Loading...
Minutes - 11/12/2018 - Planned Development Commission3. 0 VILLAGE OF MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 12, 2018 OAK BR K� SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON FEBRUARY 28, 2019 CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Special Meeting of the Planned Development Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Marcia Tropinski in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: ROLLCALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Marcia Tropinski, Members Jeffrey Bulin, Natalie Cappetta, Thomas Doyle and Alfred Savino ABSENT: Vice Chairman Wayne Ziemer and Member Raju Iyer IN ATTENDANCE: Trustees John Baar and Edward Tiesenga, Development Services Director Tony Budzikowski, Public Works Director Doug Patchin, Police Chief James Kruger, Fire Chief Barry Liss, Village Attorney Kurt Asprooth, Village Consultant Engineer, James Patterson, Village Planner Rebecca Von Drasek, and Planning Technician Gail Polanek APPROVAL OF MINUTES MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SEPTEMBER28, OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 2017 Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Doyle to approve the minutes of the September 28, 2017 Regular Planned Development Commission meeting as amended. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. A. CASE NO: 2018-16-ZO-PUD — JUPITER REALTY CO., LLC — and RIPITER& KLIN FRANKLIN 1900 SPRING, LLC — 1900 SPRING ROAD — PROPOSED FR SPRIN - 1900 0 SPRINGRD- CONDOMINIUM RD - CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT — PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CONDO -PUD VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 1q_of 21 November 12, 2018 d Chairwoman Tropinski announced the public hearing for the requested planned development. Member Cappetta addressed the board and audience stating that she was a tenant in the 1900 Spring Road building and assured everyone that she was capable and unbiased to review this petition. Director Budzikowski gave a brief overview of the planned development petition by Jupiter Realty Company, LLC (contract purchaser) for a 22 -story residential condominium project at 1900 Spring Road. The 2 -acre parcel is located in the B-2 Regional Shopping Center District and owned by Franklin 1900 Spring Road, LLC. The proposed project will consist of a 22 -story masonry building with up to 90 residential dwelling units, 210 indoor parking spaces, a health club, several communal spaces and landscaping. The petitioner is also requesting four departures (variations) from the standards. 1. Section 13-713-2 to allow residential condominiums in the B-2 District which is currently not permitted. 2. 13-713-3A to increase the floor area ration (FAR) from 0.50 to 0.99. The FAR is a bulk or height standard within the village code that regulates the size and height of buildings. The FAR for this petition has been calculated taking into account the entire 4 -lot subdivision. 3. Section 13-7B-3B.l.b to decrease the setback from the right-of-way of Spring Road from 80 feet to a minimum of 54 feet for the building setback and 27 feet for the motor court piers (parking area). 4. Section 13-12-3.0 to reduce the internal parking garage drive aisles from 27 feet wide to 22 feet wide. Director Budzikowski pointed out that the Planned Development Commission (PD) consists of members from both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Plan Commission. The planned development process differs from the ZBA and PC processes. This petition had a separate preliminary review that was conducted on July 10, 2018 and gave the Village Board the opportunity to provide feedback to the applicant. There was also an optional neighborhood meeting that was conducted by the applicant on September 27, 2018, which provided village residents the opportunity to have a discussion about the project with the applicant. He reminded the audience that this public hearing was not the final decision of the project. He emphasized the Planned Development Commission is a recommending VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 2 of 21 November 12, 2018 —1�) body and it is at their discretion whether or not to vote in support or against the petition at the conclusion of the hearing. The petition could be continued to a later meeting date if they feel they need more time and/or information. Once the PD makes a recommendation, the petition will move forward to the Village Board (in a similar forum) who will make a formal decision. Chairwoman Tropinski stated that all audience members wishing to speak would be limited to 5 minutes due to the size of the audience. All witnesses were sworn in. Scott Day, Attorney for the applicant with Day Robert & Morrison, P.C., 300 East P Avenue, Suite 365, Naperville, IL 60563, introduced the witnesses for the petitioner and presented a map of the area showing the location of the proposed development as well as nearby subdivisions. He stated that the petition process for this planned development was quite unique in that the Village's 2007 Commercial Areas Revitalization Plan (CARP) recommended a separate board for planned development petitions since they differ from straight zoning procedures. Mr. Day reviewed Ordinance G-890 which adopted Planned Development Regulations and he specifically addressed: • 13-15-1: Planned Development Intent and Purpose: "The purpose of the regulations, standards and criteria contained in this chapter is to provide an alternate zoning procedure under which land can be developed or redeveloped with innovation, imagination and creative architectural design when sufficiently justified under the provisions of this chapter. The objective of the planned development is to encourage a higher level of design and amenity than is possible to achieve under standard zoning regulations. The end result is intended to be a product which fulfills the objectives of the village of Oak Brook's commercial areas revitalization master plan and planning policies of the Village while allowing flexibility from the standard application of the use and bulk regulations of the zoning regulations." • 13-15-1: Planned Development Intent and Purpose: "The planned development is intended to permit and encourage flexibility and to accomplish the following specific purposes, among others: A. To stimulate creative approaches to the commercial, non -single-family residential, and commercial/mixed use development of land. B. To provide more efficient use of the land. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 3 of 21 November 12, 2018 IPi C. To preserve natural features and provide open space areas and recreation areas in excess of those required under standard zoning regulations. D. To develop and implement new approaches to the living environment through variety in type, design and layout of buildings, transportation systems and public facilities. E. To unify building and structures through design. F. To promote long term planning pursuant to the village's commercial areas revitalization master plan, which will allow harmonious and compatible land uses or combination of uses with surrounding areas (Ord. G-890, 7- 14-2009)" Mr. Day explained that approval of the preliminary plat for the new Lot 4 of the 1900 Spring Road subdivision was pending and would not in any way grant approval for this planned development. It would simply approve the creation of a lot within a subdivision. He added that there are several permitted uses for the lot that would not need to be approved through a planned development process. This particular property cannot be developed without a floodplain permit, which would be reviewed and approved by engineers. He stressed that nothing can be constructed on the site without approval of floodplain and floodway management. Jerry Ong, Developer Representative, Jupiter Realty Company, LLC, 401 North Michigan Ave, Suite 1300, Chicago, IL 60611 thanked the board and the audience for the opportunity to present their petition. He explained that Jupiter is a privately held commercial real estate company that was founded in Chicago in 1985. Their development history covers several sectors including hotels, residential units, retail and office space. The proposed Butler project will be a high-quality condominium product intended for this market, and is estimated to cost approximately 113 million dollars to develop a maximum of 90 units. It is designed to be iconic and to target high net worth individuals who want to stay in the western suburbs near their families and lifestyles. He stated that many of the units within the development will be well in excess of one million dollars. He reported that prior to entering into a contract to purchase the property at 1900 Spring Road, Jupiter met with village staff and also reviewed the 2007 CARP. Their development concept aligned nicely with the village's vision for the property. During their presentation to the Village Board it was understood that any consideration for this type of development must be extremely high quality and good for Oak Brook. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 4 of 21 November 12, 2018 He stressed that the architect, Lucien Lagrange is creative, innovative and has a reputation for the design of very high-end buildings worldwide. The original design for the Butler consisted of four units per floor with a total height of 27 stories. When presented to an open house in 2017, they heard loud and clear that height was an objection. The height was first reduced from 27 to 24 stories and is currently being presented with 22 stories. They believed it was imperative that the parking component be contained within the building in order to maintain the quality of this development. Lucien Lagrange, Architect, Lucien Lagrange Studio, 730 West Randolph Street, Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60661 explained that he has designed 27 high-end residential buildings in Chicago and is very familiar with Oak Brook. When he first viewed the 1900 Spring Road site, he understood the vision of Jerry Ong and felt this type of high-end residential development is what was missing from the area. He had received calls from future residents asking when the project would be complete. He believed Oak Brook was a very special community and only a very well planned high-end condominium building would work. My-Nga Lam, Lucien Lagrange Studio, 730 West Randolph Street, Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60661 presented photos of facades and interiors of several buildings designed by Lucien Lagrange Studio. She noted that residents living in their buildings have described their sense of arrival, coming home, privacy, warmth, comfort and security. Their projects are designed with great detail and include large windows and gracious open spaces. Ms. Lam presented views of the area depicting several tall buildings along 22nd Street and Spring Road. Their building would fit in with the character and scale of the area and noted that it is 158 -feet shorter than the Oakbrook Terrace Tower located just north of this building. She indicated that The Butler clearly reads that is a residential development and helps contrast the bulky commercial buildings. The Butler is a 22 -story building with 16 -stories of residential units and an overall height of 285 -feet. She detailed the exterior, pointing out the balconies and setbacks that add finer detail. The fagade is an architectural concrete that simulates stone, and the roof is distinctly shaped. The three parking floors are concealed with windows to mask the garage. The main entrance courtyard is enclosed with ornamental metal fencing and will be heavily landscaped to conceal the area between the bike path and the courtyard. She presented a PowerPoint showing setback comparisons of two nearby buildings with similar setbacks. Placing the building as far southwest as possible was important to maximize open space along Spring Road and 16a' Street where the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 5 of 21 November 12, 2018 bike path is located. The main entrance is at the intersection of Spring Road and 10h Street and reviewed the parking areas. There are 225 total parking spaces on site for 90 units which equates to 2 stalls per unit and 45 stalls for guest parking. Ms. Lam presented a representative residential floor with six units ranging in size from 1,315 square -feet to 2,875 square -feet. All units will have 10 -foot ceilings, balconies and large foyers with open space. Most floors consist of six units