Minutes - 11/05/2012 - Zoning Board of Appeals MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 5,2012 RESCHEDULED
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON DECEMBER 4,2012
1 CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER
The Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman
Champ Davis in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government
Center at 7:01 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL
Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons
PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Jeffrey Bulin, Natalie
Cappetta,Baker Ninny, Alfred Savino and Steven Young
I.
ABSENT: Member Wayne Ziemer
IN ATTENDANCE: Mark Moy, Trustee, Gerald Wolin, Trustee, and Robert
Kallien,Jr.,Director of Community Development
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES
Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry to approve the
minutes of the May 1, 2012 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as
written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
A. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TEXT AMENDMENT — AMEND THE v0B NDI TEXT
AME &NT -
ZONING REGULATIONS TO CLARIFY THE REGULATIONS FOR CLARIFY THE
REGULAWNS FOR
CEMETERIES crmEn:Rw-s
Chairman Davis reviewed the sections of the zoning regulations that were
proposed to be amended, which included a new section in the general
regulations that would relate to cemeteries and also in the residential and
institutional districts.
Director of Community Development Kallien noted that some of the language
proposed may need some twealdng by the Village Attorney to insure that all of
the existing cemeteries and all improvements existing today are clearly legal. If
a new cemetery was proposed or if there was an expansion of any existing
cemetery they would be required to go through the special use process. During
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page I of 18 November 5, 2012
i
i
the past 50 years the Village has not had a history of issuing any permits within
the cemeteries, but based on the proposed regulations there are certain cemetery
structures that would require a permit.
Member Nimry suggested that any new cemetery in any residential area should
require screening.
Chairman Davis swore in those that presented testimony.
Norman Chimenti, Attorney for Bronswood, said that all the parties who took
part in the subgroup discussion endorsed the idea of screening along Adams
and it was an issue that should be addressed hand in hand with the text
amendment. StoneMor offered to take the lead and regards it, as a joint venture
not over which StoneMor has control or any management authority. Some of
the screening is going to have to be located in what has been identified as the
prospective road easement, which is west of the existing fence along Adams
and should be a collaborative effort. Rather than to have it languish, StoneMor
has offered to take the lead in developing plans and designs. StoneMor without j
legal obligation would also contribute to the cost, on the assumption that others
would do the same and on the assumption that it would be a benefit of the
community. He noted that was where the discussion was left.
Member Young questioned whether the issue of maintenance for the
landscaping was addressed.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that that is one of the
details of the joint partnership that needs to be worked out. The Village Board
would determine its level of involvement,
Mr. Chimenti said that the position of StoneMor is that people of goodwill
could arrive at a rational plan that provides adequate and effective screening at
a cost that is reasonable and that the financial support for that plan would be
available,which is the objective and most importantly,to be done sooner rather
than later. To delay it would not be good for the neighbors or for the
development plan for Bronswood.
Member Cappetta questioned where the screening was planned.
Mr. Chimenti said that the objective is to screen from view existing and future
structures and uses that occur at the cemetery from Adams.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that there are a number of
i
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 18 November 5, 2012
i
t
parties that may wish to contribute, including StoneMor and entities that own
property within the cemetery. The Village Board would determine the financial
involvement of the Village.
Tony DiCanio, Fullersburg Woods Area Homeowner Association President,
thanked Village Staff for their overwhelmingly tremendous efforts to bring
everyone together to discuss all of the issues and come to these conclusions.
He also thanked Trustees Moy and Wolin.
They recognized that StoneMor was not the owner of record when the event
occurred. They believe that Village Staff was negligent in not enforcing the
ordinance regarding setback requirements and the previous owner chose to
ignore them. The Village Attorney has opined that it is not illegal for a Village
to refuse to enforce its ordinances,although other counsels may disagree. They
have had several meetings and agreed on most of the text amendments
proposed and both sides have made compromises. He noted that they have no
intention of or suggesting that the Feldman mausoleum be moved. It is wrong l
to disturb the final resting place of anyone, especially an innocent victim of an
error in judgment. They respect the position of the Feldman family. The
affected residents have no intention of interfering with the operation and
development of Bronswood cemetery by StoneMor. Oak Brook is a business
friendly community and they only hope that StoneMor considers the special
nature of the area and the historic significance of Bronswood as a countryside
cemetery in a unique setting. Regarding the screening along Adams Road,
StoneMor's representative and counsel have verbally promised that they would
participate in the design, construction and financing of the screening. They
have also stated that they expect others to participate, such as the Feldman
family and the former owner of Bronswood. They have no reason to doubt
their sincerity. However, sometimes men of honor leave or are replaced and
those that come after them are not bound by these promises. There has been no
time limit set or proposed. They asked for the guidance of the board to
somehow make the satisfactory conclusion of this matter a condition precedent
on the proposed text amendment.
