Loading...
Minutes - 09/18/2017 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BR t_92 0 CALL TO ORDER: MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 18, 2017 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON NOVEMBER 20, 2017 The Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Tropinski in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:04 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Marcia Tropinski, Members Thomas Doyle, Rahma Hasan, Raj Lal, Simon Sheers and Kenneth Wilczak ABSENT: Member Raju Iyer IN ATTENDANCE: Trustee Moin Saiyed, Development Services Director Tony Budzikowski, Village Attorney Kurt Asprooth, Village Consultant Engineer James Patterson, Planner Rebecca Von Drasek and Planning Technician Gail Polanek 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 21, 2017 AUGUST 2I, 2017 Motion by Member Doyle, seconded by Member Hasan to waive the reading of the minutes and to approve the minutes of the August 21, 2017 Regular Plan Commission meeting as amended. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to discuss. 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. FRANKLIN 1900 SPRING ROAD. LLC — TEXT AMENDMENT — ZONING FRANKLIN 1900 SPRING LLC — ORDINANCE SECTION 13 -713-3A — B -2 DISTRICT — FLOOR AREA TEXT AMEND - RATIO B2 DISTRICT - FAR B. FRANKLIN SUBDIVISION —1900 SPRING ROAD — PRELIMINARY PLAT FRANKLIN Sus — PRELIM (4- — FOUR -LOT SUBDIVISION AND FINAL PLAT — THREE -LOT LOT) and FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT (3 -LOT) VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 17 (') September 18, 2017 Chairwoman Tropinski reviewed the procedures to be followed for the meeting. Scott Day, Day, Robert and Morrison, P.C., Naperville, Illinois, attorneys for Franklin 1900 Spring Road, LLC, 55 Shuman Blvd., Suite 365, Naperville, Illinois the applicant and owner of the property located at 1900 Spring Road. Mr. Day noted that there were two requests; the one relating to dividing the parcel and said that the Subdivision Regulations Section 14 -1 -3E "...allows for a phased subdivision that allows construction in phases, where a tract of land is proposed to be subdivided into several stages over a period of years and the subdivider requests approval in parts." "...he shall at the time of submission of the first part submit a detailed plan of the entire tract to be eventually developed with an appropriate sectioning of the total design as proposed for the entire subdivision is acceptable under the terms of these regulations. The Plan Commission and Village Board may give preliminary approval to the overall plan and the final approval on the parts as submitted from time to time." He noted that it would be four -lot subdivision at a future date, and until then would remain a three -lot subdivision with lots 1, 2, and 3 as a final plat at this stage. The other request is for a text amendment relating to the B -2 regulations, Section 13 -713-3 that has an FAR (Floor Area Ratio) for developments in the B -2. They were seeking to either eliminate the FAR restriction (noted below) or expand the floor area ratio permitted in the B -2 district, which consists of the Oakbrook Center and the property located at 1400 161i Street. "Floor Area Ratio: Not to exceed 0.5; provided, however, that with regard to any increase of floor area over 0.3, not more than twelve and one -half percent (12 'h %) of permissible floor area in excess of 0.3 shall be devoted to office use as permitted under section 13 -713-1 of this article." Mr. Day provided historical background of the 8.43 -acre property located at 1900 Spring Road situated at the northeast corner of Oakbrook Center. In 1976, the property was split as part of a two -lot subdivision. In 1978, the property was subdivided again merged into a single lot. In 1978, Ordinance 5 -398 permitted parking in the north end of the property, north of the creek bed. A 10,000 square foot office building was developed on the site. Ray Warner, Principal at Franklin Partners, LLC, 55 Shuman Blvd, Naperville, Illinois, owner of the property at 1900 Spring Road noted that he and his partner Donald Shoemaker were the owners and operators of commercial real estate investment firm with offices located in Naperville, Chicago and Grand Rapids, Michigan. Since 1995, their firm has been active with nearly 15 million square feet of commercial real estate developments throughout the Midwest. They purchased 1900 Spring Road in September 2016 from American Realty Advisors, due to its close proximity to the mall. Historically they believed that office properties located VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 17 i September 18, 2017 in close proximity to the mall office market had performed much better than other submarket properties located in the east/west corridor. Their goal for the property is to create a boutique office environment for their tenants, and for the last year have worked with their development team to make improvements inside and out. Their intent is to modify the parking lot to help circulation through the lot and defining pedestrian pathways. They have engaged a landscape firm to develop a plan to add additional landscaping and outdoor seating areas for the tenants. Their intent is to develop a well - thought out plan that would provide an opportunity for further development on the site in a manner that would complement the current office property. They have signed a long -term ground lease with a New York based national restaurant group, Shake Shack. Construction is anticipated early next year. They are looking for an additional tenant for the other available pad site. In regards to Lot 4, they believe there are better uses for the site and ultimately believe it should be improved. They are under