with only four floors having fewer, larger units. The Landscape Plan created by Daniel Weinbach & Partners was meant to compliment not only the building design, but also to be very natural to what is typical in Oak Brook. A PowerPoint showing the existing and proposed site conditions indicated this project will improve the softscape of the site from 35% to 53.5% softscape by introducing much more landscape along the street. Jupiter Realty and Lucien Lagrange are committed to designing and developing buildings that seek to minimize any negative effect on the environment. • Several project team members are LEED accredited professionals. • Regulatory agencies are engaged to mitigate the impact to floodplain sensitivity to the site. • Energy optimization strategies will be employed throughout the design phase. • Water efficiency including fixtures and fittings that improve water consumption will be considered. • Materials and finishes will be selected based on the least anticipated environmental impact • Strategies to limit volatile organic compounds will be employed into the material selections. Ms. Lam stated that the indoor parking stalls are 9Wx18D which is compliant with Oak Brook standards. The drive aisles were proposed at 22 -feet which is a standard in the zoning ordinance in Chicago. The Oak Brook zoning ordinance calls for non -office use to have 27 -foot drive aisles and hotel and office use to have 24 -foot drive aisles. Since there isn't a standard for residential drive aisles they relied on their experience with buildings in Chicago. Luay Aboona, PE, PTOE, Traffic Engineer, KLOA, Inc., 9597 West Higgins Road, Suite 400, Rosemont, IL 60018 discussed the traffic impact study conducted by his firm. He identified the existing roadway characteristics including travel lanes, stop lights and signs, speed limit, ingress/egress lanes, etc. The study revealed A.M. peak hours were between 7:45-8:45 and P.M. peak hours were between 4:45-5:45. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 6 of 21 November 12, 2018 1� Six years of crash analysis data at the intersection of 16`h Street and Spring Road using information gathered from the IDOT and the Village, revealed approximately four accidents per year. He believed the number was low considering the amount of traffic that travels through that intersection. He also believed there was an issue for cars attempting to turn left from Spring Road to continue on Spring going south. Using the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers handbook) the estimated site - generated traffic volumes indicated the 90 -unit building would not create a high - traffic situation and was compatible with the area. He presented a comparison of the 90 -unit residential building to other possible permitted site uses for the site (hotel, retail, office, movie theater) and concluded the daily two-way trips would be lower with a 90 -unit condominium building. When reviewing the existing intersection geometrics, it was clear that traffic coming from the north on Spring Road does experience delays at certain times of the day. Many of the surges arise from the Oakbrook Terrace Tower and Drury Lane Theater. They believed a traffic signal was warranted at the intersection for this location due to the amount of traffic coming off of north Spring Road. He recommended installing a traffic light at the intersection that aligns with the proposed development's driveway and north Spring Road. The traffic light should be interconnected with the signals to the west and to the south which would maintain progression of traffic. The installation of a signal at that location would be beneficial to all regional traffic. Mr. Aboona informed the audience that no vehicles would be allowed to back out of the loading area onto 16`h Street. There was enough space created for a truck to be able to turn around within the loading zone. Mr. Day noted that it had long been known that the intersection at 16`h Street and Spring Road has had an issue and in 1986 the developer of the Oakbrook Terrace Tower had proposed a signal. The Village of Oak Brook turned down the proposal. Approval of this development would contribute to correcting the intersection. Keith Brenan, Principal, Weizman and Associates, LLC, 737 North Michigan Ave, Suite 206, Chicago, IL 60611 reviewed the impact The Butler may have to the village from a financial prospective as well as the suitability and market demand for the development. The development would allow affluent residents an opportunity to downsize and remain in Oak Brook. The estimated average annual consumer spending per unit in the development would be approximately $125K. The anticipated retail sales tax to the Village of Oak Brook, solely from the residents at The Butler is approximately $108K. Additionally, the property would generate significant real estate tax. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 7 of 21 November 12, 2018 k� Mr. Brenan said that the primary market area consisted of approximately 42,784 households, with an average income of over $150K. The number of households with incomes greater than $200,000 (the amount of income necessary to support these units) was approximately 10,150 and within those are persons between 55 and 74 years of age, which he believed resembles the predominant user of this type of development. They compared the impact on village staffing with several other municipalities that have multi -family developments. They found no evidence of additional staffing needed due to any of the developments. They concluded that Oak Brook has approximately 43 residents for every staff member. In other municipalities compared, the average was approximately 180 residents for every staff member. They did not believe a 90 -unit condominium development would create a need to increase village staffing. Derrick Martin, PE, CFM, V3 Companies, Ltd., 7375 Janes Avenue, Woodridge, IL 60517 explained that he leads the water resources group at V3 which focuses on stormwater, floodplain and floodway. V3 Companies, Ltd. is a multi -disciplined fine with 230 professionals that was founded in 1983. They are familiar with Oak Brook and have worked on several projects in the village. They are also very familiar with the floodplain/floodway as it relates to the State IDNR-OWR (Illinois Department of Natural Resources — Office of Water Resources), DuPage Country and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) requirements. Mr. Martin explained that the floodway is the portion of the floodplain that effectively conveys water downstream, which is the flowing portion of the floodplain. He stated that you cannot put a building in the floodway. However, the IDNR-OWR 3708 Rules, Section 3708.80 "Changes to the Regulatory Floodway" outlines the process for modifying/relocating the regulatory floodway allowing for an area to be improved. FEMA has their own requirements for modifying a floodway or floodplain and DuPage County was in the process of coming out with new floodplain maps. He presented a PowerPoint of the current floodway on the 1900 Spring Road property and described how the floodway would be relocated. They will enlarge the current waterway opening to redirect the water towards the culverts underneath Spring Road which would then flow into Salt Creek. In order to relocate the floodway, they are required to show that there is no adverse BFE (Base Flood Elevation Impact). The most stringent requirement is no increase greater than 0.048 inches. In order to fill in any area of the floodplain, compensatory storage is required at 150% ratio. For this development 190% of VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 8 of 21 November 12, 2018 compensatory storage volume will be provided which he believes is more than compliant. Mr. Martin explained that the project had been evaluated by both the Current Regulatory Model (Flood Insurance Study (FIS)) and by the Future Regulatory Model (performed by DuPage County Department of Development and Environmental Concerns (DEC)). There are multiple agencies involved in the permitting process when it comes to floodplain and floodway. The village has to be very comfortable that the regulations have all been met as they do not have full jurisdiction over the floodway. He assured the audience that this project would not contribute to any flooding in the Timber Trails subdivision. He stated they would actually be reducing the amount of water runoff from the site by increasing the amount of green space. Mr. Day noted that the required standards for the planned development were addressed in writing, and contained in the case file (see applicant's Tab 4, pages 11-18) and summarized the standards by addressing: • Compliance with the Commercial Areas Revitalization Plan. • Floor Area Ratio (FAR) • Flooding • Traffic • Building Height The 2007 Commercial Areas Revitalization Plan (CARP) is one of the reasons they were presenting The Butler development and is suitable for the location as the CARP prioritized that area for Mixed -Use, Commercial, Multi -Family. He discussed the shift in attitudes and stressed the importance and benefits of connecting residential areas to commercial uses as well as providing alternative housing options for all stages of life in the form of owner -occupied condominiums as part of the mixed-use developments. This plan is not intended to alter or change the traditional single family homes, but to introduce multi -family living spaces into the commercial areas of the community. Mr. Day reviewed the Land Use Plan from the CARP and pointed out the following: The Land Use Plan contributes to maintaining the economic vitality of the commercial areas by: • Promoting mixed-use development as a means of providing housing options for residents in all stages of life while at the same time contributing to the critical mass of dining and shopping establishments in the community. • Encouraging continued vitality and expansion of Oakbrook Center, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 9 of 21 November 12, 2018 including stronger orientation to 22nd Street and IL Route 83 and incorporation of the residential component. The language reflected the Village's desire to add residential in areas of the Oakbrook Center. The section of the CARP relating to Mixed -Use and the Clearwater Development at York Road and 22nd was approved to be the first mixed-use development containing a 15 -story condominium. The text read "As residents in the community move into different stages of their lives, mixed-use developments can address their desire or need to downsize, while continuing to live within the Oak Brook community. Providing both shopping and residential opportunities, accommodating additional mixed-use developments should be a priority of the Village in the interest of the long-term vitality of Oak Brook's commercial areas." The plan states that mixed-use developments will play an important role in assisting Oak Brook in realizing its vision for its commercial areas. The proposed development complies with the Residential Development Policies as well as the Oakbrook Center Sub -Area Plan listed in the 2007 CARP. The Butler has selected a location that the Village has already identified as "suitable" for mixed-use. The "redeveloping of a surface parking lot" into a multimillion dollar luxury condominium is precisely what is called upon in the Oakbrook Center Sub - Area Plan to contribute to the economic vitality of the community as well as provide alternative living options. The 2007 CARP was intended for a duration of ten to twenty-five years. It was a product of considerable effort on the part of the Commercial Revitalization Task Force, Village staff, Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals and the Village Board, with substantial inputs from residents and the business community. The goal of a planned development is to be in conformity with the 2007 CARP and the Jupiter development meets the requirements with a great deal of specificity. The site cannot be built on without a permit. A permit is only issued after the village engineer, FEMA, DuPage County and the IDNR-OWR have reached a conclusion that no flooding will be caused. He discussed the traffic problems that have been occurring in the site area for the past 30 years. The traffic problems can be solved and the developer is willing to pay their fair share of the costs involved. With or without this particular development, traffic signal modifications are needed. If the land is developed as a permitted use (theater, office, etc.), they have already shown it would increase the traffic by more than a condominium development would. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 10 of 21 November 12, 2018 They are seeking approval to adjust the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) to 1.0 from .5 which was previously recommended by the Plan Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals. According to his calculations the Oak Brook Club is at .7 FAR for three and four story buildings. He understood that many residents may be opposed to the height of the building, although zoning in the B-2 district does not have a height restriction. He addressed concerns regarding property value decreases near a tall building, but the Oak Brook Club has not had any decrease in value due to the 425 -foot Oakbrook Terrace Tower and many of the current residents elected to move in after the 425 -foot tower was built. Jerry Wolin, 5 Oak Brook Club Drive did not believe in the development and The Butler should not be approved. The proposed 22 -story building height does not fit with the character of the neighborhood. A 22 -story building would be 10 stories higher than any current building in Oak Brook. He was concerned about traffic safety issues with the ingress/egress due to the building being on a curve in a high traffic area as well as a left turn lane signal being needed. He stated that the current site was in the floodplain and floodway and is not buildable. He asked the audience for a show of hands for who is for and who is against the development. Claire Madden, 5 Oak Brook Club Drive, N303 was opposed to the development and especially the height. She believed the maximum allowable height should be 8 to 10 stories. The current FAR of .5 would restrict the building height to 4 or 5 stories. Steve Farber, 1 Oak Brook Clue Drive, A301 opposed the development and discussed the traffic safety issues with ingress/egress due to the building being on a curve in a high traffic area as well as a left turn lane signal being needed. He presented a history of accidents for the intersection and believed many were due to traffic from Drury Lane, Oak Brook Terrace Tower or the two Hilton Hotels. John Minutti, 3 Oak Brook Club Drive, D201 strongly opposed the development and presented a slide showing a proposed left turn lane on northbound Spring Road to enter The Butler. He believed the reduction of the median and width of the lane did not provide a safe left turn lane at that location. He also discussed the fact that the ingress/egress is at a low point in the road that is subject to flooding. Joe Hoffinan, 3 Oak Brook Club Drive, E208 opposed the development due to stormwater concerns at the site. The entire development site is in both the floodplain and floodway. The Oak Brook Club shares a common floodplain with the development and a new building on the site will increase flooding in the Oak VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 11 of 21 November 12, 2018 Brook Club and other neighborhoods. 1.2 square -miles of rainwater drains through the Citibank property. Jerry Westerkamp, 6 Oak Brook Club Drive, K303 opposed the development and that it was questionable if the site could be legally developed in that a PUD must be consistent with the intent and spirit of the Comprehensive Plan that prohibits urbanization in the floodway. The developer plans to channel the floodway, but he suggested foliage and debris may back up the water with negative impacts on the floodplain and a storm of record could occur which would be detrimental to all surrounding properties. Mike Maenza, 2 Oak Brook Club Drive, B210 opposed the development and discussed issues with the floodway. He did not believe the village had the staff or funding to verify and manage the changes that would occur to the floodway. He presented a PowerPoint showing the current and proposed floodplain/floodway and noted that the floodplain does not change with the proposed improvements, so the risk to surrounding properties does not improve. The 2007 CARP is to be used as a guideline and not as an absolute. Peder Berdahl, 5 Oak Brook Club Drive, P25 opposed the development and agreed with comments from those who opposed the project. Member Savino asked Mr. Wolin if there had ever been a flood at the Oak Brook Club. Mr. Wolin replied that they share a floodplain with the proposed development and flooding has come very close to the property. Mr. and Mrs. Larsen, 6 Oak Brook Club, J307 stated that the garage in building 6 flooded after a very large storm several years ago. They are not opposed to development in Oak Brook, but are opposed to this development on the site due to the height. Catherine Tourlas, 1 Oak Brook Club opposed the development and noted that the village residents recently voted on a referendum to keep open space. She did not believe the development was appropriate for the proposed location. Jim Pehta, 101 Livery Circle opposed the developed for many of the reasons already mentioned. Donald Adler, former Trustee, 30 Windsor Drive believed economic development was the key to the success of the village and that Oak Brook is currently at a crossroads due to several large corporations leaving. Commercial and business redevelopment is needed to sustain the village going forward. He supported the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 12 of 21 November 12, 2018 -fb development and believed it met all code requirements for a new PUD. He also believed the community needs the tax revenue that would be generated. Sharon Kocour, 61 Timber Court opposed the development and agreed with comments from others regarding the floodway and traffic. Bob Sheppel, 901 Red Fox Lane opposed the development and believed it would cause a flooding issue. Karen Bushy, 229 Bridle Path Circle asked the board what their vision was for Oak Brook as it would be precedent setting if this development was approved and it would change the vision and personality of Oak Brook. She questioned whether the development was really in the best interest of the residents of Oak Brook. She stated that the Butler family was highly insulted by the use of their family name. Nick Agliata, 15 Yorkshire Woods opposed the development primarily due to the floodplain and floodway and agreed with the comments of others who opposed