Loading...
Minutes - 12/04/2007 - Zoning Board of Appeals1. 2 a 4 MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 4, 2007 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON FEBRUARY 5, 2008 CALL TO ORDER: CAI,L To ORDER The 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 Govenunent 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 and Steven Young IN ATTENDANCE: Robert Sanford, Trustee and Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6,200 Motion by Member Ascher, seconded by Member Nimry to approve the minutes of the November 6, 2007 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS A STARBUCK' S COFFEE c/o TJ DESIGN STRATEGIES — 2407 22nd sTARBUCx'S do TI DESIGN STRATEGIES STREET — VARIATION TO SECTION 13- 11 -7A -5 OF THE SIGN - 2407 22°1 STREET - VARIATION - SIGN REGULATIONS REGULATIONS Chairman Davis said that the applicant was unable to appear at this meeting and asked to continue the matter. Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry to continue the public hearing to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. During the discussion regarding rescheduling the January 1, 2008 regular meeting (due to the New Years Day holiday) it was determined that there would VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 24 December 4, 2007 only be 4 members present at the meeting, which would result in the applicant being in the same position that it had been in at the last meeting in November. Since this agenda item was properly noticed for hearing at this meeting and a full board present, a poll was taken of the members and it was decided to place the Starbucks matter back on the agenda Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry to deny the previous request by Starbucks to continue the matter and to bring the Starbucks matter back on the agenda as was properly noticed and to vote on the request as required in Section 13.5 of the Zoning Board of Appeals Rules of Procedure. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. Chairman Davis questioned whether Member Young had listened to the DVD or read the meeting minutes as required in order to be eligible to vote. Member Young stated for the record that he had watched the DVD of the November 6, 2007 public hearing and had reviewed the Starbucks case file in depth. He further stated that he was fully informed and prepared to vote on the matter at this hearing. Member Krietsch stated for the record that he visited the site since the last meeting and had previously thought the lot line for the property abutted the drive but it did not. He also noted that there is a large amount of right of way land between the property and the road. His objection was to the 1 foot lot line and after viewing the property, no longer had his previous objections to the setback variation request. Chairman Davis noted that the applicant had addressed the standards for the variation to allow the ground sign as requested at the last meeting in their testimony and in writing. Member Young asked Member Ascher what his previous objection was to the request. Member Ascher responded that he had driven by the property many times and wondered why they should have it; and did not think that a sign was needed the sign requested. He then looked at the other variances that have been granted along the street as well as the number of variances that have been approved over the last couple of years. Looking at the dimensions of the sign and even though it was described as a 55 square foot sign, believed that it was more than 80 square feet. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 24 December 4, 2007 -10� Member Young said that he believed a stronger sign ordinance is needed, and a study should be done outside of the aesthetics of the sign. Chairman Davis said that testimony was provided regarding the safety issue of the need for the sign to enable the public to locate the building along the street ahead of time rather than seeing it at the last minute and slamming on the car break all at once in order to make the turn. Member Nimry said that he agreed with Mr. Ascher's comments in regard to the sign requests over the last couple of years, however, this was one of the best signs that he had seen presented to the Zoning Board in the last two years. Variation — Ground Sign Motion by Chainnan Davis, seconded by Member Krietsch to recommend approval of the variation to allow a ground sign on a property that is less than 3 acres in size in the B -1 District, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction of the sign to be in accordance with the plans as submitted, including the landscaping plan. 2. Notwithstanding the exhibits contained in the case file, the applicant shall meet all Village ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application, except as specifically varied or waived. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 — Members Bulin, Ifrietsch, Nimry, Young and Chairman Davis Nays. 1 -- Member Ascher. Motion Carried. Variation — Ground Sip n Setbacks Motion by Member Nimry, seconded by Member Young to recommend approval of the variation to allow the ground sign to be placed 1 foot from the front lot line (22"d Street) and 5 feet from the side lot line subject to the following conditions. 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted on pages E, G and H of the case file. 2. The sign will comply with all Village lighting standards at time of building permit application. 3. Notwithstanding the exhibits contained in the case file, the applicant shall meet all Village ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically varied or waived. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 — Members Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 1 — Member Ascher. Motion Canied. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 24 December 4, 2007 NEW BUSINESS A. FRANK PAUL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — DANA PARK SUBDIVISION — 3111 -3115 MEYERS ROAD — MAP AMENDMENT — TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM R -2 to R -3 and VARIATIONS -- REDUCE FRONT YARD SETBACKS IN THE SUBDIVISION TO 30 FEET and REDUCE PROPOSED LOT 1 SIDE YARD ABUTTING A STREET to 30 FEET. Chairman Davis swore in all parties that would provide testimony. John Brechin, Attorney for the applicant reviewed the request. The Village previously approved the subdivision request for Dana Park Subdivision. The original goals were to maintain the existing number of home sites, which are 3 under the R -2 zoning; to elevate the home sites from the flood plain and update the utility and sewer systems. The previous three homes were on septic systems and all of the lots including the residences were within the flood plain. There are now buildable sites, the floodplain is controlled, there is sufficient compensatory storage, as well as updated utilities for the site. The estimated cost for infrastructure was between $2.5 — 2.7 million. In actuality those costs are between $3.2 — 3.4 million. R -2 development costs for the properties cannot be achieved from this site because of the percentage of the lots that are usable. From a marketability perspective, there is no commercial viability for this designated zoning because of the unique characteristics of the property which includes a significant proportion of it that is committed to flood plain and stormwater detention. The developer has attempted to market the property in excess of two years. The reasons why the properties have not sold is that some of the perspective buyers do not like the location of the existing dog kennel across the street, the pumping station to the north, it is in the Downers Grove school district, not Hinsdale (In response to that concern, they explored the possibility of having the property transferred, but In discussions with various school officials, the likelihood of its success was deemed to be nil.) In light of those issues, they looked at other alternatives. One of the alternatives presented to the Plan Commission was to rezone the property to R- 4 and they have withdrawn that request in recognition of the unanimous disapproval of the Plan Commission. They have also withdrawn the request for R -3 without variation because the development costs exceed the value of the property, The problem with R -3 straight compliance is that there would be additional costs to rework the subdivision improvements and would drive up the per -unit costs of the lots such that what has been put into the lots could not VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 24 December 4, 2007 � NEW BUSINESS FRANK PAUL DEV CORP — DANA PARK SUB — MAP AMEND to REZONE to R -3 AND VARIATIONS TO THE FRONT YARD SETI3ACKS and SIDE SETBACK for LOT I be achieved in any reasonable commercial marketplace. Frank Drukas, applicant and owner and developer of the property said that the total cost would be around $375,000, but that is not the only issue. The terrain behind the building pads provides virtually no back yard with the straight R -3 scenario. The requested variance alternative would allow the front of the house to be moved closer to the curb and with some minor retaining walls would create more of a back yard. Marketability would be the end result. As is, the sites are within the $3 million plus range, straight compliance would put the homes into the $2.7 -2.8 million range. Given the uniqueness of the lots and would they have to offer they are not any more marketable in R -3 full compliance as they are with the present R -2. The variations are to allow Lot 1 to have a 30 -foot side setback along Meyers Road; however, due to the bike path and parkway, the distance from the building structure to the curb would be 48 feet. They have requested a 30 -foot setback in the front yard for all of the lots, which would allow the property owner more of a back yard. The subdivision is onto itself and there would not be a staggered frontage, everyone would have the same front yard setback. Mr. Brechin said that the front yard variations could be eliminated if the cul de sac is incorporated into each of the lots, which is now a separate lot and an easement could be created for the roadway. There is a risk of some improvement put into the roadway by an individual homeowner. Keeping it, a separate lot to be used only for ingress egress is a better scenario. Member Nimry said that those issues could be resolved by including provisions in the covenant restrictions prohibiting structures in the road. Mr. Brechin said that in his experience, people tend to violate those restrictions when they are in their best interest. Member Nimry said that there are subdivisions in Oak Brook that have those provisions and there are not any problems. Mr. Brechin said that for the purposes of the homeowner association it clearly separates what is controlled by the association and what is controlled by the property owner. Chairman Davis noted that the separation keeps the road a single lot as opposed to be part of the individual lots. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 24 December 4, 2007 Mr. Brechin noted that the assessed valuation would also be higher even though there is no exclusive use of it. Chairman Davis said that if the homeowner association owns the roadway then there are no real estate taxes on the roadway. Mr. Brechin agreed. Member Young questioned exactly what they are seeking. Mr. Brechin reviewed the request, which included: a map amendment to rezone the property to R -3 from R -2; a variation to reduce the side yard abutting Meyers Road for lot 1 to 30 feet; and a variation to allow the front yard setbacks of each lot to be reduced to 30 feet. He stated that the reason for the variations is not for financial gain, but was requested so that the eventual buyer would have more usable area on the lot. Perhaps they would be able to build a tennis court in the rear yard, which under the present R -2 configuration, they could not due to existing flood plain issues. Under the requested R -3 zoning with variations, it would allow 5 single - family homes with approximately 4500 square feet of primary living space along with about 1000 feet of English walk out basement. It would market in the $2.1 — 2.5 million ranges. The integrity of the detention compensation systems that have been installed is largely unaffected. There would be some redesign amounting to $125,000 versus the $375,000 if developed as straight R -3. This would be more manageable and requires less reworking of the site. They believe the request creates commercial viability for the property. Mr. Brechin said that the Plan Commission recommended full approval of the R -3 zoning and denied the request for R -4 zoning. They expressed a position that it would be appropriate to recommend the variations A chart was displayed for the board representing a quantitative perspective of R -3 with variation in comparison with the other alternatives (The chart is located in the case file in the attachment numbered B on page 14).The chart looks at the last year's sales. The column to the cleft shows virtually no sales in the R -2 area. That does not mean that there are no homes being built, there is the exception for the custom homebuyer who had given an order to a builder. In the context of a spec, there have not been any homes sold. There has been some success in R -3 where some units have been sold. They have somewhat of a comfort level to be in the R -3 with variation marketplace. Currently, they would need a $3 million buyer and they have a product that does not lend itself to a $3 million buyer. With approval of their requests, it would be in a marketplace of the $2 million buyer and they would then have a product that would lend itself to a $2 million buyer. The request is not for more profit it is VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 24 December 4, 2007 to make the property commercially viable because of the unique conditions of the property. Mr. Brechin said that the actual cost of the land, reduces the land cost of the R- 2 lots from $1.2 million to $720,000 for R -3 lots as proposed. Looking at the Oak Brook market, lots in Tuscan Woods are being marketed in the $600,000 range. At $720,000, this project would be in the upper limits, but they believe it is still commercially viable. It is not commercially viable at $1.2 million. Mr. Drukas said that in Tuscan Woods the actual sales for the lots are $650,000 to $669,000. However, there is one spec home being marketed at $2.9 million, which is having difficulty selling. Being in the $2.1 — 2.2 million marketplaces would give them a better chance of having the property marketable. MAP AMENDMENT STANDARDS Mr. Brechin reviewed the zoning Amendment factors. Mr. Brechin addressed the standards for a map amendment as follows: 1. Character of the neighborhood RESPONSE; The character of the neighborhood is single family with values ranging from $1 to 3 million. There is R -3 zoning to the south and R -2 to the east, west and north separated by 31" Street and Meyers Road, which both carry a significant amount of traffic. The only exceptions are the dog kennel across the street and the village water pumping station to the north. 2. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions. They have tried to show that an R -2 development deprives Mr. Drukas the ability to market the property. R -2 zoning would require him to absorb a loss on each and every sale. 3. The extent to which the removal of the Existing Limitations Would Depreciate the Value of Other Property in the Area. They do not believe that R -3 zoning is going to depreciate property values. With proposed housing in the $2 million range, there would be no depreciatory effect caused by the development to any other property in the Midwest Club or the surrounding neighborhoods. The development of the property with quality single - family homes would have much more value than what is seen today on the site, which is not the highest and best use of the property. R -2 zoning restrictions preclude any reasonable utilization of it. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 24 December 4, 2007 0` 4. The suitability of the Property for Zoned Purposes They have attempted to show that R -2 zoning is not commercially viable due to the unique characteristics of this property and the amount of both compensatory water storage and flood plain that is required on the site. The fact that the storage has been installed and is operative is an improvement over what was there as well as the removal of the 3 homes that were previously on the site. Approval of R -3 zoning is a further improvement of the property because it would give the property a chance to be developed. 5. Existing Uses and Zoning of Nearby Properties. With the exception of the kennel across the street, all of the property is single family. 6. The Length of Time Under the Existing Zoning that the property has remained unimproved considered in the context of land development. The first parcel was purchased in January 2005 and the remaining two parcels were purchased in June 2005. The subdivision improvements were completed in March of 2006. During that period of time, the property was marketed and there have been no buyers or buyers under contract. That shows that there are problems in the relationship of this property with the R -2 zoning. There is lost usability and location of the site. 7. The Relative Gain to the Public as Compared to the Hardship Imposed on the Individual Property Owner. They believe approval of the request will expedite development, which is an improvement to what the property looks like know and would enhance in a small way the tax base of the village. 8. The Extent to Which the Proposal Promotes the Health, Safety, Morals or General Welfare of the Public. Adoption of any of the options will expedite the development of the property. They believe development will increase assessed valuation and the ability to look at high quality single family homes will be a nicer view than what is there today. 9. The Relationship of the Proposed Use to the Comprehensive Plan. Single family residential is totally consistent to the Comprehensive Plan for this site in this neighborhood. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 24 December 4, 2007 10. Community Need for the Use Proposed by the Property Owners. The property has already been improved by the installation of public water and sewer. The harnessing of the flood plain and stormwater issues that was totally unregulated before. They believe the five home sites being proposed is consistent with Midwest Club to the south and would no appear to be over dense or out of character with the neighborhood. VARIATIONS The variations requested are a reduction of the side yard setback (abutting Meyers Road) on Lot 1 to 30 feet; and a reduction of the front yard setback of all the lots to 30 feet. The front yard variation request does not increase the value of the property; it promotes the usability of the property as a home site so that there is some back yard to allow families to utilize the property. They believe these requests allow more usability for the property owners without monetary benefit to Mr. Drukas. The unusual condition that justifies the variation is the flood plain and compensatory storage that requires the utilization of property that they cannot utilize for single family purposes. VARIATION STANDARDS Mr. Brechin addressed the variation standards as follows: 1. a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located. RESPONSE: The existing R -2 zoning is not commercially viable because the cost of land improvements make the property unmarketable except at a loss. 1. b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: The plight is due to unique circumstances due to the substantial size of the flood plain and stormwater detention requirements that dictate the usability of a fair amount of the acreage. The subdivision regulations have minimum requirements for retention ponds that must be stepped so that they are not a safety hazard and so much of the property is utilized for the purpose and to conform to all other ordinance requirements. 1. c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: The variation, if granted will not change the essential character of the locality, which will remain single family. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 24 December 4, 2007 1�?* 2. a. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out. RESPONSE: A substantial amount of property has been dedicated exclusively for water retention. The variation to the front yards would give the eventual buyers a better ability to utilize their property so that their experience would be comparable to other homeowners in Oak Brook and not limited by a technical application of the front yard setback. 2. b.The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning classification. RESPONSE: The property is extremely unique due to the amount of water storage. Even though the property is zoned R -2 it is made to fimction not as R- 2 property. There is significantly less than an acre of land to use and believe that is another reason to justify a favorable look at the proposed R -3 zoning and variations. 2. c. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. RESPONSE: If the variation is granted, R -3 and the variations would not have any depreciatory effect to the public welfare, especially when the properties would be valued at $2 million plus. Midwest Club is a substantial R -3 development that abuts the property to the south. This property sits south of 31" and east of Meyers and there will be no visual impact of the variations on this property. It will look like Oak Brook should look like. 2. d.The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RESPONSE: The variation, if granted would not have an impact on what Midwest Club would see or hear on this site. The way the subdivision is laid out from the roadway, all of the property setbacks would not be noticed, especially when further landscaping is implemented. 2. e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 24 December 4, 2007 0-00� RESPONSE: The variation is not based on any desire to make more money out of the property. It is based entirely on the concept that they have something that is commercially unviable and they are pleading to make it commercially viable. The request would allow the home buyer to utilize the property reasonably, in a reasonable way that an Oak Brook resident would be expected to be able to do. Such as a playground or tennis court or other amenities that would be allowed in a rear yard. To follow the ordinance rigidly the owners would not have that ability. There would be no visual impact of the variations as requested. Making the lots part of the roadway is not a desired alternative as explained. 2. f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. RESPONSE: The hardship is due to existing conditions. Mr. Drukas said that he attempted very vigorously to market the property as R -2, and not withstanding his efforts, the character of this property is not seen by ready willing and able buyers as R -2 property. Whether that is right or wrong, it is a fact. A reasonable alternative in light of the situation is to favorably consider R -3 so that the property can be developed and used for single - family purposes for which it was intended, consistent with Oak Brook standards and with no real negatives to the village or surrounding property owners. Member Nimry said that this was approved not long ago and he was not sure that changing the zoning was the issue. There is a lot on St. Joseph's Drive at Midwest Road, which is much busier and the half-acre lot sold for $890,000 and the put a 7,000 square foot home on it. There are homes with lot lines in the middle of the street that have not had any problems. He believes the property would be good for 4 houses not 5 or 6. Mr. Drukas responded that the original purchase price was over $1.2 million; however, the development cost for the site to bring it to its current condition is accurate at the $3.6 million level and supporting documentation could be provided. In terms of marketability, regardless of what some other property may have been able to do and despite the current market conditions, he has had real buyers turn away from this property and the primary reasons had to do with the usability of the lot. They are an acre, but only half of it is usable, which was the primary issue. The second primary issue was the school district, which was a personal preference and someone might be okay with the school district, however, the prospects that he had made it an issue. He admitted that the busyness of Meyers Road and 31" Street, the dog kennel and the pumping station will not go away even if the zoning is changed. The possibility of 4 lots also came up at the Plan Commission and it is a matter of simple mathematics. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 24 December 4, 2007 Taking the $3.6 million divided by 4 lots, results in $900,000 lots. From a builder's perspective, three times the lot cost is the likelihood of what the property should be marketed and results in a $2.7 million end product and that is as commercially unviable as the present situation. The purpose is to try to make it more marketable and if that is not achieved then they should not do any of what they are trying to do. The R -3 with the variation puts the homes in the $2,1- 2.2 million ranges, which at least has a hope of succeeding. With all due respect, with what anyone else is doing, he had real live prospects that turned away from this project. In support of the requested variations, and he stated that he did not want to simplify the requests, but if approved, even though the side yard setback for lot 1 would be reduced to 30 feet, there would still be 48 feet to the curb. With regard to the requested 30 foot front yard setback, all front yards would be consistent. A 25,000 square foot property with a 4500 square foot home would not look like a big home on a postage stamp lot; it would look like a nice home on a pretty big lot, it's just not all usable. The property will not look dense or crowded. The variances would not impact anyone outside the subdivision, because it is isolated. The R -3 rezoning with the variances is a must. Aside from subjective opinion, there is evidence that these properties have not sold. Despite having those that were interested in buying a lot, in the middle of the sale cycle they became disinterested because of what they have testified to at this hearing. Chairman Davis noted that the Tuscan Woods property started development around the same time and several homes axe being built there. He asked if the Plan Commission discussed the variations. Mr. Drukas responded that they discussed it with the Plan Commission to the extent that the request was for a combination of R -3 with variations, because without approval of the variations would create a serious amount of new cost and would not be as livable or pleasant enough to live on. The cost then pushes it back up to the $2.7 — 2.9 million ranges. Chairman Davis noted that the Plan Commission conditioned approval of the requested R -3 zoning to approval of the variations. Mr. Brechin responded that the Plan Commission expressed support for favorable action on the variations Member Bulin said that he was on the Plan Commission at the time of the subdivision approval and questioned if the project was considered commercially unviable at that time. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 24 December 4, 2007 Mr. Drukas responded that he did, but the focus at that time was to be compliant with the R -2 zoning. Three homes existed on the property that they had to take out of the flood plain and their goal was to keep it three homes and thought they just had to be compliant. At that time, the market conditions were a little better and he did not have the experience of a $3 million buyer telling him they were not interested. The focus was to be compliant with the zoning requirements. He has gotten some feedback that this development was his error because he thought it was commercially viable and now it isn't and needs the village to bail him out. The fact is that he was focused on living up to the rules. Now he is saying that the rules are not going to work for this property and the variations are needed. Member Bulin noted that he recalled several different plans came before them and it was loosely tied to another development on 31" Street due to the water retention issues. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that when the projects first came forward, a desire was expressed by staff to get both of the property owners to work together. The access and detention was provided in a different way. After preliminary approval, the project could not go forward under two separate owners due to different needs and expectations; that is when Mr. Drukas proposed his part and later Mr. Falco submitted his request. Mr. Drukas said that when it was a joint project there were a number of other alternatives. However, when it was separated the cul-de-sac had always been located on the south side, primarily due to the terrain, wetlands and the wetlands buffer. The compensation area had to be located where it is. The neighbors in the Midwest Club would have preferred the cul -de -sac on the other side of the property, so they relocated the cul -de -sac, from six feet to fifteen feet in order to please the neighbors; as well as installing a gate and additional landscaping, which was a $100,000 contribution to the cost in order to make the neighbors happy. Director of Community Development Kallien said that much has been said about the variations not being needed if the lot lines nun to the street and since lie has been at the Village, for over 8 years there has never been a situation like that, though some were done quite a number of years ago. Mr. Schemely, President of the Heritage Oaks Private Roadway Association, said that he has lived there since 1984 and he has attended all of the hearings since the beginning when it was Falco and Drukas. He did not believe that VILLAGE OF OAK BiZOOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 24 December 4, 2007 making the lot lines through the street was a negative. The covenants specifically say that they all have an equal access to the entire road, including guests and tradesmen, etc. No one does anything in the road that the association would not approve and liens have been placed on property when necessary. As far as this property, their concern is not whether the property is zoned R -2 or R -3, but how the houses are going to look on a relatively small parcel. There is a 4 -lot subdivision on Midwest Road that has one huge house on it that has been sitting empty and has no yard. He finds it undesirable from an aesthetic standpoint. They believe it would be better to have houses built on the property rather than to have vacant land and all the improvements deteriorate, but it would look better with 4 houses than 5. He did not know what would sell in today's market. He said that he had no animosity toward Mr. Drukas and they would like to see the property have something built on it. It is bothersome to think that there would be a bunch of rather large houses with no front and side yard with a back yard that cannot be used, which was an issue when they sought subdivision approval years ago. Everyone appears to be in a bad situation and what should be reasonable to approve. They would hope that somehow, Mr. Drukas can get what he needs to get the project moving rather than to have it sit there for another two years, which they did not think was good for Oak Brook either. Director of Community Development Kallren said that if the lot line would run to the middle of the street, the designation of the front yard setback would still be measured from the street line, not the lot line. Even though the lot line would be in the middle of the street, there would still be a setback issue. The applicant would still need to seek some type of relief to where the front yard line is measured, regardless of where the lot lines are. Under the existing rules, and the way that they have been interpreted, the front yard line would be greater. The way the Code is written the portion of the lot that is in the street does not count toward establishing a minimum lot size. The issue of variation is still relative to the discussion. Mr. Schemely said that the only objection he had was to the density, and would find it more reasonable if it could be done with four houses. They did not object to the map amendment and said it would be better to do something with the property than to leave it as it is. Mr. Brechin said that if approved, they would need plat approval, which would require the reconfiguration of the lots, which would be presented to the Plan Commission and then to the Village Board for approval. If the rnap amendment was approved, five houses could be developed, but the project would not be commercially viable without the variations. The real problem is that this is R -3 VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 24 December 4, 2007 property that is labeled R -2. In good faith, Mr. Drukas tried to comply with the requirements and thought, based upon his experience, they could be sold as R -2 lots. After two years of trying to develop it, he was wrong. The real question is how some utilization can be made out of the property. They are suggesting that R -3 with variation is the minimal solution that has any chance of success. Mr. Drukas said that the focus of the request was to allow the property to be more marketable, but there was an implication that the density may have a negative impact. If approved, this property would not have huge houses sitting on postage stamp sized lots. There is a substantial amount of usable area around the building pads and the unusable area provides a more country like setting and the density is not an issue. The houses are on lots that range between 25,000 to 28,000 square feet. Member Bulin questioned whether approval of the requested variations in the existing R -2 scenario that would allow the houses to have more of a backyard and whether it would provide more viability? Mr. Drukas responded that moving it would provide more of a back yard for lots 1 and 3, but the fact is there would still be a $3 million buyer with a 50 percent usable lot and 10 feet across the back yard is not going to make the difference. Member Bulin said that it would still be an enjoyable green space. Mr. Dnikas said that it would be very enjoyable to look at, however it would not be usable. The point he was trying to make was the issue of density and how it would make the smaller homes not look like big homes on a postage stamp lot. MAP AMENDMENT MOTION Chairman Davis noted that the applicant had addressed the factors required in testimony, in the minutes of the Plan Commission meeting and in writing on page C of the case file. Motion by Member Ascher, seconded by Chairman Davis to recommend approval of the request to rezone the property located at 3111 -3115 Meyers Road, Dana Park Subdivision from R -2 to R -3. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 3 — Members Ascher, Krietsch and Chairman Davis Nays: 3 — Members Bulin, Nimry and Young. Motion Failed. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 15 of 24 December 4, 2007 The motion failed because the vote was tie and a vacancy exists on the Zoning Board of Appeals board, so there are no other voting members. Member Bulin said that the reason for his vote was because he was on the Plan Commission and was aware of the original application and at that time, it was considered commercially viable. Although the Zoning Board has control over market trends, they may come back in a year or two. There is some hardship with the amount of flood plain area and that is why he believes the variation to the setback is appropriate, but did not know at this time whether going to S houses on this property was appropriate. The idea that the school district is Downers Grove was also on the original application and there are a lot of things that were "buyer beware" at the beginning of this project, and not sure that should be the Villages responsibility. Member Young agreed with Member Bulin's comments and added that the economic study did not persuade him at all, including the houses that sold in the Hinsdale school district. Outside of the financial hardship that is being experienced it did not seem that any of the LaSalle factors were addressed. It also seemed like they were trying to see what would fit, R -3, R -3 with a variation or R -4. If they are going to go back to the Village Board then there should be a clear plan as to what is being sought and what is being addressed. Member Nimry said that he was just not convinced that going from R -2 to R -3 would solve their problem. Chairman Davis said that he believed the LaSalle factors were sufficiently addressed and a lot of time was spent by the Plan Commission hearing. He likes the idea of giving some deference to the Plan Commission and their studies and input. The map amendment was passed unanimously by the Plan Commission and that is entitled to significant weight, just as he believes the Zoning Board of Appeals findings and recommendations, for the most part., are entitled to weight when it gets to the Village Board for its consideration. Member Krietsch said that the applicant lost space due to the flood plain and that may not have been known at the time of purchase (even though it should have been) and has had an impact on the sale ability of the property. There is R -3 zoning immediately to the south of this property and the R -2 that is located to the east is separated by the flood plain and therefore would not have an impact on the adjacent R -2 property Immediately to the north is the pumping station, which is commercial and across the street is the kennel, which is also commercial property. In his opinion, this particular parcel does not negatively impact any of the other R -2 properties that are adjacent or near to this property. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 16 of 24 December 4, 2007 VARIATION MOTION Chairman Davis noted that the applicant had addressed the variation standards factors required as presented in their testimony. Motion by Chairman Davis, seconded by Member Krietsch to recommend approval of the request to allow the front yard setbacks to be reduced to 30 feet and for the side yard setback of Lot 1 to be reduced to 30 feet. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes. 6 — Members Ascher, Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — Motion Carried. 5. B. ADVOCATE HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION — 1400 ADVOCATE HEALTH AND KENSINGTON ROAD — VARIATION — PARKING REGULATIONS HOSPITALS CORP - TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN SIX PARR {ING 1400 KENSINGTON - VARIATION -- SPACES IN THE SIDE YARD ADJOINING REGUL A STREET G REGULATIONS Chairman Davis swore in all parties that would provide testimony. Jim Slinkman, Associate General Counsel with Advocate Health Care reviewed the request. Advocate Health Care is a faith based not - for - profit 501c3 corporation. They have been a corporate citizen and have had their corporate offices located in Oak Brook for 25+ years. They are located at 2025 Windsor Drive. As their organization has grown over the last 25 years, they merged in 1995 with Lutheran General Health Systems and brought on additional employees. As part of a growing organization, they have outgrown their building at 2025 Windsor. Over the years, they have leased a number of spaces throughout the Oak Brook area. In June of 2006, they acquired the property at 1400 Kensington as a second Oak Brook corporate office. They are seeking a variation to a side yard parking restriction. The existing building is located directly west of the Oak Brook Post Office. The building was acquired with the intention of converting some of the lower level space to classroom space for the employees. Previously the former owner used the space as a storage and kitchen area. They also intend to create additional office space in the lower level as well. The lower level has a walkout feature and is window lined. They are proposing to build an additional 87 parking space parking lot in the area adjacent to Kensington Court, which is also consistent with parking available for the Oak Brook Post Office, which also has parking In the side yard along Kensington Court. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 17 of 24 December 4, 2007 VARIATION STANDARDS Mr. Slinkman addressed the variation standards as follows: 1. d. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located. RESPONSE: The purpose of their company acquiring the property was to consolidate as many of their leased spaces throughout the Oak Brook area into a second corporate office building. They are not only bringing in employees in the Oak Brook area but also from their many hospitals in the Chicago area to do employee training. Without the additional parking spaces, they would not be able to utilize the buildings 85,550 square feet They would not be able to accommodate their Human Resources Organizational Development Department to build classroom spaces. Typical office building and space would have offices, cubicles, desks, furniture so that the required parking would be 3 spaces per 1000 square feet of office space. With classroom space, where there are just chairs, there is a higher concentration of individuals which correlates to a higher number of automobiles, which is why they need the additional parking spaces. There is nowhere else on the site to locate additional parking and they did not want to put it along the front of the building. 1. e. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: They believe that this property and the Oak Brook Post office are the only two properties that have two street frontages in the corporate plaza subdivision. After all possible options were reviewed, locating the parking lot in the side yard was the most feasible solution to the problem. The original owners did not have this problem since they did not use the building to its full allowable potential. They had office space on the first and second floor and the ground space was not utilized. The Village does not allow parking along Kensington or Kensington Court and there is no other usable parking space. 1. f. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: The area is completely commercial; there is no residential area that would be impacted by this request. The parking would also be consistent with what exists for the surrounding buildings. They all have side yard parking lots, but do not have the street. The additional landscaping will help to block the parking lot from other commercial residents and would be an improvement from its current state. The parking is consistent with that of the Post Office. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 18 of 24 December 4, 2007 2. g. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulation were to be caned out. RESPONSE: Advocate purchased the property to consolidate similar departments under one roof and to be closer to its main headquarters at 2025 Windsor. If the additional parking spaces were not allowed, they would not be able to move all of their necessary departments into the building and would i equire them to continue leasing office space throughout the surrounding Oak Brook area and would incur additional and unnecessary leasing expenses. 2. h The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning classification. RESPONSE: The property and the Post Office are the only two properties in that area with two street frontages. Without the variation, the building could not be utilized at its existing maximum capacity. Classroom space requires additional parking because of the number of people. 2. i. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. RESPONSE: They do not believe that the variation would be detrimental due to the fact that surrounding buildings are ORA commercial buildings, with no surrounding residential buildings. The surrounding buildings have surface parking lots and this would be very consistent with the other parking areas. They have taken the opportunity to talk to their neighbors. They talked to the Post Office and they had absolutely no problem with the proposal and Ace Hardware which is located at the end of Kensington Court and they also did not have a problem with this request. 2. j. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RESPONSE- The proposal will not impact light or air because it is a surface parking lot. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 19 of 24 December 4, 2007 10d� 2. k.That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property. RESPONSE: Advocate is a faith based 501c3 corporation so they are not looking to make money out of this property. They are looking to use the property as a corporate office and to use it to its full capacity. 2. 1. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property RESPONSE: They were told at the time of sale that they could add a third story to the building, but they are looking to utilize the existing size of the building as it currently is and the difficulty has not been created by them. Chairman Davis questioned the existing number of parking spaces. Randy Anderson, EIT, Cowhey Gudinundson Leder, Ltd., responded that there are 292 and 5 handicapped parking spaces. They lost a few stalls and are bringing the stalls up to current ADA requirements. They are proposing 84 along with 3 new handicapped parking spaces. The final plan will have 370 regular spaces and 8 handicapped spaces. Chairman Davis noted that the property is currently in compliance with the required number of parking spaces for the building square footage and asked how the area they intend to use for parking is currently used. Mr. Slinkman responded that they comply with the minimum requirements. The area is currently used as green space. Chainnan Davis questioned who the neighbors were in closest proximity to their building. Mr. Slinkman responded that Ace Hardware and the Post Office were their closest neighbors. To the west is an office building and to the south are the soccer fields. Chairman Davis noted that in addition to the office use, the applicant is seeking to provide additional parking for classroom use, which has more people in the room than an office use, so more parking is needed primarily for that. Member Bulin asked how the number was calculated Gary Little, Director of Facilities and Construction, Advocate Health Care VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 20 of 24 December 4, 2007 responded that the additional parking space for the classroom spaces was based on the number of seats in the classroom area. Member Ascher questioned whether they were currently using any part of the building for classroom space, and if they had a parking problem at this time. Mr. Slinkrnan responded that the building is currently about half full and there is not a parking problem. They occupy the second floor and some of the first floor. As their leases are coming due, they will not renew theirs and are filling the building right now. They anticipate a problem would start to occur as the leases come due and as they build out the classroom space in the lower level. Member Bulin questioned the location of the entry for the new parking. He also questioned a potential problem with the location of ADA parking spaces that is a dead end with no turn around. Mr. Slink.man responded that there are two doors with key card access. They do not see a potential problem with the ADA parking spaces. Member Bulin questioned whether there was an inventory of the existing trees. .Tustin Moshure, O'Donovan Landscaping, Naperville, Illinois responded that they do not have an exact inventory for the trees; however, some trees would need to be removed for the construction of the parking lot. If they are fair trees, they may be movable but they have not seen what type exist there. Some times large plants do not transplant well and it can be costly. Chairman Davis noted that the landscape plan indicates many more plantings than currently exists. Member Bulin noted that they would be much smaller plantings. Member Young said that in a way, the Village has created a plight for the applicant by shutting off parking on Kensington so they cannot park on the street. Chairman Davis noted that in a sense the building is being redeveloped and may be consistent with the Village's revitalization plan. Mr. Slinkman responded that the ground floor was gutted and will be renovated. Trustee Sanford said that the plan is somewhat consistent with the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 21 of 24 December 4, 2007 Revitalization Plan by making the building more usable and functional. Additional parking would improve their overall parking and it has been recognized that some of the older office buildings need additional parking to potentially get up to the desired 5 parking spaces per 1000 square feet. Mr. Slinkman noted that they built a new parking deck for their property at 2025 Windsor at a great expense. As employees come to an office, they expect to find a place to park and people were driving around the parking lot for 20 minutes trying to find a space and when they could not find would, they would end up parking on their neighbors' property. The neighbors did not like it as well as their employees, which in turn did not make them happy as well. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the parking standard for office space in the Village is 3.3 spaces per 1000 square feet and the building technically meets that with the available number of existing spaces. However, the existing standard is a minimum. Many of the more modern and new construction office buildings provide at least 5 parking spaces per 1000 square feet. What the applicant is seeking is not out of character for a modern office building. When the new spaces are factored in the parking ratio is about 4.2 per 1000 square feet. Over the last few years the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval and the Village Board approved at least two variations for similar requests. One was at 2020 Swift where additional parking was added in the front and they provided a nice landscape berm. The second case was at 814 Commerce and that building was at 3.3 and needed additional spaces. This request is consistent with those requests. Member Ascher commented that when he visited the site he observed that the two buildings to the west require a certificate in the car window to park there, so parking spaces are at a premium The existing green space was the only green space that was visible on that side of the street. We should allow more parking spaces and it is hard to require a deck, however somewhere along the line we have to think of Oak Brook and its open green space. Member Krietsch asked if the cost of a deck was explored. Mr. Slinkman responded that when they built the deck at their other building about 7 years ago it was about $2.5 million. Parking decks are tremendously expensive. Director of Community Development Kallien said that a parking deck is about $15- 20,000 per space so to add 87 spaces would probably be around $2 million. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 22 of 24 December 4, 2007 Mr. Little said that experience lead them to the proposal and the request for surface parking. Mr. Anderson said that they understand not wanting to see a sea of parking. Under the existing conditions, Kensington Court is slightly higher than the finished floor of the existing building so it actually slopes toward the building. The area would be graded to keep up with that. Also, a berm has been added that is typically 3 -foot high along with landscape plantings to provide a screen so that the parking surface will not be completely visible. Member Nimry asked how much more traffic would be expected on Kensington when they are fully operational. He also questioned whether there would be any anticipated safety issues with the children using the soccer fields and should any stop signs be added to slow down traffic. Director- of Community Development Kallien said that when the ORA -1 FAR is applied to this property, it could have a 122,000 square foot building on the site. He did not believe the additional numbers of cars would be detrimental to the soccer use. The Village could keep any traffic concerns on its radar screen to see that the traffic does not create a safety issue for the children. Mr. Slinkman responded that there is an existing three -way stop sign on Kensington Court. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Village Engineer comments on page 8 are normal comments raised by him in order for the applicant to qualify for a building permit. Member Ascher asked which of the buildings allows parking for the use at the soccer fields. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the agreement was with Ace Hardware. On weekends, when Ace Hardware is not in operation they can park on its lot. Chairman Davis said that it appears that the standards for a variation have sufficiently been addressed by the applicant and o recommend approval Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry to recommend approval of the requested variations to allow the construction of more than 6 parking spaces in the yard abutting the street as submitted, subject to the following conditions: VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 23 of 24 December 4, 2007 6. 7. I Development to be in substantial conformance with the revised site plan on page H (Prepared by Cowhey Gudmundson Leder, Ltd. dated November 8, 2007); revised landscape plan on page I; and the Typical Section plan on page 10 (Prepared by Cowhey Gudmundson Leder, Ltd. dated December 4, 2007) of the case file. 2. The parking lot lighting to meet the Village standards of .5 foot candles at the property line. 3. Notwithstanding the exhibits contained in the case file, the applicant shall meet all Village ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically varied or waived. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 -- Members Ascher, Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — Motion Carried. OTHER BUSINESS OTHER BUSINESS RESCHEDULE JANUARY l J 2008 REGULAR MEETING TO JANUARY 7 JANUARY 11: ANUARY 1, 2008 2008 MEE -TiNo Gail Polanek advised the Zoning Board members that the Regular Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting date of January 1, 2008 falls on the New Years Day holiday. Following a discussion of possible alternate dates, it appeared that only four members could be present for the proposed rescheduled January meeting. The only matter on the agenda for, the next meeting would have been Starbucks. There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Ascher, seconded by Member Krietsch to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert K.allien, D' ector ommunity Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 24 of 24 December 4, 2007