contract with another Chicago developer who intends to improve the site contingent specifically upon the floodplain and floodway. Because of that process, they felt that the phased subdivision approach was the best approach. Roger Heerema, Principal, Wright Heerema Architects, 140 South Dearborn, Suite 200, Chicago, Illinois, stated that they have been in practice for about 24 years, primarily with commercial office buildings, workplace design and multi - family residential. He reviewed some of the attributes of the site. The actual area devoted to office use is approximately 93,827 square feet of the building. Other areas of the building devoted to financial /commercial use are approximately 16, 760 square feet for a total of 110,587 square feet. He reviewed the FAR requirements of the site and its limitations. The site is not built to capacity. He reviewed the parking analysis including the proposed retail developments. He reviewed the proposed lots for the site and accommodating a better traffic flow and parking. He noted that the parking on proposed Lot 4 would remain as it is currently. Mr. Day reviewed the B2 District FAR language and that FAR was a comparison of the floor area in comparison to the size of the site. The ratio is the square footage of the building as compared to the size of the site gross. The recent amendments proposed as prepared by the Village consultant propose the elimination of the FAR restrictions for B -1, B -3, B -4, ORA -1, and the ORA -2 commercial districts. At this time, it appeared that B -2 was left as is currently, although the consultant may not have completed the review of this area. The first proposal is to completely eliminate the FAR requirements to make it the same as the other districts as is being proposed by the Village in its zoning update. Through FOIA, he was unable to determine why it exists as it does. hi the alternative the request is to amend the FAR text as follows (strikethrough deleted text, bolded, underlined proposed text: "Floor Area Ratio: Not to exceed " 1_0; provided, however, that with regard to any increase of floor area over 04 0_5, not more than twelve and one -half percent (12 ' /2 %) of permissible floor area in excess of 03 0_5 VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 17 le) September 18, 2017 shall be devoted to office use as permitted under section 13 -7B -1 of this article." This version was suggested by the applicant should the Village believe that a restriction is needed. The language only applies to this property, the mall, and the small piece of property on the north side of 16w Street. He noted that the property directly north of the property is zoned ORA -1 and in the future and should the proposed zoning changes be adopted it will not have an FAR. The property directly east is zoned ORA -2 and will not have an FAR. The development on these properties will be controlled by the setbacks, parking requirements and the bulk regulations. Mr. Day reviewed relevant sections of the Village's Commercial Areas Revitalization Plan in regards to the commercial development to this area calling it the economic engine of the community, which was noted to see limited growth and reinvestment while areas outside the village in other communities to the west had seen considerable office and retail growth. It was also stated that the Plan is needed to provide strategies and vision to accommodate the revitalization of the area. One of the goals and objectives was to update the Zoning Ordinance. The plan found that the Zoning Ordinance was outdated in 2007 and was restricting the commercial revitalization of the community. He noted that the reason the FAR was being eliminated in the other districts complied with the Revitalization Plan. He reviewed further in the plan noting that it stated "...the lack of available land and the prevalence of older functionally obsolete office buildings significantly limits the Village's ability to attract businesses to the community, particularly those seeking large Class A office space. Also noted was that substantial Class A space is desirable for the Village in terms of prestige and ability to compete with other communities." In regards to sites and buildings, "...the modernization of Oak Brook's office building inventory is encouraged and further noted that any reinvestment into Oak Brook's aging office inventory is encouraged. This site dates back 40 years." Franklin Properties has purchased and invested greatly in the community. The Shake Shack restaurant is being brought to this property by the developer. They are prepared to upgrade and modify the existing structure, and continue development of the site. The Revitalization Plan recommended this location for mixed -use commercial and multi - family. This property is recognized as part of the mall. There will be redevelopment of the surface parking areas, which is needed in the adopted Plan. The Revitalization Plan when adopted was stated that it "should become the Village's official policy guide for improvement and development within the commercial areas. It was to be used on a regular basis by commission to review and evaluate all proposals for improvement and development within the community." VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 17 September 18, 2017 Other guidelines within the plan notes that "... other definitions, such as floor area for determining off - street parking loading requirements should be reexamined to determine if the ordinance definitions area adequately accommodating contemporary development practices." "Existing Floor Area Ration, Setbacks, and Height... Currently, floor area rations (FAR) standards area lower than most similarly zoned uses in other communities." The future development of the site is dependent upon