it. Carl Manofsky, 107 Covington Court supported the development and believed it was a progressive movement that Oak Brook really needs. The Chicago Metropolitan area is losing population. He discussed the history of the landscape of Oak Brook with polo fields, dairy farms and fox hunting all prior to development. He asked how many audience members have ever played polo, milked a cow or been on a fox hunt. His point was, that was then and this is now. This development would help Oak Brook move forward and be more competitive with other surrounding communities. David Carlin, President of the Greater Oak Brook Chamber presented enthusiastic support for the Jupiter Development project as proposed. The Commercial Areas Revitalization Plan showing multi -family housing for the area and by adding multi- family housing would serve the community and surrounding properties well. The B-2 zoning district is very desirable and needs alternative residential housing for residents looking to downsize. The quality of the project continues the Village's brand redevelopment opportunities that only come along once in a long time. The property values will increase, emergency services would not be negatively impacted, and the project when developed would not contribute to flooding. Andy Mahler, 50 Bradford Lane, inquired as to how many people in opposition were living in Oak Brook Club. He agreed with the petitioner that the Village is at an inflection point for where the Village is. He took issue with Ms. Bushy's argument that it has worked to date so why change it. The community should be flattered by this project. He noted the loss of population in Illinois and did not VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 13 of 21 November 12, 2018 want the Village to lose its relevance as the future develops. The project gave some "mojo" to the community, and the project quality would help steer the direction of other future developments. He wanted to see Oak Brook to be "relevant' once again. Bill Keeley, 15 Natoma Drive, thanked the previous two speakers and agreed with them supporting the project. He wanted to move into this building when constructed and believed in the competency of the civil engineers designing the project. Linda Gonnella, One Oak Brook Club, supported the project and presented that a group of experts wrote the 2007 Commercial Area Revitalization Plan and that 1900 Spring Road was identified as a suitable site for a mixed-use development. She emphasized that the "1990" Commercial Area Revitalization Plan did not prohibit the project from the site. The project assures vitality and economic stability for Oak Brook. The project would assist the Village in stabilizing the community. She would prefer to look at this project rather than the parking garages at the mall. She listed all of the agencies overseeing the review of the stormwater issues and emphasized that the village would not be able to issue a permit if the developer did not comply with the regulatory standards. She encouraged staff to educate the public on the stormwater issues. She suggested the village approach Oakbrook Terrace to consider contributing funds to develop a new traffic signal at 16"' Street and Spring Road and that the developer should also contribute to the intersection improvement. Ms. Gonnella read a letter from Kevin Quinlan for the record (included in case file), which supported the project and the importance of improving the community with quality projects. The decision makers have an obligation to lead with what they believe is in the best interest to the entire community and allow quality developments. The Butler is of the highest quality and asked that residents not fear such projects due to tactics from those who oppose positive growth. Member Savino confirmed that the development was a $113 million project, proposing 90 units. The development would not be age -restricted. He asked at what height the building needed to be at in order to break even financially. Mr. Day responded that they have crunched the numbers and have brought the building down to 22 stories which is as low as they can go to get this project with this quality and architecture design, to cover the costs of the stormwater and the intersection improvements, it must be 22 stories. Chairwoman Tropinski added that dimensioning was important to give a certain appearance and correct proportions. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 14 of 21 November 12, 2018 _�3 Member Savino questioned if any of the parking spaces would be sold separately from the condo units; if two parking spaces would be included in the condo purchase price; and if those residents would be allowed to sell or rent their parking spaces. Mr. Ong responded that the Condo Association covenants would likely prohibit the sale or rental of the parking spaces for income. Member Savino confirmed with the architect that the windows in the parking portion of the structure would be opaque so that the lighting (from either overhead or a vehicle) would not be visible at night. The architect agreed that the spandrel glass would prevent visibility and maintain the aesthetics of the building. Member Savino asked Village Engineer, James Patterson to confirm that the project is reviewed in the scope of a larger area than only the project site itself. Mr. Patterson responded that IDNR would review the upstream and downstream impacts of the project, noting that the Village review is the floodplain, wetland, and detention focused on the site. Member Savino asked if the Village staff inspects the underground storage area for these types of proposed stormwater features. Director Budzikowski responded that the property owner was responsible for maintenance. This petitioner would be willing to create a dormant Special Service Area (a tax to the residents to cover maintenance costs), if in the future the stormwater features owned by the condo association would fall into disrepair. Member Doyle asked the Police and Fire Chiefs if the number of vehicles sent to the structure for an emergency would have sufficient space for the equipment within the site and not need to stage on 16a' Street. Chief Liss responded that the Fire Department provides the developer with the specifications for the emergency vehicles and requires that the site would be able to accommodate the equipment. Any current design can be modified in order to meet the requirements. Member Doyle said that the traffic engineer for the village noted that the traffic signal might not be necessary and could be more disruptive to the traffic flow for more hours of the day than it is needed. Mr. Day responded that the traffic consultant was the only person to state an objection, and that all other observations think it is necessary. Member Doyle agreed and stated his preference for the signal. Member Doyle noted that the turn lane into the property would be awkward with a blind spot due to the angle of the road and expressed concerns about signage. The stopping distance could be dangerous due to cars following at a fast pace. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 15 of 21 November 12, 2018 Mr. Aboona responded that they could increase the radius and mentioned that a signal would help control the flow and slow down the drivers. He noted that there was not an adequate demand for the addition of a right turn lane. Mr. Day added that the signage and site distances for the entrance would be reviewed as part of the permitting process to ensure that accessing the property is safe. Member Bulin questioned if the courtyard gates were operable. Ms. Lam replied that they were and that they open outward and would remain open during the day. Member Bulin asked what would happen if someone mistakenly turned into the courtyard when the gates were closed. Mr. Ong replied that there will be enough space for a person to execute a three-point turn. Member Bulin asked about a press release posted in globestreet.com that discussed two floors of retail in the development. Ms. Lam replied that it was an error and that retail had never been considered for this project. Member Bulin questioned the fenced -in segments on the north side of the building between the loading dock and the main drive. Ms. Lam replied that the area was for a dog run. Member Cappetta questioned the jurisdiction that controls Spring Road at the intersection on 16' Street. Director Budzikowski responded that the streets were under the control of Oak Brook. However, there was some discussion on approaching Oakbrook Terrace as it may be a benefit to them as well regarding a traffic signal and bike path extension. Doug Patchin, Public Works Director added that he had received requests for a joint bike path with Oakbrook Terrace in order to connect with their bike path on Spring Road north of 16'h Street. It would also help with signalization of the property with the bike path. Member Cappetta questioned that the applicant had stated they would be removing 20 percent of the hardscape and turning it into green space and suggested that the construction of the building would not make flooding a worse condition than they currently are. She noted that a resident had questioned the problem with silt on the site. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 16 of 21 November 12, 2018 _� James Patterson, Village Consultant Engineer agreed and added that it would not have a negative impact. The extra green space would soak up the water and the grass would help to catch the silt and keep it on site as opposed to the existing asphalt that would allow the silt to flow into the storm sewer and then eventually into the creek. Member Cappetta asked to clarify whether or not something was built, that silt would occur and that the development would not increase flooding. Engineer Patterson responded that he did not believe it would increase flooding off the site and added that as part of the storm water management certification, the property owner would also be required to maintain and monitor the storm water facilities. They would need to look at the underground detention container on an annual basis. They would also need to look at the native plantings annually to ensure there would not be a buildup of silt and other deposits in the channel. When any would be found they must be corrected. Member Cappetta questioned an SSA. Director Budzikowski responded that there was not an existing SSA, but there was a discussion with the developer. Although it has not been traditionally done, due to the commentary regarding maintenance, it would be a good back up method to what is already in the Code. It had been discussed and should be added as a condition. Member Cappetta agreed that it would give the Village the ability to hold them responsible financially for any maintenance. Mr. Day added that a dormant Special Service Area (SSA) could be set up that would only arise if the property was not being taken care of and the applicant would be agreeable to an SSA. Member Cappetta questioned if all other entities sign off and approve the flood plain/floodway revisions, that the Village would be out of the process. She also wanted to know if the village should be completely confident with those approvals. Village Engineer Patterson responded that if the applicant's design is fully compliant with the storm water ordinance, as the Village Engineer representative he would have to recommend approval of the storm water permit because he would not have the ability to deny it. He noted that outside of FEMA, the State and DuPage County, he and his team are conducting reviews. There are several layers involved in the permitting process. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 17 of 21 November 12, 2018 16 Member Cappetta asked Mr. Day to review the loading dock restrictions. He commented that the area was reconfigured so that a fixed -bodied truck would be able to maneuver within the loading dock preventing it from having to stop or backup on 16"' Street. The area is not large enough for a semi -truck. Therefore, there will be a restrictive covenant that prohibits residents from moving in or out using a semi -truck. Member Cappetta questioned a condition posed by the Oak Brook Club residents regarding the Village Board to accept the responsibilities of State Rule 3708 regarding floodways including funding for inspection of all stormwater structures such as underground storage, permeable pavers and floodway channels. She asked if the owners did not accept the responsibilities, would the proposed SSA (to financially recover the costs) meet the proposed conditions. Mr. Wolin replied that Rule 3708 states that the village is responsible to ensure that things work right. He did not believe the village takes these inspections seriously. Once permits are issued continued compliance is not adhered to. The village should assume responsibility to continue inspections for compliance. Member Cappetta questioned how these inspections would take place and if it was a State requirement. Engineer Patterson responded that a certified inspector would likely be required to conduct the inspections due to safety regulations. It would be a massive undertaking for the Village and should be a separate discussion. He did not believe it was a state or county requirement. The village should require the developer who installs the chamber to do the inspections themselves and send the reports to the village on an annual basis. She questioned if a failing system was easily identifiable. Engineer Patterson replied that it would be apparent to a well-trained eye. Muddy water coming from a culvert into Salt Creek, as well as unusual backups during rainfall events would be an indication. Mr. Martin clarified that the state would only get involved if the storage is related to the floodway. The chamber located under the auto -court area is not mapped in the floodway and therefore is not under the state's jurisdiction. This project would meet all state requirements in that none of the floodway storage would be underground. Member Cappetta asked about the floodway compensatory storage. Mr. Martin replied that they are providing approximately 190% of storage. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 18 of 21 November 12, 2018 1 25 Mr. Adler questioned if the property would be at risk if there was a malfunction in the storage chamber. Engineer Patterson replied that it would if there were an extremely heavy rainfall event. Mr. Adler commented that it would be in the best interest of the condominium association to conduct the inspections periodically and suggested there be conditions added for those inspections. Mr. Patterson stated there are maintenance provisions in the stormwater code and those would have to be followed, reviewed and approved. Chairwoman Tropinski believed there should be more checks and balances since insurance underwriters may not want to pay claims during a catastrophe. Mr. Day remarked that condos in Illinois have to follow The Illinois Condominium Act which states that the condominium association is obligated to conduct regular capital reserve studies. This ensures there is enough funding to maintain and repair all of the infrastructure, including the detention facility. Member Cappetta questioned the fencing around the auto court. Ms. Lam said that on the north and east sides, the piers consist of a 12 -inch solid stone piece with rails. The south side contains a 6 -foot solid wall to screen the surface parking. Member Bulin worried that the canopy above the building's main entrance would interfere with emergency equipment. Mr. Ong responded that after meeting with Chief Liss, they took into account the clearance for the canopy and it would be built to accommodate the fire equipment. Chairwoman Tropinski noted that the applicant had addressed all of the required standards for the recommendation of approval of the planned development including the requested waivers and variations as follows: 1. Section 13-713-2 to allow residential condominiums in the B-2 District which is currently not permitted. 2. 13-713-3A to increase the floor area ration (FAR) from 0.50 to 0.99. The FAR is a bulk or height standard within the village code that regulates the size and height of buildings. The FAR for this petition has been calculated taking into account the entire 4 -lot subdivision. 3. Section 13-7B-3B.l.b to decrease the setback from the right-of-way of Spring Road from 80 feet to a minimum of 54 feet for the building setback and 27 feet for the motor court piers (parking area). 4. Section 13-12-3C to reduce the internal parking garage drive aisles from 27 feet wide to 22 feet wide. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 19 of 21 November 12, 2018 —1b Motion by Member Cappetta, seconded by Member Bulin to recommend for approval the planned development for the 22 -story condominium project as proposed, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans including the above-described requested waivers and variations from the Village Code for the 22 -story condominium with up to 90 units, including all listed waivers and variations. 2. Establish a dormant Special Service Area Document (SSA) to include maintenance and protect the Village from water issues requirements of the condominium association to maintain the storm water facilities. 3. Staff to review and approve the issue with the entrance gates. 4. Increase the radius for the right turn lane. 5. Developer to pay fair share of the right turn lane and signal at intersection if warranted (25-50 percent) and to check with Oakbrook Terrace for their interest in contribution. 6. Provide details of the 42 -inch high fence on the landscape plan and approval by Development Services. 7. Signage is to comply with Village Code. 8. Prohibition of semi -tractor trailers in the loading zone. 9. No rental of parking spaces. 10. The landscape plan is to be revised and approved by Village Staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. Compliance with all other Village Ordinance requirements at time of building permit application except as specifically vaned or waived. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 5 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Doyle, Savino and Chairwoman Tropinski Nays: 0 — Absent: 2 — Vice Chairman Ziemer and Member Iyer. Motion Carried. Chairwoman Tropinski announced that this concluded the public hearing. 4. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 20 of 21 November 12, 2018 OTHER BUSINESS S. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Cappetta to adjourn the meeting at 11:28 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried ATTEST: /s/ Tony Budzikowski Tony Budzikowski Development Services Director Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Planned Development Commission Minutes Page 21 of 21 November 12, 2018 1