In "Section 13-3-17 describes memorials, above ground structures...not more
than 8 feet in height are allowed in any part of the cemetery without regard to
depth or width;' In essence he said they could be placed around the perimeter
of the cemetery without regard to setback requirements described in the text
amendment. The intended purpose of all of their efforts is to control structures
in size and substance. They respectfully asked the Zoning Board of Appeals to
recommend the Village Board, as part of the new ordinance to have a procedure
for a substantial fine if StoneMor ignores the regulations, especially since they
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 18 November 5, 2012
were active participants in drafting the proposed changes., A serious amount
would convince everyone that the Village intends to enforce the ordinance in
spite of what has occurred in the past and the affected residents can feel
confident in going forward that there will be a cooperative venture with their
business partner. He said that it should be recognized that although this matter
affects only one residential area of Oak Brook the Village has a fiduciary
responsibility to represent those most affected. The rest of the Village residents
should note that when a matter that is germane to another area arises, the
Village would afford the same consideration to it. They are one community
and one Oak Brook and the collective intention is to simply make Oak Brook a
better place.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that there would need to be a
good process with the cemetery when certain improvements take place. They
would need to work together to make sure that the letter of the law is adhered
to.
I.
Member Nimry questioned the process.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that a number of the uses
would not be subject to the typical permit review because certain structures and
activities would be allowed by right.
Member Cappetta raised concerns regarding certain structures that could be
located along Adams.
Mr. Chimenti said that within the materials was a diagram of the unsold
properties along the property lines.
Member Cappetta was also concerned that if the cemetery were under other
ownership,those things could be changed. The way the proposal is written an 8
foot high 30 foot long structure could be built anywhere on the cemetery
without a permit and could create another issue.
Mr. Chime-nti responded that the amendment represents the consensus of the
residents and their concerns. It would be possible to have that kind of structure
built near a property line, although not too likely. There are a couple of
elements that were compromised through give and take. StoneMor is prepared
to conduct itself in compliance with those aspects.
Frank Troost, 907 Burr Oak Court, noted that one similar to the one describe
had been erected in another town, but the residents didn't seem to be bothered
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 18 November 5, 2012
by it. The LeGrippe mausoleum is a little close to the east property line, Any
structure containing human remains, aboveground should be set away from the
property line.
Member Young asked what was the average size and building material for a
single mausoleum.
Mr. Troost said that there are not any industry standards. He noted that the
community mausoleum is in some disrepair. Mausoleums should be built to
last until the end of time.
Member Cappetta said if everyone with a plot would like an 8-foot by 4-foot
wide mausoleum they could be placed all along Adams without a permit.
Jeff Rathjen, StoneMor said that there was a co-mingling of community
mausoleums and private mausoleums. They talked about 8 foot structures that
were individual private family mausoleums, which would mean up to 4-6
people. The reason they talked about it was for the families that are pre
constructed buildings that are from the manufacturer that can be set in place for
the burial of the family members. The timing involved in getting the permit can
be a very difficult thing for the families to deal with. There is no place else in
the United States that he was aware of that would require a building permit for
a two, four, or six crypt building. In regards to community mausoleums, they
are in total agreement that a permit should be required. In concern for the
setback, along the lot line, part of the whole conversation was about screening
needing to be 8 feet tall to basically eliminate anything that is 8 feet or less I in
height would be taken care of by the screening. Setbacks along the lot line will
be addressed with the screening along Adams regarding their agreement. In
discussing the whole picture they have tried take into consideration both the
personal needs of the consumer and the needs of the neighbors so that it is not
impacting their view.
Mr. Chimenti said that it was defined as up to an 8-foot structure that contains
human remains. Community mausoleums were never meant to be along the lot
line.
It was agreed to revise the text to add private family mausoleums and that
would resolve the permitting issue.