the change to the FAR, just as the Plan calls for. Mr. Day noted that the Standards were addressed in writing and were contained fully within the case file. Chairwoman Tropinski noted that one of the staff comments was that the zoning ordinance update being prepared by Teska Associates, which is still in progress, has however, eliminated the FAR in the other district, but has not included B -2. She also asked what kind of building was being considered to be on Lot 4. Mr. Day responded that Franklin has a contingent buyer for the property, but must have the flood plain permits, etc., to build condominiums, which is a mixed -use that by nature would require it to go through the Planned Development process. Director Budzikowski noted that the B -2 District appears to be the most restrictive of the other districts and does not have a structure height. There are only three properties with B -2 zoning; the largest property owner is the Oak Brook mall. Based on the FAR, there has not been any issue with future and proposed developments. After evaluating the district and the users in it, he did not think there was a necessity, but would further review and find out why it was not included. Chairwoman Tropinski added that the zoning ordinance update was still a document in process and the FAR could still be eliminated in the district or revised further. Director Budzikowski agreed that if it was warranted it could be included in the draft update, if it is determined to be desirable and necessary for the future well- being of those B -2 properties. If the Commission chose to go with the second option, it would provide more flexibility than the current FAR but would not eliminate it. Currently, there is no structure height, which was a concern. Chairwoman Tropinski noted that proposed Lot 4 would be a small lot and it would still be very limited in the size of the building given easements and setback requirements. She did not see a problem with eliminating the FAR due to the lot constraints. Kurt Asprooth, Village Attorney noted that there were certain standards for the text amendment, which the applicant addressed, are what the commission should consider when recommending the text amendment. The board's duty when VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 17 i September 18, 2017 considering the preliminary and final subdivision is whether or not the plat complies with the Subdivision Regulations. Member Doyle said that he could not support removing the FAR all together, not knowing what approval would be given in the zoning ordinance update. Member Lai reserved his final comments until the homeowner comments. He wondered why they were seeking an amendment before the LOMR was approved. Member Wilczak said that he did not think it was an oversight to not remove the FAR from the B -2 District, and since the mall is the largest occupant they did not want it to turn into an office complex to control how much office was there. He questioned what was being sought for plat approval, whether it was for a final or preliminary. Mr. Day responded that the process was unusual seeking a preliminary plat for Lot 4 and the approval of a three lot final plat. There would not be any approvals until it goes through processing through all of the other State agencies. Any future final plat of subdivision for Lot 4 would be conditioned upon receipt of the permits to modify the flood regulations. Without those approvals the lot would stay exactly, the same as it is today. Member Sheers said that because it was unknown as to what would happen with Lot 4, he did not think he could make a decision. If ever the floodway /floodplain is approved, then a decision could be made. Director Budzikowski noted that the proposal is intentional because they realize that Lot 4 is at least two years down the line, so the preliminary plat would provide preliminary approval for four lots. The final would only include the three lots. If ever the floodway /floodplain received an approval, the developer would have to come back to the Plan Commission for a final plat for Lot 4 as well as a Planned Development to construct anything on the lot. Both actions would require a notice sent to the adjacent property owners for a future meeting. The relief they are seeking gets them in a place that they need to be and addresses the concerns of those in the audience. Member Doyle questioned whether the request for the increased FAR would be reasonable. Director Budzikowski responded that the proposed language would be reasonable and would provide more flexibility for the applicant. It would not be eliminated so there would be controls in place for the Village. The FAR is just one component of the regulations, because there are other controls for parking, setbacks, stormwater, etc., that would also control the site for future development. Member Hasan felt that it was hard to make a decision on the text amendment without knowing what was going on with the subdivision. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 17 f �� September 18, 2017 Jerry Wolin, resident Oak Brook Club, said that the Oak Brook Club residents did not have an objection to the FAR request. Motion by Member Doyle, seconded by Member Hasan to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment as follows: (strikethrough deleted- text, bolded, underlined proposed text: "Floor Area Ratio: Not to exceed 04 1_0; provided, however, that with regard to any increase of floor area over 03 0_5, not more than twelve and one -half percent (12 %2 %) of permissible floor area in excess of 83 0_5 shall be devoted to office use as permitted under section 13 -713-1 of this article." ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 4 — Members Doyle, Hasan, Sheers and Chairwoman Tropinski Nays: 2 — Members Lal and Wilczak. Absent: 1 — Member Iyer. Motion carried. Member Doyle questioned the flood plain boundaries and noted that it seemed to affect the Nordstrom property. Mr. Day responded that the only reason they supplied information on the floodway and flood plain was in response to an issue raised which then resulted in the Village receiving 300 signatures asking the Village to prohibit any and all subdivision of the parcel because of the existence of flood plain. It was their position that was illegal to do. Floodplain is a federal regulation that is imposed against people. Member Wilczak said that he had two areas of concern. Looking at the property there is water in the creek when it has not rained for days. Secondly, there is a great tree hedge that shelters Oak Brook Club from the current commercial property. Losing that would be adverse to the community. He was sensitive to someone wanting to improve their property; he was also sensitive as to what exists in Oak Brook. It is difficult to say that it would be okay to destroy the ambience of the area so that the current layout could be changed, which was a big concern for him. Member Hasan questioned whether the two requests could be separated. Director Budzikowski responded that there would be a separate vote required for the four -lot preliminary and one for the three -lot final plat. The only other option would be for the applicant to come back with a preliminary three -lot subdivision, if there were concerns regarding proposed Lot 4. Mr. Day responded that they had not considered that option at this time. The application is for preliminary and final for a three -lot subdivision. The fourth will occur only if certain flood plain modifications occur in the future. They would need to come back through the Village's application and hearing process. Their reasoning was to provide complete transparency to the Village. If they do not receive approval VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 17 I13 September 18, 2017 for the flood plain modifications, the final 3 -lot subdivision would be the only thing to occur on this property and would look exactly like the Final Plat being proposed. Jerry Wolin stated that the presentation is to provide information as to why the Oak Brook Club is opposed to the plan as well as to show the Plan Commission why they should be opposed. The Oak Brook Club residents are strongly opposed to construction of a high -rise condominium building on proposed Lot 4. A petition was submitted signed by 353 Oak Brook Club residents in opposition to construction on Lot 4. He notes the reasons that the Plan Commission should be opposed to the subdivision as follows: • The proposed very tall condominium building will be inappropriate for the area and the area is not zoned for residential. • It is premature to subdivide Lot 4 until plans are approved for eliminating the floodplain and floodway and it is questionable if that is possible. • Beautiful green space would be replaced with asphalt and concrete to an extent that it is not in Oak Brook's best interests. • Lot 3 and 4 are linked for water retention making a separation impractical at this time • There is limited ingress and egress for Lot 4. • The subdivision requirements for Lot 4 have not been met. • Man made flood structures will be used and are problematic. Mr. Wolin noted that he was not a storm water engineer, but had 30 years of practical experience serving for several years as Chairman of the Elmhurst Citizens for Flood Control, Salt Creek Citizens for Flood Control, Elmhurst City Council, Oak Brook Plan Commission and Village Board; and the DuPage County Stormwater Commission, which he was part of the rewrite of the Stormwater Ordinance. The entire area of Lot 4 is located in the floodplain and floodway and construction is not allowed in the floodway. He identified the proximity of the Oak Brook Club to the subject property and that they share a common floodplain with Lot 4. He also commented on floodway and storm events. He noted that 16a' Street floods as well. He noted that he had talked to several engineers that said it might theoretically be possible but would cost a lot of money and would also cost a lot of money to implement it. Oakbrook Center was built before there was storm water management. He provided information regarding the storm water believing that we need to learn not to build in the wrong places that could cause a problem at a later date. Heavier rainfalls have created impacts in other areas of the country. He reviewed the subdivision ordinance and did not believe that Lot 4 included all of VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 17 - September 18, 2017 the needed information such as the location of sewers, water mains, storm drains and detention facilities and proposed method of sewage disposals and water supply. The floodplain is supposed to be identified on the preliminary plat, which it is not. He believed the application request was premature. Numerous slides were shown and he reviewed storm events and capacities. Concerns with manmade structures such as underground storage tank issues including structures getting clogged and not maintained. He provided recommendations not to approve the preliminary plat of subdivision until the following was completed. 