Loading...
Minutes - 12/07/2004 - Zoning Board of AppealsMINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 7, 2004 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON FEBRUARY 1, 2005. 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 Samuel E. Dean Board 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, Robert Sanford, Manu Shah and Steven Young ABSENT: None IN ATTENDANCE: Director of Community Development, Robert Kallien, Jr. and Village Engineer, Dale Durfey. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 2004 Motion by Member Shah, seconded by Member Ascher, to approve the minutes of the October 5, 2004 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: There was no unfinished business. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 5. A. 814 COMMERCE LLC — 814 COMMERCE DRIVE — VARIATION — 814 COMMERCE LLC - 814 TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE - ZONING ORDINANCE COMMERCE DR - SECTION 13 -12 -3 — ORA -1 DISTRICT — TO ALLOW 102 PARKING VARIATION- 102 PARKING SPACES SPACES INSTEAD OF 6 IN THE REQUIRED REAR YARD IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD Chairman Davis swore in Lawrence Debb, the petitioner and owner of the property at 814 Commerce Drive and Scott Saef, Sidley Brown and Wood LLP, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 9 December 7, 2004 10 S Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Debb summarized the request. He said that he was before the Zoning Board of Appeals before seeking a text amendment and that the Village Board preferred that they come back to seek a variation. This request is almost identical to the first request. They have had three meetings to review the landscaping requirements and have upgraded it. The variation request is for an increase from 6 parking spaces allowed in the required front yard of the office building to 99 plus 3 handicapped spaces. Currently the land is flat and there is very little landscaping. In discussion with Village staff there has been modifications made to the landscaping. Their intention is to build a berm with plantings, trees and evergreens so that there is no view of the parking along the front. They will also be reducing the number of roads out of the site from three to two. Commerce Drive is totally office buildings there is no residential. Quite a few of the office buildings along Commerce have variations or have more than the maximum six spaces allowed by Village Code. There is a parking structure in the rear of the property that cannot be added onto structurally; also there is residential property that faces the rear of the property towards Harger Road. They are removing the asphalt in the front and are creating a whole new front entrance with glass. Chairman Davis asked if there were any plans to change the parking in the rear and along the side. Mr. Debb responded that they are not making any changes to the side or rear. They are trying to get the parking up to not only meet Code, but to meet market requirements, which is above what the Code requires. Chairman Davis asked what the Code and market requirements were. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the Village Code is currently 3.3. spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. Mr. Debb responded that the market requirement is currently at 4. They will not be able to provide what they would like to have, but this would be somewhere in the middle, to be able get as much as they could without creating any kind of negative impact. They obtained a MAI Appraiser that basically said that this does not cause any kind of negative impact on anyone in any way and in fact helps with the additional parking and landscaping. Chairman Davis questioned if there were a timeframe for the project. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 9 December 75 2004 Mr. Debb responded that they would like to have it leased immediately, but would like to have the work done by spring. Chairman Davis asked that the standards be addressed. Mr. Saef responded to the standards as follows: 1. 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: Currently the property parking ratio is 2.98 which is under the 3.33 required. Because of the placement of the building on the lot and the angular nature of the lot, there is no place to add parking to the sides of the building. The only space left to build would be to the front or the rear and they have built out as far as they can in the rear, so the only place left is the front. Without the variation they cannot bring the building up to code and the lack of parking hinders the utilization of the building. 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: This ties into number 1 as the placement of the building on the lot makes it impossible to add parking along the sides or rear. 3. The variation if granted will not alter the essential locality. RESPONSE: No. They will be back 35 feet from the property line and 50 feet from the pavement that is consistent with the building across the street, 815 Commerce, which received a variation to add 54 spaces to the front. There is also parking close to Commerce Drive at both Commerce Plaza and the property across the street which is McDonald's property. There are also similar and numerous variations granted to properties along Enterprise Drive and Windsor Drive which are also in the ORA -1 District. 4. 2.a. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owners as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. RESPONSE: The shape of the lot and the building footprint on the property make it impossible to add additional parking. 5. 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 shape of the lot and the building footprint on the property make it impossible to add additional parking. This is unique to this property it is not applicable to most ORA VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 9 December 7, 2004 one lots. 6. 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: The granting of this variation will have no negative affect to other property whatsoever. By reducing the number of curb cuts on the property will make it safer for other properties. In fact the middle driveway is nonconforming under today's standards there is a minimum separation required between the driveways. Adding the berm and the landscape will also improve the look of the property. The MAI report also makes reference that it will be a benefit and not a detriment to the other properties. Mr. Saef said that this is the essence of the standards and that there was additional written information contained in their submittal. Chairman Davis noted that the Appraisal report would be accepted and added to the packet. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Member Sanford noted that this is an office building and always has been, and asked how it operated before with such limited parking. Mr. Debb responded that when the building was built people typically had private offices and the market was less than 3 spaces per 1000 square feet. In today's economy you see cubicles. There were no cubicles back when these buildings were built, so a lot more people are being put in less space. It's an economic decision and that is the way the market has gone. It has been that way in all villages that have increased their parking requirements because they realize that. Member Young asked whether the landscaping would change water runoff issues and what impact there would be to the neighbors. Village Engineer Durfey said that if the proposed plan exceeds the new parking area by more than 25,000 square feet, which is the threshold by which detention has to be provided as the process proceeds that will have to come into play. Either by changing the plans somehow or dealing with the detention as far as where it will go and what is the volume. There probably will be no impact to the neighbors. There may be sufficient room in the front grass area, or put some under the parking lot or pay a fee in lieu of for the difference. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 9 December 7, 2004 Mr. 'Debb said that staff has talked to their engineers and they have three different approaches. One would be to reduce the number of spaces by 14 there would not be any need for detention. They could do some underground, but there is concern by Oak Brook to do it underground. There is some room in the front and there is also some room in the back. They will meet all code requirements. Chairman Davis asked if they know it will exceed the 25,000 square feet and what kind of condition might be imposed. Village Engineer Durfey said that a note should be made that any plan changes necessary to meet the detention requirements should be approved by engineering. Member Ascher said that if the condition was made part of the approval, then it would change the landscaping plan. Mr. Debb said that if necessary they could reduce the parking to get it under the 25,000 square feet threshold, however, parking is very important to this building. He would like to work with staff to see if they could provide the storm water underground. If agreed, they will spend the $100,000 to put the storage underground. They will abide to all rules and regulations of Oak Brook. Member Ascher asked why they would not add onto the parking structure. Mr. Debb said that structurally the deck could not support another floor. They would have to tear it down and rebuild a 3 -story parking structure and there might be concern with the resident's in the rear if that were done. It would also be very costly. No matter what, they will comply with the Village standards. Member Mueller asked what the concern was regarding the underground storage. Village Engineer Durfey said that it relates to water quality. DuPage County is very remiss on approving underground tanks except as a last resort if there are no other alternatives. There are no water quality benefits for underground storage and it may be a water quality detriment. Mr. Debb said that they are only talking about 4/10 of an acre. They are not talking about huge underground reservoirs, just slightly larger underground pipes. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 9 December 7, 2004 Village Engineer Durfey said it relates to the perviousness of the bottom of the facility. A grass facility can absorb contaminates such as oils from cars. If it is an impervious bottom it flushes right into the rivers and streams. Member Ascher questioned the history of parking in that area. It was mentioned that there have been a number of other properties that have had variations. Director of Community Development Kallien said that as the applicant stated 815 Commerce had received a variation. Properties with similar circumstance would be along Enterprise Drive, which is a similar type street. On that street there have been variations for the building itself, the parking lot or a combination. Recently, there was the variation granted for 2020 Swift Drive, which had a similar circumstance with an old building Member Mueller asked what happened to the text amendment. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Village Board saw more into the text amendment that just the impact on this property and thought that it may have an adverse affect with some other ORA 1 properties. Chairman Davis said that it appeared it was the Board's belief that it should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the John Buck Company had said their parking ratio is close to 5 per 1000 gross floor area, which is what they believe is needed for a Class A building. This property is close to 3 and with the planned improvements would be at 3.5 which would more than meet the code requirements. Member Sanford said that it is to the economic advantage of the applicant to have additional parking spaces and it is certainly to the betterment of the Village to keep the property current and economically feasible. Member Mueller agreed. Chairman Davis said that the petitioner has sufficiently addressed the standards by their testimony and in writing on pages E -E.3 of the case file and the request does not appear to jeopardize the public health, safety or general welfare of the public. Motion by Member Mueller, seconded by Member Young to recommend approval of the variation as requested subject to the following conditions: 1. The Landscape plan including any plan changes that would be VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 9 December 7, 2004 necessitated by reason of any necessary detention requirements, if they come into play. Subject to that condition the landscape is to be provided in substantial conformance with the plan provided by Daniel Weinbach & Partners, Ltd., labeled Sheet L -01 dated December 7, 2004 on page 18 of the case file, 2. The proposed construction is to be built in substantial conformance with the plans as shown on the proposed site plan provided by Archideas, revision date December 7, 2004 on page G. l of the case file. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 - Members Ascher, Mueller, Sanford, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 - Absent: 0 - Motion Carried 5. B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE - v013- zO -TEXT AMENDMENT - CH ZONING ORDINANCE — TEXT AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 12 — OFF 12- SECTION 12 -4 -C STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS —AMEND INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING SECTION 12 -4 -C INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING Director of Community Development Kallien told the Zoning Board of Appeals that Staff discovered this item during the plan review of the parking lots for the McDonald's project at 22"d and Spring Road. He has had several meetings with Village Engineer Durfey and the Village Attorney and it was felt that the current language is potentially contradictory and the Village Attorney recommended the deletion of several words which would clarify and eliminate the contradiction. Section 13- 12- 4 -C.3. as follows: "In parking areas which are wider than one bay of double parking, interior shade trees shall be planted with a maximum spacing of forty feet 40'), provided that at least one tree is located in the area occupied by every fifteen (15) interior parking spaces." Chairman Davis asked for an explanation of interior parking. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the spacing of "40 feet" and "every 15 spaces" contradicts one another. In the McDonald's proposal it would mean there would be one tree placed every 15 parking spaces. It also states that there should be a tree every forty feet. Does that mean that trees should be placed randomly in the parking area? If there are horizontal spaces, every 15 spaces you would have a landscaped area with trees and vegetation, which they believe is more than reasonable. With the additional standard of requiring a tree every 40 feet, there will be trees all over the place. The proposed change is for clarification. The next time this happens there will not be any ambiguity or contradiction with the revised VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 9 December 7, 2004 language. No one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the request. Member Young asked what the potential downside would be for a developer. Village Engineer Durfey said that it helps the developer because there can be more parking spaces provided on a smaller sized lot. With the present provision in place it could mean a tree island could be required every 4 parking spaces. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there is already a provision in the code that requires 10% green space be maintained in parking lots. This is a housekeeping item. Motion by Member Young seconded by Member Sanford to recommend approval of the request from the Village of Oak Brook, to amend 13-12-4 - C.3 to delete the following words. "with a maximum spacing of forty feet (40') ". The Zoning Board of Appeals concurred with the Plan Commission recommendation and found that the request is reasonable and avoids contradiction in the Ordinance. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Ascher, Mueller, Sanford, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — Absent: 0 — Motion Carried. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: There was no other business to discuss. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Shah, seconded by Member Young to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert L. Kallien, Jr. Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 9 December 7, 2004 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 9 December 7, 2004