Director of Community Development Kallien suggested that all new and
expanded cemeteries would require landscape/screening along any public way,
which will be refined by the Village Attorney.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 18 November 5, 2012
k
Terry O'Malley, Breakenridge Farm President asked what would happen if
there were a violation.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that compliance would be
required through code enforcement or seeking other relief.
Chairman Davis noted that any future expansion would require a special use
permit and conditions could be imposed at that time.
Director of Community Development Kallien addressed the standards for a text
amendment and said that this was a unique matter, the result of a lot of public E
involvement. It is being proposed to deal with an issue that is of importance
and concern of many residents. It not only affects an individual property
owner, but the community at large, which is one of the requirements of
amending the zoning regulations. This case deals with a specific situation
being a cemetery use,which expands over four different properties. They have
reached consensus on a number of very particular issues and it has come a long
way frorn 11 months ago. The text amendment is following the direction of the
Village Board,
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the new regulations are
prospective and the Village Attorney would deal with the existing cemeteries
being permitted.
Member Cappetta questioned penalties for violations.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that penalties for any
violation already exist in the Village Code.
There was a discussion on the possibility of a unique enforcement code for the
cemetery.
Chairman Davis noted that the testimony had been concluded
Proposed Amendments:
Section 13-3-17: Cemeteries
A. For purposes of this section,the following definitions are hereby
established;
I
k
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 18 November 5, 2012
Cemetery—Any land or structure in the Village dedicated to and used, o
intended to be used for the burial, interment,inurnment,or entombment of
human remains.
CopNAunity burial structures—Burial structures over twenty feet(20')in hei
used for the entombment of human remains. These structures are aenerally
located in or near the center of a Cemetery"o erty. Vertical and/or horizontal
building modifications of existiniz communi1y burial structures are permitte
subject to meeting the height and setback reguirements of this section.
Burial Structures—Cemetery structures used for the entombment of human
remains includiniz mausoleums,columbaria.and other similar above-ground
burial structures.
Memorial Structures-Above ground structures not-used for entombment of
human remains and not more than seven feet(T)in height, and above gound
structures including mausoleums and columbaria used for the entombment of
human remains that are not more than eiAt feet(8')in heigbt. Memorial
Structures include mrave stones,family estate markers, ornamental benches,
vases and other decorative structures,and similar above-ground structures.
Memorial structures are permitted in all areas of a Cemgtqry and are not subject
to the issuance of a building Permit fiom.the Village.
Cemetery Accessory Structures- Structures used in support of and accessojy to
CemetM uses,such as residences, greenhouses,sales offices, storage
buildings, administrative offices and other similar structures.
B. The following regulations shall Wly to cemeteries:
I. Apy new cemetery shall contain a minimum of 25 acres. Expansions to
existiny,cemeteries would be subject to the review and 4pproyal of a special..use
in the Institutional and Residential Districts with the exception that any
contijzuous land now used as a cemetery m4y be incorporated into an existing
cemetery subject to gppLoval of a"a amendment(if golicable).
2. Cemetery Structures—Maximum Height:
a. Burial Structures—twgnt
y feet(20')including all attached
architectural features.
b. Memorial Structures—Above ground not used for entombment
of human remains—seven feet(T).
C. Memorial Structures—Above ground us d for entombment of
human remains—eight feet(8').
d. Community Burial Buildings(permitted in the Institutional
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
— of l� � {lO12
Zoning__._~� __~_�_ ~==.~___--- ' '
District only)—Existing structures(December 1.2012)and
additions--forty-five feet(45').
e Cemetery Accessory Structures—Cemeteries located in a
Residential District—fifteen feet(I5').
f Cemetery Accessory Structures—Cemeteries located in an
Institutional District—shall comely with the height,bulk and
setback regulations of the predominant residential zoning district
Q.e R-2)ad-jacent to the prpperty'in which those structures and
uses exist and are conducted.
3 Cemetery Structures(In a Residential District)—Setbacks;
a. Burial Structures—not less than one hundred feet(100')from
any street line or property line.
b Memorial Structures—no minimum setback,may be located
anywhere within a cemetery pKWerty. !
C. Cemetery Accessory Structures—not less than one hundred feet
X100')from agy propggy line.
4 Cemetery Structures(In an Institutional District)—Setbacks:
a Community Burial Structures—not less than three hundred feet
(300')from the centerline of any adjacent street;not less than one
hundred fifty feet(150')fiom any other private property line or district
boundary.
b Burial Structures—not less than one hundred twenty feet(120')
from the centerline of any adjacent street. i
C. Burial Structures Not abutting a street-not less than one
hundred feet(100'), the cemetery owner may request that this
setback be reduced to not less than thin -five feet 35 subject to the
review and approval of a special use to designate the area as a"special
cemetery development area"to permit burial structures not more than
i
ten feet(10')in height.
d Memorial Structures—no minimum setback;may be located
anywhere within the cemetery property.
e Cemetery Accessory Structures--shall comply with the height,
bulk and setback regulations of thegredominant residential zoning
district(i.e.,R-2)adjacent to the property in which those structures and
uses exist and are conducted.
5. Permit Requirements:
All structures within a cemetery,with the exception of memorial
I
VILLAGE OF OAK.BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 18 November 5, 2012
i
i
structures,shall require the issuance of a building permit from the
Village.
i
(Amend) 13-6A-2: SPECIAL USES:
i
Any-cemetery located on land annexed by the Village of Oak Brook under
Ordinance S-48 on October 9 1962 including all existing burial structures.
memorial structures and accessory structures located herein.
New cemeteries or expansion to any existing cemetery.
(Amend)13-9-2: PERMITTED USES:
(Amend)Institutional District to reflect cemetery amendments as well
eliminate outdated/inconsistent land uses.
13-9-1: PURPOSE:
The Institutional District provides for the preservation of those areas of the
Village which are characterized by natural features and for the development of
a broad range of selective educational,religious,cemetery and other
institutional uses. (Ord. 6-60, 3-22-1966)
13-9-2: PERMITTED USES:
Reserved
(Ord. G-60,3-22-1966)
13-9-3: SPECIAL USES:
Any cemetery located on land annexed by the Village of Oak Brook under
Ordinance S-48 on October 9 1962 including all existing community burial
structures,burial structures memorial structures and accessory structures
located herein.
i
New cemeteries or expansion to any existing cemetery.
Public utility,governmental service and transportation uses:
Sewage and stormwater lift stations.
3
Telephone exchanges,transmission buildings and equipment,and outdoor
telephone booths and pedestals.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK,
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 18 November 5, 2012
E
Water filtration plants,wells,pumping stations and reservoirs.
Electric distribution centers and substations.
Gas regulator stations.
Agricultural;
i
Agriculture,on a lot twenty(20) acres or more in area;except when the pursuit
of agriculture is accessory to an institutional or residential use on a lot not less
than ten(10)acres in area.
i
i
Residential:
Single-family detached dwellings,on lots not less than one acre,when said
dwelling is in the same ownership as one or more of the institutional uses above
set forth.
(Ord. G-60,3-22-1966; Ord. G-903, 11-10-2009)
13-9-4:LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS; 3
A.Floor area ratio:Not to exceed 0.4 for nonresidential uses.
B. Structure height(does not include cemetery uses or structures):Not more
than forty five feet(45');
C. Yards:
1.Institutional(does not include cemetery uses or structures):
a.No structure shall be built abutting any existing;street closer than one
hundred feet(100').
b.Nonresidential uses shall not be less than one hundred feet(100')from
any residential district line.
2.Residential:As provided in the R2 single-family;residence district in
chapter 6,article B of this title. (Ord. G-60, 3-22-1966)
13-9-5: ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS:
A. Signs: See chapter 11 of this title.
B. Off Street Parking And Loading: Off street parking and loading shall be as
provided in chapter 12 of this title. (Ord. G-60,3-22-1966; Ord. G-207, I-
11-1977;Ord, G-695, 3-26-2002)
Chairman Davis stipulated that the motion is to approve the 3 pages of
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 18 November 5, 2012
regulations to amend the general regulations of cemeteries in the general
provisions of the zoning regulations and that all cemeteries and future
expansions would be a special use in the Institutional and residential districts,
with the following changes included:
Section 13-3-17-Definitions: Memorial Structures.
"...and above ground structures including adding the text "family/private"
mausoleum and columbaria"
Add"all memorial structures that are above ground up to 8' feet in height when
located along the perimeter of the property are to have landscaping/screening
installed and maintained.
Section 13-6A-2 Special Uses:
New cemeteries or expansion to any existing cemetery...add
"Landscape/screening — to be installed along all perimeters and maintained"
was to be included.
Section 13-9-3 Special Uses:
New cemeteries or expansion to any existing cemetery...add
"Landscape/screening — to be installed along all perimeters and maintained"
was to be included.
Motion by Member Nimry, seconded by Member Savino to recommend
approval of the proposed text amendments to the cemetery regulations as
revised above. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: 6 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Nimry, Young, Savino, and Chairman
Davis
Nays, 0 —
Absent: 1 —Member Ziemer. Motion carried.
Chairman Davis noted that a recommendation would be made to the Village
Board in regard to the landscape/screening along Adams Road.
Motion by Member Savino, seconded by Member Young that that the Zoning
Board of Appeals recommended that as soon as possible the issue of
landscaping/screening along Adams Road be finalized by an agreement
between the Village Board and all other interested parties. VOICE VOTE:
Motion carried.
The public hearing on this matter was concluded.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 18 November 5, 2012
i
5. NEW BUSINESS NE W BUSINESS
A. ACE HARDWARE 2200 AND 2222 KENSINGTON COURT — ACE uAR°w^'a
2200 AND 2222
VARIATIONS—SIGN REGULATIONS KENSINGTON cr
VARIATIONS -
SIGN REGULATIONS
Chairman Davis swore in all who would testify at this hearing.
Chuck Ungaro, Corporate Property Manager for Ace Hardware Corporation,
introduced the attendees that were there in support of the Ace request as [
follows:
Ray Griffith, CEO, Ace Hardware Corporation, Jim Falk, Director. of
Community Development Kallien of Property and Loss Prevention, Ace
Hardware Corporation, David Lind, CB Richard Ellis, Judy Oswald, Inland
Real Estate, representing the property owner, Joe Endress, Vice President Real
Estate/Facilities, McDonald's Corporation, Cathy Bushman, Group Director,
Tiffany and Company, Tracey Mulqueen and Valentina Tomov, Chamber of
Commerce,and Mike Mele,Kieffer Signs.
Mr. Ungaro presented the background and information regarding the requested
variations. He noted that Ace Hardware Corporation has been a corporate
citizen in the Village of Oak Brook community since 1974. Per the Village's
2011 annual report, Ace Hardware was ranked as the fourth largest single
employer in the Village and yet they remain one of its best kept secrets. They
are a globally recognized brand and bring in guests from all over the world for
various events, booking over 5,000 room nights every year in Oak Brook
hotels. Their corporate campus is home to the Ace global headquarters and
employs over 900 full time employees and still their guests cannot find them. i
Their campus consists of over 276,000 square feet of office space spread across
four buildings on an 18 acre campus and has invested $2.75 million in property
taxes and operating and maintenance expenses, plus an average of$1 million
annually in other capital improvement projects. Still many vendors are
surprised at where they are located and have difficulty finding them.
They are seeking approval of variances to the sign code that they feel represents
the minimum relief necessary to overcome certain hardships resulting from the
unique architectural features of their Mies van der Rohe designed building that
was constructed in 1973. They recognized that the Village adopted a new more
open signage policy; however, Ace Hardware has been unable to benefit from
any of the changes due to the limitations that remain in the new regulations that
are restrictive to their building design. The limited signage available to them
makes it difficult for vendors,guests and future employees to find their location
{
E
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 18 November 5, 2012
l
i
i
7
and many people are scratching their heads as to where they are located.
Prior to this meeting they went to their immediate neighbors to let them know
about their desire to improve the signage on their campus. Both neighbors
submitted written support that was submitted for the case file.
Ace Hardware is committed to maintain a positive image in the community and
if approved,Ace would invest almost$104,000 for the proposed signage and it '
is consistent with the look and character of the village.
Mike Mele, Kieffer Signs, reviewed the sign variances being requested.. The
first request is to allow the sign to be center justified instead of oriented to a
corner due to the topography of the land and retaining walls that were
constructed by the Toll Authority. They are also seeking a larger: size sign on I
the wail of the building. The existing sign is 86.25 square feet. They are
seeking a 247.50 square foot sign for each building. The new sign regulations
did not benefit Ace, because it would only allow 100 square feet of signage..
The buildings are about 300 feet long and only 3-1/2 stories tall. The sign for
the college across the street is on a very tall building, so they are allowed a
much larger sign, based on the new sign regulations. In support of the request
for the larger signs, they believe that when traveling 55+miles per hour on the
highway, a 100 foot sign is not safe to view. The distance from the farthest
end of the highway is approximately 500 feet to see a sign where the "A"is 36
inches and is the largest part of their sign. The"C and E"get smaller and in the
word "Hardware" the "e" is only 16 inches tall. He reviewed the changes in E
the topography along the rear of their block. They are also seeking to allow the
sign to be located a little above the roof line. The letters are supposed to be
individually mounted to the building, but the building consists of glass panes
and vertical I-beam mullions that make it impossible to mount the letters to the
building. They designed a background panel for the letters to be installed
individually to it and would match the building and the architecture instead of
using a raceway that would be seen behind the letters. They believe that Ace
Hardware would benefit from and would need,
Jim Falk said that they would like to extend the sign approximately 2 feet above
the roof line and 2 feet below (into the windows) so that it could be seen from
the road. A lot of people when they come to visit did not even know that they
were in Oak Brook,which is their world headquarters. They are seeking better
visibility from the road. They talked to their neighbors and both sent letters in
support. The reason it is larger is also due to the fact that the A is a much larger 4'
letter than the rest of the sign and the sign regulations require that it be
measured from the largest point.The monument sign is about 2 feet higher than
I
s
I
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK i
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 18 November 5, 2012
i
allowed by the code; due to the topography and the redesign of 1-88 they feel
that their hardship is that people can no longer see them. He also noted the
location of their existing and proposed signs.
Mr. Ungaro said that the monument sign on the 2222 would be a new sign
facing 1-88,the existing 86.25 sign on the 2200 building would be removed and
the proposed new signs would be located at the center of each building.
Mr. Falk said that when the economy improves they are expecting the market
to get very competitive for new employees. They are investing$8.5 million on
their buildings over the next 2-3 years to upgrade everything. They are trying
to create an environment, so that when people walk in they will feel like it is a
great place to work. The signs are part of their identity and pail of their brand.
The Ace brand is one of the top 100 in the United States and they are trying to
capitalize on the brand value. It tells people that they are in Oak Brook as a
solid Oak Brook partner. They are now at 834 employees and are a strong
growing company. They are asked how they make it against Home Depot and
Lowes, and they are more of a convenience type format and business is
growing. Their retails same store sales are at a 3 percent increase and
wholesale are at 4 percent. When the economy pops, they want to be able to
attract good talent. Visibility is very important to them and is a benefit to the
community as well. Ace is located in over 60 countries and they bring people
in from throughout the world.
Ray Griffith, CEO of Ace Hardware, thanked the Zoning Board for its time,
attention and consideration. He said that it was important to Ace Hardware. He
was prepared to answer questions so that the Village would be comfortable with
the plan. They have support from McDonald's to the Chamber of Commerce
and their neighbors. They are the friendly hardware people and are in
neighborhoods and communities,which is how they built their brand and that is
what they stand for. They have a beautiful 18-acre campus and are proud to be
in Oak Brook. No one knows they are there unless they are going to the post
office and find it by mistake. Although he lives in Naperville, when he
mentions that he is the CEO for Ace in Oak Brook, they have no idea where it
is located. By increasing the size of the signs,people traveling the 1-88 corridor
would be able to see that Ace Hardware's corporate headquarters is in Oak.
Brook.
Member Savino asked how people find them now.
Mr. Griffith responded that they call their general number and when given their
address,they have no idea,where it is, so they always ask if they know where
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 18 November 5, 2012
McDonald's is and they guide them in from McDonald's. They would like to
have their own presence.
Joe Enders, McDonald's Corporation, said that they support the requested
variations. He also acts in the capacity of the Board of Directors for the
Chamber and their goal is to have strong businesses in Oak Brook and to really
build the strength of all the businesses. This is a case where they do not have
an identity. He drove down 1-88, going slowly through the I-pass,trying to see
the sign and was barely able to see the existing sign. They truly do not have an
identity in the Oak Brook area.
Tracey Mulqueen, Chamber of Commerce said that they definitely support the
signage request. In terms of economic development they cannot stress enough
what it means to Oak Brook when a sign like Ace is seen. This is exactly what
the Village wants to see, that Ace Hardware's corporate headquarters is located
in Oak Brook.
Judy Oswald represented Inland Real Estate, the property management
company and she represented the ownership of the property. They support and
believe that the signage is something that the buildings need. They have
approved all of the signage requested and would allow them to have a better
presence in the community.
Chairman Davis said that the standards were addressed by their testimony and
were addressed in writing on page D of the case file; he asked that they be
briefly addressed for the record.
Mi.Mele addressed the required variation as follows:
1. a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to
be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing
the district in which it is located.
RESPONSE: The signs cannot be seen, no one knows where to go and the
architecture of the building would not allow the sign to be constructed per the
code as well. The topography impacts the ground sign, which is the reason for
the additional two foot height request.
1.b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.
RESPONSE: As explained in the first response.
1.c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 15 of 18 November 5, 2012
1
i
RESPONSE: They are trying to maintain the architectural integrity of the
building by the addition of the background panel that would blend into the
building. The building architect Mies van der Rohe was a designer of famous
buildings and it was important to them and property ownership to maintain the
integrity and overall aesthetic of the design, which is in keeping with the
original character within the Village;
2. b. The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not
be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning
classification.
RESPONSE: The topography and architecture are impacts following the code.
2. c. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the property is located.
z
RESPONSE: The letters of approval and the support of the business
community at the public hearing would agree.
2. d. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the danger of fire,
or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood.
RESPONSE: The sign will not impair the light and air because they are only
going about 2 feet above the building.
2 e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a
desire to make more money out of the property
i
RESPONSE: It does not; Ace is trying to have a visible presence in Oak
Brook. They are proud to be in Oak Brook and would flak Brook to be proud
that they are here. This is their corporate headquarters
2. f That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any
person presently having an interest in the property.
RESPONSE: The said hardship and difficult is an existing unique situation of
the lot.
Mr.Ungaro said that they have talked about the hardship and topography. They
have also talked about the low height and 300 foot length of the building.
There is also about 1,000 feet of frontage across the rear of their property.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 16 of 18 November 5, 2012
i
i
These were all things not of their.making and not under their control. They did
not install the I-88 highway or install the retaining walls and did not design or
build the buildings. Those were conditions that they had and over the years
with the changes to 1-88 that worsened the problem and they were trying to live
with over the years. None of the conditions were of their making and none that
they could readily change in any way shape or form, which is why they are
seeking the variations.
i
Chairman Davis said that the standards had been addressed in their testimony
and in writing on page D of the case file.
Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry to recommend
approval of the variations to the following sections of the sign regulations:
• Section 13-11-1OC.8—to permit the two (2)wall signs to be centered in
the middle of the building instead of anchored to a corner of the
building.
• Section 13-11-I OD.2b—to permit the construction of a 312 square foot,
single-face monument sign on the property which is in excess of the
permitted 100 square foot per face monument sign.
• Section 13-11-I OD.2c—to permit the installation of a247.5 square foot 1
wall sign on the north elevation of the buildings at 2200 and 2222
Kensington Court (maximum now permitted is 100 square feet for a j
building that is less than 50 feet in height);
• Section 13-11-1OE.3 —to permit the proposed monument sign to be 12
feet in height which exceeds the 10 foot maximum height. !
• Section 13-11-10E.4 — to permit the proposed wall signs to extend
above the roof-line of the buildings.
• Section 13-11-4A.7d — to permit the requested wall signs internally
illuminated channel letters to be mounted on a new background panel
instead of to the existing wall.
The recommendation of approval of the request to install two (2) wall signs
and one(1)monument sign as proposed is subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed signs shall be constructed in substantial conformance to the
approved plans.
2. The background panel needs to match the design and color of the existing
building so that it aesthetically matches the building's architectural features
so that it is not visible when installed.
3. Add the condition "notwithstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant
shall meet all Village Ordinance requirements at the time of building
permit application except as specifically varied or waived."
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 17 of 18 November 5, 2012
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: 6 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Nimr y Young, Savino, and Chairman
Davis
Nays: 0
Absent: I —Member Ziemer. Motion carried.
6. OTHER BUSINESS OTHL R BUSINESS
Member Cappetta noted that there have been a number of requests regarding
variations to the sign code.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that during the first
quarter of 2013 amendments will be proposed to the sign regulations. More of
the buildings in Oak Brook due to the existing architectural features are having
more of a challenge so that maybe would could provide a way to work through
that without going through the hearing process, if they meet the height and size
requirements.
There was no other business to discuss
7. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURN MENT
Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Savino to adjourn the
meeting at 9:10 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried
ATTEST:
Isl Robert L.Kallien,Jr.
Robert Kallien,Director of Community Development
Secretary
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 18 of 18 November 5, 2012