1) Approval of the floodplain and floodway engineering plans at all government levels; 2) A conceptual plan showing building height, plantings, etc.; 3) A plan for safe ingress and egress; 4) Until Oak Brook is willing to commit to residential B -2 zoning; and 5) the developer meets the Oak Brook Subdivision requirements. Questions were raised for the V3 Stormwater engineer, as it was believed that the proposed condominium development would increase flooding at the Oak Brook Club. Questions were asked of the Development Services Director regarding permeable pavers and inspections. He concluded by asking that the Plan Commission members that all future developments should add to the beauty of Oak Brook not take away from it. Planning Technician Polanek called off all names listed to make public comment at the meeting. The following chose to agree with all the statements made by Mr. Wolin. Note: Spelling may be inaccurate due to legibility of sign in sheet. John Miniutti, 3 Oak Brook Club; Jeanne Davik, 5 Oak Brook Club; Pat Monaco, 3 Oak Brook Club; Charlotte Lawon, 5 Oak Brook Club; Kate Gorz, 1 Oak Brook Club; Don Gorz, 1 Oak Brook Club; Dr. Joseph Discipio, 6 Oak brook Club; Ann O'Connor, 5 Oak Brook Club; Beatrice Gregory, 6 Oak Brook Club; Audley Weidman, 3 Oak Brook Club; Jerry Westerkamp, 6 Oak Brook Club; Rosemary and Don Bleuher, 2 Oak Brook Club; Mary Oesterle, 5 Oak Brook Club; Michael Hughes, 3 Oak Brook Club; Jack VanNamen, 4 Oak Brook Club; Cheryl Bartz, 1 Oak Brook Club; Pat Amhaddi, 2 Oak Brook Club; Doug Wicklander, 5 Oak Brook Club; Dr. Samuel Cascio, 6 Oak Brook Club; Dwight Austin, 5 Oak Brook Club. Kathleen Rueth, 6 Oak Brook Club was concerned with the maximum height of the proposed condominium. Martina Cosentino, 6 Oak Brook Club was concerned with height of the proposed structure and potential flooding in the garage, Robert Sanford, 3 Oak Brook Club, noted that the revitalization plan was addressed and out of that plan pieces of property to be used for various uses a planned development would be required for the condominium and an opportunity to negotiate how a property could best be used. He understood that the Plan Commission was looking for specifics and to some extent; they would be by going VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 17 I's September 18, 2017 through that process. He raised concerns for traffic and noted that a stoplight had been proposed when the Oak Brook Tower was constructed, which never materialized. He agreed there were flooding problems and believed it would create many other problems. Carolynn VanNamen, 4 Oak Brook Club noted they were aware of flooding issues when they lived in York Roads. Oak Brook is an upscale community and wants to preserve the attractiveness in the Oak Brook community. She noted that Oak Brook is not Lisle or Downers Grove. The Oakbrook Shopping Center has always been a magnet for surrounding communities. She questioned the type of restaurant was Shake Shack. She would like to see it enhance the Village. Mr. Warner responded that Shake Shack was a New York based hamburger restaurant that started in Central Park. It is a high quality restaurant with 6 locations in the Chicagoland area. Jack Bartz, 1 Oak Brook Club said that he had concerns regarding the parking lot on Lot 4 was meant as a retention pond. He questioned that if the water retention ponds were there for a purpose and are filled in, where would the water go; and would the proposed channels become overwhelmed; those impacts were not being presented. Ed Main, 3 Oak Brook Club is the seated president of the homeowner's association thanked the residents for attending and noted that Jerry Wolin provided a great presentation. He had concerns on the property values and safety and noted that there were 12 new theaters at Oakbrook Center. There are additional traffic concerns and requested the Commission think it over. Mr. Day responded to the questions that were raised, but reiterated that the request was not a land use issue or zoning request or planned development, and they were not seeking approval of a 20 -story condominium, etc. He agreed with Bob Sanford that a residential plan at this location would require a planned development. Through the Planned Development process, the developer is forced to provide details to the Village. Currently, residential use is not allowed in the B -2 District, except for going through the Planned Development process. This parcel is not residential. The only thing before the Plan Commission is a preliminary four -lot and final three - lot subdivision, not for a land use that would be sought in the future. It is only for the division of land and the size of the lots. Rules and regulations already exist on what can be developed on these lots. He noted that they currently have a legally created subdivision and could apply for four building permits without dividing the lot because under the B -2 District multiple buildings could be constructed in compliance with the district. The only way that a residential condominium could be constructed in the B -2 District would be to go through the Planned Development process. The first requirement is to VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 1 T ( September 18, 2017 � submit a plan to the Village Board prior to any public hearing He reviewed the questions regarding the subdivision submittal requirements raised by Jerry Wolin. They believe Lot 4 did not have a fully designed plan and he responded that they cannot design a plan that contradicts the existing flood plain regulations. They could not install a storm water facility, and the parking and hard surfaced area is already in place. The plan for Lot 4 at this time is to do nothing keeping all existing features. Under the Village Code, if you are not submitting a plan in excess of 2500 square feet you are exempt from certain provisions of the storm water regulations. They are not disturbing any of the impermeable surfaces. He reviewed storm events, man-made detention storage and the 100 -year flood event. He concluded by stating that they are asking for the subdivision and do not need it to put multiple buildings on the parcel. They are asking for the subdivision so that they can extend a ground lease with Shake