1 N. Prospect Avenue
Clarendon Hills, Illinois 60514
630.286.5412
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS/PLAN COMMISSION
MINUTES
Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 7:30PM
Village Hall, 1 N. Prospect Avenue, Clarendon Hills, Illinois
I.
CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Wil Freve called the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals/Plan Commission to order
at 7:31pm.
II.
ROLL CALL.
III.
Present:
Chairman Wil Freve, Jim Scheer, Bob Arnold, Jan Morel and Joe Tobolski
Absent:
Greg Kuhn
Others Present:
Community Development Director Dan Ungerleider, Village Manager Kevin Barr, and
Assistant to the Village Manager Zach Creer
(Meeting sign-in sheet on file in the Community Development Department)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
a. October 15, 2015. Mr. Arnold made a motion, seconded by Mr. Morel, to approve the minutes from the October
15, 2015 ZBA/PC meeting as amended. Minutes were approved by a voice vote, none opposed.
b. December 17, 2015 minutes. Mr. Arnold asked that page 6 of the minutes be amended with the word “elevated“
struck and replace with the word “alleviated” in Mr. Morel’s comments. Mr. Morel agreed with the changed.
Mr. Scheer made a motion, seconded by Mr. Morel, to approve the minutes from the December 17, 2015
ZBA/PC meeting as amended. Minutes were approved on a voice vote, Mr. Tobolski abstained, none opposed.
IV.
OLD BUSINESS.
a. Case No Z475/9-23 Walker Avenue - Chairman Freve provided a brief introduction of the case and noted that
this will be a continuation of the public hearing continued during the December 17, 2015 ZBA/PC meeting.
Chairman Freve noted that notice for this evenings meeting were posted on the subject property and at Village
Hall. The Chairman also pointed out to the audience that the ZBA/PC is a recommending body and that this
case would be forwarded to the Village Board for final action. A motion to open the public hearing was made
by Mr. Arnold, seconded by Mr. Scheer to reopen the Public Hearing was approved by a unanimous voice vote.
Chairman Freve swore in those planning to comment on the project, including the petitioner and his
development team.
Testimony started with Brad Smith, the petitioner. Brad Smith provided an overview of the project as a high
end, transit orientated development. He showed the audience pictures of what they could expect the units
to look like. He made clear that the project would provide public benefits in the form of open space on the
corner of Walker and Park, $204,000 in impact fees for the Park and School districts, bringing a car sharing
service to town, support for re-engineering and paving the adjacent alley, and increasing the property taxes
owed by the property from $10,000 to a projected $275,000. Smith stated that this development, having
proceeded through the village’s development review process, is much better for the Village and its residents
than what would have if it had developed at-right under the zoning code.
www.clarendonhills.us
Zoning Board of Appeals/Plan Commission Minutes
January 21, 2016
Page 2
Director Ungerleider noted that he continues to believe that the proposed development is consistent with the
intent and vision expressed by the recently adopted 2014 Downtown Master Plan and is in compliance with
the requirements for special use and preliminary planned unit developments. He recommended approval of
the petitioner’s request for a comprehensive plan amendment as defined in EXHIBIT B-2, special use permit
approval for a preliminary planned unit development for a four (4) story, mixed use development consisting
of a single building containing first floor commercial, thirty-five (35) apartment units and seven (7) “Live/Work”
apartment units with assigned parking as described on EXHIBIT C - Preliminary PUD Document Set and EXHIBIT
D - Proposed Zoning Departures, subject to the Findings of Fact listed in EXHIBIT E, and the conditions, as
documented in Staff’s January 21, 2016 report.
Chairman Freve opened the floor to the public.
Bill Turner, 5Macintosh - Mr. Turner gave an overview of the history of the property. By his recollection, it had
been an insurance building, a five-and-dime store, a meat market, a gas station, an office selling stationary, a
television repair shop, another gas station, and a fast food restaurant. Since the last business closed, the
property has sat vacant for many years. History proves that retail does not work at this location, and the new
building would provide revenue to the town, and greatly improve the existing gravel lot.
Mary Brown, 234 Oxford - Mrs. Brown stated that she has lived in town 66 years and agreed with Mr. Turner
about his history of the property, and remembers other properties in town that had loud, cement trucks
coming and going all day. She said that she did not like change either, but change is inevitable. She stated that
she like the new project, and the new improvements fulfil a need in the downtown. She said the project is
designed in character with the downtown and will actually enhance the downtown.
John Jasper, 281 Columbine - Mr. Jasper said that is was a nice building, that it would look great on Burlington,
but not at this location. He asked the petitioner where the tax projections came from, pointing to a past project
that came up short by his estimation. He asked where the fee-in lieu of parking amount came from, and why
the village did not have its own, impartial parking study. He stated that he thought the village would be
throwing out the Downtown Master Plan volunteers’ hard work for a few dollars. He stated that approval of
this project would lead to slippery slope of more encroachment in the downtown.
Emmett Bonfield, 9641 Immanuel Rd Yorkville (Owner of 213 Burlington) - Mr. Bonfield asked the people in
the room, what would happened in a few years when these apartments were run down? He stated that the
Village was allowing Cabrini-Green west. He stated that this building was the worst idea he had ever heard of.
Mike VanZandt, 351 Harris - Mr. VanZandt stated he was trying to build a new building in town. He liked the
project under discussion. He noted that nothing new has been built in the town in 11 years, and the last major
building went into foreclosure.
Mary Brown commented that there already was apartments on Ann Street that have not caused any problems.
Director Ungerleider read a letter from Linda Davis, a prospective resident who needs a building with an
elevator and thought this would be a perfect place for her to live (A copy of the subject letter is attached with
the minutes.)
Zoning Board of Appeals/Plan Commission Minutes
January 21, 2016
Page 3
Brad Smith responded to the questions by saying his tax projections were created by an expert, and that
currently the property only pays $10,000. His building will obviously have a much larger tax bill. On the
generations of retail before it, Mr. Smith said that the B-2 General Business zoning district does not require
retail, just commercial-office use which he is providing. He stated the live-work units were never discussed in
the Downtown Master plan and the Plan, being a guide for future development, could not contemplate every
possible development scenario. He stated the building was only forty-five (45) feet. Although it will be five (5)
feet taller than the building next door it will look shorter from street level due to the fourth floor being stepped
back. He noted that the condominium buildings down the street have five stories and are fifty-three (53) feet
tall. Mr. Smith stated he was going to keep the property in their portfolio after building it.
Chairman Freve asked if there was any additional comments, seeing none, asked the Board to close the
hearing. Mr. Tobolski made the motion, seconded by Mr. Scheer to close the public hearing. The motion to
close the hearing passed on a unanimous voice vote.
Mr. Tobolski said he listened to the podcast from the previous meeting and had a couple of comments. Mr.
Tobolski said he supports the project. He likes the idea of apartments in the downtown bringing more people
or allowing existing residents different housing options. He is fine with the quantity of parking proposed and
thinks that in the future car sharing and driverless cars will offset much of the need for parking.
Mr. Scheer stated he was not in favor of the development. He was disappointed that the petitioner did not
make any changes from the last meeting. He thought the building was too big for this location and does not
provide enough parking spaces. He stated the referendum last fall indicated that people do not want a tall
building and that the downtown master plan process made that clear. He was disappointed that the Board
would consider approving this development being in direct violation of the plan and referendum.
Mr. Morel stated that he supported the project as proposed.
Mr. Arnold stated that he walks by the current property every day, and the lot is not charming. He would like
to see something on the property. He questioned why the petitioner made no changes since the last meeting,
with the concerns raised by the board about parking, height and density. Brad Smith responded that he
reviewed everything he had submitted to date and continues to believe that the proposed project is
appropriate for this location and consistent with the master plan. He added that the included public benefits
presented earlier will be good for the Village, its residents and the downtown. He noted that what could be
built at-right would not be nearly as beneficial for the village and that modifying the building any further might
be cause for him to reconsider and develop an at-right instead. He feels the overall package is a win-win as
currently structured.
Chairman Freve commented that the building is consistent with the master plan. He attended countless
master plan meetings and the proposal meets with what he envisioned. He stated the B-2 General Business
zoning district does not require retail. He questioned the validity of the previously referenced referendum in
that he felt that its question was misleading, and therefore does not accurately reflect the beliefs of the
community. He stated he felt that this was the “highest and best” use for the property, and provided a lot of
public value. He likes the look of the building and new plaza. Also, he likes car sharing services brought into
the community. He also thought having more population in the downtown would help existing businesses.
Zoning Board of Appeals/Plan Commission Minutes
January 21, 2016
Page 4
Chairman Freve felt it fit well into the existing site, in terms of materials and design, and would not have a
detrimental effect on neighboring properties. He did not think the height was an issue, due to the proximately
of the forty-foot tall One Walker Building, and the fact that the proposed project’s top floor is set back.
Therefore, the proposal looks shorter from the street. He also noted that the proposed project had the same
use mix as 4 Walker, having service commercial on the first floor with apartments above. He furthered his
comments, noting that when the 88 Park Avenue project was being considered by the village members of the
public had said that that building should have gone on this property. He stated his support for the project.
Mr. Morel said that was a very good point and did remember people trying to put the 88 Park building on this
site.
Mr. Morel made a motion, seconded by Mr. Arnold, to recommend APPROVAL of the petitioner’s request for
a comprehensive plan amendment as defined in EXHIBIT B-2, special use permit approval for a preliminary
planned unit development for a four (4) story, mixed use development consisting of a single building
containing first floor commercial, thirty-five (35) apartment units and seven (7) “Live/Work” apartment units
with assigned parking as described on EXHIBIT C - Preliminary PUD Document Set and EXHIBIT D - Proposed
Zoning Departures, subject to the Findings of Fact listed in EXHIBIT E, and the conditions documented in Staff’s
January 21, 2016 report.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-1, with Mr. Scheer casting the dissenting vote.
V.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE. None
VI.
DISCUSSION ITEMS. Director Ungerleider thanked everyone for their input and the work the board did in making
the project better. Director Ungerleider introduced the new village website to the ZBA/PC members.
VII.
ADJOURNMENT. A motion was made by Mr. Scheer and seconded by Mr. Tobolski to adjourn the meeting at
9:32pm. The motion passed unanimously by a voice vote
Respectively Submitted,
Zach Creer
Assistant to the Village Manager