Loading...
S-1224 - 01/22/2008 - ZONING - OrdinancesORDINANCE 2008- ZO- MA -R -S -1224 AN ORDINANCE REZONING AND GRANTING A MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE DANA PARK SUBDIVISION IN THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK (PIN 06 -33- 103 -039, 06 -33- 103 -040, 06 -33- 103 -041, and 06 -33- 103 -042) WHEREAS, Frank Paul Development Corporation (the "Petitioner ") is the owner of certain Property known as the Dana Park Subdivision (the "Property") which is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and WHEREAS, the Petitioner has filed a petition requesting the Village to rezone the Property from R -2 to R -3 and to amend the Village's zoning map accordingly, and WHEREAS, at its meeting on November 20, 2007, the Plan Commission reviewed the request and found that the applicant had addressed and satisfied the requirements for a map amendment The Plan Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request to rezone the subject Property WHEREAS, on December 4, 2007, the Zoning Board of Appeals conducted a public hearing on the request for the rezoning and map amendment, pursuant to due and appropriate legal notice, and did not recommend approval of the rezoning and map amendment, and WHEREAS, the Village President and Board of Trustees have reviewed the recommendation of the Plan Commission as well as the minutes of the December 4, 2007 public hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals and deem the rezoning and map amendment, as set forth below, to be in the best interests of the Village NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, DU PAGE AND COOK COUNTIES, ILLINOIS, as follows Section 1 The foregoing preambles are restated and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein Section 2 The Property is rezoned from R -2 to R -3 and the Village's zoning map is amended accordingly Section 3 If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this ordinance shall be held invalid, the invalidity thereof shall not effect any of the other provisions of this ordinance Section 4 All ordinances or parts thereof in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict Section 5 This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication as required by law ORDINANCE 2008-ZO-V-S-1225 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION TO THE FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE DANA PARK SUBDIVISION IN THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK (Cara Lane ) (PIN: 06-33-103-039, 06-33-103-040, 06-33-103-041 and 06-33-103-042) WHEREAS, an application has been filed by the property owner, Frank Paul Development Corporation (the "Petitioner"), requesting a variation to Section 13-6C-3.F.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit 30-foot front yards and 30-foot side yards abutting a street for the property commonly known as Dana Park Subdivision; and WHEREAS, on December 4, 2007, the Zoning Board of Appeals conducted a public hearing on the request for variation, pursuant to due and appropriate legal notice, and recommended approval of the variation subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals found that the Petitioner satisfactorily addressed the factors required for approval of the requested variation and made specific findings, including that the variation will not endanger the public health, safety and welfare, and that there will be no substantial injury to other property in the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Village President and Board of Trustees have reviewed the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals and deem the variation, as set forth below, to be in the best interests of the Village. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, DU PAGE AND COOK COUNTIES, ILLINOIS, as follows: Section 1: The foregoing preambles are restated and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. Section 2: The Petitioner is hereby granted a variation to Section 13-6C-3.F.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit 30-foot front yards and 30-foot side yards abutting a street for the property commonly known as the Dana Park Subdivision. Section 3: The variation and the scope of this ordinance are limited and restricted to the property commonly known as the Dana Park Subdivision, which is legally described as follows: LOT 1 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 2006, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2006-024939, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Permanent Index Number: 06-33-103-039 LOT 2 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 2006, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2006-024939, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS Ordinance 2008-ZO-V-S-1225 Dana Park Setback Variations Cara Lane:06-33-103-039,06-33-103-040, 06-33-103-041 and 06-33-103-042 Page 2 of 2 Permanent Index Number: 06-33-103-040 LOT 3 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 2006, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2006-024939, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS Permanent Index Number: 06-33-103-041 LOT 4 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCOURDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 2006, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2006-024939, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS Permanent Index Number: 06-33-103-042 Section 4: If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this ordinance shall be held invalid, the invalidity thereof shall not effect any of the other provisions of this ordinance. Section 5: All ordinances or parts thereof in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 6: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication as required by law. APPROVED THIS 22nd day of January, 2008. lage President PASSED THIS 22nd day of January, 2008. Ayes: Trustees Carson Kennedy Manofskv Saived Sanford and Wolin Nays: None Absent: None of 0.4 ATTEST: Charlotte K. Pruss �✓ R `�� , '� Village Clerk IL FRANK PAUL DEVELOPMENT DANA PARK SUB— CARA LANE MAP AMENDMENT-R-2 TO R-3 wNAR VARIATION TO FRONT YARD SETBACKS AND SIDE YARD FOR PROPOSED LOT 1 INDEX PAGE CONTENTS 19-19.a Map Amendment and Variation Memorandum from Director of Community Development Kallien -Village Board Agenda —January 8, 2008 18 Dana Park Subdivision Project Executive Summary (included — Not Attached) 17 Map Amendment - Recommendation Letter from Zoning Board of Appeals dated January 3, 2008 16 Variation - Recommendation Letter from Zoning Board of Appeals dated January 3, 2008 15-15.m Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Dated December 4, 2007 14-14.a Variation - Staff Report from Director of Community Development dated November 28, 2007 13 Applicant Letter Withdrawing the Request for R-4 Zoning dated November 26, 2007 12 Recommendation Letter from Plan Commission re: Map Amendment dated November 26, 2007 11-11.h Plan Commission Meeting Minutes dated November 19, 2007 10-10.a Map Amendment - Staff Report from Director of Community Development dated November 14, 2007 9 Memorandum from Village Engineer Durfey re: Map Amendment dated November 5, 2007 8 Memorandum to Village Engineer Durfey re: Review dated October 16, 2007 7 Resident Letter dated November 9, 2007 6 Certificate of Publication dated November 15, 2007— Not Included 5 Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes dated October 23, 2007— Not Included 4 Referral Memo— Board of Trustees Agenda dated October 23, 2007 3 R-2 Lot Area Requirements 2-2.a R-3 Lot Area Requirements 1-1.a R-4 Lot Area Requirements A-A.1 Application/Petition for Map Amendment and Variation B Letter of Explanation — Booklet Form Included Not Attached C-C.1 Factors in Support of Map Amendment D Factors in Support of Variation E Fee/Receipt F Certification G Surrounding Property Owners List H-H.3 Subject Property Verification I Applicant's Letter to Neighbors dated October 12, 2007 (Letter included page A-1) J Neighbor Feedback on Rezoning Letter K Legal Description L Current Marketing for Dana Park Estates (R-2) Zoning (Included — Not Attached) M Approved Dana Park Subdivision —approved 2005 (Included — Not Attached) N Proposed R-3 with Variances (Included — Not Attached) O Proposed R-4 (5-Lots) (Included — Not Attached)—WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT P Proposed R-4 (6-Lots) (Included — Not Attached)—WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT Frank Paul DANA PARK-MAP-VAR-IN.DEX.doc OF Oqk v G� e90 No O e � � G y O q�F CpUNS1.��� AGENDA ITEM Regular Board of Trustees Meeting of January 8, 2008 SUBJECT: Frank Paul Development Corp—Dana Park Subdivision—Map Amendment and Variation FROM: Robert L. Kallien, Jr.,AICP, Community Development Director BUDGET SOURCE/BUDGET IMPACT: N/A RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: 1. May Amendment — I move to concur with the recommendation from the Plan Commission for approval, and to not concur with the Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation for denial, of a requested map amendment from R-2 to R-3 for the property commonly known as the Dana Park Subdivision and authorize the Village Attorney to draft the necessary ordinance for final consideration at the January 22, 2008 Board of Trustees meeting; and 2. Variation — I move to concur with the recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals and approve the requested variation to Section 13-6C-3.F.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit 30-foot front yards and 30-foot side yards abutting a street for the property commonly known as the Dana Park Subdivision and authorize the Village Attorney to draft the necessary ordinance for final consideration at the January 22,2008 Village Board of Trustees meeting. Backaround/History: At its meeting on December 4, 2007 the Zoning Board of Appeals held the required public hearing and completed its deliberations on a request from the Frank Paul Development Corporation, on behalf of Dana Park, LLC, the owner of the 3-lot Dana Park Subdivision located south of the southeast corner of Meyers Road and Oak Brook Road (31St Street) seeking approval of a map amendment to R-3. An alternate request for a map amendment to R-4 was withdrawn by the applicant. Last saved by GPOLANEK JAI-FROM BOB\Bot-PC-ZBA\BOT-Rec-DanaPark-MA-VAR-Jan2008.doc • f With the proposed amendment to R-3,the applicant would seek future platting of the property into five single-family lots. Also, because of the existing grading and stormwater management facilities that have been developed, the applicant is seeking approval of a variation to Section 13-6C-3.F.1 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to redevelop the existing Dana Park Subdivision from three (3) one-acre lots to five (5) R-3 sized lots (25,000 square foot minimum) with 30-foot front yard setbacks instead of the ordinance standard of 40-foot front yard setbacks. They are also seeking relief to the yard abutting Meyers Road for proposed Lot 1 from 40 feet to 30 feet. Recommendation—May Amendment At its meeting on November 20, 2007, the Plan Commission reviewed the request and found that the applicant had addressed and satisfied the requirements for a map amendment. By a vote of 4 to 0, the Plan Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request to rezone the subject property, known as Dana Park Subdivision located at 3111-3115 Cara Lane-, from R-2 to R-3, subject to the submission of a revised final plat. As part of the motion, the Plan Commission made the following comments: 1. They were aware that the applicant was seeking approval of variations to the setbacks. 2. Relative to the request for R-4 the Plan Commission noted that R-4 zoning is inappropriate and less desirable for that area. At its meeting on December 4, 2007, the Zoning Board of Appeals held the required public hearing and a motion to approve the map amendment failed,by a vote of 3 to 3, and did not concur with the Plan Commission recommendation to approve the request to rezone the subject property, known as Dana Park Subdivision located at 3111-3115 Cara Lane, from R-2 to R-3. Because the vote did not have the 4 vote majority needed for approval, the matter will be sent onto the Village Board as a denial for the request. Recommendation—Variation At its meeting on December 4, 2007, by a vote of 6 to 0, the Zoning Board of Appeals found that the applicant addressed the requirements and standards for a variation and recommended approval of the request to reduce the front yards setbacks and side yard abutting a street in the Dana Park Subdivision to 30 feet. Staff Comments Please see the additional information that has been provided by the applicant. I Last saved by GPOLANEK JAI-FROM BOB\Bot-PC-ZBA\BOT-Rec-DanaPark-MA-VAR-Jan2008.doc 2. Q i DANA PARK SUBDIVISION PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •ORIGINAL R2 CONCEPT WAS FOCUSED ON COMPLIANCE, NOT A BUSINESS MISTAKE •ORIGINAL R2 CONCEPT IS VERIFIABLY NOT COMMERCIALLY VIABLE • COSTS TO DATE EXCEED MARKET VALUE •OBJECTIVE IS TO RESTORE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY, NOT MORE PROFIT • SLOW REAL ESTATE MARKET NOT THE ISSUE; MARKET RECOVERY NOT THE SOLUTION • UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICES OF PROPERTY ARE THE ISSUES: • USABILITY: ONE ACRE =43,560SF X 55%=23,958= R3(25,000) •SCHOOL DISTRICT PREFERENCE • ADJACENT PUMPING STATION • COMMERCIAL KENNEL BUSINESS • BUSY MEYERS ROAD •ADJACENT MIDWEST CLUB IS 113; NO NEIGHBOR OBJECTIONS •TUSCAN WOODS COMPARABLE IS 113; LOTS HAVE SOLD IN HIGH $600'S •TUSCAN WOODS HOME AT$2.9M HAS NOT SOLD •THE ONLY ADJACENT R2 PROPERTY OWNER(FALCO) HAS NO OBJECTIONS • NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS' PROPERTY VALUES • NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SURROUNDING OR NEIGHBORIING AESTHETICS • POSITIVE IMPACT SHOULD BE MEASURED AGAINST WHAT WAS THERE, NOT ON WHAT WE HAVE INVESTED IN AND NOW EXISTS • NUMBER OF LOTS MAKES A DIFFERENCE: • 6 LOTS =$610K PER LOT(NOT RECOMMENDED) • 5 LOTS=$745K PER LOT(RECOMMENDED&VIABLE) •4 LOTS =$925K PER LOT(NOT VIABLE; HOMES WOULD BE IN $2.8M RANGE) NOTE:4 LOTS SUGGESTED BY HERITAGE OAKS; NOT SURE OF RELEVANCE • REQUESTED VARIANCES ARE SELF-CONTAINED AND HAVE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT • PROPOSED REQUEST IS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND 7 OF 10 MEMBERS OF COMBINED PLAN AND ZBA BOARDS CONCUR l � DANA PARK SUBDIVISION PROJECT PROJECT COST SUMMARY TOTAL COST 0.00 LAND PURCHASE $1,200,000 1.00 OPERATING COSTS $1,052,213 1.01 Management 1.02 Design&Engineering 1.03 Easements-Bende,Boeske,Village of Oak Brook 1.04 Permitting 1.05 Legal&Professional Fees 1.06 Property Taxes 1.07 Closing Costs,Bank Charges,Interest 1.08 Preferred Interest Expense 1.09 Advertising 1.10 Misc,Insurance,Utilities 2.00 DEMOLITION $59,100 2.01 Demolish three house/garage structures to grade level 2.02 Remove slab foundations completely,existing sheds,private walks,stoops,steps,&driveway 2.03 Strip asphalt driveways to sub-base 2.04 Cap three existing wells&pump/pull two existing septic tanks 2.05 Remove existing chain link fence 2.06 Rough grade work area at completion 2.07 Take title to salvage&remove,load,haul,and legally dispose of debris 2.08 Delivery Management 2.09 Change Orders:3 Water Lines$450&Backfiil depressions$1,500 8.00 PHASE 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT $678.872 3.01 Excavation 3.02 Site Utilities 3.03 Concrete 3.04 Asphalt Paving 3.05 Masonry 3.06 Electrical 3.07 Pavement Replacements 3.08 Asphalt/Concrete Remove&Replace 3.09 Public Utility Charges&Permits 3.10 Landscape Restorations 3.11 Traffic Control 3.12 Tree Removals 3.13 Fencing 3.14 Grading Change&Street Sign 3.15 Miscellaneous 3.16 Delivery Management 4.00 PHASE 2 SITE DEVELOPMENT $235,890 4.01 Decorative Fence 4.02 Landscaping 4.03 Street Surface Course 4.04 Automatic Gate&Entry Feature 4.05 Lot#1 Water Feature 4.06 Home Designs TOTAL COSTS TO-DATE $3,226,075 5.00 ESTIMATED COST RESERVES $380,710 5.01 Reserve for Lift Stations,Ejector Pumps,Generators 5.02 Reserve for Pond Aerator 5.03 Reserve for Retaining Walls 5.04 Reserve for Add'I.Carrying Costs 5.05 Reserve for Sales Costs TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS 3606 785 6.00 ESTIMATED"R3 WITH VARIANCE"COSTS(5 LOTS) $125,000 6.01 Engineering,Legal,Re-grading,Water/Sewer Lire,Modified Retaining Walls TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS AFTER REZONING 8,731,785 ESTIMATED COST PER LOT 5 746,357 ;p- /iii ■ i■ i OR OR , OA, ✓ ,� i/ O PAO e OF Oq • • pvE .f B 90 6 A y January 3, 2008 OOUNTI Village President Craig and Board of Trustees Village of Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook Oak Brook, IL 60523 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook,IL 60523-2255 SUBJECT: Frank Paul Development Corp—Dana Park Subdivision Website www.oak-brook.org Map Amendment—R-2 District to R-3 Administration Dear President Craig and Board of Trustees: 630.368.5000 FAX 630.368.5045 Background Community At its meeting on December 4, 2007 the Zoning Board of Appeals held the required Development public hearing and completed its deliberations on a re uest from the Frank Paul 630.368.5101 p g P q FAX 630.368.5128 Development Corporation, on behalf of Dana Park, LLC, the owner of the 3-lot Dana Park Subdivision located at the southeast corner of Meyers Road and Oak Brook Road Engineering (31 st Street) seeking approval of a map amendment to R-3. An alternate request for a Department 630.368.5130 ma p amendment to R-4 was withdrawn by the applicant. FAX 630.368.5128 With the proposed amendment to R-3, the applicant would seek future platting of the Fire Department 630.368.5200 property into five single-family lots. Also, because of the existin g grading and FAX 630.368.5251 stormwater management facilities that have been developed, the applicant would be seeking a variation to permit 30-foot front yard setbacks instead of the required 40-foot Police Department setback. The proposed variations are being made as part of a separate request to be 630.368.8700.87 considered b the Zoning Board of Appeals. FAX 630.368.8739 y g pp Public Works Public Comment Department All interested parties were notified of the public hearing. The President of the Heritage 630.368.5270 30.36 .52 Oaks Subdivision commented that the did not object to a zoning but would FAX 630.368.5295 y � g prefer that the developer build only four (4) homes on the site if the map amendment'to Oak Brook R-3 was granted. However, they would hope that the applicant can get what he needs to Public Library get the project moving rather than to have it sit for another two years,which they do not think is good for Oak Brook. The applicant noted that he had received support and 600 Oak Brook Road comments from several neighbors,which was noted in writing in the case file. Oak Brook,IL 60523-2200 630.368.7700 Recommendation FAX 6330.360.368..77 704 By a vote of 3 to 3, the motion to approve failed and the Zoning Board of Appeals did not Oak Brook Sports Core concur with the Plan Commission's unanimous recommendation to approve the request to rezone the subject property, known as Dana Park Subdivision located at 3111-3115 Cara Bath&Tennis Club Lane, from R-2 to R-3. Because the vote did not have the 4 vote majority needed for 700 Oak Brook Road approval, the matter will be sent on to the Village Board as a recommendation to deny the Oak Brook,IL 60523-4600 630.368.6420 request. FAX 630.368.6439 Very truly yours NOTE: Chairman Davis has reviewed and verbally approved the content of this letter Golf Club pending his signature. The signed original will be placed in the official file upon receipt. 2606 York Road Oak Brook,IL 60523-4602 630.368.6400 Champ Davis FAX 630.368.6419 Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals 17 y Gt OF UAM • • \P B90 � A o - y G � _ January 3, 2008 A 9C�ODUNII Village of Village President Craig and Board of Trustees Oak Brook Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, IL 60523 Oak Brook,IL 60523-2255 Website www.oak-brook.org SUBJECT: Frank Paul Development Corp—Dana Park Subdivision—Variations Administration 630.368.5000 Dear President Craig and Board of Trustees: FAX 630.368.5045 Background Community At its meeting on December 4, 2007 the Zoning Board of Appeals held the required Development g g pp q 630.368.5101 public hearing and completed its deliberations on a request from the Frank Paul FAX 630.368.5128 Development Corporation, on behalf of Dana Park, LLC, the owner of the 3-lot Dana Engineering Park Subdivision located south of the southeast corner of Meyers Road and Oak Brook Department Road (31St Street) seeking approval of a variation to Section 13-6C-3.F.1 of the Zoning 630.368.5130 Ordinance. In particular, the applicant is seeking a variation in order to redevelop the FAX 630.368.5128 existing Dana Park Subdivision from three (3) one-acre lots to five (5) R-3 sized lots Fire Department (25,000 square foot minimum) with 30-foot front yard setbacks instead of the ordinance 630.368.5200 standard of 40-foot front yard setbacks. They are also seeking relief to the yard abutting FAX 630.368.5251 the street for proposed Lot 1 from 40 feet to 30 feet. Police Department A map amendment from R-2 to R-3 is being made as a separate request. Also, the 630.368.8700 FAX 630.368.8739 applicant would also seek future platting of the property into five single-family lots. Public Works Public Comment Department All interested parties were notified of the public hearin g' The President of the Heritage FAX 630.368.5295 Oaks Subdivision commented that they would prefer that the developer build only four (4) homes on the site if the map amendment to R-3 was granted. However, they would Oak Brook hope that the applicant can get what he needs to get the project moving rather than to Public Library have it sit for another two years, which they do not think is good for Oak Brook. The applicant noted that he had received support and comments from several neighbors, 600 Oak Brook Road which was noted in writing in the case file. Oak Brook,IL 60523-2200 630.368.7700 FAX 630.368.7704 Recommendation By a vote of 6 to 0, the Zoning Board of Appeals found that the applicant addressed the Oak Brook Sports Core requirements and standards for a variation and recommended approval of the request to reduce the front yard setbacks for the lots in the Dana Park Subdivision to 30 feet and to Bath&Tennis Club reduce the side yard setback along Meyers Road on Lot 1 to 30 feet 700 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook,IL 60523-4600 630.368.6420 Very truly yours FAX 630.368.6439 NOTE: Chairman Davis has reviewed and verbally approved the content of this letter pending his signature. The signed original will be placed in the official file upon receipt. Golf Club 2606 York Road Champ Davis Oak Brook,IL 60523-4602 630.368.6400 Chairman FAX 630.368.6419 Zoning Board of Appeals NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS FRANK PAUL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — DANA PARK FRANK PAUL DEV. CORP—DANA PARK SUBDIVISION— 3111-3115 MEYERS ROAD— MAP AMENDMENT— SUB-MAP AMEND TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM R-2 to R-3 and VARIATIONS — to REZONE to R-3 AND VARIATIONS REDUCE FRONT YARD SETBACKS IN THE SUBDIVISION TO 30 TO THE FRONT FEET and REDUCE PROPOSED LOT 1 SIDE YARD ABUTTING A YARD SETBACKS and SIDE SETBACK STREET to 30 FEET. for LOT 1 Chairman Davis swore in all parties that would provide testimony. John Brechin, Attorney for the applicant reviewed the request. The Village previously approved the subdivision request for Dana Park Subdivision. The original goals were to maintain the existing number of home sites, which are 3 under the R-2 zoning; to elevate the home sites from the flood plain and update the utility and sewer systems. The previous three homes were on septic systems and all of the lots including the residences were within the flood plain. There are now buildable sites, the floodplain is controlled, there is sufficient compensatory storage, as well as updated utilities for the site. The estimated cost for infrastructure was between $2.5 — 2.7 million. In actuality those costs are between $3.2 — 3.4 million. R-2 development costs for the properties cannot be achieved from this site because of the percentage of the lots that are usable. From a marketability perspective, there is no commercial viability for this designated zoning because of the unique characteristics of the property which includes a significant proportion of it that is committed to flood plain and stormwater detention. The developer has attempted to market the property in excess of two years. The reasons why the properties have not sold is that some of the perspective buyers do not like the location of the existing dog kennel across the street, the pumping station to the north, it is in the Downers Grove school district, not Hinsdale (In response to that concern they explored the possibility of having the property transferred, but in discussions with various school officials,the likelihood of its success was deemed to be nil.) In light of these issues, they looked at other alternatives. One of the alternatives presented to the Plan Commission was to rezone the property to R-4 and they have withdrawn that request in recognition of the unanimous disapproval of the Plan Commission. They have also withdrawn the request for R-3 without variation because the development costs exceed the value of the property. The problem with R-3 straight compliance is that there would be additional costs to rework the subdivision improvements and would drive up the per-unit costs of the lots such that what has been put into the lots could not be achieved in any reasonable commercial marketplace. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 24 December 4, 2007 45- Frank Drukas, applicant and owner and developer of the property said that the total cost would be around $375,000, but that is not the only issue. The terrain behind the building pads provides virtually no back yard with the straight R-3 scenario. The requested variance alternative would allow the front of the house to be moved closer to the curb and with some minor retaining walls would create more of a back yard. Marketability would be the end result. As is, the sites are within the $3 million plus range, straight compliance would put the homes into the $2.7-2.8 million range. Given the uniqueness of the lots and would they have to offer they are not any more marketable in R-3 full compliance as they are with the present R-2. The variations are to allow Lot 1 to have a 30-foot side setback along Meyers Road; however, due to the bike path and parkway, the distance from the building structure to the curb would be 48 feet. They have requested a 30-foot setback in the front yard for all of the lots, which would allow the property owner more of a back yard. The subdivision is onto itself and there would not be a staggered frontage, everyone would have the same front yard setback. Mr. Brechin said that the front yard variations could be eliminated if the cul de sac is incorporated into each of the lots, which is now a separate lot and an easement could be created for the roadway. There is a risk of some improvement put into the roadway by an individual homeowner. Keeping it, a separate lot to be used only for ingress egress is a better scenario. Member Nimry said that those issues could be resolved by including provisions in the covenant restrictions prohibiting structures in the road. Mr. Brechin said that in his experience, people tend to violate those restrictions when they are in their best interest. Member Nimry said that there are subdivisions in Oak Brook that have those provisions and there are not any problems. Mr. Brechin said that for the purposes of the homeowner association it clearly separates what is controlled by the association and what is controlled by the property owner. Chairman Davis noted that the separation keeps the road a single lot as opposed to be part of the individual lots. Mr. Brechin noted that the assessed valuation would also be higher even though there is no exclusive use of it. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 24 December 4, 2007 Chairman Davis said that if the homeowner association owns the roadway then there are no real estate taxes on the roadway. Mr. Brechin agreed. Member Young questioned exactly what they are seeking. Mr. Brechin reviewed the request. A map amendment to rezone the property to R-3 from R-2. A variation to reduce the side yard abutting Meyers Road for lot 1 to 30 feet. A variation to allow the front yard setbacks of each lot to be reduced to 30 feet. The reason for the variations is not for financial gain, it is requested so that the eventual buyer would have more usable area. Perhaps they would be able to build a tennis court in the rear yard, which under the present R-2 configuration, they could not because of flood plain issues. Under the requested R-3 zoning with variations, would allow 5 single-family homes with approximately 4500 square feet of primary living space and about 1000 feet of an English walk out basement. It would market in the $2.1 —2.5 million range. The integrity of the detention compensation systems that have been installed is largely unaffected. There would be some redesign amounting to $125,000 versus the $375,000 if developed as straight R-3. This would be more manageable and requires less reworking of the site. They believe the request creates commercial viability for the property. Mr. Brechin said that the Plan Commission recommended full approval of the R-3 zoning and denied the request for R-4 zoning. They expressed a position that it would be appropriate to recommend the variations. A chart was displayed for the board representing a quantitative perspective of R-3 with variation in comparison with the other alternatives (The chart is located in the case file in the attachment numbered B on page 14).The chart looks at the last year's sales. The column to the left shows virtually no sales in the R-2 area. That does not mean that there are no homes being built, there is the exception for the custom homebuyer who have given an order to a builder. In the context of a spec, there have not been any homes sold. There has been some success in R-3 where some units have been sold. They have somewhat of a comfort level to be in the R-3 with variation marketplace. Where they are now, they need a $3 million buyer and they have a product that does not lend itself to a $3 million buyer. With approval of their requests, it would be in a marketplace of the $2 million buyer and they would then have a product that would lend itself to a $2 million buyer. The request is not for more profit it is to make the property commercially viable because of the unique conditions of the property. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 24 December 4, 2007 �S� Mr. Brechin said that the actual cost of the land reduces the land cost of the R-2 lots from $1.2 million to $720,000 for R-3 lots as proposed. Looking at the Oak Brook market, lots in Tuscan Woods are being marketed in the $600,000 range. At $720,000, this project would be in the upper limits, but they believe it is still commercially viable. It is not commercially viable at$1.2 million. Mr. Drukas said that in Tuscan Woods the actual sales for the lots are $650,000 to $669,000. However, there is one spec home being marketed at $2.9 million, which is having difficulty selling. Being in the $2.1 —2.2 million marketplaces would give them a better chance of having the property marketable. MAP AMENDMENT STANDARDS Mr. Brechin reviewed the zoning Amendment factors. Mr. Brechin addressed the standards for a map amendment as follows: 1. Character of the neighborhood RESPONSE: The character of the neighborhood is single family with values ranging from $1 to 3 million. There is R-3 zoning to the south and R-2 to the east,west and north separated by 31 S` Street and Meyers Road, which both carry a significant amount of traffic. The only exceptions are the dog kennel across the street and the village water pumping station to the north. 2. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions. They have tried to show that an R-2 development deprives Mr. Drukas the ability to market the property. R-2 zoning would require him to absorb a loss on each and every sale. 3. The extent to which the removal of the Existing Limitations Would Depreciate the Value of Other Property in the Area. They do not believe that R-3 zoning is going to depreciate property values. With proposed housing in the $2 million range, there would be no depreciatory effect caused by the development to any other property in the Midwest Club or the surrounding neighborhoods. The development of the property with quality single-family would have much more value than what is seen today on the site, which is not the highest and best use of the property. R-2 zoning restrictions preclude any reasonable utilization of it. 4. The suitability of the Property for Zoned Purposes They have attempted to show that R-2 zoning is not commercially viable due to the unique characteristics of this property and the amount of both compensatory water storage and flood plain that is required on the site. The fact that the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 24 December 4,2007 • • 15 storage has been installed and is operative is an improvement over what was there as well as the removal of the previous 3 homes that were on the site. Approval of R-3 zoning is a further improvement of the property because it would give the property a chance to be developed. 5. Existing Uses and Zoning of Nearby Properties. With the exception of the kennel across the street, all of the property is single family. 6. The Length of Time Under the Existing Zoning that the property has remained unimproved considered in the context of land development. The first parcel was purchased in January 2005 and the remaining two parcels were purchased in June 2005. The subdivision improvements were completed in March of 2006. During that period of time the property was marketed and there have been no buyers or buyers under contract. That shows that there are problems in the relationship of this property with the R-2 zoning. There is lost usability and location of the site. 7. The Relative Gain to the Public as Compared to the Hardship Imposed on the Individual Property Owner. They believe approval of the request will expedite development, which is an improvement to what the property looks like know and would enhance in a small way the tax base of the village. 8. The Extent to Which the Proposal Promotes the Health, Safety, Morals or General Welfare of the Public. Adoption of any of the options will expedite the development of the property. They believe development will increase assessed valuation and the ability to look at high quality single family homes will be a nicer view than what is there today. 9. The Relationship of the Proposed Use to the Comprehensive Plan. Single family residential is totally consistent to the Comprehensive Plan for this site in this neighborhood. 10. Community Need for the Use Proposed by the Property Owners. The property has already been improved by the installation of public water and sewer. The harnessing of the flood plain and stormwater issues that was totally unregulated before. They believe the five home sites being proposed is VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 24 December 4, 2007 consistent with Midwest Club to the south and would no appear to be over dense or out of character with the neighborhood. VARIATIONS The variations requested are a reduction of the side yard setback (abutting Meyers Road) on Lot 1 to 30 feet; and a reduction of the front yard setback of all the lots to 30 feet. The front yard variation request does not increase the value of the property; it promotes the usability of the property as a home site so that there is some back yard to allow families to utilize the property. They believe these requests allow more usability for the property owners without monetary benefit to Mr. Drukas. The unusual condition that justifies the variation is the flood plain and compensatory storage that requires the utilization of property that they cannot utilize for single family purposes. VARIATION STANDARDS Mr. Brechin addressed the variation standards as follows: 1. a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located. RESPONSE: The existing R-2 zoning is not commercially viable because the cost of land improvements make the property unmarketable except at a loss. 1. b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: The plight is due to unique circumstances due to the substantial size of the flood plain and stormwater detention requirements that dictate the usability of a fair amount of the acreage. The subdivision regulations have minimum requirements for retention ponds that must be stepped so that they are not a safety hazard and so much of the property is utilized for the purpose and to conform to all other ordinance requirements. 1. c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: The variation, if granted will not change the essential character of the locality, which will remain single family. 2. a.The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 24 December 4, 2007 • • 15--e- RESPONSE: A substantial amount of property has been dedicated exclusively for water retention. The variation to the front yards is to give the eventual buyers a better ability to utilize their property so that there experience would be comparable to other homeowners in Oak Brook and not limited by a technical application of the front yard setback. 2. b.The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning classification. RESPONSE: The property is extremely unique due to the amount of water storage. Even though the property is zoned R-2 it is made to function not as R- 2 property. There really is not an acre of land to use; there is significantly less than that. They believe that is another reason to justify a favorable look at the proposed R-3 zoning and variations. 2. c.The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. RESPONSE: If the variation is granted, R-3 and the variations would not have any depreciatory effect to the public welfare, especially when the properties would be valued at $2 million plus. Midwest Club is a substantial R-3 development that abuts the property to the south. This property sits south of 31St and east of Meyers and there will be no visual impact of the variations on this property. It will look like Oak Brook should look like. 2. d.The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RESPONSE: The variation, if granted would not have an impact on what Midwest Club would see or hear on this site. The way the subdivision is laid out, from the roadway all of the property would not be seen, especially when further landscaping is implemented. 2. e.That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property. RESPONSE: The variation is not based on any desire to make more money out of the property. It is based entirely on the concept that they have something that is commercially unviable and they are pleading to make it commercially viable. The request would allow the home buyer to utilize the property VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 24 December 4, 2007 reasonably, in a reasonable way that an Oak Brook resident would be expected to be able to do. Such as a playground or tennis court or other amenities that would be allowed in a rear yard. To follow the ordinance rigidly the owners would not have that ability. There would be no visual impact of the variations as requested. Making the lots part of the roadway is not a desired alternative as explained. 2. f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. RESPONSE: The hardship is due to existing conditions. Mr. Drukas attempted very vigorously to market the property as R-2, and not withstanding his efforts, the character of this property is not seen by ready willing and able buyers as R-2 property. Whether that is right or wrong, it is a fact. A reasonable alternative in light of the situation is to favorably consider R-3 so that the property can be developed and used for single-family purposes for which it was intended, consistent with Oak Brook standards and with no real negatives to the village or surrounding property owners. Member Nimry said that this was approved not long ago and he was not sure that changing the zoning was the issue. There is a lot on St. Joseph's Drive at Midwest Road, which is much busier and the half-acre lot sold for $890,000 and the put a 7,000 square foot home on it. There are homes with lot lines in the middle of the street that have not had any problems. He believes the property would be good for 4 houses not 5 or 6. Mr. Drukas responded that the original purchase price was over $1.2 million; however, the development cost for the site to bring it to its current condition is accurate at the $3.6 million level and supporting documentation could be provided. In terms of marketability, regardless of what some other property may have been able to do and despite the current market conditions, he has had real buyers turn away from this property and the primary reasons had to do with the usability of the lot. They are an acre, but only half of it is usable; which was the primary issue. The second primary issue was the school district, which was a personal preference and someone might be okay with the school district, however, the prospects that he had made it an issue. He admitted that the busyness of Meyers Road and 31St Street, the dog kennel and the pumping station will not go away even if the zoning is changed. The possibility of 4 lots also came up at the Plan Commission and it is a matter of simple mathematics. Taking the $3.6 million divided by 4 lots, results in $900,000 lots. From a builder's perspective, three times the lot cost is the likelihood of what the property should be marketed and results in a $2.7 million end product and that VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 24 December 4, 2007 • /s _9 is as commercially unviable as the present situation. The purpose is to try to make it more marketable and if that is not achieved then they should not do any of what they are doing. The R-3 with the variation puts the homes in the $2.1- 2.2 million ranges, which at least has a hope. With all due respect, with what anyone else is doing, he had real live prospects that turned away from this project. In support of the requested variations, and he stated that he did not want to simply the requests, but if approved, even though the side yard setback for lot 1 would be reduced to 30 feet, there would still be 48 feet to the curb. With regard to the requested 30 foot front yard setback, all front yards would be consistent. A 25,000 square foot property with a 4500 square foot home would not look like a big home on a postage stamp lot; it would look like a nice home on a pretty big lot, it's just not all usable. The property will not look dense or crowded. The variances would not impact anyone outside the subdivision, because it is isolated. As far as the R-3 rezoning with the variances, is a must, aside from subjective opinion, there is evidence that these properties have not sold. Despite having people that were interested, in the middle of the sale cycle became disinterested because of what they have testified at this hearing. Chairman Davis noted that the Tuscan Woods property started development around the same time and several homes are being built there. He asked if the Plan Commission discussed the variations. Mr. Drukas responded that they discussed it with the Plan Commission to the extent that the request was for a combination of R-3 with variations, because without the variations would create a serious amount of new cost and would not be as livable or pleasant enough to live on. The cost then pushes it back up to the $2.7—2.9 million ranges. Chairman Davis noted that the Plan Commission conditioned approval of the requested R-3 zoning to approval of the variations. Mr. Brechin responded that the Plan Commission expressed support for favorable action on the variations. Member Bulin said that he was on the Plan Commission at the time of the subdivision approval and questioned if the project was considered commercially unviable at that time. Mr. Drukas responded that he did, but the focus at that time was to be compliant with the R-2 zoning. Three homes existed on the property that they VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 24 December 4, 2007 Ac- / h had to take out of the flood plain and their goal was to keep it three homes and thought they just had to be compliant. At that time, the market conditions were a little better and he did not have the experience of a $3 million buyer telling him they were not interested. The focus was to be compliant with the zoning requirements. He has gotten some feedback that this development was his error because he thought it was commercially viable and now it isn't and needs the village to bail him out. The fact is that he was focused on living up to the rules. Now he is saying that the rules are not going to work for this property and the variations are needed. Member Bulin noted that he recalled several different plans came before them and it was loosely tied to another development on 31St Street due to the water retention issues. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that when the projects first came forward, a desire was expressed by staff to get both of the property owners to work together. The access and detention was provided in a different way. After preliminary approval, the project could not go forward under two separate owners. There were different needs and expectations; that is when Mr. Drukas proposed his part and later Mr. Falco submitted his request for approval. Mr. Drukas said that there were a number of other alternatives when the project was joint. However, when it was separated the cul-de-sac was always located on that side, primarily due to the terrain, the wetlands and the wetlands buffer. The compensation area had to be located where it is. The neighbors in the Midwest Club would have preferred the cul-de-sac on the other side of the property. They relocated the cul-de-sac, from six feet to fifteen feet in order to please the neighbors; as well as installing a gate and additional landscaping, which was a $100,000 contribution to the cost in order to make the neighbors happy. Director of Community Development Kallien said that much has been said about the variations not being needed if the lot lines run to the street and since he has been at the Village, for over 8 years there has never been a situation like that, though some were done quite a number of years ago. Mr. Schemely, President of the Heritage Oaks Private Roadway Association, said that he has lived there since 1984 and he has attended all of the hearings since the beginning when it was Falco and Drukas. He did not believe that making the lot lines through the street was a negative. The covenants specifically say that they all have an equal access to the entire road, including VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 24 December 4, 2007 guests and tradesmen, etc. No one does anything in the road that the association would not approve. Liens have been placed on property when necessary. As far as this property, their concern is not whether the property is zoned R-2 or R-3, but how the houses are going to look on a relatively small parcel. There is a 4-lot subdivision on Midwest Road that has one huge house on it that has been sitting empty and has no yard. He finds it undesirable from an aesthetic standpoint. They believe it would be better to have houses built on the property rather than to have vacant land and all the improvements deteriorate, but it would look better with 4 houses than 5. He did not know what today's market would sell. He has no animosity toward Mr. Drukas and they would like to see the property have something built on it. It is bothersome to think that there would be a bunch of rather large houses with no front and side yard with a back yard that cannot be used, which was an issue when they sought subdivision approval years ago. Everyone appears to be in a bad situation and what is reasonable to approve. They would hope that somehow, Mr. Drukas can get what he needs to get the project moving rather than to have it sit there for another two years, which they don't think is good for Oak Brook either. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if the lot line would run to the middle of the street, the designation of the front yard setback would still be measured from the street line, not the lot line. Even though the lot line would be in the middle of the street, there would still be a setback issue. The applicant would still need to seek some type of relief to where the front yard line is measured, regardless of where the lot lines are. Under the existing rules, and the way that they have been interpreted, the front yard line would be greater. The way the Code is written the portion of the lot that is in the street does not count toward establishing a minimum lot size. The issue of variation is still relative to the discussion. Mr. Schemely said that the only objection he has is to the density, and would find it more reasonable if it could be done with four houses. They do not object to the map amendment and they say it would be better to do something with the property. Mr. Brechin said that if approved, they would need plat approval, which would require the reconfiguration of the lots and would be presented to the Plan Commission and then to the Village Board for approval. If the map amendment was approved, five houses could be developed, but the project would not be commercially viable without the variations. The real problem is that this is R-3 property that is labeled R-2. In good faith, Mr. Drukas tried to comply with the requirements and thought, based upon his experience that they could be sold as VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 24 December 4, 2007 J R-2 lots. After two years of trying to develop it, he was wrong. The real question is how some utilization can be made out of the property. They are suggesting that R-3 with variation is the minimal solution that has any chance of success. Mr. Drukas said that the focus of the request is to allow the property to be more marketable, but there was an implication that the density may have a negative impact. If approved, this property will not have huge houses sitting on postage stamp sized lots. There is a substantial amount of usable area around the building pads and the unusable area provides a more country like setting and the density is not an issue. The houses are on lots that range between 25,000 to 28,000 square feet. Member Bulin questioned whether approval of the requested variations in the existing R-2 scenario that would allow the houses to have more of a backyard would it provide more viability? Mr. Drukas responded that moving it would provide more of a back yard for lots 1 and 3, but the fact is there would still be a $3 million buyer with a 50 percent usable lot and 10 feet across the back yard is not going to make the difference. Member Bulin said that it would still be an enjoyable green space. Mr. Drukas said that it would be very enjoyable to look at it, however it would not be usable. The view is the point he was trying to make with the issue of density and how it would make the smaller homes not look like big homes on a postage stamp. MAP AMENDMENT MOTION Chairman Davis noted that the applicant had addressed the factors required in testimony, in the minutes of the Plan Commission meeting and in writing on page C of the case file. Motion by Member Ascher, seconded by Chairman Davis to recommend approval of the request to rezone the property located at 3111-3115 Meyers Road, Dana Park Subdivision from R-2 to R-3. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 3 — Members Ascher, Krietsch and Chairman Davis Nays: 3 — Members Bulin,Nimry and Young. Motion Failed. The motion failed because the vote was tie and there is a vacancy on the Zoning VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 15 of 24 December 4,2007 • • 16-ki Board of Appeals board, so there are no other voting members. Member Bulin said that the reason for his vote was because he was on the Plan Commission and was aware of the original application and at that time was considered commercially viable and he does know that the Zoning Board has control over market trends and something that may come back in a year or two. There is some hardship with the amount of flood plain area and that is why he believes the variation to the setback is appropriate, but does not know at this time whether going to 5 houses on this property is appropriate. The idea that the school district is Downers Grove was also on the original application and there are a lot of things that were buyer beware at the beginning of this project and not sure, that is the Villages responsibility. Member Young agreed with Member Bulin's comments and added that the economic study did not persuade him at all, including the houses that sold in the Hinsdale school district. Outside of the financial hardship that is being experienced it did not seem that any of the LaSalle factors were addressed. It also seemed like they were trying to see what would fit, R-3, R-3 with a variation or R-4. If they are going to go back to the Village Board then there should be a clear plan as to what is being sought and what is being addressed. Member Nimry said that he is just not convinced that going from R-2 to R-3 would solve their problem. Chairman Davis said that he believed the LaSalle factors were sufficiently addressed and a lot of time was spent at the Plan Commission and he likes the idea of giving some deference to the Commission and their studies and input. The map amendment was passed unanimously by the Plan Commission and that is entitled to significant weight,just as he believes the Zoning Board of Appeals findings and recommendations, for the most part are entitled to weight when it gets to the Village Board. Member Krietsch said that the applicant lost space due to the flood plain and that may not have been known at the time of purchase (even though it should have been) and that has had an impact on the property. There is R-3 zoning immediately to the south of this property and the R-2 to the east is separated by the flood plain and therefore does not have an impact on the adjacent R-2 property. Immediately to the north is the pumping station, which is commercial and across the street is the kennel, which is also commercial property. In his opinion, this particular parcel does not affect any of the other R-2 properties that are adjacent or near to this property. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 16 of 24 December 4, 2007 VARIATION MOTION Chairman Davis noted that the applicant had addressed the variation standards factors required as presented in their testimony. Motion by Chairman Davis, seconded by Member Krietsch to recommend approval of the request to allow the front yard setbacks to be reduced to 30 feet and for the side yard setback of Lot 1 to be reduced to 30 feet. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Ascher, Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0— Motion Carried. 5. B. ADVOCATE HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION — 1400 ADVOCATE HEALTH AND KENSINGTON ROAD — VARIATION — PARKING REGULATIONS HOSPITALS CORP- TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN SIX PARKING laoo KENSINGTON - VARIATION - SPACES IN THE SIDE YARD ADJOINING A STREET PARKING REGULATIONS Chairman Davis swore in all parties that would provide testimony. Jim Slinkman, Associate General Counsel with Advocate Health Care reviewed the request. Advocate Health Care is a faith based not-for-profit 5016 corporation. They have had their corporate offices and have been a corporate citizen in Oak Brook for 25+ years. They are located at 2025 Windsor Drive. Avenue. As their organization has grown over the last 25 years, they merged in 1995 with Lutheran General Health Systems and brought on additional employees and as part of a growing organization, they have outgrown their building at 2025 Windsor, so over the years they have leased a number of spaces throughout the Oak Brook area. In June of 2006, they acquired the property at 1400 Kensington as a second Oak Brook corporate office. They are seeking a variation to a side yard parking restriction. The existing building is located directly west of the Oak Brook Post Office. The building was acquired with the intention of converting some of the lower level space to classroom space for the employees. Previously the former owner used the space as a storage and kitchen area. They also intend to create additional office space in the lower level as well. The lower level has a walkout feature and is window lined. They are proposing to build an additional 87 parking spaces in the area adjacent to Kensington Court, which is also consistent with parking in the Oak Brook Post Office, which also has parking in the side yard along Kensington Court. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 17 of 24 December 4, 2007 • • 15.� r VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zonin g PP Board of Appeals STAFF REPORT DATE: November 28, 2007 CASE NO: 2007-033-ZO-VAR DESCRIPTION: Variation to Section 13-6C-3.F.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. PETITIONER: Frank Paul Development Corp. LOCATION: Southeast Corner of 31St Street and Meyers Road ADDRESS: 3111, 3113, and 3115 Cara Lane EXISTING ZONING: R-2 ZONING/USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY: North: R-2, Single-Family Detached Residence District, Single-family homes in the Ginger Creek Subdivision. South: R3, Single-Family Detached Residence District, Single-family homes in the Midwest Club Subdivision. East: R-2, Single-Family Detached Residence District, Single-family homes. West: R-2, Single-Family Detached Residence District, Single-family homes. DISCUSSION: The Frank Paul Development Corporation, on behalf of Dana Park, LLC, the owner of the 3-lot Dana Park Subdivision located south of the southeast corner of Meyers Road and Oak Brook Road (31St Street) has submitted an application seeking a variation to Section 13-6C-3.F.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. In particular, the applicant is seeking a variation in order to redevelop the existing Dana Park Subdivision from three (3) one-acre lots to five (5) R-3 sized lots (25,000 square foot minimum) with 30-foot front yard setbacks instead of the ordinance standard of 40- foot front yard setbacks. They are also seeking relief to the yard abutting the street for proposed Lot 1 from 40 feet to 30 feet. The map amendment from R-2 to R-3 is currently under review as separate request. A new final plat of subdivision depicting the R-3 zoning with 30-foot front yards (see page N of the case) will be considered by the Plan Commission at its December meeting. STAFF REPORT-VARIATION FRANK PAUL DEVELOPMENT-DANA PARK SUB FRONT YARDS AND SIDE YARD SETBACK (LOT 1) CASE No.2007-033-ZO-VAR Please see the materials provided by the petitioner in the case file for a more detailed description of this request. RESPONSIBILITIES OF HEARING BODIES: The Zoning Board of Appeals has the responsibility to make a recommendation on a request for a variation. Please include in your consideration, your findings with respect to the standards specified in the Zoning Ordinance for each of these variations. The materials submitted by the applicant specifically address each of these standards. CONCLUSION: If the Zoning Board of Appeals is of the opinion that the applicant has satisfied the requirements for the requested variations, a recommendation would be in order to approve each of these requests subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted. 2. Approval of the requested map amendment to R-3. 3. Approval of a new subdivision plat that conforms to the R-3 standards and depicts the 30-foot front yard setbacks and 30-foot side yard setback abutting a street for proposed Lot 1. 4. Add the condition "Not withstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all Village Ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically varied or waived." Respectfully Submitted, t,' Robert L. Kallien Jr., P Director of Community Development 2 T� loll FRAN K, PAUL IF I , 0 M - Fl November 26, 2007 Dear Gail: Thank you for all of your coordination efforts related to the bane Park Estates Rezoning Application. Given the Plan Commission's recommendation of the T w h V'ariance's Alternative within my Rezoning Amendment Applibarbon, please accept this correspondence as formal advice that as the Managing Member of the Dana Park, 'PLC, I am officially withdrawing my application of they "R4 Rezoning • Alternative". I am pleased with the Plan Commission's recommendation and am confident that approval of the Plan Commission's recommendation by the Zoning Board of Appeal and the Village Board will result in a positive outcome for all interested parties. Sincere egards, Frank P Drukas President, Frank Paul Development Corp Manan nn MAmhAr nana Park i 1 rx of Oql Q, B `' 90 o � f e e o y c o 2 9CFOOUNTI November 26, 2007 Village of Village President Craig, Board of Trustees and Zoning Board of Appeals Oak Brook Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook,IL 60523-2255 Oak Brook, IL 60523 Website www.oak-brook.org SUBJECT: Frank Paul Development Corp—Dana Park Subdivision Administration Map Amendment—R-2 District to R-3 or R-4 630.990.3000 FAX 630.990.0876 Dear President Craig, Board of Trustees and Zoning Board of Appeals: Community Backeround Development 630.990.3045 At its meeting on November 17, 2007 the Plan Commission reviewed a petition from the FAX 630.990.3985 Frank Paul Development Corporation, on behalf of Dana Park, LLC, the owner of the 3-lot Dana Park Subdivision located at the southeast corner of Meyers Road and Oak Brook Road Engineering (31St Street) seeking approval of a map amendment to either R-3 or R-4. Department 630.990.3010 FAX 630.990.3985 With either the R-3 or R-4 alternative, the applicant would seek future platting of the property into five or six single-family lots. If granted the change to R-3, because of the Fire Department existing grading and stormwater management facilities that have been developed, the 630.990.3040 applicant would be seeking a variation to pen-nit 30-foot front and setbacks instead of the FAX 630.990.2392 pp g p y required 40-foot setback. The proposed variations would be handled as part of a separate Police Department request that will be considered by both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Village Board of 630.990.2358 Trustees. Under the R-4 alternative,no variations would be required. FAX 630.990.7484 Public Comment Public Works All interested parties were notified of the public meeting. The President of the Heritage Oaks Department p p g• g 630.990.3044 Subdivision commented that he would hope the developer would build fewer than 6 homes FAX 630.472.0223 on the site no matter what the zoning was. The applicant noted that he had received support and comments from several neighbors,which was noted in writing in the case file. Oak Brook Public Library Recommendation The Plan Commission reviewed the request and that the applicant had addressed and satisfied 600 Oak Brook Road the requirements for a map amendment. By a vote of 4 to 0, the Plan Commission Oak Brook,9 60523-2200 recommended approval of the request to rezone the subject property, known as Dana Park 630.990.2222 pp q � FAX 630.990.4509 Subdivision located at 3111-3115 Cara Lane, from R-2 to R-3, subject to the submission of a revised final plat. As part of the motion, the Plan Commission made the following comments: Oak Brook Sports Core 1. They were aware that the applicant is seeking approval of variations to the setbacks. Bath&Tennis Club 2. Relative to the request for R-4 the Plan Commission noted that R-4 zoning is 700 Oak Brook Road inappropriate and less desirable for that area. Oak Brook,IL 60523-4600 630.990.3020 Very truly yours FAX 630.990.1002 NOTE: Chairwoman Payovich has reviewed and verbally approved the content of this letter pending her signature. The signed original will be placed in the Golf Club official file upon receipt. 2606 York Road Oak Brook,IL 60523-4602 Barbara"Lexi"Pa ovich 630.990.3032 y FAX 630.990.0245 Chairwoman Plan Commission l�. 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. FRANK PAUL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — DANA PARK PRANK PAUL DEVEL.-DANA SUBDIVISION—MAP AMENDMENT TO REZONE THE PROPERTY PARK SUB-MAP AMENDMENT Director of Community Development Kallien provided an overview and background of the request. The Dana Park Subdivision was approved by the Village for the development of three single-family lots in the R-2 District. Because of some issues, the applicant is requesting a map amendment that would possibly allow some additional lots. The subdivision request would come at a later date. John Brechin, Attorney for Frank Drukas, the owner/developer of the property summarized the request. A power point demonstration was provided to review the case file material. At the time of the Dana Park Subdivision approval, it was believed that the development would be commercially viable because there were three homes previously on the site. An extensive amount of regrading was required in order to accommodate flood plain and compensatory storage on the site. Over a significant marketing period of 18 months and the real estate market in that time period had not improved some of the negatives on this site as zoned R-2 were reflected when the lots were actually available for sale. The cost of the regrading to accommodate the site jumped significantly, such that the contemplated price for a home was in the $2.5 — 2.7 million range. Based on the increased costs they were looking at $3.2 — 3.4 million. Based upon the size and location of the properties they have not supported that kind of market. Even though a number of potential buyers have looked at the lots, there have not been any buyers. Some of the objections raised were that the lots are only 50 percent usable. Tennis courts cannot be built because of the flood plain on the site. A number of potential purchasers preferred the Hinsdale school district to the Downers Grove school district. They looked into changing the property into the Hinsdale school district,but Illinois law is so complex and cumbersome that it really is not a viable alternative. Another objection is that Meyers and 31St are busy streets and that the property is located next to a pumping station and across the street from a dog kennel. It would be fair to say that anyone seeking to spend $2.5 to $3 million on property in Oak Brook, that some of those concerns are valid. There are other sites in Oak Brook that would better accommodate their taste. Mr. Drukas added that some of the objections raised are not going to go away, such as the school district, pumping station and busy streets. However, because the costs drove them to a $3 million, the homebuyers' expectations are where the objections became issues. If they were in a lower cost market some of the objections would be more subtle. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 11 November 19, 2007 f/• Mr. Brechin reviewed alternatives to rezone the property. Straight R-3 would not be commercially viable because the additional costs expended in order to reconfigure the land would make the project exceed the actual value that the lots could be marketed. They would not be saleable and it would not create any remedy to the situation. The percent of usability on the lots would not be improved and would actually be diminished. In reviewing comparable sales in the marketplace, there really are none,which calls into question to use straight R-3 as a realistic alternative. They reviewed other alternatives. An R-4 development would be fully compliant and they believe that it would be saleable with minor reworking of the site. The last alternative was an R-3 development with variations to the yards. The variation relief would move the front of the structures closer to the private right-of-way to allow more usable area. The variations would not cause any negative impact and would not be seen by any adjacent properties in Midwest Club because the area is already screened and there is a roadway. They also believe that it would give a better configuration to the home sites and makes the properties more usable and user friendly to the ultimate new property owner. The roadway is planned as a separate lot. They could reintegrate the roadway into the parcels and not need the front yard variations, however, they felt that this was a straightforward way of looking at it and the road will be there and the setback would be computed from the end of the road rather than the road being part of the lots. They believe that only R-4 or R-3 with variations would make the property commercially viable. If the village would like this site improved with quality homes they will need some sort of relief because in the foreseeable future the market will not allow for R-2 utilization of the property. They reviewed a commercial viability chart that was contained in the case file on the last page of the Letter of Explanation (Index number B). The purpose is not to gain a larger profit; they are simply trying to make the cost of the land consistent with what the market will bare without detracting from the appearance or quality of the homes developed. Mr. Drukas noted that the usability of the lot is still going to be to some degree a question mark with regard to the marketplace, so they will still have to deal with some of the issues,however, they believe they will be somewhat diminished. Mr. Brechin addressed the standards for a map amendment as follows: 1. Character of the neighborhood RESPONSE: The character of the neighborhood is single family with values ranging from $1 to 3 million. There is R-3 zoning to the south and R-2 to the east, west and north separated by 315 Street and Meyers Road, which both carry a significant amount of traffic. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 11 November 19, 2007 Ax 2. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions. This has been the topic of the hearing about how an R-2 development is more than likely unfeasible for the present and foreseeable future along with the unique characteristics of the property,which contains a significant amount of flood plain. 3. The extent to which the removal of the Existing Limitations Would Depreciate the Value of Other Property in the Area. With the proposed housing in the $2 million range, there would be no depreciatory effect caused by the development to any other property in the Midwest Club or the surrounding neighborhoods. The development of the property with quality single- family. With one R-2 exception, all of the adjacent R-3 zoned properties are valued at or below their proposed alternatives. The subject property is physically separated from Midwest Club and there is no real visibility because of the roadway and screening that has been installed. 4. The suitability of the Property for Zoned Purposes They have attempted to show that R-2 does not fit on this property or in this market and do not see it happening at any time in the foreseeable future. Other than the variations talked about they are prepared to develop this property totally consistent with R-3 standards. All of the proposed alternatives increase the marketability of the property, which does not relate to profitability. Although the density is somewhat increased it is somewhat comparable to that in Midwest Club and other R-3 properties in the area. 5. Existing Uses and Zoning of Nearby Properties. With the exception of the kennel across the street, all of the property is single family, and what they are proposing is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The Length of Time Under the Existing Zoning that the property has remained unimproved considered in the context of land development. The first parcel was purchased in January 2005 and the remaining two parcels were purchased in June 2005. The lots and home design have been marketed since October of 2005. The property has been ready for construction when the land improvements were completed in March 2006. It has been unimproved for 2 years, which speaks to the impediments of the site and the market conditions here and throughout the country. 7. The Relative Gain to the Public as Compared to the Hardship Imposed on the Individual Property Owner. They have noted and detailed that the hardship to the owner is significant because the property as R-2 is virtually unsaleable and could only be sold at a significant VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 11 November 19, 2007 f/r�• • • loss. That possibility presupposes that there would be a ready, willing and able buyer that would want to build, recognizing the constraints the site places on the development of a single-family home and the traditional amenities that many Oak Brook residents in the R-2 District would have on their property. 8. The Extent to Which the Proposal Promotes the Health, Safety, Morals or General Welfare of the Public. Adoption of any of the options will expedite the development of the property. They believe development will increase assessed valuation and the ability to look at high quality single family homes will be a nicer view than what is there today. 9. The Relationship of the Proposed Use to the Comprehensive Plan. Single family residential is totally compatible to the Comprehensive Plan for this site in this neighborhood. 10. Community Need for the Use Proposed by the Property Owners. On the site, there existed three single family homes which were in the flood plain and the flood plain was not controlled in any way. That situation has been corrected and there is flood plain storage on the site so it is no longer an issue. The property today is in a much better condition than it was 2 years ago. They are seeking consideration to an alteration of the zoning map to be able to implement the rest of the plan, develop houses and allow it to be enjoyed in a way that is not injurious to the neighbors or the Village in any way, shape or form. They recognize that an additional step is necessary to submit a revised final plat for the property, but thought that it would be presumptuous to do so until the Village would find any of the alternatives acceptable. No one spoke in opposition of the request. Charles Shemely, President, Heritage Oaks Homeowners Association, said that Heritage Oaks, which is one-acre lots (R-2), was developed with the lots going to the centerline of the road and there have not been any problems. It would seem reasonable to eliminate the lot for the road. From an aesthetics standpoint, he has felt that some of the newer subdivisions, such as the one on Midwest Road south of 31s` has had a very large home standing on a small lot for about 2 years and cannot imagine what it would look like with three more houses on it. On the subject property, six houses, surrounded by R-2 and R-3 zoning would look busy and crowded. He would hope that the developer would build fewer than 6 homes, no matter what the zoning is. He understands the developer's problem and in their subdivision, they have had homes sitting for sale for a couple of years, in VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 11 November 19, 2007 ��G some cases, because there is no market. A rabid warrant of large homes is not Oak Brook. Trustee Wolin said that he was on the Plan Commission when the approved subdivision first moved forward. The Falco Subdivision, which is directly east, preceded it and he was very vocal against both developments. He felt that in both developments that a detention pond in the back yard, there was little that could be done in it and he had trouble envisioning spending a lot of money on that kind of home. It is true that the market conditions are very bad everywhere, but it is not a reason to change zoning, which is a risk that the developer took. The pumping station and the kennel were there before. He said that he is not sure that it is the Village's responsibility to bail out a developer if a risk is taken, which turns out to be a bad decision. However, from the very beginning it was very clear, that with Mr. Drukas, the Village was dealing with a very high quality person. He made it very clear at the beginning, and he lived up to his word that he was going to follow every rule and regulation. He did not seek any variances or exceptions. He pointed out the limitations of the property and lived up to those goals. If more homes are allowed and are built on this site, in his opinion, the area would look better at that point in time, than it did before. Mr. Drukas would replace a couple of older homes, which were no longer in keeping with the image of Oak Brook. In addition, the property had limitations with the existing flood plain. If the people that previously owned those homes had torn them down, they would not have been able to rebuild them on the sites the way that they were structured. The flood plain is a sensitive issue and is going to become more of a sensitive issue in the future in Oak Brook because the County wants to remap the flood plain and that would particularly impact those people living along Salt Creek by putting more homes in the floodplain. The subject area feeds into Salt Creek so anything that can be done to help Salt Creek is a very positive step. He would not go along with the R-4 zoning alternative because it would stick out and would set a precedent. The subject site is adjacent to R-3, and is in an area that would not be visible. A case could be made for the R-3 with the variances requested and may be a possibility. The marketing and developer risks are not relevant to rezoning. What may be relevant is that the improved property would be an improvement to what was previously there and based on his understanding of the facts; it does improve the flood plain, which could be significant in terms of what is happening in the area. As a Trustee, he could only speak for himself and others may see it another way. The R-3 with variances appears to be a reasonable approach in view of the floodplain considerations and as a general improvement would make Oak Brook look better. Member Lalmalani questioned what would happen if the variances were not approved. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11 November 19, 2007 Mr. Brechin responded that if they were not approved, they could eliminate the roadway and make it part of the lots, which would solve the problem. They are not seeking that so that each lot is defined as a separate lot. The roadway would clearly be owned by the homeowners association, which would maintain it. If it is part and parcel of each of the lots, there is no way to know what could happen 20-30 years from now. If an individual property owner would want to install something that may encroach into the roadway, it would then be an issue with the homeowners association. As proposed, it is a clean solution for the property owners and the Village. Mr. Brechin noted that aside from the Village's notification to the neighbors, Mr. Drukas contacted each of them by letter and received several responses (a copy of some of the neighbor responses is on page J of the case file). No objections were made by any of the neighbors. There was a question regarding any impact to the value of the neighbor's property and when it was stated that they would be in the 2+ million ranges the concern went away. Mr. Brechin said that the request is not due to the market, it is because of the unique characteristics of the property with the extensive floodplain, which correct or perceived is made worse by the market conditions. A perceived defect when the market is soft becomes a much bigger defect. The fact remains that there is extensive floodplain and the resulting issue with the amount of land that can be utilized by a property owner. An Oak Brook property owner expects more from their property than in many other communities. To market the property they have to approach that as close as they can to be consistent with what else is in the neighborhood. They believe that the R-3 with variations does that in a reasonable way. Mr. Drukas responded that typically the front setbacks are set so that there is not a jagged line along the front yard of the houses. Because this subdivision is a separate entity onto itself, all of the setbacks would be consistent for the five homes. The side setback on Lot 1 is actually 48 feet from the curb and 30 feet from the property line, so it would need a 10-foot variance, but it is not an onerous variance because there is a bicycle path, parkway and curb. The homes could all be set back 10 feet but the homeowner is deprived of 10 usable feet in the rear yard and there does not seem to be any practical reason for doing that if the variance is approved. Member Lalmalani asked about building 4 homes. Mr. Drukas responded that the 3 existing lots are 1.2 million; if it is divided by 6 they are $600,000 lots, if there are 5 they are approximately$725,000 lots; if divided by 4 they are $850,000 lots. The fewer lots, the marketability places them back to where they are now. If they are back to that scenario then they should not be doing VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11 November 19, 2007 ��G this and they don't want to make a mistake again in terms of marketability should be. The best business deal would be R-4 with 6 lots, but given all of the other considerations, the next best arrangement is the R-3 with variations. Member Lalmalani said that he remembers the issues that were brought up during the initial subdivision process and they are still valid now, such as Meyers Road and 315 Street; they have not changed or the school district. It comes back to soft housing market conditions. Mr. Drukas responded that there was no question that the market conditions are poor, but early on in the development cycle for this project, he had real $3 million buyers who passed on what he had to offer on the lots, which was the problem. The $3 million buyer did not want a 50%usable lot. That buyer wanted a full acre and to be in the Hinsdale school district. For example, one buyer was a doctor who wanted to put a tennis court in the yard, but that could not be done on the lot, so it became a problem they could not resolve. Another buyer wanted to buy all 3 lots as a family compound,with his daughter and son living in the other two houses. When he found out that, it was not the Hinsdale school district he had a problem with it. It was not the market conditions, the buyers were real,but it was what he was able to offer a$3 million buyer. He is not comfortable with the low $2 million, but believes that can be managed. If they are over $2.5 million, he should withdraw the application request and limiting it to four lots would do that. Member Lalmalani said that he was concerned that Callaghan would come back. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the Callaghan development at Brittwood Creek is protected because of a covenant that was signed off by all of the neighboring property owners. It would be very difficult for Mr. Callaghan or any other landowner in that subdivision to come back. They are two different circumstances with far different controls in place. For all the changes in zoning there are a series of standards that must be looked at and analyzed; that should be the real reason why it is granted or not, and the focus should be placed on that. Many things have been debated that are related to the market and preference of the home buyer, and cost, which are important, but in terms of meeting the test for a zoning change the standards need to be met. Member Lalmalani said that he did not have an issue with the R-3 proposal, but the variations are not under the purview of the Plan Commission. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Village's review of the zoning text relating to setbacks does not impact this property, the setbacks under review relate to the rear yard setbacks along several roads including Oak Brook Road, York Road and 22°a Street. The variations requested by the applicant will VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11 November 19, 2007 have to be reconciled with the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Village Board. If they are successful with the map amendment and variation approvals, a Final Plat will be required and will be reviewed by the Plan Commission. Member Iyer questioned the objection to the 4 homes versus 5. Mr. Drukas responded that mathematics was taking the overall cost of the lots $3.5 million, amortized over only 4 lots is close to $900,000 each. Adding the cost of the home itself increases the overall cost of the home up to $2.7 — 2.9 million range, which becomes scary ground again and they would be right where they are right now. The focus of the request is to improve the marketability; and if the marketability is not improved, then they should not make any changes to the zoning. Member Sharma said that she agreed that 6 homes would not look right. A lot of the land is unusable and she questioned what would need to be done to the land. Mr. Drukas responded that not much would be done to Lot 1. There is some movement of land on Lot 2 over to Lot 3 in order to make the other two homes. The homes would have approximately 4500 feet of primary living space and up to 1500 feet of English basement. The green space is in proportion to the home and usable by the homebuyer. Because of the compensation and the flood plain area, the homes will not look like big trucks on postage stamps. They will be 25,000 square foot lots and will look fine in the setting; it is just that it would not all be usable, but would be quite usable in that price range. Director of Community Development Kallien said that another benefit of going from R-2 to R-3 is that the maximum structure height for R-2 is 45 feet; under R-3, it would be limited to 40 feet. There may be additional homes placed on the site, but the overall scale will be lessened, which will have some positive visual impact on the neighbors. Mr. Brechin said that the zoning amendment standards must be evaluated and determined if they are met. The most important standard is the suitability for the zoned purposes. They have set forth a lot of objective and rational reasons why R-2 does not work for this particular site. The location and some of the unique features of the lot, which includes significant flood plain that has to be accommodated. Where there is water there cannot be a home or structures, which is based upon a character of this property, not because there would be more money to be made. From a financial or marketability standpoint R-2 does not work. They are seeking modest relief so there is an ability to market the property and have it built for what it is zoned, which is single family residential in a reasonable way that is consistent with everything that surrounds this property. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11 November 19, 2007 J 0 Motion by Member Lalmalani, seconded by Member Iyer that the applicant has addressed and satisfied the requirements for a map amendment to recommend approval of the request to rezone the subject property from R-2 to R-3, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the variations as requested. 2. Submission of a revised final plat. 3. The Plan Commission noted that the request for R-4 zoning is inappropriate and less desirable. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 —Members Iyer, Lalmalani, Sharma and Chairwoman Payovich Absent: 1 —Member Tropinski Nays: 0 —None. Motion Carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11 November 19, 2007 s VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals STAFF REPORT DATE: November 14, 2007 CASE NO: 2007-032-ZO-MA DESCRIPTION: (Alternative 1) Map Amendment from R-2 Single-Family Detached Residence District to R-3 Single-Family Detached Residence District or, (Alternative 2) Map Amendment from R-2 Single-Family Detached Residence District to R-4 Single-Family Detached Residence District. PETITIONER: Frank Paul Development Corp. for Dana Park, LLC LOCATION: South of Oak Brook Road (31 st Street) East side of Meyers Road ADDRESS: 3111-3115 Cara Lane—Dana Park Subdivision EXISTING ZONING: R-2 ZONING/USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY: North: R-2, Single-Family Detached Residence District, Single-family homes. South: R-3, Single-Family Detached Residence District, Single-family homes in the Midwest Club Subdivision. East: R-2 Single-Family Detached Residence District, Single-family homes. West: R-2 Single-Family Detached Residence District, Single-family homes. DISCUSSION: The Frank Paul Development Corporation, on behalf of Dana Park, LLC, the owner of the Mot Dana Park Subdivision located at the southeast corner of Meyers Road and 31" Street has submitted an application seeking a map amendment to either R-3 or to R-4. Under both the proposed R-3 and R-4 map amendment, the existing private roadway known as Cara Lane would be maintained in its current location. Under the R-3 alternative, the applicant would seek future platting of the property into five single-family lots. Because of the existing grading and stormwater management facilities that have been developed, the applicant is also seeking a variation to permit 30-foot front yard setbacks instead of the 40-foot setback required in the R-3 District and a 30-foot side yard setback for proposed Lot 1. The proposed variations are being handled as part of a separate request that will be considered by both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Village Board of Trustees. /a. STAFF REPORT—MAP AMEN NT DANA PARK LLC CASE No.2007-032-ZO-MA Under the proposed R-4 alternative, the applicant would seek future platting of the property into six single-family lots. No variations would be required. Village Engineer Durfey reviewed this submittal and his comments are summarized in his November 5, 2007 memorandum (see page 9 in the case file). Please see the materials provided by the petitioner in the case file for a more detailed description of this request. Staff Comments: 1. The proposal for a map amendment to R-3 is consistent with the adjacent properties in the Midwest Club Subdivision. 2. The nearest R-4 zoning to Dana Park is located in the Saddlebrook Subdivision. RESPONSIBILITIES OF HEARING BODIES: Both the Plan Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals have the responsibility to make a recommendation on the request for a map amendment to either R-3 or R-4. Please include in your consideration, your findings with respect to the standards specified in the Zoning Ordinance for amendments. The materials submitted by the applicant specifically address each of these standards. CONCLUSION: If the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals are of the opinion that the applicant has satisfied the requirements for a map amendment to either R-3 or R-4, a recommendation would be in order to approve this request subject to the following conditions: 1. Submittal of a revised final plat of subdivision that conforms to the recommended zoning amendment. 2. If the R-3 alternative is recommended, approval of the proposed variation to permit a 30-foot front yard setback and 30-foot side yard setback for proposed Lot 1. Respectfully Submitted, i Robert L. l lie , AICP Director of ommunity Development 2 l�� -r PvE p F 0 e e 'a O y ecou -fl G � vv VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Interoffice Memorandum DATE: November 5, 2007 TO: Robert L. Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development FROM: Dale L. Durfey, Jr., P.E., Village Engine D SUBJECT: Dana Park Subdivision—Rezoning Requests I have reviewed the above stated application and supporting documents received on October 16, 2007 and offer the following comments: 1. As I understand it, the applicant is seeking approval of a map amendment to rezone the Dana Park Subdivision to either R-3 with variations or, in the alternative, to R-4 without variations. 2. The current Dana Park Subdivision is within its 3-year construction time sequence (11/15/05 — 11/15/08). Most of the construction work and documentation has taken place; the only significant item remaining is some retaining walls and the punch list items. 3. It appears that the site could be re-engineered to meet code requirements for any of the requested alternatives; however, a definitive determination can not be made until revised engineering is submitted and reviewed. The site does contain floodplain and wetland buffers which the existing site did take into consideration. If a re-subdivision was submitted, its calculations would be based upon a 1:1 relationship since the current subdivision has not been formally finished and approved (the existing subdivision complied with the ordinance requirement of a 1:1.5 ratio). dana park rezoning rk.doc 1 v��R 0 '1.6 • r.Q` 'gyp x 9 VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Interoffice Memorandum DATE: October 16, 2007 TO: Dale Durfey,Village Engineer FROM: Robert L. Kallien, Jr.,Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Dana Park Subdivision—3111 -3115 Cara Lane —Map Amendment to Rezone the Property from R-2 to R-3 with Variations or in the Alternative to Rezone the Property from R-2 to R-4 without Variation The applicant is seeking approval of a Map Amendment to rezone the Dana Park Subdivision as requested above. Attached for your review is a copy of the Petition application and all relevant supporting documents. The request for the map amendments is set for review and hearing before the Plan Commission on November 19, 2007. Please provide your written comments by November 5, 2007. In your comments, please address the following: • Is there flood plain on the subject property that would impact the request? • If so, would the scope of this application require any relief to the Village Stormwater Regulations? • If approved as requested, are there any Engineering Department issues that would require any conditions? 1 Memo-DD—Dana Park-Cara Lane-Map Amend-vandoc 4 1 0 F 4' X90 � o � A O y G O 9C�"OUN14 '\�� November 9, 2007 Village of Oak Brook Dear Resident: 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook,IL 60523-2255 Website The Oak Brook Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals and the Village Board www.oak-brook.org will be considering a map amendment at the meetings scheduled on the back of this Administration notice. The Zoning Board of Appeals and the Village Board will also be considering 630.368.5000 variations at its meetings. FAX 630.368.5045 Community The application has been filed by: Frank Paul Development Corp. Development 1220 Heatherton Drive 630.368.5101 Naperville, IL 60563 FAX 630.368.5128 The property in question is located at: Dana Park Subdivision Engineering 3113-3115 Cara Lane Department 630.368.5130 FAX 630.368.5128 Relationship of applicant to property: Owner Fire Department 630.368.5200 FAX 630.368.5250 The request, which has been made, is as follows: The petitioner is seeking the approval of a map amendment to rezone the approximate 3.5-acre property from R- Police Department 2 to R-3 with several variations in order to increase the number of residential lots 630.368.8700 from three to five. An alternative request is also being made for a map amendment FAX 630.368.8739 to R-4 without any variations. If either request is approved, a revised final plat of Public Works subdivision will be submitted for review and approval. Department 630.368.5270 Also included in this notice is a map* of the area to assist you in determining your FAX 630.368.5295 relationship to the property in question. Attached is a reduced copy of the proposal Oak Brook for your convenience. Public Library The plan can also be viewed on the village website under: Our Village Services, 600 Oak Brook Road Departments, Community Development Department, Planning and Zoning page, Oak Brook,IL 60523-2200 Upcoming Hearings at: wwwAak-brooka . If you need help accessing the site, 630.368.7700 lll department at the number below for assistance. FAX 630.3630.36 8..7777 04 p ease ca our p Oak Brook Sports Core If you desire more detailed information, please contact the Community Development Department at 630-368-5103 to review the file on this application. Bath&Tennis Club 700 Oak Brook Road Sincerely, Oak Brook,IL 60523-4600 630.368.6420 —� FAX 630.368.6439 Golf Club Robe L. K r.,AICP 2606 York Road Director of Community Development Oak Brook,IL 60523-4602 630.368.6400 FAX 630.368.6419 RLK/gp In accord with the provisions of the American with Disabilities benefitafrom attendance at the onpublic a reasonable accommodation in order to participate in or at 630-368-5022 as soon as possible before meeting should contact the Village's ADA Coordinator, the meeting date. All meetings are held in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center located on Oak Brook Road(31 st Street) and Spring Road,Oak Brook,Illinois. . . . . Plan Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7:30 p.m., Monday,November 19, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7:30 p.m.,Tuesday,December 4,2007** Board of Trustees Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . 7:30 p.m.,Tuesday. January 8,2008*** **Tentative—Follows the completion of the Plan Commission hearing ***Tentative—Follows the co letion of the Zonin Board of A eals public hearing I 2 3' ? to O 1 Jim 1 q a t � 4 W a — t10N 1.00 p►UB�EC'f OF I OAK BROOK ROAD 206 207 38 39 40I 23 14 10 I r It\ 2 I I 2 i 22 d 25 r /`L \ 3J1�/ Zzl 21 :;•,� 220y 0: �•c' n 1 \ \ - 36 PV4l >i wro.VK OYR taros ss 54 5T 38 Gl v2 G/� I t 27 20 INl 13 ` p+\I 2 3 J 19C r 1 1 sa 43 Z' 3s // 34jr1 fall 14 1 189 7 47 \ .p� 4q t 66 33 +I ; 1s 6 ZZI 53 Y4 46 �� �� I 0 1 29 i 4 3 s2 09 X69 t? I I —to 13 z 48 47 Nt,.� 85 110 iJ�Pi i 1 . ni `Y Cj,. 93 >'iv\ Co\`SG 113 01 16 151 0 tt 1° la 17 5 ss a s 87.' /X71 qv w1 AN, SfS III \. 119 a` ; 2 y5 y 21 22 11.f+ % a 16 f 01 1 221 N AY103 1281 I- zo 1� 80,U. 73 1a1 1FI 97 tic, loa �-1C1 ns 121 148f \ 23 3 n yam! 79 p! 1271�Y122 Q\162 r 27 •t dray I G 98 109)0 105 ,Ul 147\�u 21. 'Z 3r. a yz 2.1 tl 781 9'�). ' rY to7 106 1L /123 r 35TH STREET 26 z5 ' 12 1 77 76• 91 lol It ZS 124 l44 \ � 13 T . a2s t.ds tie 2& T>!"-78 2'77 27 108 pi 105 101 IOD f2 11 10 9 a 7 c 5 4 2 1 , 1 W 11 I 1 29$ ''-i6`� 0 291 29 294 1 1 yn 98 79 WO 0:I^•_' 13 R 18 tD �: 3 2 X67 � 45s1 s Vt, s , 1 316 y 3u 29?96, / 26s 9796 99 91 93 42 :5 P�oj 31 3. Its • 313 323 327 O Z 9!i ° 22 33, �31a 317 o32t 3�?y 2�8 of ti» to!uo lu in to 1W * X10 Z3 � >c 1 31Z 37o y 3.3e 1a ti0 1N Ila 86 84 45 $ 36 i ZA y4 1� 1 - 147 1l6 76 75 40 31. 292 ?j IN n. >a n rfn 164' 161 y Ail 1K 'Note: The map provided is onl y roximation of the area in question and is i ded to be used only as a visual aid to ionshi determine your relat p to the rt n o....0-4'r Public Notice • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing be- fore the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Oak Brook,DuPage and Cook Counties,Illinois,will be held on December 4, 2007, at 7:30 P.m. in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Confer,Village of CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION Oak Brook,1200 Oak Brook Road,Oak Brook,Illinois 60523 for the purpose of considering the application of Frank Paul Development Corporation, 1220 Heatherton Drive, Paddock Publications, Inc. Naperville,I L 60563 for a map amendment and variation as provided for under Title 13 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Oak Brook,I Ilinois,Ordinance G-60 as amended. This matter will also be heard by the Plan Commission on Daily Herald November 19,2007 at the some time and location as the public hearing. The rezone the Petitioner ap is seeking approval of a map amendment 3 rezone the approximate the setback property from R-2 to R- 3with several variations to the setback requirements in or Corporation organized and existing under and by virtue Of the laws Of der to Increase the number of residential lots.An alterna- tive request is also being made for a map amendment to R- the State of Illinois, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that it is the publisher 4 without a11Y Variations.If either request is approved,a re- vised final plat of subdivision will be submitted for review of the DAILY HERALD. That said DAILY HERALD is a secular and approval. The property may be generally described as the Dana Park south is Oa which in ludes(311 3115 Cora on one,lo- newspaper and has been circulated daily in the Village(s) of side of Meyers Road,Oak Brook,Illinois,60523(Southeast Addison, Bensenville, Bloomingdale, Carol Stream, Glendale Heights, corner of 22nd Street and Tower Drive),with the legal de- scription as follows: 3111 Cara Lane,Oak Brook,IL 60523-P.I.N.06.33-103-039 Glen Ellyn,Itasca, Keeneyville,Lisle, Lombard, Medinah, Napervi e, LOT 1 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION,BEING A SUB- DIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE Oak Brook, Oakbrook Terrace, Roselle, Villa Park, Warrenville, NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33,TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH,RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL West Chicago, Wheaton, Winfield, Wood Dale MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RE- CORDED FEBRUARY 8,2006,AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2006-024939,IN DUPAGE COUNTY,ILLINOIS. 3113 Cara Lane,Oak Brook,IL 60523-P.I.N.0633-103.040 LOT 2 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION,BEING A SUB- DIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33,TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH,RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDINGTOTHE PLAT THEREOF RE- CORDED FEBRUARY 8,2006,AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2006-024939,IN DUPAGE COUNTY,ILLINOIS. 3115 Cara Lane,Oak Brook,IL 60523-P.I.N.06-33.103041 LOT 3 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION,BEING A SUB- DIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33,TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH,RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ORDED FEBRUARY 8, 006,AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2006-024939,IN DUPAGE COUNTY,ILLINOIS. Private Road named Cara Lane,Oak Brook, IL 60523- P.I.N.06-33-103-042 LOT 4 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION,BEING A SUB- DIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33,TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH,RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL CORDEDFB ACCORDING 006 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2006-024939,IN DUPAGE COUNTY,ILLINOIS. All persons desiring to be heard will be afforded an op- portunity to do so and may submit their statements orally or in writing or both.The hearing may be recessed to an- other date if notice of time and place thereof is publicly an- nounced at the hearing or is given by newspaper Publica- tion not less than five (5) days Prior to the date of the County(ies) Of DUPage recessed hearing. In accord with the provisions of the American with Dis- and State of Illinois, continuously for more than one year prior tote abilities Act,any individual who is in need of a reasonable accommodation in order to participate in or benefit from date of the first publication of the notice hereinafter referred to and is of attendance at this public meeting should contact the Vil- lage's ADA Coordinator,at 630-368-5022 as soon as possible before the meeting date. general circulation throughout said Village(s), County(ies) and State. The petitioner's application is on file with the Village Clerk and with the Director of Community Development. Persons wishing examine the Petition documents may arrange to do n wi th the Director of Community ts may I further certify that the DAILY HERALD is a newspaper as defined in ment, Robert Kallien, Village of Oak Brook, 1200 Oak „ Brook Road,Oak Brook,I L 60523,telephone 630-368-5103. an Act to revise the law in relation to notices" as amended in 1 Charlotte Pruss,Village Clerk Published at the direction of the Corporate Authorities and Illinois Compiled Statutes, Chapter 7150, Act 5, Section 1 and 5. That a the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Oak Brook, DuPage and Cook Counties,Illinois. notice of which the annexed printed slip is a true copy, was published Published in the Daily Herald Nov.15,2007(4006755)5 November 15, 2007 in said DAILY HERALD. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, the said PADDOCK PUBLICATIONS, Inc., has caused this certificate to be signed by, this authorized agent, at Arlington Heights, Illinois. PADDOCK PUBLICATIONS, INC. DAILY HERALD NEWSPAPERS t� BY Authorized Agent Control# T4006755 I �L/ vG� OF OgKe90 1 0 e � � G ca O qCF COU till, ��� AGENDA ITEM Regular Board of Trustees Meeting of October 23, 2007 SUBJECT: Referral - Dana Park-Map Amendments and Variations FROM: Robert L. Kallien, Jr., AICP, Community Development Director BUDGET SOURCE/BUDGET IMPACT: N/A RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to refer the requests for map amendments and variations to the Zoning Ordinance to the Plan Commission for review and recommendation at its November 19, 2007 meeting and to the Zoning Board of Appeals for public hearing at its December 4, 2007 meeting. Background/History: Mr. Frank Drukas, the owner of the Dana Park Subdivision (three residential lots plus detention areas) located at the southeast corner of Oak Brook Road (31St Street) and Meyers Road, has submitted an application seeking approval of a map amendment and possible variations in order to modify the subdivision lay-out. In particular, the applicant is initially seeking approval of a map amendment from R-2 to R-3 with several variations in order increase the number of residential lots from three to five. An alternative request is also being made for a map amendment to R-4 without any variations. If either request is approved, a revised final plat of subdivision will be prepared and submitted for approval. Recommendation: Please refer the requests for map amendments and variations to the Zoning Ordinance to the Plan Commission for review and recommendation at its November 19, 2007 meeting and to the Zoning Board of Appeals for public hearing at its December 4, 2007 meeting. BOT-Referral-Drukas-Dana Park-MANAR ALT-October 2007.doc � 13-6B-3: LOT AREA REQUI ENTS: Page 1 of 1 13-613-3: LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS: �► A. Lot Area: No less than one acre, except as otherwise required in this title for a specific use. B. Lot Width: Not less than one hundred fifty feet (150') within the buildable area. C. Floor Area Ratio: Not to exceed 0.4 for nonresidential use. D. Structure Height: 1. Residential Uses: Not more than forty five feet (45') for lots one acre or larger and forty feet (40') for lots less than one acre, except for continuous flat roofs, which shall be not more than thirty five feet (35) to the top of any parapet wall. However, where residential building heights exceed thirty feet (30'), the highest space that can be occupied must have an emergency escape and rescue opening at a maximum elevation of thirty two feet (32') above grade. 2. Institutional And Other Nonresidential Uses: Not more than forty five feet (45'). E. Ground Floor Area Per Dwelling: 1. One Story Without Basement: Not less than one thousand eight hundred (1,800) square feet. 2. One Story With Basement: Not less than one thousand six hundred (1,600) square feet. 3. Dwellings Having More Than One Story: Not less than one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) square feet. F. Yards: Except as required in subsections B and D under "accessory uses and structures" in section 13-6A-1 of this chapter, yards shall be provided as follows: 1. Front: Not less than forty feet (40') in depth. 2. Side: Not less than eighteen feet (18') in depth except: a. A side yard abutting a street shall not be less than forty feet (40') in depth; b. To accommodate a side load garage, the minimum side yard setback (on 1 side yard) must be at least twenty three feet (23'); the width of the pavement opposite of the garage door must be a minimum of twenty three feet (23'); c. For nonresidential uses each side yard abutting a street shall be not less than fifty feet (50') in depth and each interior side yard shall be not less than thirty feet (30') in depth and increased by not less than two feet (2') for each one foot (1') of structure height over thirty feet (30'). 3. Rear: Not less than sixty feet (60') in depth. (Ord. G-60, 3-22-1966; Ord. G-328, 8-24- 1982; Ord. G-616, 8-11-1998; Ord. G-730, 9-23-2003) http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/IL/Oak%2OBrook/15006002000003000.htm 11/8/2007 3 I3-6C-3: LOT AREA REQUI 4 ENTS: Page 1 of 2 13-6C-3: LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS: -7 A. Reduction Of Lot Area: Not less than twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet, except that in subdivisions of eighty (80) acres or more in area, the lot area may be reduced to one-half (1/2) acre provided that lands equal to ten percent (10%) of the total area be dedicated to the Village, or agency approved by the Village Board, for park or recreational uses and no portion of which shall be less than four (4) acres. The dedicated land shall be appropriate for park or recreational uses, and shall not include wet drainageways in excess of twenty five percent (25%) of the total dedicated area. B. Lot Width: Not less than one hundred feet (100') within the buildable area. C. Floor Area Ratio: Not to exceed 0.4 for nonresidential uses. D. Structure Height: 1. Residential Uses: Not more than forty feet (40') except for continuous flat roofs, which shall be not more than thirty feet (30') to the top of any parapet wall. However, where residential building heights exceed thirty feet (30'), the highest space that can be occupied must have an emergency escape and rescue opening at a maximum elevation of thirty two feet (32') above grade. 2. Institutional And Other Nonresidential Uses: Not more than forty five feet (46). E. Ground Floor Area Per Dwelling: 1. One Story: Not less than one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet. 2. Bilevel: Not less than one thousand three hundred (1,300) square feet (floors at grade and above basement). 3. Dwellings Having More Than One Story: Not less than one thousand (1,000) square feet. ,7F. Yards: Except as required in subsections B and D under "accessory uses and structures" in section 13-6A-1 of this chapter, yards shall be provided as follows: 1. Front: Not less than forty feet (40') in depth, except front yards abutting York Road and 22nd Street shall have a depth of not less than one hundred feet (100'). 2. Side: Not less than twelve feet (12') in depth except: a. A side yard abutting a street shall be not less than forty feet (40') in depth; b. To accommodate a side load garage, the minimum side yard setback (on 1 side yard) must be at least twenty three feet (23'); the width of the pavement opposite of the garage door must be a minimum of twenty three feet (23'); c. For nonresidential uses each side yard abutting a street shall be not less than fifty feet (50') in depth and each interior side yard shall be not less than thirty feet (30') in depth http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/IL/Oak%2OBrook/15006003000003000.htm 11/8/2007 �, 13-6C-3: LOT AREA REQUI ENTS: Page 2 of 2 4 • 9. 3 and increased by not less than two feet (2) for each one foot (1') of structure height over thirty feet (30'); d. Side yards abutting York Road and Cermak Road shall have a depth of not less than one hundred feet (100'). 3. Rear: Not less than forty feet (40') in depth. (Ord. G-60, 3-22-1966; Ord. G-83, 4-9-1968; Ord. G-203, 12-14-1976; Ord. G-730, 9-23-2003) http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/IL/Oak%2OBrook/15006003000003000.htm 11/8/2007 Ze,, 13-6D-3: LOT AREA REQUI MENTS: Page 1 of 2 13-6D-3: LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS: A. Lot Area: 1. Not less than eighteen thousand (18,000) square feet, except that in subdivisions forty (40) acres or more in area, the lot area may be reduced to fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet provided that lands equal to ten percent (10%) of the total area be dedicated to the village, or agency approved by the village board, for park or recreational uses and no portion of which shall be less than four (4) acres. 2. For single-family detached dwellings, the dedicated land shall be appropriate for park or recreational uses, and shall not include wet drainageways in excess of twenty five percent (25%) of the total dedicated area. --� B. Lot Width: Not less than seventy five feet (75') within the buildable area. C. Floor Area Ratio: Not to exceed 0.4 for nonresidential uses. D. Structure Height: 1. Residential Uses: Not more than thirty five feet (36) except for continuous flat roofs, which shall be not more than thirty feet (30') to the top of any parapet wall. However, where residential building heights exceed thirty feet (30'), the highest space that can be occupied must have an emergency escape and rescue opening at a maximum elevation of thirty two feet (32') above grade. 2. Institutional And Other Nonresidential Uses: Not more than forty five feet (45'). E. Ground Floor Area Per Dwelling: 1. One Story: Not less than one thousand three hundred (1,300) square feet. 2. Bilevel: Not less than one thousand one hundred (1,100) square feet (floors at grade and above basement). 3. Dwellings Having More Than One Story: Not less than nine hundred (900) square feet. F. Yards: Except as required in subsections B and D under "accessory uses and structures" in section 13-6A-1 of this chapter, yards shall be provided as follows: 1. Front: Not less than thirty feet (30') in depth, except front yards abutting York Road and 22nd Street shall have a depth of not less than one hundred feet (100'). 2. Side: Not less than ten feet (10') in depth except: a. A side yard may be reduced to not less than eight feet (8') provided the adjoining lot contains a dwelling with an attached garage or carport adjacent to such side yard unless a side load garage is present; http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/IL/Oak%2OBrook/15006004000003000.htm 11/8/2007 �, 13-6D-3: LOT AREA REQUI 4 0 ENTS: Page 2 of 2 . � b. A side yard abutting a street shall be not less than thirty feet (30') in depth; c. To accommodate a side load garage, the minimum side yard setback (on 1 side yard) must be at least twenty three feet (23'); the width of the pavement opposite of the garage door must be a minimum of twenty three feet (23'); d. For nonresidential uses each side yard abutting a street shall be not less than thirty feet (30') in depth and each interior side yard shall be not less than thirty feet (30') in depth and increased by not less than two feet (2') for each one foot (1') of structure height over thirty feet (30'). 3. Rear: Not less than thirty feet (30') in depth. (Ord. G-60, 3-22-1966; Ord. G-66, 12-19- 1966; Ord. G-83, 4-9-1968; Ord. G-203, 12-14-1976; Ord. G-608, 3-10-1998; Ord. G-730, 9-23-2003) http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/IL/Oak%2OBrook/15006004000003000.htm 11/8/2007 �, 1200 QAK a BR00 f u t OAK ¢ROO�C, �� G053 oeaoox PETITION APPLICATION for PUBLIC HEARING ZONING ORDINANCE: ❑ APPEAL ($300) VARIATION ($750) AMENDMENT ($750) ❑ SPECIAL USE ($750) STORMWATER ORDINANCE: ❑ VARIATION ($750) PUBLIC HEARING SIGNS ($50-each lot frontage) ® -Enter Number of Street Frontages/Per Parcel APPLJCANT TO COMPLETE NOTE ALL APPLICATIgNS ARE T05ERCE.11lt#BYTHE01101OR•pFMlllNtM o�LOt?III:Nr,ANO.AFTER At�.lnirr>�L RE�rIe+N YI{U�L,�E F�LEQ��' utt.�.� cL�lc. °; LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY S•i�•C?oRNeR dIrMF RS1 0• PERMANENT PARCEL NO*. o(0 - 33 _ 103.0 q 0�0� LOT NO.'-*='3i4SUBDIVISION.)ArJ otw. LEGAL ADDRESS*-3111311 11 041,D�jj� ZONING DISTRICT RZ ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION ACTION REQUESTED 1WZ§ht.FAVMfttV 10 W11V AR G CAS A77we.Ip cot Rrt o yE-6td_".;r o j9#4 W I war vm wf� PROPERTY INTEREST OF APPLICANT: OWNER` X CONTRACT PURCHASER AGENT OWNER J S)OF RECORD Aro PARK, LL G PHONE 630-126-9270 ADDRESS /,92.0 /yE/I MERAW Af. CITY I✓Ax#f oflus STATE •Z-4 ZIP-640-%d BENEFICIARY(IES)OF TRUST h&A PHONE&A ADDRESS WA CITY /V�/rI STATE IV A ZIP NAME OF APPLICANT(and Billing Information) / IQI4AK PAJOL J''fi`0M**T evP• PHONE &30 • ?i 6.8s7P ADDRESS /ZZO WIROPOW7A1 AR• CITY &&MI✓U6 STATE IL► ZIP 6054 3 Contact Name and E-mail Address(s) �l'LIKAS ® l�✓OIV`✓♦!1/•C4q AMNK ,pRGjl�'AS Adescdi all of the above statements and the statements contained in any papers or plans submitted herewith are true to the best of my(our) elief.I(we)give permission to the Village to install public hearing sign(s)on th frontages of the above subject property as Village addition to the abov e fees,applicant agrees to reimburse age for publicatfflMsks within 30 days of billin . A,07 1�IZ Signature of Owner bate Signature of Applicant Dat DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE—FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ..__------_----------- ..... ------------.------------------ _ Date Filed A��' / ^�d®� Fee Paid$ /�: Receipt No. f L Received By +N 7 Board of Trustees(Referral) �D'.73-0'J Notice Published � 7 Newspaper Dail/Herald Adj.Property Owners Notified %���-d-7 PUBLIC HEARING DATES: Plan Commission Zoning Board of Appeals Board of Trustees / �r0$ Board of Trustees (Approval of Ordinan Dat ce) SIGNED-VILLAGE CLER O N e M 0 0 Adhbbo� POTENTIAL ZONING SCENARIOS FRANK NK PAU]L H 0 -- M E - S __- y I t i t � t CURRENT ZONING — R2 3 HOMES 6500-9000SF 11 Imp I 1 t ✓I5M '°'E°, 4 i�#? ??s —" = �; �dc`°Tf \` •, ALTERNATIVE ZONING — R3 5 j ' 5 HOMES r s !JI kk' 4000-6000SF I 1 �k i I 1 1 i ALTERNATIVE ZONING — R4 �i �:t� Ali'`,1t"� � ,�+ �}�`� I r/`r fJ�"`•. �� �� j 6 HOMES 4000-6000SF POW =t i \� -- 1 1 1 a I DANA PARK ESTATES LETTER OF EXPLANATION OCTOBER 12, 2007 I DANA PARK ESTATES LETTER OF EXPLANATION BACKGROUND - HISTORY BACKGROUND - HISTORY • Purchased 3'/2 acres with three 30+ year old homes zoned R2 • Homes were in teardown condition; permitted for fire training • Two homes had frontage on Meyers; one was on a flag Lot • Only one home had sewer connection, remaining two homes were on very dated septic systems • Two homes were in flood plain, remaining home on high ground was in center of property; all three home utility connections were dated • Three adjacent properties zoned R3; one adjacent property zoned R2 ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS, CONCEPT, & STATUS • Goals: ✓ maintain the original number of home sites (i.e. three), ✓ maintain existing zoning, ✓ elevate all home sites out of flood plain ✓ update all utility and sewer systems, ✓ provide a park-like, ae-,thically pleasing setting ✓ Construct upscale homes in keeping with the neighborhood • Original Concept was to build single family homes with 5500sf of primary living space and 1500sf of finished walk-out English basement that would market in that would market in the $2.5 to $2.7 million range; but that concept was abandoned early because the estimated cost for site development for R2 compliance pushed the project into a higher-end market. $100,000 alone was spent to satisfy neighbor's requests. The Revised Concept was to build single family homes with 6500sf of primary living space and 1600sf of finished walk-out English basement situated on a private, heavily landscaped, gated cul de sac that would market in the $3.2 to 3.5 range. This Concept Design (See Exhibit#1) was approved by the Village and a huge effort of earthwork, utility work, gated cul de sac installation, native species plantings in compensation area, and aesthetic landscaping and irrigation in common area at considerable cost was undertaken and completed. In addition, a LOMR-F certificate from FEMA was completed. Major Marketing Campaign of home design signage, website development (See danaparkestates.com), glossy brochures (See Attachment), executive and professional mailers, and high-end professional advertising was also undertaken at substantial cost. • Current Status is that the site development is complete and the total cost has driven price of each of the three one-acre lots to -$1.2 million without homes. With homes, price would be in $3.0-$3.5 range. PAGE 1 DANA PARK ESTATES LETTER OF EXPLANATION j EXISTING APPROVED CONCEPT DESIGN EXHIBIT #1 - APPROVED EXISTING SITE I i I - - i 4 •, .ate LOU �1 r I I •,• - I ti F, tan I � I tr•r . 4 I 9D I j j - I f I --• _ - --- -- -J 21HBT E fm 14 t(I I Noralp151M Nwig WE urr R2 - 1 ACRE LOTS; 6500 - 9000 SF HOMES RETENTION AREA COMPENSATION AREA USABLE AREA ACTUAL BUILDING PADS ROAD & DRIVE SURFACES PAGE 2 DANA P � RK ESTATES LETTER O EXPLANATION REASON FOR REQUEST EXPERIENCE TO-DATE • Despite the slow housing market reasonable number of home buyers in the $3.2 million price range have vie d both lots and home designs with some interest • Major objections have been: ✓ Property is not in Hinsdale Central School District ✓ Although Lots are one acre, they are only 50% usable • Minor objections have been: • Meyers is a busy street • Adjacent to Village pumping station ✓ Across from commercial business (kennel) • Attempts to alleviate objections: ✓ Explored change in schoo, district with no positive feedback • Installed water feature in Lot#1 to improve aesthetics at additional $45,000 cost • Applied for and received approval to change easements and install two- tier decorative walls to improve usability from 50% to -55%-65% • Every reasonable attempt has been made to market these home sites over the past 18 months PAGE 3 DANA PARK ESTATES LETTER OF EXPLANATION REASONS FOR REQUEST RESULT • Costs to achieve goals and concept were 100% over original estimates • 18 month market time with no sales and no current prospects • $3+ million buyers expect more • Existing concept is not commercially viable • Must change Concept to attract market that is appropriate to property features and conditions • Three Alternative Concepts were considered and investigated: ✓ Alternative 1 — R3 Full Compliance ✓ Alternative 2 — R4 Full Compliance (6 Lots) ✓ Alternative 3 — R3 With Variances ✓ Alternative 4 — R4 Full Compliance (5 Lots) PAGE 4 DANA P ARK ESTATES LETTER 0 EXPLANATION ALTERNATIVE 1 R3 FULL COMPLIANCE CONCLUSIONS RELATED R3 FULL COMPLIANCE • Concept would be adjusted to five Lots with single family homes having 5500sf of primary living space and 1375sf of finished walk-out English basement that would market in the $2.5 to $3.2 million range • Two building pads (See Exhibit#2) would be totally unusable and the integrity of the approved Retention and Compensation cannot be maintained without re-design/engineering/major work at substantial additional cost ($375,000) • The following earthwork and some utility re-work (See Exhibit#3) would have to be done: • Major re-grading Lot#1 and #2 • Re-Sod of Lot#1 and #2 • Re-do Rip Rap on Lot#1 and #2 • Remove 118 ft of 30" RCP between Lot#1 and #2 ✓ Remove 15 ft section of 30" RCP between Lot#1 and #2 ✓ Re-Install 30" RCP betwee, Lot#1 and #2 • Major Cut on Lot#3 and # • Major Fill on Lot#4 • Install two additional water lines • Abandon one sewer line • Install three sewer lines ✓ Adjust planned decorativ etaining walls • Minor easement changes requirea • Percent of Lot usability on all Lots not improved; it is actually diminished • School District and other previously-mentioned objections not alleviated • Cost of re-work added to the costs-to-date spread over five Lots causes the Lot price per Lot to be $795,000 • Commercial viability of R3 Full Compliance is seriously questionable; No sales in the past 12 months, contracts in progress, or current listings in the required price range (See Exhibit#7) for this Alternative I PAGE 5 DANA PARK ESTATES LETTER OF EXPLANATION ALTERNATIVE 1 - R3 FULL COMPLIANCE EXHIBIT #2 - R3 BE E R WORK, M ------ 2057 Lres \ $ It 5 Lw If, � �t � ;'; - � ti 5 3il'', _ _ _..�rM,•f„„ r rte.- .p.r.. _ i f < 1' } �i�i - - - .w=..•� ��.• ,-,:M a.-,. i=ce � � +l ;, �T�•'� tali �,,.. ; • ; ��j ;�s'f�?�Jjji4ir �-�- 17 - - - - - �� f ilk ._ ,l l 4 f su, ze R3 - 25000 SF LOTS; 5500 - 7000 SF HOMES EXHIBIT #3 - R3 AFTER RE- ORK +f ,�li �------------------ =- -_:W��:.. -::--.�--_' ;_.-'-'---'---- - - - 1 �4.r USABILITY 1 .r y t i'I �. 1 � �- ww � � .J._:�. ..gyp-••� ` f��'\.. J.:. '�fA_ is L� ��ppp� ��'+4 aS' �rrf �'f.• ~~ A`;� • � ' i11� f 11100..E ., �.A._. ....._,....._....t---- i f f �l 1 r 5S'S L`Iti em ' �. � •u.J- � -"r''� ---.._. �5 __ _ _ 'S Yi rid x',r. I I ...,tom...__.' /.� . ` • __ -'- - --� : —a PAGE 6 DANA PARK ESTATES LETTER OF EXPLANATION ALTERNATIVE 2 - R4 FULL COMPLIANCE - 6 LOTS CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO R4 FULL COMPLIANCE WITH 6 LOTS • Concept would be adjusted to six Lots with single family homes having 4200sf of primary living space and 800sf of finished walk-out English basement that would market in the $1.7 to $2.1 million range • The integrity of the approved Retention and /Compensation can be maintained without re-design and minor re-work (See Exhibit 4) at minimal cost ($60,000) • All building pads would be totally usable without any earthwork and very little utility re-work: ✓ Install three additional water lines • Install three sewer lines • Adjust planned decorative retaining walls • Minor easement changes required • Percent of Lot usability on all Lots is improved via smaller building pads • School District and other previously-mentioned objections not alleviated; but not likely as high a priority • Lower cost of re-work added to - a costs-to-date spread over six Lots allows the Lot price per Lot to be $610,000 • Commercial viability of R4 Full Compliance is substantially improved (See Exhibit#7); a few sales in the past 12 months (4 in Downers School District), a few contracts in progress, and many current listings (2 in Downers School District) in the targeted price range for this Alternative • Two potential buyers in hand awaiting re-zoning approval PAGE 7 DANA PARK ESTATES LETTER OF EXPLANATION ALTERNATIVE 2 - R4 FULL COMPLIANCE EXHIBIT #4 - R4 FULL COMPLIANCE - 6 LOTS -------- DANA PARK ESTATES LETTER OF EXPLANATION ALTERNATIVE 3 - R3 WITH VARIANCE CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO R3 WITH VARIANCE • Concept would be adjusted to five Lots with single family homes having 4500sf of primary living space and 1125sf of finished walk-out English basement that would market in the $2.1 to $2.5 million range • Integrity of approved Retention and Compensation can be maintained with some Re-Design and Engineering, and some work at some additional cost ($125,000) • Required earthwork and utility re-work (See Exhibit#5) is as follows: ✓ Major Cut on Lot#3 ✓ Major Fill on Lot#4 ✓ Install two additional water lines ✓ Abandon one sewer line ✓ Install three sewer lines ✓ Adjust planned decorative retaining walls • Minor easement changes required • Variances include: • 30 ft (instead of 40 ft) Side Setback on Lot#1 • 30 ft (instead of 40 ft) Front Setback on all Lots • Percent of Lot usability on all Lots is improved; but Lot#5 is irregular • School District and other previously-mentioned objections not alleviated • Moderate cost of re-work added to the costs-to-date spread over five Lots causes the Lot price per Lot to be —$745,000 • Commercial viability of R3 With Variance is somewhat improved, but also somewhat questionable See Exhibit#7); a few sales in the past 12 months (none in Downers), no contracts in progress, and 2 current listings (both in Downers) in the targeted price range for this Alternative AGE 9 DANA PARK ESTATES LETTER OF EXPLANATION ALTERNATIVE 3 - R3 WITH VARIANCE EXHIBIT #5 - R3 WITH VARIANCE LOT a !•M+ ` y �.� �� '64r�•„FAT„-"-. • :>OMEWHAT Ilk IMPROVED - 1 ti t # i 1• yC. 1106 MARKETABILITY jr ------------fir /f t 383f8f836# { l� � l r l r ff ��+• 114mw 1 OT E ' i c r :n i h 'VARIANCE 2: FRONT VARIANCE 1: SETBACKS SIDE iIL • SETBACK 1 to 1 FROM 1 • 1 R3 - 25000 SF LOTS; 4500 - 7000 SF HOMES PAGE 10 DANA PARK ESTATES LETTER OF EXPLANATION ALTERNATIVE 4 - R4 FULL COMPLIANCE - 5 LOTS CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO R4 FULL COMPLIANCE WITH 5 LOTS • Concept would be adjusted to five Lots with single family homes having 4200sf of primary living space and 800sf of finished walk-out English basement that would market in the $2.1 to $2.5 million range • Integrity of approved Retention and Compensation can be maintained with some Re-Design and Engineering, and some work at some additional cost ($125,000) • Required earthwork and utility re-work (See Exhibit#6) is as follows: ✓ Major Cut on Lot#3 ✓ Mayor Fill on Lot#4 ✓ Install two additional water lines ✓ Abandon one sewer line ✓ Install three sewer lines ✓ Adjust planned decorative retaining walls • Minor easement changes require-1 • No variances required • Percent of Lot usability on all Lots is improved • School District and other previously-mentioned objections not alleviated • Moderate cost of re-work added to the costs-to-date spread over five Lots causes the Lot price per Lot to be $745,000 • Commercial viability of R3 With Variance is somewhat improved, but also somewhat questionable See Exhibit#7); a few sales in the past 12 months (none in Downers), no contracts in progress, and 2 current listings (both in Downers) in the targeted price range for this Alternative • For all intents and purposes, this Alternative has the same benefits and issues as R3 with Variance. AGE 11 DANA PARK ESTATES LETTER OF EXPLANATION ALTERNATIVE 4 - R4 FULL COMPLIANCE - 5 LOTS EXHIBIT #6 - R4 FULL COMPLIANCE - 5 LOTS -� J- ..,,,,. , •-t f f - —_::fir �r rr►--t;.�:._ 4 ter- '' y Nab f ~t 5 INTEGRITY Op APPROVED DESIGN y MAINTAINED ��� fs•a�x� � \��� frf rr ` �. � �`3i � '•J ;#�, �. t' . � '{` � ",` �<, ," it �5 aT 51 :LLi 1 l� ti uws inr R4 - 25000 SF LOTS; 4200 - 5500 SF HOMES PAGE 12 DANA PARK ESTATES LETTER OF EXPLANATION COMMERCIAL VIABILITY ANALYSIS Although maximizing profit is normally a goal of any development project, it is not a goal of this Re-Zoning Application. The goal of this Re-Zoning Application is to restore the project to commercial viability. It is hopeful that a profit level, that approximates the original intent, is achieved; but currently, it is the commercial viability of the project that is in jeopardy and therefore, the primary goal. To accomplish this goal, it is important to select the Re-Zoning Alternative that not only minimizes additional cost, but more importantly, increases the probability of a sale, while maintaining the integrity and ambiance of the neighborhood. As such, each of the Re-Zoning Alternatives must be assessed in the context of the current market conditions. Referring to Exhibit #7, please consider the remarks presented in the Red Zone of the Exhibit as well as the following facts: • the end product in both the R4 (5 OR 6 Lots) and the R3 with Variance Alternatives will be in keeping with the neighborhood and increase the value of the nearby properties • the visual impact approaching from all directions will be improved relative to both the property's original condition and its current condition • there will be more than adequate parking • the requested variances in the R3 with Variance Alternative will have no negative impact on neighboring properties • the marketability of the property will be greatly enhanced • the objections raised by prospects during the last sales period will be minimized i PAGE 13 DANA PARK ESTATES LETTER OF EXPLANATION COMMERCIAL VIABILITY ANALYSIS EXHIBIT #7 MARKET CONDITIONS & RE-ZONING ALTERNATIVES OAK BROOK PROPERTIES BETWEEN $1.4 AND $3.5 MILLION PRICE RANGE $3.0 -$3.5 $2.5-$3.0 $2.1 -$2.5 $1.4-$2.1 SCHOOL DISTRICT HINSDAL DOWNERS HINSDALO DOWNERS HINSDALE DOWNERS HINSDALE1 DOWNERS HINSDALE DOWNERS UNITS SOLD LAST 12 MONTHS 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 6 4 AVERAGE SELLING PRIC $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,227,250 $0 $2,227,250 $0 $1,747,917 $1,480,750 UNITS CURRENTLY IN CONTRACT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 AVERAGE CONTRACT PPoC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,874,000 $0 UNITS CURRENTLY FOR SAL 0 0 6 2 6 2 AVERAGE ASKING PPoC $0 ;0 SO $0 $2,302,833 $2,449,000 $2,302,833 $2,449,000 $1,786,735 ;1,747,000 R3 VARIANCE R4 FULL R4 FULL PRICING COMPLIANCEPRICI COMPLIANCEPRICh R3=5 LOTS R4=5 LOTS R4=6 LOTS LIVING SF 6500 LIVING 5500 LIVING SF 4500 LIVING SF 4200 LIVING SF 4200 FINBAS SF 1600 FINBAS 11375 FINBAS SF 1125 FINBAS SF 800 FINBAS SF 800 COST/SF $200 COST/SF ;200 COST/SF $200 COST/SF $200 COST/SF $200 LAND"AS IS" $1,200,000 $720,000 $720,000 $720,000 $600,000 LAND CHANGE $0 $75,000 $25,000 $25,000 $10,000 REVISED LAND $1,200,000 $795,000 $745,000 $745,000 $610,000 CONSTRUCTION $1,620,000 $1,375,000 $1,125,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 FINANCE $160,000 $119,000 $103,000 $103,000 $89,000 GC $150,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $100,000 OPERATING $40,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $25,000 NEGOTIATION $125,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $75,000 SALES $166,500 $122,000 $108,000 $108,000 $92,000 MARGIN $325,000 1 $195,0001 $195,000 $195,000 $162,500 ASKING PRICE ff3,461,5001 1 2,671,0001 $2,341,000 i2,216,0001 $1,991,000 PROFIT LEVEL SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME Y 1_� 1__� Y EXISTING ALT.#1 ALT. #3 ALT. #4 ALT. #2 NO SALES, CONTRACTS IN PROGRESS, CURRENT LISTINGS IN EITHER SCHOOL DISTRICT FEW SALES, NO CONTRACTS IN PROGRESS, & FEW CURRENT LISTINGS; ONLY 2 IN DOWNERS FEW SALES(4 IN DOWNERS), FEW CONTRACTS IN PROGRESS, &MANY CURRENT LISTINGS(2 IN DOWNERS) COMPONENTS THAT DRIVE ASKING PRICE PAGE 14 t DANA PARK ESTATES ZONING AMENDMENT FACTORS (a) The character of the neighborhood With the exception of the commercial dog kennel across from the the Village pumping station adjacent to the property at the P P property, 9 P P 9 1 Y North, and one residential home adjacent to the property at the East, the neighborhood is primarily comprised of single family Homes ranging in age from 25 to 35 years. Most of the properties are reasonably well kept, range in market value from -$1 to $3 million, and are zoned R3. (b) The extent to which the property values are diminished by the particular zoning restriction The current R2 zoning restriction diminishes the value of the property because the cost of the fully improved Subdivision now exceeds the current market value given the characteristics of the Lots relative to a typical R2-zoned property. The primary issue is that the usable area of the Lots typifies an R3 or R4 property. Therefore, the individual Lot value after a zoning amendment will be enhanced which as a whole will restore the Subdivision to a commercially viable setting with upscale homes at least comparable to the existing neighborhood rather than three empty Partially-usable one-acre Lots in what has become a commercially unviable setting. (c) The extent to which the removal of the existing limitations would depreciate the value of other property in the area Removal of the existing zoning limitations does not diminish the value of the other property in the area. With the exception of the one property zoned R2, it is estimated that most, if not all, of the adjacent R3-zoned properties are valued under (or at) the value of all of the proposed Alternatives. The subject property is also physically separated from the adjacent gated Midwest Club Subdivision by substantial greenery. Relative to the condition of the property before the existing approved concept design, property values, if anything, have been increased. All of the proposed Alternatives will at a minimum maintain neighboring property values. With regard to the one R2-zoned property, it is understood that the owner of that property has embarked on a re-subdivision project similar in scope and the property value would not likely be adversely affected. In addition, this one R2-zoned property already has similar R3 properties adjacent to it. PAGE 1 DANA PARK ESTATES ZONING AMENDMENT FACTORS (d) The suitability of the property for the zoned purposes The property is not well suited to the currently zoned purposes because experience now tells us that the approved design is not commercially viable. While the characteristics of the design maintain the integrity of the current zoning restriction and 9 Y compliance with all Village, Count FEMA codes, it does not p 9 Y, lend itself to a receptive marketplace. All of the proposed Alternatives improve (not the profit) but rather the marketability of the property. And although the density is somewhat increased, the density is within the density inherent in the adjacent Midwest Club. (e) The existing uses and zoning of nearby property With the exception of the commercial dog kennel and the Village Pumping station, all nearby properties are used and zoned for Single family residential purposes. See the following diagram: 31 ST VILLAGE PUMPING STATION M R2 E SUBJECT PROPE Y Y E R2 R2 O R R2 S R3 R3 R3 R3 PAGE 2 DANA PARK ESTATES ZONING AMENDMENT FACTORS (f) The length of time under the existing zoning that the Property has remained unimproved, considered in the context of land development The first parcel of the property was purchased Jan/05. The remaining two parcels were purchased Jun/05. The Lots and Home Designs have been marketed since Oct/05 (24 months). The site has been ready for construction OF homes since Mar/06 (20 months). The total time frame from purchase to-date that the property has been in an unimproved state is 2 years and 10 months. (g) The relative pain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed on the individual property owner The hardship to the owner is significant in that the original design concept, while fully compliant to R2, has become commercially unviable based on the owner's actual experience over the past twenty months despite the owner's attempts to comply with original zoning requirements and investments to alleviate the marketplace's objections. The gain to the public lies in the: • increased probability of a commercially viable project which will bring closure to the development of this property and • tax revenues inherent in the completion of a five-or-six-home- site residential subdivision. Although not confirmed, the proposed Alternatives may provide appropriately-priced housing opportunities for empty-nesters and/or Seniors. (h) The extent to which the proposal promotes the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public Approval of one of the proposed Alternatives will expedite completion of the project, thus restoring a return to normality in the Neighborhood sooner. PAGE 3 z. DANA PARK ESTATES ZONING AMENDMENT FACTORS (h) The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan The proposed Alternatives are fully consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the requested zoning is the same as that which primarily exists in the neighborhood and that the variances lie only in the area of setbacks which in this isolated subdivision have no adverse impact on neighborhood. (i) The community need for the use proposed by the property owner Relative to the condition of the property before the approved design with outdated homes in flood plain teardown condition, only one sewer connection, dated septic systems, and aged utility connections, the community will enjoy the benefit of a handsomely-finished subdivision befitting of the neighborhood as well as the improved maintenance and care relative to the existing maintenance and care. I PAGE 4 �• 3 •- • DANA PARK ESTATES ZONING VARIANCE FACTORS ALTERNATIVE 3 - R3 WITH VARIANCE In the event that this Alternative is selected, the Variances include: • 30 ft (instead of 40 ft) Side Setback on Lot#1 • 30 ft(instead of 40 ft) Front Setback on all Lots The following Exhibit reflects that the Proposed Variances have virtually no adverse impact on the neighborhood. • With regard to the Side Setback on Lot#1, the distance from the curb to the building pad is 48 ft including the parkway, bike path, and revised setback . • With regard to the Front Setbacks, the entire Subdivision is self- contained so the average setback is self-compliant with no impact on neighbors. When approaching the Subdivision from all directions, there would be no adverse visual effect. The visual effect would likely be improved. LOT 9 LOT ( & SIM VARIANCE FRONT SETBACKS SIDE SETBACK FROM 40' to .3n' R3 — 25000 SF LOTS; 4500 - 7000 SF HOMES ,y DANA PARK LLC 04-06 1100 1220 HEATHERTON DRIVE ,,i/��/� 70 2501/716 NAPERVILLE IL 60563 Date/ 1AV z Pay to the $ 7So-/D Order of � �� Dollars � o.�._... St DANA PARK LLC 04-06 1097 1220 HEATHERTON DRIVE 70-2501/719 NAPERVILLE IL 60563 Date— /�7 9 Pay to the II/14W o>f' Dak 46-00*- $ Q(�r Ow Order of / v Dollars , �F/RST EAGLE //00 Ii1I "Aall°'✓ h�,J CHECK y $ CHECKS $ CASH INV p DATE NAME G.L.ACCOUNT# DESCRIPTION NUMBER INVALID HOUT VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK S GINATTURE °} DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT B 15571 a 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD r OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS cfTou PHONE: (630)990-3045 7laak RETAIN THIS RECEIPT FOR YOUR RECORDS Certification Surrounding Property Owners I (we) certify that the names and addresses of all the surrounding property owners including mailing labels submitted with this application are located within a minimum distance of 250 feet in all directions from the perimeter of the subject property and that the number of feet occupied by all public roads, streets, alleys, and public ways has been excluded in computing the 250-foot requirement. Said names and addresses are as recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Deeds (or the Registrar of Titles of the County) and as appear from the authentic tax records of this County. The property owners as listed have been obtained from the Township Assessors office within 30 days of the filing of this application. The surrounding property owners list as submitted herewith and supporting attachments are true to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief. I (we) give permission to the Village to install public hearing sign(s) on the lot frontages of the subject property as described in the Village Code. In addition to the required application fees, applicant/owner agrees to reimburse the Village for publication costs, recording fees, and any other associated costs or fees within 30 days of billing. NO PARK, LLG FRANK A9uL b1,0*647CaRP. Printed Name of Owner Pr' ed Name of Applicant AZ!> 1�at ' /". /0 Signature of Owner S ignature of Applicant a e BILL TO INFORMATION: DANA PARK_ PLC. FieANK IAKKAS G30-U6-Pz 70 Print Name/Company Contact Person Contact Phone 1220 NC-Ark ERTot-3 DA. NA1*4111it .E, 3:L GoS63 630.70/• 4 73 2. Address To be Billed Alternate Phone NOTE: If the applicant/owner has not complied with these requirements and notification has not been sent to a neighboring property owner within the 250-foot requirement less than 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing, the hearing on this matter will be postponed to the next regular meeting, or until such time as all neighbors within the 250-foot requirement have been sent proper notification. Names of Surrounding Property Owners: Mailing Address of Name of Property Owner Property O - Property Address 3010 S. Meyers Road, 3010 S. Meyers Road, Mathew A&C&S Mathew Oak Brook, IL 60523 Oak Brook, IL 60523 06-28-301-003 2919 38th Street, Oak 3024 Meyers Road, Oak Joseph &_R Panzarino Brook, IL 60523 Brook, IL 60523 06-28-301-005 3009 Meyers Road, Meyers Ridge, Oak George Gatto Oak Brook, IL 60523 Brook, IL 60523 06-28-306-001 3015 Meyers Road, Oak 3015 Meyers Road, oak Rekha Mehra Brook, IL 60523 Brook, IL 60523 06-28-306-003 3021 Meyers Road, Oak 3021 Meyers Road, Oak Zareena Abbas Brook, IL 60523 Brook, IL 60523 06-28-306-004 2810 W. Oak Brook 2810 Oak Brook Road, Wamig & Farhana Khan Road, Oak Brook, IL Oak Brook, IL 60523 06-28-307-005 3012 Oak Brook Drive, 3012 Oak Brook Drive, Mohammed B Ghabra Oak Brook, IL 60523 Oak Brook, IL 60523 06-28-307-009 703 N. 17th Ave., Meyers &Oak Brook Rdli, Abelardo & Omelia Garcia Melrose Park, IL 60160 Oak Brook, IL 60523 06-33-100-006 3023 W. 31st Street, 3110 Meyers Road, Oak Denise Ewing Oak Brook, IL 60523 Brook, IL 60523 06-33-100-007 3000 White Oak Lane, 3000 White Oak Lane, Lawrence Wise Oak Brook, IL 60523 Oak Brook, IL 60523 06-33-100-008 3000 White Oak Lane, 3000 White Oak Lane, HBH Trust L-1330 Oak Brook, IL 60523 Oak Brook, IL 60523 06-33-100-012 3011 White Oak Lane, 3011 White Oak Lane, Reuben Ramkissoon Oak Brook, IL 60523 Oak Brook, IL 60523 06-33-101-006 3200 Meyers Road, Oak 3200 Meyers Road, Oak Arun & Neelam Batra Brook, IL 60523 Brook, IL 60523 06-33-101-019 3210 Meyers Road, Oak 3210 Meyers Road, Oak Azmi & Sana Akhras Brook, IL 60523 Brook, IL 60523 06-33-101-020 1200 Oak Brook Road, 1200 Oak Brook Road, Village of Oak Brook Oak Brook, IL 60523 Oak Brook, IL 60523 06-33-103-013 1200 Oak Brook Road, 1200 Oak Brook Road, Village of Oak Brook Oak Brook, IL 60523 Oak Brook, IL 60523 06-33-103-014 713 Midwest Club, Oak 713 Midwest Club, Oak Subhash Sahni Brook, IL 60523 Brook, IL 60523 06-33-103-018 714 Midwest Club, Oak 714 Midwest Club, Oak Brigitte M. Bende Brook, IL 60523 Brook, IL 60523 06-33-103-019 715 Midwest Club, Oak 715 Midwest Club, Oak Dorothy E. Boeske Brook, IL 60523 Brook, IL 60523 06-33-103-020 716 Midwest Club Court, 716 Midwest Club Court, Manishkumar Gandhi Oak Brook, IL 60523 Oak Brook, IL 60523 06-33-103-021 717 Midwest Club, Oak 717 Midwest Club, Oak Zhiqiang Hu Brook, IL 60523 Brook, IL 60523 06-33-103-022 718 Midwest Club, Oak 718 Midwest Club, Oak Louis & P A Duerinck Brook, IL 60523 Brook, IL 60523 06-33-103-023 2901 Oak Brook Road, 2901 Oak Brook Road, Vito &Anna Falco Oak Brook, IL 60523 Oak Brook, IL 60523 06-33-103-034 706 Midwest Club, Oak 706 Midwest Club, Oak Hasu & Ila Kamdar Brook, IL 60523 ]Brook, IL 60523 106-33-104-020 10/05/2007 09'09 FAX 630 407 1 DUPAGE RECORDER 0002/005 lob o4i ZtJt7 r ZV:Jb 16304W31 RIDGELINE ENORIN PAGE 02 Subject Property Verification (Complete a 40parate form for each PIN.) 1. Permanent Index Number(P.I.N. from Real Estate Teat Bill): la 6 -43 �^ o 2. Common Address: 31,111 C-4, ra "d e _ tea,- 8)ze ,_1 — $ 3. Type the Complete Legal Description Below. (Attach a separate page if longer than the area provided) 4. Emall the Legal Desaripptloon to am LOT I IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION,BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33,TOWNSW 39 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 2006,AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 82006-024939,IN DUPAGJE COUNTY,ILLINOIS. 6�-n Oil IV Ve r ) c4-1 q-f e i n S � y C&`rp. -C � � C hec The Permanent ndex Number,tommon Address and LAdail information provided has been vedfloo as fallowa: Dupaga County Records/Research Room: (630-682-7398) Contact Parson: I l t Date called: Ivor that the Information provided above is accurate. ! t 1 Printed Name Signature Date: Relationship to Applicant: ._,....._ a,.N,o.M OWN rw rrs 3041ft T Pm :� ; • ` ��➢iilDe/G�rOatNlllfrM '' •�4;',��fs..•1!;il'l;I r�t+f :iii •�;; N' oar 10/03/2007 08: 10 FAX 630 407 1 DUPAGE RECORDER fjt003/005 lrjin4/Len1 YU:35 163031 RIAGELINE ENO RIN PAGE V SuOJOct PrOPOrtx VOrification (Complet8 a separate form for each P.1-N.) 1- permanent Index Number(P.I.N.from Real Estate Tax Bill)- 04, 2. Common Address. 3114t"L[_ /I� 3. Type the Complete Legal Description Balow. (Attach a separate page If longer than the area provided) 4. Email the Legal Oescription to a2glanek(i3►oek-brook ora LOT 2 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION,BEANO A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORT14WEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH,RANGE I I EAST OF THE'THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 8,2006,AS DocuMENT NUMBER R2000-024939,IN DUPAGJE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. The Permanent Index Number, Common Address and Legal information provided has been verifiers as follows; DuPeige Count Records/Research Room:(630-682-7398) Contaot Person., CV I Date callea: i ver17 that the information provided above is accurate. Printed Name Signature Date; Relationship to Applicant: L4601 oetcrlAtlon Review CDrter,»ofs RequtrMd Yes No AopmvAd By: Da" 10/05/2007 09: 10 FAX 630 407 1 DUPAGE RECORDER 004/005 10/04/2907 20:35 163031 RIDGELINE ERIN PAGE 04 Subject Property Veriffeationl (Complete a separate farm for each P.I.N.) 1. Permanent Index Number(P.I.N.from Real Estate Tax Bill); 06 -3k 3 c, 0 4 f 2. Common Address: 3- Type the Complete Legal Description Below. (Attach a separate page if longer than the area provided) d. Email the Legal Description to a�Qlanekt�o�k-brook,gyg LOT 3 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION,BEING.A,SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 391 NORTH,RANGE 11 EAST OF THE ITIMP PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FFRRUARY 9,2006,AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 82006-024939,IN DUPAGE COUNTY,ILLINOIS, V� ( V - P n 4 Cam. The Permanent Index Number, Common Address and Legal information provided has been verified as follows: DuPage Co my Records/Research Roam: (630-682-7398) Contact Person: L j 1 � Date called: I verify that the information provided above is accurate. Printed Name _ Signature - Date: _ Relationship to Applicant: qo lror wru tl� ttsi �wciQ r... ._._. QR QFFtICE 6SE QMIi.Y .•.._,__.. Le"atoVbw Rev*W com"W"R"Uimd Yes No Appr*ved By: ,......_ MID 10/05/2007 W10 FAX 630 407 1 DUPAGE RECORDER 0005/005 1YJI YJ41400 1 Zd:�d lb�d4W31 RIDGELINE ERIN PAGE 01 Subjsct PrOPO ty YOriflcation (Complete a Separate form for each P,I,N.) t. Permanent Index Number(P.I.N. from Real Estate Tax Bill): 2, Common Address: 3_ Type the Complete Legal Description Below. (Attach a separate page if longer than the area provides) 4. Email the Legal Description to 020lajj0k(Moah-broqk.oLg LOT 4 IN DANA,PARK SUBDIVISION,BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF TIDE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33,TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH,RANGE 1 l EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 8,2006,AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 82006.024939,IN DUPAQE COUNTY,ILLINOIS, Can 1-he Permanent Index Number, Common Address And Legal information provided has teen verified as follows: 4upage Cou ty cords/Research Room- (630-882-739a) Contact Person_ r'� Date called: I v rify that the information provided above is accurate. � l Printed Name Signature Date: _. _ Relationship to Applicatnt: DO NOT Witilm IN THI Legnt b scrfpdm Revbw Camoaiom Ra4ulmd Yea NO ved BY _ dabs I�3 FRS PAUL ]H[ - O , iM „ E , S October 12, 2007 Dear Neighbor: Please accept this letter as advanced notice that Frank Paul Homes will be applying to the Village of Oak Brook for an amendment in zoning for the Dana Park Estates Subdivision located approximately on the Southeast corner of Meyers and 31St Currently the property is zoned R2 and approved for three homes in the 6500-9000sf range. The application for amendment in zoning will be for either R3 or R4 which will allow either five or six homes in the 4000-6000sf range. See the attached Exhibit for your review. Currently, the properties immediately adjacent with one exception are zoned R3. The sole purpose of the request for amendment is to restore the property to a commercially viable venture. Currently, the characteristics of the property do not lend themselves to the original intent of the project, and as such, the property has not been improved to closure. The purpose of this advanced notice is to assure you that approval of this request for amendment by the Village of Oak Brook will in no way have an adverse impact on your property or the neighborhood. It is likely that the impact, if anything, will be positive. I invite you to please contact me directly to answer any questions and/or alleviate any concerns that you may have regarding this matter. I would be pleased to meet with you personally to review the details upon request. Sincere Regards, Frank P. Drukas President, Frank Paul Homes direct 630-701-4732 vmail 630-926-8270 email frank @frankpaulhomes.com DANA PARK ESTATES NEIGHBOR FEEDBACK ON REZONING LETTER Voicemail Received from George Gato residing at 3009 Meyers Road Oak Brook My name is George Gato. I live at 3009 Meyers Road. My business phone is 773-287- 0100; no need to call me back. I just received your letter indicating what you're going to do at your Dana Park Subdivision. I just wanted to tell you that I wish you a lot of luck with that. I think that it's going to be a beautiful project and I know things are little tough; so, maybe this new concept will work better for you. But good luck... you have my support. I think that it's going to be a first class operation. I like what you did with the land and I hope that you can get this stuff built. So, good luck to you, Frank. Thanks. Meeting with Dorothy Boeske residing in Court 7 of Midwest Club Dorothy had some concern that there would be more disruption to her backyard to run the additional sewer lines. I mentioned to Dorothy that there might be some disruption, but that we would keep it to a minimum. Because of the rapport that we developed during the initial project, Dorothy said that it was okay. Telephone Conversation Omelia Garcia, owner of property located at the Southwest Corner of 31St and Meyers Omelia was somewhat concerned about the status of the property values after a rezoning to either R3 or R4. Her concern was alleviated when I told her that the Lot values would be approximately $750,000 to $800,000 and that with 4000sf to 6500sf homes, the values would be in the $1.8 to $2.1 million range. Other Neighbor Concerns No other neighbors expressed any other concerns. J' DANA PARK ESTATES LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS P.I.N. 06-33-103-039 3111 Cara Lane, Oak Brook, IL 60523 LOT 1 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 2006, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2006-024939, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. P.I.N. 06-33-103-040 3113 Cara Lane, Oak Brook, IL 60523 LOT 2 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 2006, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2006-024939, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. P.I.N. 06-33-103-041 3115 Cara Lane, Oak Brook, IL 60523 LOT 3 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 2006, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2006-024939, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. P.I.N. 06-33-103-042 Private Road named Cara Lane, Oak Brook, IL 60523 LOT 4 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 2006, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2006-024939, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. K. w . a a -- .• w • —� 1VNG.1 N831N1 .,�1,lacltl��z�p/uioa•auiluoza�u��lll�n�ploan�nnn�. uioa•a u�uaxaga��ayajaq•y�ttep SAOIATdd x IxNVa llamalfla 00ZI-L9S-0£9 •.tagalall gPijuCl :Iua5V 2utjsi-I antsnlpxg ifillo j11ar•�1jurodcfr �)A1< ztt rr ura sa . acl0c� sdxf satiivatuv )Iooig )IPO 3o uratl aqi ui pam)oZ uotlpiaossV on q_ &Wrm staaum0aWOH Aq pautuIuipw Allnd . ass-ap-1m) paJUB Aja.tVntld . padeaspurl Allnd . juatuaseq jno)jooj-jnojjrAk . iaa3 aaunbs 000`6 of do • aat!ds �utniq . laaj alunbs 00019 — 0001S • 4 44 wip saitl p i ll [IV put? lamas <9 lum • _�: �� `� � ' # `'` :panozdtui AIlnd . . ZZZ x L6Z x ZVZ X ZZI :£# 101 • zVzX I1ZXZSZXOIZ :Z# 101 • ZSZx £LI xL6Zx191 :I# 101 • w ^ w suotsuautl(I . " slot a :)r auo :Pa.id . p yi1AS) Ol alIng 11,x, 210 SNV]d Nino)w mij/}1D)3/� s ) j I NJ TIT . . <OLDWEII BANKER y E . �... PREVIEW 06 1NTERNATIONAI. " a °s . .. Oa k Brook M 7 .. 3 miles Yorktown Mal Y 2 miles v a, Polo Ground; , 1/a mile Civic Center 2 1/a miles Z, V111 ^ 4 Private Got Courses within 3 mile, � Both public an •.. private school within 3 mile; Interstate 88 New Subdivision o One- Ae .Estate Home Sites 2miles SELECT FR M OUR LANS O ILL BUILD TO SUIT Commuter Tra 3 '/z miles This newly-developed subdivision is well-situated in the m dst of elegant and luxurious estate homes. It is secluded by a privately-gated street,is fully landscaped with a blend of native-species plantings and handsomely appointed ground features,melding with the existing O'Hare & mature woodlands and creating a country setting in the heart of the numerous amenities offered by the prestigious'Village of Oak Brook. Midway Each home site is one-acre and accommodates custom-built single-familq estate homes up to 9,000 square feet. 25 minutes i V WW:d a na a Y ti's•co i Chicago Looi F ___ 30 minutes a � �,�� � «�,�� •seconaary service staircase Separate guest and family powder rooms bib • Gourmet equipped kitchen with walk-in pantry • Service entry with oversized mud room,walk-in closet and custom built-ins �r�iir irr cr�1r'tr��r/t' torr�rlr f s'c'l�rir f • Two 2 1/2-car electrically-heated garages • Five to six bedrooms,each with private bath and walk-in closet • Steam showers/Whirlpool tubs • Custom master dressing area &walk-in closets • Security and central vacuum systems • Structured wiring with integrated audio system and surround sound wiring �z a r • Multiple-zone A/C with gas/hot-air,radiant or `i electric heating • Multiple entertainment and family comfort areas throughout ! R y t Exterior Features • Brick stone and Stucco 40- • ear architectural roof with ice barrier 1 Y • Aluminum Soffits-Fascia Native Species n *� � • Eagle casement windows " � • Copper-sheathed bay window roofs ' 8k `� • Limestone sills &window casings r • Automated irrigation system • Solid mahogany front entry door • Mahogany-stained side entry door (/)wrrr /rrf/ c >+'41/rs'. . • • Mahogany-stained garage doors rsrf�fi�` s'f<rlc'r •s'r�tr rs'Ur c r �'s' • Lookout-walkout basement • Oversized Trex deck • Designer concrete railings • Circular concrete driveway • Four-car garage • Professionally landscaped grounds 1. Standard Mechanicals • Two 75-gallon hot water heaters • Two energy efficient furnaces • Two 3 ton A/C's �• ,, Multiple sump pumps with battery back-ups ^.N 400 amp electric service • Plumbed for both lower level bathroom/kitchen/bar/radiant heat ` Roughed for stone/brick fireplace • Wired for surround sound/networking/other electronics ,... Optional — Finished Lower Level s¢ • Approximately 3,000 square foot open area,sub-dividable for home theater/media/hobby room,family-sized entertainment room, full .I . _ bar, full bath,service kitchen,exercise room and guest bedroom Vw Arlrrr °%r// rrir rr�ifrr<rtt' <rc�ri<<<s�s' Exclusive Listing Agent: Darrah Belcher 630-567-1200•darrah.belcher @cbexchange.com www.coldwellbankeronline.com/darrahbelcher • Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage i DANA PARK SUBDIVISION PEAT ! R2006-024939 FEB . 08 , 2006 P.LN.#06-33-103-M(3111 MEYERS ROAD) BEING A RESU13DIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, 3 : 32 PM P.LN.+ko6 33-103-M(311S MEYERS ROAD) TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH,RANGE 17 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,IN DUPAGE COUNTY,ILLINOIS. PSn aorr331a3�33(3113 MErBes a°"D W1K SRaaKI= 605]$ • 'K - ... '' - - R UIJ-LLlrE OF OAK BROOK VL.w6rE Of- OAK 130AOK ORK gpclol< ROAD - 171co OAK RAooK P vAb wlei'.av OAK avooK s ZL 445al OAK f3j%ooN,' 6o5d3 (Y r 501 E N89119'4TW P�°OI-uT10N $OoS�SD-FA-V-R-9Z�I 1658' RTyCppp£D D� R2Q0(p-02`(838 MO NUMM HONWNBNf- - N89� 584 AB'E - / - _ 58458'LEGEND LEGEND 5000t(R� i se9' w "`�"."'1__ -�--- -�-"----E-------------------------- �� --- - ' --+ - --=----------------- -� ---- -----------�- . / o=3/W REBAR(W LONG)SET IN 4"DL1.CONCRETE O 314"REBAR CM LONG) l ! - - - s 11 i 1 19 5y I �yt a, t i J - I NOTf.. MONUMENTS WILL BE PLACED i $$ ! ✓ AFTER FINAL GRADING LOT 2 CEFBFFM 1 - I t� /• _ .. ter AREA= 1.00 NOTE: .. LOf!SHALL HAVE NO VEHICULAR AOCESS TO D MEYER MEYERS RO -1-- ,wmatr_._ ........ I '9 l arltmK ut p j RAIMaeHBIf ,yb, A. 1.00 ACRE i q/ ` .�- €s LOT 3 i AREA=1.01 ORES 1 WEKWFOR ' -az i / AREA=0.54 A l M I oll■lei ae b o 1 0.7T N !�Rr29A8' __- 189'=,rE / j I �M�l,Vl Ra�AIE �/� 4 wcmmrwir-____--- ___ '___--___ _ N �_+ e R NE w _ _ .' - " 891°6114 �,9� i i T 281.91' - 8948'14 w •'': - SlT.U111 ..m 58948'141W _ - . - m ,Y E0.58AB1f PER OOC F08-11657/ _ ____ lIOt811laIf I . - MpgIMgN - - I I ___-__ _ ---------------___________ 1 r__-___-- _ L?� :,.�R.alail@.IOaR - -�` �,(-s. ,r it t I ED A"a .D al_a saes 4P•t Iraonoae .arwnv�.aT.WMT P.Le.a41 a aw.t t'JOeTOOe B0°"�' � u PROie'BaION t.Ocula"FIRM NO.18.N•OOOaeO RV EYING .uRVFI n a.. tnaacv�ICxouD c.o.w�wuoolwree.wa Sur4wbv.fidad18o69 sedb9q lnl.d.. � (0�0 Pag0l Oft P,II,.R.M.: 2005.1529 PROP.BIKE PATH (SEE DETAIL FOR TYPICAL SECTION) m 3 a 9rm S 521.14! fl I 1AA -4- Iwo — —————— -------- --- ----- -7-7- V' I DROLWE LOT 3 25 821 sq 11 0.59 rAmne U3-une ....... .......... 116 s 97 71 c UILD ABLE AREA: '6 1 41 LOT 8.854 sq.ft. DPAWCE& FLOODPLAIN 100 YEAR ........... ................ .................... .......... ...............i I 97 BUILDABLE JILDABLE ARE -7f 3: 'IV ...... at ......... 7=i x 14r, BUI B R .......... .......... ............................. 5, 00 ........... ............................ "V "" , '.'(.I - - -5 i�............. ..................... WALL ........ ......... ................. ............ 4. ................... .... .......... .......... ....... CARA .......... I-V2 3: WA R omw/ ......... ......... ..... 41 LANE Lzo BUILDABLE A LOT 5 .. . ...... .:..,. 5,500........... SQ. 5,931 sq.ft. ......... ............. 0 acres LATVVL .................. MU SLY > L w.. /A T- M 4,QT 4 w IA 9 3C S E N ag-mle E we W N WIW47'E w 16.56,aes L:J LOT 56 LOT 57 VARIANCES SOUWT t COMM SMYAW SMACK FROM 40'TO W IN LOT 1 2.FRONT YAW SETBACK FROM 417 TO 80'IN LOT I S.FRONT YAW SETBACK FROM 417 TO W IN LOT 2 4.FRONT YAW SETBACK FROM 40'TO W IN LOT 3 &FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 40r TO W IN LOT 4 -3 W/ VARANCES B.FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM W TO W IN LOT 5 R (5 LOTS) PROP.BIKE PATH (SEE DETAIL FOR TYPICAL SECTION) ' I a Tm s Nagai" _ t P 211.W Ll o w�09.4 c ! i / - PM 39 ( I sn I i i 1aAxwce a LOT 3 ft 1 51 6 s 690 II b �r c ° -waF I o sArErr I 1M. UILDABLE AREA: M.� �, I / LOT/ �✓ i I 6,630 s .ft. / 10 YR'MIl Mai I IM^ // '0-8,4 Q�r�.s/�/ t rn I ® Esoar I O 5PAOE:?F'S0A':SF'. arx- 1101 YEAR '::.+�::::�:::�: :.k:::::�:::: �..:::::::.::::.:::::�::•.::::•::::� •:•:':kIVINC, Ma.a1 iL000PU NO I I bp BUILDABLE AREA: I I r UILDABLE ARE 3 I I I I I I ° I h. ® WATM STRW it \� // \ ::'i:':::;•:;:.:.:ia_a .:ii:;i:i f: I� �r f BUIL BLE R I I •x r I :•:•iii�:-}I I is 5 S �i?:i•:iii:ii•i:;':i'::ii;ii?.�.°.�i'i:�: •ii:�i:�i:�:i:::::::::ii:ii?: I 3 I I I i5: I I - ii<iCr:: {.tilyl4!jGSPkC�.i:atii50i3......I na/P. Aa�Jf I :::.:::..:.:.............:::. I� I - --�---- , -----� - N I I wA�. 188 73' as N 8978'15 E J I I I _ I :I -- I f .....:...:.•.' .'...':' a FT I I i I fi I CARA I .. ....................... .............. .................. .......................... .oi•nor I I � �I ...................... I I / i LANE V I 1-1a•my Ul 1 3 I I wATER sERnce w/ V I &BO% I I (a ii 1-1/2•COPPERtt :: /J �4. I I /. - /WATER SflinCE .................................... i $ / . {:ii(': BUILDABLE A LOT 5 1.31' to L _�_� � f I I ��• / :'F.ir':i?}Fi{:i?i::i::. ..... 5.900 SF 18.086 sq.ft. / isWNpIG':$PAfE::¢; 2 acres I / 0-.A@ / _ I M ® M i Al M 6.0�" M M \�f ~ OL .4,0T d w w i i � / r M M M s OWmM I I I � :... — — .. —�•—— — — — —— qT !!,, PM ® _{ 4'CONO 503. O N 8978'14' E 74 w N 89'19'47'E Z I I N 0 y�98 • 18.58' a L�:J LOT 56 LOT 57 R-4 ZOMM (S LOTS) I PROP.BIKE PATH (SEE DETAIL FOR TYPICAL SECTION) I r � I f 10, wc-� 94 4 ,r / C I , I ► 16,94 amine ne amine e I a ! O REED T r )— I 2B 701 ft. 689.42 ✓ i NK 0M.5 B All EA 6,600 SF { O.� Qcr S2. // rwsolwr !� FLOODPLAIN I "I / I � 3 k noo0RUe1,ao / T 3A �1 b.. .................. :�: � ':�:�:� �: ;� :�:`.�:`':•�::�:�:�: �:"��.;:y:.;:.;:•::.:.: :. ere-eleao 27,70 q.ft. 0 0.64 ac 24 667 sq.ft. 18,902 sq.ft. , I // / !n \ / I acres I I 0.43 aer a� /`�• � J p UILDABLE AR 9-&F REA 4,600 SF I / �d ,{:� �/ / / \....... . ....... �' A f F / I ET1fiA1E,::• ............... ... .... I o .............. 3 30 B G q / I i I SETS K O I AC .�0 ii::'r:i::•i?::': ':4??'r.'•i?:({•bi?::i4?:::}iii:'::•:::::. � I I � `. ` :st�cGE':':4�A0};�; I I �n6• :: , � �..::::::::::::::'::::::•::.�::.::::::::::: � / , I I s 1 I { r —a—a—a —a '� I r— / I — — f r — e,— r — ... .............. '.::i:: tii•::i:'i::ir.':iii:{:.; ii::?i:'i:'i:•'ri:i':'::::::.:�::::i•:°..':::c:': I I :r 881724 w 123 83' a m tw 1 _::;_;:_:;_ .':a:_ r LANE t-tn•mwenmc t r { I I tic I /'�• 2{ tan'c°avEa n����.......................................... I L-0.72' ��" (t • w eeoz �T:: ::'::i}:i i::it?,: i;:i.:::i:is ri Fiiii: Al ® 6s6r4 e —' " = *r_,. t I • / �♦/w� : �9 LOT 3 >�0 86.96' o -- / 18,080 sq.ft. ac e j M m M M M M s•°twtw — M M { A# w w e{ / I M M M s°twnM t ' /— {! ZZ=ZZ a\ 9 — $00%"0E` OWM N 8928'14' E 503.74' C ` N 0w w 18 8919'47'E y L:J LOT 56 LOT 57 t R-4 ZOMM 6 LOTS) Ordinance 2008- ZO- MA -R -S -1224 Dana Park Map Amend 06 -33- 103 -039, 06 -33- 103 -040, 06 -33- 103 -041 and 06 -33- 103 -042 Page 2 of 3 APPROVED THIS 22nd day of January, 2008 Villae(VPresident PASSED THIS 22nd day of January, 2008 Ayes Trustees Carson, Kennedy, Manofsky, Saived, Sanford and Wolin Nays None Absent None tz to st�•.�t�a, �.ie °• .. i.�S E'ii"SE NC l'4 f� Be � ATTEST Charlotte K Pruss Village Clerk Ordinance 2008- ZO- MA -R -S -1224 Dana Park Map Amend 06 -33- 103 -039, 06 -33- 103 -040, 06 -33- 103 -041 and 06 -33- 103 -042 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A The scope of this ordinance are limited and restricted to the property commonly known as the Dana Park Subdivision, which is legally described as follows LOT 1 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 2006, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2006- 024939, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS Permanent Index Number. 06 -33- 103 -039 LOT 2 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 2006, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2006- 024939, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS Permanent Index Number 06 -33- 103 -040 LOT 3 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 2006, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2006- 024939, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS Permanent Index Number 06 -33- 103 -041 LOT 4 IN DANA PARK SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 2006, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2006- 024939, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS Permanent Index Number 06 -33- 103 -042