Shack and there is another out lot on the frontage that could be used for a commercial developer. He noted that they were trying to be as transparent as possible with respect for Lot 4. They are not touching the lot unless and until they can process relief from the County, the State and FEMA with respect to flood plain. They are requesting the three lots and Lot 4 only preliminarily conditioned on getting the approvals necessary to build on it. A member of the audience questioned why Lot 4 was just not taken out of the request. Mr. Day responded that property rights are very valuable and it is very expensive to process the necessary approvals to develop Lot 4. He noted that the Village in the Revitalization Plan wants investors in the Village. The Village cannot take the development rights, deny development rights, and deny the applicant the due process right to approach the administrative process to gain approvals to use those rights. There is a profit and if they can develop it, it would be a valuable property, and if not it is a useless parcel. The Village cannot deny them to seek relief. Another question was asked from the audience that could not be heard. Mr. Day responded that the Supreme Court rules have previously confronted this situation. When an applicant has provided a proposed subdivision that meets all of the rules and subdivision regulations and is code compliant, the Supreme Court has said that the Village does not have a choice. The property owner has a right to divide his property as he sees fit. It is always difficult when neighbors are unified in their belief that it is a bad idea. Village Attorney Asprooth noted that it was not a land use hearing so some of the other factors that would be considered in a development such as the LaSalle Factors and community impacts, adjoining landowners are not before the Plan Commission. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 17 i0 September 18, 2017 Under the Village's Subdivision Regulations, the Plan Commission only reviews whether or not they meet the Subdivision Regulations. If the Plan Commission wishes to deny the subdivision plat the commission must specify what portions of the Subdivision Regulations, they did not comply with or the Official Plan. The Plan Commission purview should be focused on whether or not the petitioner has met the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and if not what portions must be specified or what aspects of the Comprehensive Plan they have not satisfied. Director Budzikowski noted that there were some questions posed by Mr. Wolin in regards to structure height and there is none in the B -2 District. The DuPage County Stormwater Ordinance as well as the Village has standards for underground detention vaults as well as permeable pavers. hi regards to the questions regarding inspections, the least of the concerns are the stormwater vaults and permeable pavers because they are newer. There is not a specific inspection program, but at some point in time to get a comprehensive inspection program for regular detention basins, which are the oldest type of basins in town is not an easy task. Designating a staff person who may not be qualified, and qualified people need to do that, so it would not be like having someone from Public Works go look at something. The whole system would need to be looked at for the Village, should there be a program put in place to do inspections. Homeowner associations and commercial property owners alike would be responsible to pay for the inspections and any improvements that would be necessary. Over a period of time, we can determine what approach should be taken to develop an inspection program. Storm water is the system as a whole. Chairwoman Tropinski asked the Village Consultant Engineer whether the proposed plats comply with all of the requirements for a plat of subdivision and asked if it was complete. Village Consultant Engineer, James Patterson responded that he did believe it was complete. He did make one recommendation that there should be some easements indicated on the preliminary and final plat for the utilities, flood plain and detention. Chairwoman Tropinski asked about Mr. Wolin's question on egress and asked if that had been part of any discussion. Engineer Patterson responded that he did not notice any particular requirements in the Village Code about ingress or egress so was not a portion of his review. Member Hasan questioned whether the applicant would need to return to the Plan Commission for the development of the two restaurants for Lot 1 and Lot 2. Director Budzikowski responded that in the B -2 District restaurants and retail are permitted uses unless they have variations or special uses to the zoning code so this petition would not come back to the Plan Commission. Permits are required including engineering and landscaping. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK _ Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 17 (� September 18, 2017 Chairwoman Tropinski questioned the comments made in the Village Consultant Engineering Report regarding Lot 4 and whether the information provided by the applicant complied with all of the Village requirements for a preliminary plat. Consultant Engineer Patterson responded that he did not see anything that did not comply with the subdivision regulations. The biggest question was the lot line that distinguishes Lot 3 and Lot 4 was not going to change pending the results of the LOMR. Mr. Day responded that they were applying for preliminary approval of Lot 4 and they were certain that they would need to come in to resubdivide both Lot 3 and 4 if the lot line would need to be changed. He noted that was the reason Lot 4 was planned and proposed exactly as it has been engineered and approved with and subject to a conditional use from the Village was that they were not touching it, unless and until they can process the final plat of subdivision for the 0, lot. The preliminary plat is identical to what has been approved. Member Lal disclosed that when he retired he developed an interest in disaster medicine, locally, nationally and internationally. Flash floods are the number one disaster concern. He noted that the warmer temperatures have created more moisture in the air, which creates more rain. If there is very little area to absorb the rain, then there is a problem. He reviewed recent events with flooding in the nation and the effects of the floodwaters and health hazards. He noted that there are concerns that the Teska proposal is still in progress and said that we must learn to protect our environment and the green space. Chairwoman Tropinski noted that there were two requests before the Commission, one for a preliminary plat and one for a final plat. Chairwoman Tropinski motioned, seconded by Member Doyle to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for the four -lot subdivision as presented including a stipulation that the flood plain and detention easement be included for the relocated flood plain and detention along with final Engineering approval. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 2 — Members Doyle and Hasan, Nays: 4 — Members Lal, Sheers, Wilczak and Chairwoman Tropinski Absent: 1 — Member Iyer. Motion failed. Member Wilczak and Chairwoman Tropinski noted that there was insufficient information on the preliminary plat regarding the Village Consultant Engineers concerns that should be on the preliminary plat prior to recommending approval. Village Attorney Asprooth said that since the motion for the preliminary plat for the four lots failed, it was not necessary to vote on the final plat for the three lots since there was not a preliminary plat for the three lots. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK / Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 17 September 18, 2017 Chairwoman Tropinski called for a 5- minute break. The meeting was called back to order at 5 C. CLEARWATER- CLEARWATER DEVELOPMENT — SENIOR LIFESTYLE SENIOR DEVELOPMENT — AMEND SPECIAL USE ORDINANCE S -1183 — TO LIFESTYLE - AMENDS-1183- ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF "THE SHERIDAN AT OAK BROOK — SHERIDAN AT LUXURY SENIORS HOUSING COMMUNITY OAK BROOK Bridget O'Keefe, Daspin & Aument, 300 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2200, Chicago, Illinois, attorney for the applicant/contractor purchaser, Senior Lifestyle Development who is seeking to obtain the necessary approvals to develop Lot 6 of the Clearwater Development. The applicant is seeking to amend Special Use Ordinance S -1183 to allow the construction of a 200 -unit senior housing development. Robert Gawronski, Senior Vice President Development, Senior Lifestyle Development Company, 303 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2400, Chicago, IL, provided an overview of the company noting that they were a Chicago based company and have been in business for 31 years. They are the 6a' largest operator of senior housing in the country with locations in 180 different communities in 30 states. They provide independent living, assisted living and memory care and focus heavily on the hospitality for senior living business. The plan is for 200 luxury apartments for seniors, allocating approximately 119 independent units, 66 licensed assisted living units, and 15 licensed memory care units. There will be 185 parking spaces for the senior housing within the building and will preserve the 179 retail spaces that exist on the site. There will be a state of the art security system, including an emergency call system and real time tracking. Staff is present 24 hours a day. They embrace the dignity of the residents and their family. The positive impact on the Oak Brook will include a retirement community that does not exist in Oak Brook. The project will be at least a $77 million investment. They will create a luxury housing option for Oak Brook seniors who want to stay in their community. This will complete the final phase of the Clearwater Development with a compatible but less intense use than the hotel and condominiums that were envisioned for the site prior to the recession. There will be approximately $540,000 in property tax that will help the school districts without having an impact on the schools. George Halik, Project Architect, Booth Hansen, 333 South Desplaines Street, Suite 100, Chicago, IL 60661 noted that the shape of the 6 -story building follows the street line. The site is entered through a private drive on Clearwater. All of the residents, visitors, and employees parking are located within the building. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 17 September 18, 2017 Landscaping is important to the project and as visitors come to the site, it is the first thing that they see and lush landscape will around the perimeter of the building as well as when the site is entered. A variation will be sought to consolidate the parking from the interior of the parking lot toward the area on the east side of the building. He reviewed each level and the exterior fagade of the building. The memory care will have its own secured entrance along with a higher fence. The building is a conceptual in design, but should be very similar to the finalized version of the plan. Tim Doron, Senior Traffic Planner, Principal with Sam Schwartz Engineering, 303 W. Erie Street, Suite 600, Chicago, IL reviewed the access to and from the site and signals. He stated that the 185 spaces provided in the building would ensure that its residents, staff or visitors would use none of the retail spaces located in the parking lot. Traffic is heavy during peak traffic time. A comment was made by the Police Chief to consider a traffic signal at 22nd Street and Clearwater which is an IDOT roadway and not warranted. He suggested that it should be left alone for now. He reviewed the traffic generation study. Brent McQueen, Project Engineer, Mackie Consultants, LLC, 9575 W. Higgins Road, Suite 500, Rosemont, IL reviewed the existing and proposed conditions and engineering on the site. Member Wilczak raised concerns regarding fire department access around the building and felt there should be better access. He thought this could add to the Fire Department needs. He noted that he was concerned with the number of calls and the lack of access to the northeast side of the building. Mr. Gawronski responded that they have their trash located contiguous to LA Fitness to keep the most undesirable uses together and it is screened. It would be difficult to create a driveway there. He noted that they met with the Fire Chief when developing the plan and technically, they are located well within the requirements. The only concern raised was ensuring that their largest fire truck could maneuver through the drive around in front of the building in the parking lot. There is no practical benefit in adding a curb cut because valuable parking spaces would be lost for the retail users of the lot. Their first concern was whether it would be a burden on services and the Oak Brook Fire Chief knows and called the Fire Chief in Northbrook. He indicated that existing staff and equipment could handle the projected calls. On -site staff responds first to assess and handle the situation before any local resources are used. Dr. Lal raised concerns that there would not be adequate care for the residents of the facility. He felt there would not be enough nursing personnel available for the various types of residents and that more staff would be needed for memory care patients. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 17 (5 September 18, 2017 Mr. Gawronski responded that they would have sufficient staff to handle the care needed. He added that the Illinois Department of Public Health monitors the facility to ensure they have the appropriate staffing. Dedicated CNA's and LPN's will be on staff and at a minimum, there will be one caregiver for every 8 residents in the Memory Care unit. He noted the requirements for Assisted Living needs. Member Doyle noted that he did not see a good system of walking paths around the site and access to the retail spaces to accommodate seniors protectively. He also noted that removing the trees in the parking lot does not break up the parking area as the view from the inside. The new trees will not be mature for almost 10 years. Mr. Gawronski responded that they want their senior living residents to be able to get out and about easily. They are trying to enhance the connectivity to the sidewalk systems. There will be attractive green space areas for those that do walk and will provide safe access. They felt it best to bring the green space closer to the building and toward the south is the golf course. They reviewed the pictures of the Senior center that opened in Northbrook, which would be comparable to this development Joe Patrick, Architect, Senior Lifestyle Development Company, Chicago, IL responded that a 3 -inch caliper tree would start out at about 14 -feet tall and the species they are using will grow anywhere between 24 -36- inches per year, which would be about 4 -8 years for the maturity. Member Sheers noted that he was an experienced resident of Park Place, which has more greenery and walking spaces. He did not believe there was enough green space. He also questioned if the underground garage would flood as well as the number of handicapped spaces. Mr. Gawronski responded that there are 7 handicapped spaces. There should be no flooding in the garage. In response to Park Place, he noted that there are over 4700 seniors in the market area and they are trying to create choices. They know that they cannot be all things to all people, but could be a great choice for some that like the blend of an urban mixed -use location with the services and amenities they are providing. In response to a question regarding the food service, he noted that they are very proud of their food service. Ms. O'Keefe stated for the record that the standards for the special use were addressed in writing and contained in the case file. Motion by Member Hasan, seconded by Member Doyle to recommend approval of the special use to construct the Sheridan at Oak Brook senior housing community as proposed, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all previously approved special uses and variations granted to this property not in conflict with this request will remain in full force and effect; VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 17, 3 September 18, 2017 2. Obtaining final approval of the proposed variations required to construct the 200 -unit senior housing development. 3. Add the provision "Notwithstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all Village Ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically vaned or waived. Ayes: 5 — Members Doyle, Hasan, Sheers, Wilczak and Chairwoman Tropinski Nays: 1 — Member Lal Absent: 1 — Member Iyer. Motion carved. 6. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. 8. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Hasan, seconded by Member Wilczak to adjourn the meeting at 11:24 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: /s/ Tony Budzikowski Tony Budzikowski Development Services Director Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 17b September 18, 2017 OTHER BUSINESS PUBLIC COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT