mr. Schmidt responded that they felt 2 vehicles would be sufficient. Member Krietsch questioned that if they are successful, how a traffic problem would be addressed, if one developed. Mr. McLean responded that would not impact rush hour traffic; there would not be extended teller hours for the drive - in. Clients would park and go in. The hours of operation for the bank are between 8:30 to 4:30 and there will not be any after hours use for the drive -in. Member Bulin noted that the design for this request it is a good solution and minimally impacts the front yard. Director of Community Development Kallien said that as part of any recommendation, a condition could be added that if any inadequate stacking developed, they would need to amend the special use. He said that it appears there is the ability to stack additional cars. However, since there is only one bay it would be more expeditious for clients to park and go in. If this were any other bank this would not be adequate. If they would sell the space to a retail - banking customer, there would not be enough stacking on the site. Member Krietsch said that with time, their business could change and although it seems adequate at this time, if that occurs the Village should be able to maintain some control, if traffic difficulties arise on the site as the result of changes to their model of operation. Member Nimry was concerned with the location of the entrance to the drive, which occurs at the curve in the road on 7orie Blvd. After a brief discussion on the location of the drive -in with respect to the site entrance, it was decided that conditions should be included to address any possible future stacking issues. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 6 November 1, 2005 Chairman Davis noted that as part of the presentation the standards were addressed and are contained in writing in the case file on pages D and D. 1. He asked that they further address one standard. Mr. Schmidt addressed the 3rd factor for the special use that the proposed special use would not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located. The facility is keeping with the architecture of the building; it is a very small facility and will be located close to the building and would have a minimal impact on the building. There is little change to the neighborhood and it will not impact the surrounding properties. Chairman Davis noted that the standards for the variation have also been addressed through their testimony and are contained in writing on pages H -H.2 of the case file. Member Ascher asked about the width of the driveway. Mr. Pikul said that the driveway is 8 feet wide and tapers down. The driveway is located 12 feet from the building. The fence will be 4 feet high and is there to provide security and will be surrounded by landscaping. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that the fence could not exceed 42 inches. Mr. Pikul responded they would comply with the Village standards. Mr. Giuliano noted that the signage would comply with the Village Code. Chairman Davis said that it appears the petitioner has addressed the standards as required, in order to recommend approval of the proposed special use, with the three conditions as set forth in the recommendation letter received from the Plan Commission dated October 27, 2005. Proper notice has been given to all the surrounding property owners. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to the requests. Motion by Member Ascher, seconded by Member Bulin that the applicant has addressed the required factors in testimony and in writing on pages D and D.1 of the case file to recommend approval of the special use to allow the drive -in banking. The applicant has also addressed the required standards in testimony and in writing on pages H -H.2 of the case file to recommend approval of the variation to the front yard setback. The recommendation is subject to the following conditions: 1. The structure is to be built in substantial conformance with the Elevation and Site Plans as submitted, dated September 26, 2005 on pages O and P of the case file. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 6 November 1, 2005 2. Additional landscaping is to be located between the building and Jorie Blvd. to enhance the aesthetics of the area as well as to lessen the visual impact of locating the drive -in facility in the front yard. Staff is to review and approve the plan at the time of permitting. The proposed fencing is not to exceed the height of 42- inches. 3. Approval of the special use will be based on the current business model of the PrivateBank and will continue subject to the customer and traffic estimates being satisfied as presented at this hearing. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Ascher, Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Shah and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 1 — Member Young. Motion Carved 6. OTHER BUSINESS: There was no other business to discuss, 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member I(rietsch, seconded by Member Nimry to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kal ien, irector of Co unity Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 6 November 1, 2005 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT