Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

That's all right.

I knew something was missing.

Are we good to go?

All right. Good evening. And the regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of August 5th, 2026 is call to order. Rama, would you do the role?

Bulan? Here. Perra? Here. DiBernardo?

Here.

Hassan?

Here.

Murray?

Here.

Pontrelli?

Here.

Simon?

Here.

Ziemer?

Here.

Wilczak? Not here yet. We have a quorum.

Yes. The first matter on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the July 1st, 2026 regular meeting. Are there any changes or corrections to the minutes? And if none, can I have a motion to waive the reading of the minutes and to approve the minutes as written?

Second.

Okay. all in favor aye any opposed all right the minutes are approved as written so now we've got the the agenda for tonight there's two items on the agenda this evening the final plat of consolidation 3608 and 3610 york road And 5B, which is the lot area variation, same address, 3608 and 3610 York Road. And then there's one unfinished business item, which is the final plat of subdivision, 2715, 2815, and 2915 Drury Boulevard in the Oak Brook Reserve. So for The final plat of consolidation. Rama, would you provide an overview of the application? Or Rebecca?

Good evening. Maria Vanessa Favia, the applicant with the consent of the property owner, has submitted a petition requesting approval of a final plat to consolidate two existing lots into one lot. And the applicant is also requesting a variation for the lot size requirement for R2 zoning district. And we have Maria here to represent the client and answer any questions.

And if you wouldn't mind, just state your name and address for the record. Hang on just one second. Okay, now they can hear you.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Maria Vanessa Favia. I'm of the law firm VF Law. I'm appearing tonight as counsel for York Real Estate LLC, the petitioner. They are the owner of the properties 3608 and 3610 York Road. We're seeking two approvals this evening, a final plat of consolidation, combining two adjoining lots into one lot, and a variation from the R2 district's one acre minimum lot size. So a quick overview of the basic facts. So you'll see here, this is the location of 3608 and 3610 York Road. As consolidated, the property totals 0.79 acres. So it's about 34,607 square feet, which this is 5.6% short of the one acre minimum. So those two properties are next to each other and we're requesting that the lot be consolidated. One, property a very nice custom home is going to be built on one lot once it's consolidated the property will comply with all the other r2 requirements setbacks frontage building coverage and lot coverage so right now with the two lots combined being 0.79 acres that's about a 5.6 percent shortfall of the one acre minimum And the reasons why the variation is justified is because denying the variation would prevent a reasonable use of the property as a single custom home site, even though it meets every other dimensional standard. And the hardship is unique to this property. It comes from the specific size of the two adjoining pre-existing parcels that exist there, not from anything that the current owner did. Granting the variation won't change the character of the neighborhood and it will reduce the density, replacing two small older lots with one large unified estate lot. It'll be consistent with the surrounding homes. It'll beautify the neighborhood and it'll look very nice. The relief will not harm public welfare, light, air, safety. It's not motivated by profit. It's about creating one appropriately scaled home site in place of the two substandard ones. The hardship wasn't created by the current owner. It just results from the way that the lots were originally platted. So this is a picture of the survey. And as you can see here, this is going to be the very beautiful custom home at the conclusion. Architectural plans have been submitted, and this five bedroom home will be a good addition to the community, we believe. We believe that the staff reports in agreement. So we're respectfully asking the commission to recommend final approval of the consolidation and the variation so that this home can be built.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Any questions from the commissioners?

I do. I have a notice question. I sent some emails to Rebecca yesterday and today. one of the homeowners that was pin number was on the list didn't receive the notice from what i can tell it went to a different uh tax parcel and so i don't know if i think that was the uh the i can tell you who it was it was the 504 wenis court with a pin number that ends in 004 that notice went to the property owner at i think it's 3824 york road which is alan roca and so i'm not sure or offices in the building right because it was the town i think i printed it so i'd have it is that other address the address that's listed on the tax bill no so here's uh here's the pin number that's listed on the sheet, which is the 504. That's where it should have gone. But on their list for the property number that ends in 5004, it says it went, or not, I'm sorry, 004. Hang on, let me find it here. It says it went to, which one is it here? Michael, I gave you that. What's that pin number on that one?

This pin number is 0636401004.

Yeah, so 401004 went to Chicago Title Land Trust at 3824 York Road. And that is not the owner. And I went to the reporter of deeds, and that's not the owner. And so I'm just concerned with our notice, that the notice for those people went errant. AND SO I DON'T DISAGREE WITH WHAT THESE PEOPLE WANT TO DO, BUT I THINK OUR NOTICE IS IMPROPER.

DO WE KNOW HOW THE OTHER ADDRESS, WHY IT WAS SENT TO THE OTHER ADDRESS? IS THERE ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN

Natalie is referring to a purchase that happened after the tax bill. The tax bill for 504 used to go to 3824 and it happens when the applicant made the application back in.

So Natalie, did they recently purchase the home?

June 16th. I don't know. So the the purchase of

I mean, that's the current tax bill.

It happens in 2025. But the 2025 tax bill would have gone to that address. But then aside from that, and Natalie and I kind of talked about this, the village as well as the township has the tax bill data that's pulled from DuPage County in this particular case. That's the data that we have to send. That's where the notice goes. And I assume, and Natalie and I kind of talked about this, the fact is that a posting is put into the newspaper, a sign is placed on the property, and so the idea that any one written notice doesn't get to a parcel owner, there's no perfect system for finding every neighbor. But the property owner was notified. It's just that that, and it's a vacant parcel. 5041S is not a, there's no home on it. So that's all I have to say.

I'll let Michael respond. Yeah, I would say that I would proceed tonight as if notice was proper. It sounds like just because of the timing of the changing of hands of this particular parcel.

So are we saying that the Morrises own that property or do we think somebody else owns that property now?

Wherever the last ascertainable tax bill is sent to.

Right there. And that's not where the notice went?

This is the 2025 for?

You paid for that, for the 504 when it's property.

But the notice was sent to the current owner of the property?

That's what I'm saying. I don't know. I'm going to look at the, I can look at the reporter's office and see. Owns it. I didn't.

There was a purchase, Rebecca, on June 16th.

No, the applicant makes their application and so what we were wondering in our office was when the county's tax records are updated. So at some point in the year we may be using 2024 data and 2026 while waiting for the 2025 bills to come out. It's also possible that after the 2025 tax bills come out, the 2026 tax bills get posted, and then when you do the search of the record, it may not have it. And so, because my application is two months past, it's when did all of that happen? And because this request kind of came in today, last night, I was unable to do, you know, thorough research. Kathy in my office did do a search through the York Township, and I was just looking to see where the York Township's notice would have been sent as well, so if you just bear with me. I believe it does say Joseph and Jessica Morris at 19 West 182 Old Tavern Road from the York Township search that Kathy did today.

So the owner of the property did receive the notice, ultimately, prior to tonight's meeting, though, is what it sounds like.

The last deed on this property was May 30th, 2025. But we don't search the deeds. No, I get it. I get it. But I'm saying that tax bill's right. And so I understand we don't search the deeds. The problem I have with our system, then, in general, is... REGARDLESS OF WHEN THESE PEOPLE BOUGHT IT, SOMEHOW WE HAVE TO VERIFY THE FACT THAT WE SENT IT TO WHOEVER WE THINK OWNED IT LAST, IT DIDN'T GO FROM US, IT DIDN'T GO TO THE ACTUAL OWNER. IT WENT TO SOMEBODY ELSE. I JUST CANNOT IMAGINE THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE, I UNDERSTAND THAT. DID YOU GUYS GET ANY RETURNED MAILS THAT ANY OF THESE WENT TO THE WRONG PLACE?

I DID NOT GET ANY RETURNED MAIL.

SO WHEN THESE GET MAILED OUT, WHOSE RETURN ADDRESS IS ON So we have a copy of labels, these labels that came in the package. Who sends the, who mails, who physically mails these out? Do we, the village, mail these out? Or does the petitioner mail these out?

So we mail those out.

We mail those out. So if they were going to come back, they'd come back to the village.

And they would eventually come back.

Nothing comes back in 10 days. I mean, I get mail a month later when it has a bad address. That's our risk. Our risk is we have a rule that says we have to publish, we have to mail, and we have to put a sign out in front of the property. So if we want to change the rule that says pick two of the three or if you only make a couple, that's fine.

There's a statutory rule where the notices have to be sent out not less than 15, not more than 30 days in advance of the hearing. And it sounds like that was all complied with.

Correct. I mean, these people have owned this property since last year. since May of 2025, and now we're not sending a notice to them. That is my concern. Again, I don't have a problem with what these people want to do. My problem is...

I just wonder, again, if it has to be, if there's 100% accuracy when you're talking about notification, or if the greater intent is to make sure that you have informed the residents.

I get it. From my background, I see notice as service. And I don't get to tell a judge, well, you know, I mailed it to where I thought the guy might live. Did you get him? No. Did he sign for it? No. And I'm looking at this telling you, we mailed it to not the owner. And we can look at this and say, OK, we didn't send it. Long as as long as the taxpayer record for the parcels within 250 feet surrounding the the parcel that that is the subject matter of tonight's hearing was was sent to those addresses wasn't that guy didn't get it and he lives within the we sent his To 3824 York Road different person different not that guy not his tax address We sent it to Alan Rocha is what the tax bill says that? for the address we fenced into if you go backwards and TO SEE WHAT ADDRESS IT WENT TO. IT WENT TO 3824 YORK ROAD. AND WHEN YOU LOOK UP THAT PIN NUMBER, THEN THAT TIES THAT PIN NUMBER TO ALLEN ROCA. AND THAT'S NOT WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO GET IT. SO SOME OTHER NEIGHBOR GOT IT. SOME GUY DOWN THE STREET, A HALF A MILE AWAY, GOT THE NOTICE THAT THE MORRISES SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED. SO THE MORRISES MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW THIS IS GOING ON. YES, THERE WAS A SIGN OUT IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. YES, IT WAS PUBLISHED. But if our rule says we have to satisfy these three requirements, we missed. Again, if we want to change it to say substantial compliance, you want to get close, if you post it and you publish it and you blow the mailing, OK, fine. Then let's change the rule. I don't care.

can we just back up for maybe just a minute um i know the village goes through extraordinary lengths to try and make sure that everything is properly sent and instead of the 250 foot radius from the property doesn't the village typically do almost go 350.

Yeah, so generally the expansion is due to a roadway. So for example, the 250 feet does not include the 80 feet of right of way for York Road. So it's 250 beyond that, which is why you would generally do it at a 350 radius.

Right. So above and beyond. And the village isn't necessarily liable for the county to keep up the tax records per se, right? I mean, and you've got to send it within...

whatever reliable information that that you know the county is the best available record that i'm aware of unless there's some suggestion that the village staff is going to start to do deed research in advance of every single application and then the applications would start to take a six-month turnaround because you would apply and then i would have to begin the process of those reviews And I'm not aware of any community that would do it that way. I get it that there was a purchase in 2025. And also, I would note that it went to a trust's address. So the other aspect is, how do I know that the Morrises are not that trust? We utilize the tax bill.

And we didn't send it to the tax bill address. IS THE PROBLEM I HAVE. THAT'S THE 2025 TAX BILLS CAME OUT IN DUPAGE COUNTY. I MEAN, YOUR FIRST INSTALLMENT WAS, WHEN WAS THE FIRST INSTALLMENT, TOO, LIKE?

IF WE RELY, IF THE VILLAGE, IF REBECCA RELIES ON THE COUNTY DATA TO SEND OUT THESE NOTICES.

THAT'S THE DATA. AND IT DIDN'T GO THERE. I MEAN, I PRINTED THAT FROM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE THE 2025 TAX BILL WENT. TAX BILLS CAME OUT IN APRIL.

AND NATALIE.

CAN I SEE THE TAX BILL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

TO ADD ANOTHER LAYER, THE DEED SAYS SEND SUBSEQUENT TAX BILLS TO A DIFFERENT ADDRESS THAN ALLEN ROCA TOWNHOUSE THAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO GO TO. SO EVEN THE.

AND SO I WENT DOWN THAT RABBIT HOLE AND WHEN REBECCA SAID WE GO BY THE TAX BILLS I SAID OKAY FINE I'M GOING TO STOP GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT DEEDS AND SEE WHAT PEOPLE SAID THEY THINK THEY WANTED BECAUSE AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY CHANGED SOMETHING I DON'T CARE. I went back to tax bills. And the 2025 tax bill for the 004 parcel says, send it to the Morrises in, I forget what their address was, 19 West something or another. And so when I look at the list that says where we sent that parcel, what have you got?

This is a- Kathy did research that particular address, Natalie, and the trust address was 3824.

Okay, okay, so but then so we don't Know the trust is the former owner Chicago title sold it to the Morris's the trust the Chicago title land trust is the last owner then I'd have any you guys look to DuPage County and find out when they updated this record I don't I don't know that I

Great news is, is that with computers, it's possible that maybe they update them more regularly than once a year, but.

Natalie, I don't understand the problem.

We sent the, we, the Morrises were entitled to notice and they didn't get it.

The village sent it to what they thought was the correct address and name.

Yep.

And so what happened? Let's assume the post office loses it. What are you going to do? I don't see a problem.

I get it. I understand that. But that's not the problem we have here. The problem we have here is I know we sent it to the wrong place. Not I don't know if they got it or didn't get it. I know we mailed it to the wrong person.

Based on what?

Based on the address they said they mailed it to. Isn't the owner of the property, isn't an address that the owner of the property uses and their tax bill says send it to 19 West whatever. Not 38 York Road. We sent it to the old owner, the new tax bill, the 2025 tax bill.

But the old owner is on the tax bill.

No, he is not. I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt. I'm just making sure we somehow don't get sued or something. I don't see it. You know what I mean? We're supposed to send notice to the homeowners, and we didn't. It was a mistake. Nobody did it intentionally.

No, we absolutely mailed notice to the homeowners.

That's what I thought. My understanding is that the notices were sent to the homeowners.

MR. MORRIS DIDN'T GET IT. WE SENT HIS TO ALLEN ROCA. IS THE PROBLEM. I MEAN, HERE'S THE LABELS WHERE THE VILLAGE SENT IT. WE DIDN'T SEND ONE TO MR. MORRIS, BUT WE SENT ONE TO CHICAGO TITLE LAND TRUST AT ALLEN ROCA'S ADDRESS, WHO HASN'T OWNED THE PROPERTY IN MORE THAN A YEAR. AND THE TAX BILL FOR 2025, WHICH CAME OUT IN LIKE, I THINK THEY COME OUT IN LIKE APRIL, SAYS MR. AND MRS. MORRIS OWN THE PROPERTY, HERE'S THEIR TAX BILL, AND THEY LIVE AT 19 WEST SOMETHING. NOT THIS GUY, NOT THIS ADDRESS.

The cure would be we'd have to re notice and come back Well, I'll leave that to council to determine but the the question is is does the notification have to be? 100% guaranteed because also the idea that these notices these notices don't go out by certified mail so they're they're sent by letter and SO, I MEAN, AS I CAN TRUST THE COMMISSIONER, WE SENT IT TO THE WRONG PLACE.

LET'S ASSUME THEY MADE A MISTAKE.

I GET IT.

I GET IT. WE'RE SPINNING OUR WHEELS HERE.

BUT THE MORRISES ARE ENTITLED TO NOTICE.

THE VILLAGE DID MAKE A MISTAKE.

That's why I mentioned the other two methods of notification to the Morris's because that is I assume that that's why that there's this overlap because if it was simply for whoever you know goes past that property on a certain day they can see the sign it's that's why they require the information to be in the newspaper on the property and by mail. So most likely, again, to make sure that the public process is as open as possible. And I don't want to exclude the Morrises if they are very interested in this. That said, I can only, I have a process, the village has a process to do it. And I don't know if there's never gonna be an error. I think it's good that we found the error. and you know we can contact the morrises by mail to tell them that it's moving to the board if it gets through tonight but i don't know if it's fair to the commission to the applicant to hold off on processing it and the concern that the morrises have an objection that that they haven't been notified and that they're concerned about the project and it sounds to me it sounds like the village used all the data that they had available to them at the time that the notices were sent out and so when did the notices go out 10 days ago

NO, I DON'T THINK SO.

15 DAYS AGO? I MEAN, YOU SAID IT'S GOT TO BE BETWEEN 15 AND HOW MANY DAYS? 30.

AT THE END OF MY QUESTION REALLY IS ONE OF REASONABLE GOOD FAITH UNDER THE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATION IN MY MIND. AND I'M NOT HEARING... IT SOUNDS LIKE WE TOOK THE PROPER STEPS. WE MADE AN ERROR. BUT THERE ARE TWO OTHER WAYS THAT NOTICE COULD HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO THE...

Well, I don't even know if I mean so in our ordinance where it says we're gonna publish and we're gonna mail notice and we're going to Put a sign out in front Michael does it? Is two out of three okay, or does it say that we have to, I mean, we're doing all three. Again, we did this intentionally.

Rebecca and the department, it sounds like they did all three of those notice, that they comply with all three of those notice requirements. Absolutely. They used the data that they had available to them and sent the mailing notices to the addresses based on the county data.

But that is the county data, the other address for the Morrises.

That is the county data as you printed it on August 5th, 2026.

That's the 2025 tax bill that was issued in May or April. I mean, that's not like a new name and address on the tax bill. That's the actual 2025 tax bill.

As I pointed out, the trust for the Morrises is what is listed in that document I just handed you. So that's the Morrises trust document.

No, no, no, no. This deed specifically says Chicago Title Land Trust transfers the property to Joseph Morris and Jessica Morris, husband and wife, as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. Doesn't put it in a trust. This is a trustee's deed to the Morrises individually. This trust number and this trust address is for the seller of the property back in 2025, not for the buyer of the property in 2025. This trust information is the guy that sold it in last May, not the Morrises. The Morrises own it. Joint tenants, rights of survivorship.

Would it be prudent, since the issue has surfaced, though it's an inconvenience for the petitioner, it may be a worse road if the Morris is complaining and then the process gets delayed considerably longer. Maybe it would be prudent just to re-notice, come back at the next meeting, and that way we eliminate the confusion.

I don't...

You can certainly do that.

If I may, typically in civil litigation, publication notice is absolute. That's what judges rely on all the time. So it was publicized. There was a sign put on there. At the time that the village mailed it, that's the data that they had. We don't have proof of when DuPage County, when it was printed off. When they printed it off, that's what they had. the publication is really the golden ticket here. And we can also give notice to this missing property owner, you know, for the next, you know, meeting as a courtesy, but I don't think it's, this is a fatal defect.

I would suggest that maybe you move forward with the recommendation tonight, place the condition on the recommendation, and we can figure out if there was any sort of deficiency in the notice.

I understand, and that's fine if that's what the board wants to do, and I'll vote accordingly. I disagree with what you said because that wasn't the most recent information. The current information is the correct address for the Morrises. This isn't civil litigation. Publication isn't enough. That's why we have three opportunity. That's why we have three requirements to do it. If we only wanted one, that's fine. To give the Morris's notice of what we're doing tonight so they can't be here to be part of it, not that they would want to be, doesn't give them their due notice to say, hey, we did this. You guys can come and talk to the next step. I agree with that.

The notice would have to be for the public hearing. It wouldn't be for the board meeting because there's no opportunity to speak.

But again, if the board wants to take a vote, I'm just one person, you know, the board does what the board wants to do. I just, I see we've got a hole in the system that I think we should fix.

I'm just uncertain as to how it will ever be fixed if I cannot rely upon the tax bills.

The tax bills got pulled way too far in advance because this tax bill has been out since April with the right address on it. Okay. I mean, we should pull tax bills then closer to when we're going to mail things.

For the record, we don't pull the tax records. We send the notices. The applicant provides us when they've pulled it. So they're pulling together an application over weeks or months, waiting to get their grading plan, getting all of the things that they need to put it into the village's system for an application so it is quite possible that the applicant went and pulled it you're right at the end of march or the very beginning of april before the the tax bill was updated then they submit it to the village the village takes our five weeks to process in part the reason why it takes five weeks is so that we make sure that we do all of the proper noticing I guess I would love to sit here and discuss the civil all day because it's very interesting to me. It would be fascinating to know what a judge ultimately says if an applicant comes in after the fact of a variation consolidation approval and says, hey, I was never notified of this and I now own the property. WEEKS, DAYS, OR TO SEND IT BACK.

THIS IS BEATING A DEAD HORSE. YOU LOSE LETTERS IN THE MAIL. THIS IS A MINOR ERROR, UNINTENTIONAL. YOU SEND ALL THREE NOTICES, WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE.

It's gonna be consistently how we process things. We do check. Now, the village originally probably didn't have the capacity to check it. We actually now have a GIS system so that we can do our own pull of the data, and then we even utilize a secondary form by having York Township contact it. I mean, the village attempts very thoroughly to do this correctly, and what I would worry about is that if we make this applicant wait another month for the notification, that's fine, but this could continue to happen with many applicants because of the process by which we generate that list.

I hear you.

And I do wonder, again, about if the accuracy has to be 100% or the item is somehow flawed, but.

I think absolutely it's gotta be 100%, but that's just, I mean, this is notice to somebody that something's going, I mean, the whole reason they're being noticed is something's going on that may affect them. And now we're saying, well, you know, maybe we'll mail it to you, maybe we won't. If we grab the wrong tax bill and you don't get it, sorry, you missed the boat. And you're telling me the lot is vacant. So I now know these are not even homeowners that drive by that parcel every day. SO NOW I'M LIKE, WELL, YOU KNOW, I GET WE DID THE OTHER THINGS. AGAIN, THE BOARD, CALL FOR THE VOTE, DON'T CALL FOR THE VOTE. YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I AM A VOTE, YOU GUYS Everybody interprets this different.

I just kind of want to say, real estate transactions are always happening every day. And things are going to change over time, which is why I think the statute tries to have redundancy in there to post signs and to publish notification. for those kinds of things that may be transitional when things are pulled so that there is kind of a belt and suspenders for notification i think the village has followed everything that you know, governance says they should do. I mean, I know it's not accurate, but I pulled it up on Zillow just to try and see proximity and such, and it shows the last transaction was 2014. So, I mean, things aren't always updated as timely, especially in government, you know, with the county and so forth, so... I think you found an aberration, which maybe we should dictate something that says you have to do it within X time, especially if it's near issuing a tax bill where things would be recorded. I'd be fine with stating something like that within 60 days of... What's the problem?

I mean, what's the... Recourse if the Morris has come back and file a complaint that they were not notified what happens then?

We would have to they would they would be able to file a lawsuit for failure to provide due process

Why would we take the chance? Let's just wait a month. The petitioner did have some part in this. So if it's an error that we know about, it wasn't intentional, but we know about an error, why put the village at risk? I mean, technically, they don't even need to combine the lots to build the house. They could build the house on the two lots. You know, they don't even need to consolidate the lot. So it's not like if they don't get this consolidation, they can't build the house. There is a problem if they do consolidate it that, you know, now you have two houses on one parcel, which is not according to the village. So one of those homes has to be removed before that parcel, that lot gets recorded, the consolidation gets recorded. Otherwise, we've got a problem. So I don't see any issue with... i think it's more prudent to take the time to have them come back and at least we because the mistake surfaced if we didn't know about it it'd be one thing but now we do know about it so we can't say we didn't know about it so i think the best course is just to re-notice and then bring them back let me let me ask natalie a question natalie obviously you're you're very familiar with um the morrises right

Mean because this I mean, I don't know I have no I've never met these people. I don't know them I'm just had they expressed this I tripped across this as I was going through looking at things because there was another item in here that didn't make sense to me and that's what made me understand how the tax bills work and then that's what made me and learn how We do this at the village. I don't know the Morris's I've never met them I don't yeah, I didn't so you don't know if they're have any kind of issue. No, no, absolutely. I have no idea zero. I just know What if it was two people we did it to? Mistakenly, or we've done it before. I mean, I just want to make our system better so that we don't end up in a spot. Again, you guys, everybody vote how they want to vote. I just, I have a concern.

Natalie, you said it was a vacant lot. Do we have the correct address for the Nemours?

Yeah, it's on the tax bill. I don't have the tax bill anymore. I don't know where, maybe Rebecca's got it. I'm not sure where what. I lost, I lost.

Old Ridge Road, I think.

I don't.

Old Mill Road. Is that what it is?

I don't even know where that is.

You have my trustee.

Michael's got it, the deed. I mean, that's where the tax bill got mailed.

Oh. Okay, so this is unincorporated over, it's like a, What do they call it? Not Chateau, but the one next to it. Okay. That's those townhouses.

All right. Is there any other discussion?

Not to argue against myself, but something that you said. I don't, Rebecca, correct me, but I don't know if the village would issue a building permit for a homeowner to build a house across lot lines. that that's literally why we're here right so so you thought you know this won't slow them down they could still do it not they they hit they wouldn't get their building permit until they they could get a demolition permit they just can't they don't get their building permit so this does are you sure about that that happens all the time as long as they have if they own both parcels just the fact that absolutely not you can't brooke no you can't notebook okay

Because it does happen all the time. I mean, you see that...

I have seen it all the time in Oakbrook, and I can tell you. I've literally had one person call and say, well, can we just cut this part off of the house and just demo this portion? Because we're only going to buy that half.

And they can't even skip us and do it with an assessment plan because they're still nonconforming. So they can't even go to the assessor and say, hey, just combine these two lots. I own them both because... THEY'RE STILL NON-CONFORMING TO THE ZONING DISTRICT OF THE VILLAGE, SO THEY'RE STUCK. THIS IS LIKE... AGREED. RIGHT. SEE, SOMETIMES WE AGREE. SO THEY ARE STUCK. THIS IS THEIR ONLY OPTION.

SO DO WE HAVE A COPY? I'M SURE WE PROBABLY DON'T HAVE IT AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW, BUT DO WE HAVE A COPY OF THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AVAILABLE?

we could probably pull them up through the the village code requirements but obviously what i kind of felt madly and michael were referring to were like the bigger laws related to it and i won't be able to pull that up no no i if the village says if the village code so i don't i don't think there's an overreaching state law i think it's our village code that dictates who we have to give notice to when we want to do a subdivision there's a it's in the illinois municipal oh yeah there's that's why i don't do muni law sorry

okay can we kind of wrap it up and maybe have our village attorney make a recommendation if we've provided proper service if we haven't um we're not gonna likely move forward

IF THERE'S STILL CONCERNS AFTER, I THINK THAT THERE'S TWO APPROACHES TO THIS. YOU CAN EITHER MOVE FORWARD, MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION, YOU CAN CONDITION THE RECOMMENDATION ON DOUBLE CHECKING WHETHER THE CORRECT DATA WAS USED AT THE TIME OF THE NOTICES WERE SENT OUT. IF NOT, THEN YOU CAN SEND IT BACK. IF IT COMES BACK TO THIS COMMISSION, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RENOTICE. Either way.

The reason why I asked about what the statute says is a lot of times it will say that regular mailing notice has to be given to the last known address. Now last known address can bring into an obligation of what does the village have. It might be the last seller because nothing's been updated. Now, is there a duty to inquire and look into? I would probably say there is, but you're the village attorney on it. But there could be an argument that if it says last known address and everything the village has is still there, even though kind of the onus is on them to make sure it's accurate. I don't know, that might change things on what the statute actually, or the ordinance says, or state statute says.

And if the applicant pulled as part of their application at the time, in good faith, all the addresses. That's what the village based their notifications off of. Then from a legal perspective, they're covered. If they pulled all the addresses in March for submission of their application in April, then whatever addresses they had in March is what it is. So technically, legally, we're covered from that perspective, like in good faith. IF THEY SUBMITTED IT IN JUNE AND PULLED IT IN APRIL, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? WHEN THEY WERE SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION IN GOOD FAITH, THEY PULLED THE ADDRESSES AND THAT WAS THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS AT THAT TIME. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN KEEP THEM, IT'S NOT FAIR TO THEM, THEY DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. WE FOLLOWED OUR PROCESS, WHICH HAS WORKED FOR QUITE SOME TIME. SO I'M VERY CONFLICTED. I DON'T DISAGREE THAT THE MORRISES NEED TO BE NOTIFIED. MAYBE THAT CAN BE A CONDITION IF WE DECIDE TO PROCEED TODAY, THAT WE DO NOTIFY THEM THAT THIS WAS, DID GO THROUGH PUBLIC HEARING, WE DID FIGURE THIS OUT, AND THEY'RE WELCOME TO SHARE THEIR OPINION AS NEEDED.

NEW SPEAKER AND I AGREE WITH THAT. THE DATA THAT WAS USED WAS THE DATA THAT WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION, SO IT'S NOT LIKE THERE WAS deficiency in actual notice. It was just that was the data that was available at the time. Now, if there's concerns, then I'm not here to tell you you shouldn't re-notice this, but... How is it available at the time, though?

Because they're using the seller's address. It's not on the treasurer. It's not on the recorder. Was there other information that the village would say this was the address? I get it. Mistakes happen. I make mistakes all the time.

THEY PULLED THE LAST KNOWN TAX BILL.

THE TAX BILL WENT TO THE OLD BRIDGE ADDRESS FOR 2025. NO, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED APRIL, THIS YEAR.

The information would have changed long before they required a notice. If that house sold in May of 2025, the September tax payment was going to the correct address. You can assure that in DuPage County. Cook County may be a lot different, but DuPage County is not that slow. And when you think about it, you can just go into the DuPage County website, type in the PIN number, and get the address to get the tax bill. So I'd be sore pressed to think that the information on the county record was wrong at the time that they sent the notice i think it's prudent since we discovered it to just wait i know it's an inconvenience but it why put the village in at a risk it was a mistake it's an accident but it happened and we know about it so why put us at risk question if we make approval subject to the notice going out now after

They still have an opportunity before the board meeting to, it's not an ordinance, it's not passed. So that, Powell?

The issue is that the notice is for the public hearing, which is tonight, at tonight's meeting. So this is the opportunity for them to contest or object to the zoning relief that's being granted. They still can't SPEAK AT THE BOARD MEETING? IT'S NOT THE PROPER FORUM, NO. THIS IS THE PROPER FORUM TO OBJECT. SO, I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH WHETHER THIS WAS CORRECT, SO I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER WOLZAK AT THIS POINT. MIGHT AS WELL JUST RENOTICE AND HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN.

everyone please turn off your microphone when not talking thanks property owners do also have a duty to their own due diligence with regard to the newspaper and driving by their property and things like that that's why those two other forms are are there and very important in going back to civil litigation, it is last known address. And if it was sent in good faith and those other two prongs have been met, then that's effective service. And this could create a quagmire of a lot of inefficiency going forward. That's just my two cents. Thank you.

There's been a lot of discussion. I think universally everyone's in favor, I'm making a supposition here, of the consolidation in order to move forward. However, we don't want to get hung up on a technicality when we don't even know that there was an objection related to that. So at this point, I'm open to a motion to either... Can I ask one other question?

It has nothing to do with the taxing. How soon will you be demolishing the structures? Because there's been high school kids hanging out in the structures and the police have responded. This will delay it.

The property owners want to move forward as soon as possible. Like this is very time sensitive. Like as soon as the fall, as soon as they get this, they're ready to go.

Because if they're not removed soon, they will need to be re-secured because there are kids hanging out in the garage in the house and the police have responded.

Okay.

But it's still wide open.

Thank you for that information.

Beyond the parcel issue. DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO PROCEED AS PLANNED. MICHAEL, WILL THAT SUFFICE?

RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF?

PROCEEDING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING TODAY. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE DECIDING ARE WE GOING TO GO AHEAD WITH IT OR NOT, RIGHT? DO WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION?

NO, JUST MAKE A MOTION TO EITHER APPROVE OR DEFER.

WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING ANYTHING ELSE? BECAUSE I'M NOT USED TO Oh, okay. I will, geez.

I'm sorry.

I was like, when are we getting to any discussion? Okay, I'm not on the page, but I will make the motion. I always get into these. I will make the motion of something. I recommend the approval of of the plan of consolidation subject to the following conditions. Number one, final engineering review and approval. Number two, recording of the document by village staff. Number three, add the condition, notwithstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all village ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically varied or waived. And number four, are we putting a notice, late notice to the Morrises?

I would just make the fourth condition or the last condition be confirmation as whether there was an actual deficiency in the notice.

confirmation whether there was an actual deficiency in the notice process.

With that, can we have a second? Rama, do you want to call the vote?

This will be actually two votes. There's both a variation request as well as a consolidation. The variation request or the idea of having the undersized lot would be the first vote. And that had the four items that Rama Hassan read.

So voting for the first, the consolidation?

This is for the variation? Yes. Buellen? Yes.

Capera? For the notice issues I brought up, I vote no.

DiBernardo?

Yes.

Hassan?

Yes.

Nimri?

Yes.

Pontrelli?

No, sorry.

Simon?

Yes.

Bilzak?

No.

Ziemer?

Yes.

6, yeah. That's 6-3?

Yeah.

And then the second portion, which is the variation.

Okay. I'll call the vote for that. Buellen?

Yes.

Capera?

Same. For the notice issues, I vote no.

D. BERNARDO?

YES.

HASSAN?

YES.

NIMRY?

YES.

PONTRElli?

NO.

SIMON?

YES.

WILZACK?

NO.

ZIMMER? YES. 6-3.

SO IF IT'S DETERMINED THAT THERE IS AN ACTUAL NOTICE DEFICIENCY, THEN YOU'LL BE HEARING THIS AGAIN EITHER WAY.

Rama, do you want to explain next steps?

I'll do it. So next steps will be kind of dependent on that first condition and making the confirmation. Can't wait to learn a lot. I did look up on the phone that it just says the tax records. So the state statute says that the tax records. It doesn't say what happens if one of the tax records is different when you get to the actual meeting versus when the notice was posted. So I can't wait that said as long as it can move forward it would go to the september 8th board meeting but it may have to come back to the september 2nd planning and zoning commission so just keep both of those on your calendar all right well thank you and that concludes the public meeting on this matter okay

So we will now open the public hearing for. Sorry.

I'm missing something here.

It's not a lot of variation for this. So we need both of us, sorry. All right, so the next item is the unfinished business, the final plat of subdivision 2715, 2815, and 2915 Jory Boulevard, Oak Brook Reserve. So Rama, do you want to provide an overview of the application?

So this application has actually been before you before. It went to the Village Board. The Village Board had a discussion. They deferred the discussion and then at the July 14th, 2026 meeting, they sent it back to you. I feel as if I have in some way not Defended the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as I could have or prepared you for the discussion that we had previously on this item. This evening there are two Peter Friedman and Kelsey Nault. Sorry. I apologize. here to to further explain their application and what they have provided in their final plat of subdivision for the property on Jory and I believe this is maybe not their slide is this this is not that they have a separate presentation so bear with us says planning to read Kelsey's last name off of the slide We're having slight technical difficulty. Please, I'm sorry. I was expecting the IT and to just like take over the computer and make things happen. Look at the news. I do just want to fill the noise or the silence. That's the microphone part.

Pause for a commercial break.

Thanks, Kyle. Hooray. I will note that Kelsey's name is not on the opening slide. No one's name is on there. There you go. Here he is. Peter himself.

okay and then be before you start um just state your name and address that's right thank you so good evening everybody mr chairman and members i appreciate the time my name is peter friedman i'm with the law firm of elrod friedman we're at 350 north clark in chicago and i'm here with my colleague kelsey neil nolet We have a brief PowerPoint presentation, should be five or six or seven minutes, and then we're open to answer any questions. I know you've got a lot of materials in your packet, so I'm definitely not going to rehash what you already talked about the first time you heard this, and I'm not going to rehash everything in your packet. I just want to emphasize a couple of, or some main points. Many of you, as you know, will remember this application. You heard it on June 3rd and recommended approval unanimously. We are back tonight because, as staff indicated, the Village Board asked you to take a second look at two specific issues. And I want to spend most of my time talking about those two issues rather than reviewing the entire file. Make sure I do this right. Yeah. We filed the plat of application on April 8th. The request is pretty straightforward. We're dividing the existing two lot of the property and our, I should have mentioned, the JPD Oakbrook Holdings LLP is the owner of the entire property. Former McDonald's site, now the JPD holding site, which is where BDO and ACE and the Hyatt Lodge are located. That property right now is two lots. Almost the entire property is lot one. And then there's a small piece that is lot two that is governed by a restrictive covenant that's been in place for decades that the Butler family put on it many, many years ago that restricts it to open space. We filed the plat, as we said, the application on April 8th. Our request is straightforward. We are taking those two lots and we are restructuring the property so that it's subdivided into three lots rather than two. that makes sense for us as i'll explain because we have three main uses on the property it doesn't make sense for those three main uses to be all on one lot so now they will each be on their separate lot along with certain natural features that make the lots we've drawn logical nothing is being built as part of this subdivision proposal there are no plans I'm going to repeat that a bunch but there are no plans for development in the works in my back pocket in anybody's back pocket this is solely and as I'll explain for very specific somewhat private but internal reasons having nothing to do with any land development proposals on the property As staff said after your recommendation the village board referred the matter they heard they talked about it twice and then finally in July They referred this back to you for two issues the lot the shapes of the lot, whether they were irregular, and the issue about, and I'll talk about this, the previous zoning approvals that have been granted on the property, again, been in place for many years, originated in the McDonald's era, when all of them were adopted, and the board raised concerns about what happens to those when the property and the lot lines are changed, and I will talk about that. Before I get to those questions, I just want to talk about compliance very quickly. I'm not going to go through all these tables. The point of this slide and the next slide is simply that every subdivision design standard in the code we have satisfied. lot area, frontage on a street, natural feature preservation, there are no through lots, the setbacks comply, and the village engineer has determined that no land improvements are required for this subdivision because, again, we are not proposing to build anything. We're not improving anything, we're not touching a blade of grass with regard to this subdivision. The zoning side is the same story. The maximum floor area for the campus is approximately 1.4 million. The existing floor area is 781,000, give or take. The building and structure coverage is capped at 24%, and we are significantly below that on all the lots. The open space stays above the 50% minimum across all 80 acres on the site. And I wanna emphasize this because subdivision that satisfy, and you all know this, subdivision that satisfies every applicable standard is entitled to approval. And I think that's why originally you recommended approval. And that is the legal posture we are in tonight. So first to one of the board's questions, do the prior agreements and the zoning ordinances survive the subdivision? And our answer is yes. without qualification We committed and we've said this over and over again to staff to the village board now to you in writing and orally To continue compliance with all as staff spent a lot of time reviewing I think 90 plus ordinances and resolutions that were passed as part of the McDonald's ownership and development of the property over many years all of those documents that were approved they were zoning ordinances they were plan development improvement plans that were approved by ordinance by the village board all of those run with the land we agree and they continue to apply equally no matter what we do with the lots they apply today and they will apply after the lots are changed pursuant to our proposal and so um We've committed to continued compliance with all of those ordinances and we agree with the villages objectives in saying that which is we want to maintain the intended character and scale of the campus protect the adjacent properties and support the long-term land-use planning for what are My client are the owner of the property and the village both think is a very unique special property in the village the So the legal mechanism, and I think this is the heart of what concerned the board, is all of these previous zoning approvals, as I said, run with the land. They attach to the property itself, not to the lot lines drawn on it. Redrawing the lots will not change any of that. Beyond that, any future development of this property not what we're doing now, but any future development should it ever happen on any of the lots, regardless of the lot lines, must complete the full plan development process because there is a plan development on this property that was already approved. So anybody who does anything with any of the property, any new buildings, any increases, any changes, all of that is going to before this body for a public hearing and it's going to be before the village board for final approval by an ordinance. If the concern with the subdivision is the village somehow losing control, the answer to that is the village is not losing any control at all. So why are we doing this at all and there are reasons there are reasons for all for what we are doing and as I said They're all internal and none of them relate to any development plans for the property because there are no development plans for the property first um it is logical um we have as i said we have three major buildings different occupants different uses on and and shared infrastructure throughout the property separate lots let ownership the one owner allocate maintenance costs and operation obligations Precisely rather than informally. Right now we have one lot with all of these three major uses. It's much easier to allocate maintenance if there are individual lots so we can have a formula based on all sorts of things that the individual lots will get assessed. and because we have long-term leases and they have to pay some maintenance, it's easier to do when they each have their own lot. Second, property owners association will be established to govern the shared private features and the cost sharing among the three parcels. That is just good private land management having nothing to do with any development plans. And third, and this is an estate planning issue again a private matter but my client has authorized me to share it which is that the owner of this property is not immortal and at some point there may be an estate event which may have significant capital costs and one thing that owners like that do is they want to be able to use some of their property for um financing those estate tax issues so right now it would be very the the only way you could use this property for that purpose is mortgaging the entire property which would be unnecessary it is much more practical where if there's three lots you wouldn't have to do the whole property you could just do one property that is not selling the land it is just using it to finance other costs unrelated to this property. Again, that is a common estate practice having nothing to do with any land development issues on this property. And it doesn't involve the sale of any of the lots to anybody. They would all still remain with the current owner. I'm going to re-emphasize this. There is no current intent. to sell any of these parcels and no intent to build anything. And if that ever changes, the owner is going to have to come back through the development promise. That's not a promise I'm making tonight. It's a code requirement. It's the law of the village of Oak Brook. So brings me to one place where we have to disagree with staff. And we've talked about it, so it's not a surprise. Staff has suggested as a condition of approving the subdivision that the remaining And let me take a step back all of those development approvals that I talked about set a maximum square footage for buildable area It's a very big number, but it hasn't been you all of it hasn't been used and there's about six hundred and ninety thousand square feet that is under the maximum and the staff has suggested that as a condition for approving the subdivision to remain that remaining square footage is be allocated and divided up among these three new lots. And we cannot agree to that for a couple of reasons. First, this application is for a subdivision. reallocating approved building area, which was established under zoning ordinances, planned development ordinances adopted by the village, that's a zoning decision. This body, nor the village board, under the village code can change those development rights as part of a subdivision, especially one that is not seeking any relief that complies with all of the zoning and subdivision regulations. That in order to change or reallocate things like that would require an amendment to the plan development documents. And we haven't requested that. It's not before this body or the village board. So just procedurally, legally, It's not allowed to be done as a condition to a subdivision that satisfies all of the requirements. So it's not a question of whether reallocation is a good idea. It's a question of whether this is the proper proceeding in which to do it, and it's not. Apart from that legal issue, first, it would be premature. There's no development being proposed, so there's nothing to allocate against. You would never do that. except in the context of some development proposal when you could say okay they're proposing this so let's reallocate it this way but we're blank slate right now there's nothing in the offing so reallocating now is premature and second it would withdraw entitlements the village has already granted under the current amended development plan and planned unit development ordinances And again, would do so through a subdivision approval rather than through the zoning process, which would be the proper way to do it. The next issue that the board asked you to look at is the question of the shapes of the lot. So the staff cites to a section of the village code subdivision regulations section 14.6.2.B.2 which says that very irregular lots, and I'm quoting, should be avoided. Should is the word. So that is a design preference. Of course, if you can have the perfect world, all the lots would be square and regular shaped. That's not the way the world works. And so that's a design preference, which is why the word should is used in the first place there. But that has to yield when it is inconsistent or not possible with a mandatory requirement. And two paragraphs down from that section is section 14.6, .2, .b, .4. That section requires, mandatory, says that lots shall conform to the lot size requirements. In the ORA 3 district, which is where we are, that is a 24-acre minimum for lots. Our lots deliberately come in above the 24 minimum, all three of them. We did that specifically deliberately to comply with the mandatory requirement under that section. And I would point the commission also to the staff report itself, which acknowledges that if these lots were squared to the street, they would likely fail to meet the existing zoning requirements. So we read the ordinance. We wanted to comply with the ordinance. We complied with the ordinance. And the fact that the lots could not be square and quote unquote regular, whatever that means. And we can look at that map behind you and see a lot of irregular lots in the village. We complied with the mandatory requirements. So the choice is not between irregular lots and regular lots. It is between irregular lots that comply with the code and regular lots that don't. And the shall has to control over the should. There's also a physical reason. And that's, it's more intuitive. And as you know, the property is, has a lot of natural features. Salt Creek runs through it along with regulatory floodplain and significant floodway areas. The lot lines that we, again, we're deliberate, follow the topography, which is a perfectly rational way to draw lot lines. They also keep the lagoons, the watercourses, and the stormwater swales contiguous within a single parcel so that one lot contains both of the water features rather than three owners, each responsible for a fragment of the same system. Again, a totally rational way to draw these lines. And they protect the way we drew the lines. We were very conscious, again, of that existing lot two, which has the Butler conservation easement on it. Nothing about the way we drew the lines interferes with the open space restriction on existing lot two. A couple of very quick technical points. Staff has suggested conditioning approval on village review of the private covenants. We have not identified a provision in the subdivision code that requires that. We would ask that it not be imposed as a condition of approval. and the improvement plan requirement in section 14.5 applies to the physical development and the construction of buildings. Neither is proposed here, which is consistent with the village engineer's determination that no land improvements are required. And with that, I will stop. And Kelsey and I are here to answer any questions that you may have. So thank you again for your time.

Questions from staff? I'm sorry.

I actually did want to state that there was a typographical error and I think that I'll end the sentence on page 4 of the staff report with the Planning and Zoning Commission should provide staff with direction related to this approval period. I just kept going.

I do have a question. So the packet in front of us in the conclusion, and this is more for staff, The applicant is requesting not to have the condition of improvement, the second, the remaining 619,000 square feet. They do not want that as a condition of approval, is that correct? Okay. Then there was something about the covenant. So you also don't want number three bullet point removed from, if we go, okay. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. So you're right about the reallocation on the third bullet point. We've told the Village that document that is going to be recorded against the property that's going to have these maintenance credits, it's a private document. We've told the Village that we will provide the portions of those documents that establish the maintenance obligation for the properties. So we're pretty confident that we can get the Village The document is not final yet. We know it has to be done before this subdivision is recorded. But it was just the entire document. Some of that is private information. But as to the part that should concern the village about the maintenance obligations and the way the property is going to work, we will provide that to the village.

So we need to probably amend the third bullet point because they are willing to provide some document and we do need some of that so I understand the covenants conditions restrictions, but I believe the shared maintenance agreement You are willing to provide is that correct?

Yeah, we could I think the easiest way would be We say relevant portions of

The covenants conditions. Correct. Okay. Instead of saying declaration, we'll say relevant portions of.

Correct.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I would just note that the term relevant portions is undefined.

It's subjective. I know.

It's a technical evening.

I would also say perhaps what is applicable with the applicant is able to share that is not private, but then who defines private?

I have a question from the staff and your thoughts on why you wanted to allocate. What's the thought there and the applicant's response that Any new development is going to be a planned development. So at that point in time it would be reviewed.

So, and this was, I smiled at Kelsey because this was part of also our discussion earlier today. It is difficult to envision If there's an agreement that there is 619,000 square feet more or less left, but it is spread over three separately platted lots, it's kind of a first come, first serve, right? The first applicant who comes in with an improvement plan Are they taking from the other two parcels if they're separately owned at that point? That's why staff had determined an allocation.

If I may, our thought on that is it's a guess right now. So you're taking from somebody 20 years from now by allocating now. This is apart from the fact that I don't think it's proper to even do as a part of the subdivision process. But also, if whenever that happens, a decade, two decades from now, if ever, if it ever happens, um the village is going to be able to first of all anybody who owns this property in the future other than the current owner if there is every anybody is going to be buying it subject to all this stuff this is all of record so nobody's going to be surprised by the fact that they have to come to the village board and get their development if there is something like that approved including the square footage they're going to see that number and the village at the time is going to see somebody asking for a development approval and say they want x square feet on this lot. Does that make sense from a planning standpoint? Is that too much? It seems like a totally rational process. Doing it now in a vacuum does not seem like a rational process.

So the problem I see with that argument is There's three buildings on this 80-ish acre parcel that are about 700-some thousand square feet, I think. So take all three of those buildings and put them on top of one that's already there. So if we don't make them allocate now, does each of these lots by right have the right to build another 600,000 square feet? And again, it's whoever gets here first to ask for it. gets to do it, and we as a village, even if they come in front of us because we've given permission for 619,000 square feet, do they get to put that on any one of those three that they want? And we have no way to stop them. They get to come in front of us, but 619 goes wherever it goes, and we can't say, gee, that's too much for that lot. And estate planning, and we're not immortal, and someday three different people are going to own this, or three kids are going to own this, or they're going to sell a piece off and not mortgage it. someone's going to come in and build something and here we are going well that's not what anybody wanted and j these guys didn't want it we didn't want to put this one guy that bought the one parcel did it and we're stuck but natalie with our planned development requirement that's when you would be able to say no you can't put 600 000 square feet on a lot too but but if the problem is we've said on this before we divide it on this 80 acres we can put another 619 000 square feet 619 000 square feet fits anywhere you want in 80 acres but now we're going to divide the 80 acres we're not going to divide the 619 and now each of those three parcels can put 619 000 square feet we've already given permission for that i i think subject to plan development and we can't stop them because in our code it says it goes and they're saying we don't want to allocate let it go for all three

but also if we subdivide it with these numbers then it's they're not complying with all with everything else so we're removing that again so if we we put these if it's my understanding correct me if i'm wrong if they subdivide the 619 000 square feet with the recommendation that staff has made they may not comply with the zoning requirements already in place

How do they but we've already given them permit we've already said you can put another six hundred nineteen thousand on there There's nothing else and they can build say I think they can build six hundred nineteen thousand square feet We don't get this as an 80-acre lot.

It's not going to be an idiot So far is gonna so the 619 I think is irrelevant well Don't forget your microphone Couldn't they just fill an entire buildable lot bigger than we would normally I mean because we said they couldn't have 619 I

As long as it complies with the zoning already in place, yeah.

With the current 80-acre lot, but it's not going to be an 80-acre lot.

I think actually it's an interesting point, but I think it's actually the reverse. I think, first of all, there's no right for anybody, including us right now, if we came and said we have 600. In fact, this property owner proposed, as you all know, two previous developments, which did not go over well. They were all under the maximum, and the village said no. So there's nothing about that maximum that entitles anybody, including us, without subdividing to that square footage. We need discretionary approval from the village. And I would say that once subdivided, The argument that one of the lot owners, if they're ever, ever one is entitled to all of that 600 on this one lot is worse because it's a rash. It would be like, what do you mean? Like we it was originally supposed to cover the whole property. You property owner subdivided into three lots. Now you want to put all 600 on one one of those lots. That's that puts the that one lot owner in a far worse position. So I think just, but the bottom line is that the village retains total discretion as they've already exercised on two previous development proposals that were under the maximum. That if the village doesn't like the proposal, it's a planned development. They have lots of discretion to tailor it, to massage it, to deny it. I don't think these subdivision lots impact and that's what we said they don't impact it at all the village retains all of its discretion and again i think it makes it harder to use all of that square footage on one of these lots once they're subdivided i agree

How did we get to the 619? Why do they have, remind me, why do they have another 619?

The last document that was approved gave them 1,400,000 more or less. You subtract the 700,000 more or less that they have. I'm sorry, I'm not a numbers person, but you end up with 619,000 square feet.

And that was just McDonald's over time as they make improvements, as they built the lodge, as they did these buildings. I know there's a whole list of.

Correct. And I believe the village president had even noted at one meeting that the entire reason why the ORA three district lot size, it was actually reduced to the 24 acres, which is what this property owner is now trying to take advantage of. is because initially the 24-acre lot that was on the other side, which was called Autumn Oaks at the time, which is on the south side of Kensington and on the west side of Jory, that parcel was 24 acres. Rebecca, I got a couple questions. Pardon me, Commissioner Wilczek. I did want to say, though, that within the staff report, we did attempt to give you kind of that historical how it traveled through time. I do note that we gave you the numbers for the ordinances, but not the years that that took place. It's on page four.

Rebecca, I got a couple questions. Currently, what is the height requirement in the ORA3 zoning?

I believe it is three stories at 35 feet. And then the FAR as written in the village zoning regulations is 0.44 for FAR.

All right. And the second thing is the numbers are very exact, you know, 324, 552. Was this a percentage of something?

So, again, I think what was happening is that the exactness to the coverage was related to as the development was being completed, that they were saying this is therefore what you are allowed. Okay. Thank you.

I have a question on the hotel. So let's just say that lot has no parking, right? So how does that work? So the hotel owner wants to buy that property. Do we have cross-access easements and all that recorded?

One of the documents we will share with the village that's included in these covenants allows Lot 2 to use the parking. We acknowledge that and we're handling that within the documents. What documents? The documents that will provide the village that will be recorded as a part of the covenants conditions. Correct. It's a good question. Okay.

I sent a couple other emails to the village this morning asking about the parking. And so what I want to understand is what's the parking requirement for the building that sits in lot one? And how many extra spaces are in that lot? And I know they don't have the numbers right now. AND WHAT'S THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE HOTEL, AND WHAT'S THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR LOT NUMBER THREE, AND HOW MANY EXTRA SPACES DO THEY HAVE? AND IF WE DIVIDE THESE, EVEN IF IT DIDN'T, IT MAY NOT HAVE EVEN WORKED BEFORE, IS THERE ENOUGH PARKING FOR WHAT THEY WANT NOW? NORMALLY WHEN WE DO A SUBDIVISION, SOMEBODY COMES HERE, IT'S 80 ACRES, THEY SHOW US HOW WE'RE GOING TO DIVIDE IT, AND THEY START BUILDING THINGS. NOW WE'VE GOT THIS THING WITH PARCEL, WITH BUILDINGS ON IT, AND WE'RE DOING A SUBDIVISION, WE'VE GOT ROADS THAT GO FROM ONE PARCEL TO ANOTHER TO GIVE THESE GUYS ALL ACCESS AND STUFF. AND SO WE'RE DOING IT A LITTLE different, I think, than we normally would. So now we have enough parking. Now that you're dividing it, because one of these parcels could, I know we have no plans for this, but who knows what happens tomorrow, one of these parcels could become somebody else's. And so when they decide they want to do something else or make that is is there enough parking? That would the way it lives right now. Is there enough? Okay, that covered under the shared maintenance agreements that it will be part of I don't know if there's enough parking spaces on that 80 acres to cover the use that they've got right now That's my question. We never really I don't know if we ever asked that before.

Oh, yes, we have we had many discussions because the the one of the previous experiences with this owner after the McDonald's Corporation was the expansion of parking. And so this, again, gets into sometimes when these former improvement plans and the zoning ordinance do not see. And staff made the assumption that the zoning ordinance would govern. The zoning ordinance is permissive, right? That they would encourage parking. the property owner went to get a building permit to construct parking and the staff had to roll it back to discuss if those improvement plans had not been modified how would this parking be allowed so That said, and this is why Rama does have at least I think some of the numbers for you, Natalie, but I do want to point out that we regularly see subdivisions where provided they have the shared agreements do not have adequate parking on a single lot and obviously i would look to the oak brook commons development where we literally have a building that actually sometimes even exceeds the lot lines and then the overlook where They own none of the parking, but the tax parcels are individual to the buildings. So I just wanted to make sure that that was said aloud, because if we start saying that a subdivision requires a zoning-compliant lot with all the parking on the lot itself, then we have a whole host of subdivisions that will have non-compliant issues, or compliance issues.

Just to add a simple question. Oh, go ahead.

What are we voting on today? And I was actually going to bring that up. So can you remind me, what were the two issues that the village board sent this item back to this commission for consideration on?

Sure. Regular lot lines? Well, I kind of thought of them as three different things, or four, because I wanted to make sure that I made my point about the lot three restriction. I thought of it in the terms of obviously the irregularity of the lot, and that's something that the commission does need to give or opine on. And as you can look, and I realize that the attorney for the applicant suggested that there are many irregular lots, I would say that this takes on a new form of irregular as you look at it. It does have to do with being over waterway but that does create a question and it will certainly be an issue if there were ever three owners as to how much percentage wise do I own of the waterway and if you ever have owned a pond you know that the size and shape of those waterways does change significantly. So for the staff one of the things that we had first thought of as a concern as obviously any of the features that are over those waterways because the maintenance and responsibilities related to those will fall to whichever owners that is. The next was kind of the idea then of these former agreements and as to what role that needs to play in the subdivision. The third was the WAS THE PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS THEMSELVES, AND THEN THE FOURTH BEING THE LOT 3 SHOWED A

a line that i needed removed so those were the four items that i more or less emphasized so this is straightforward we could vote on those four items and the fifth item anything that from my understanding anything that happens with these lots in the future they have to come to the village in the in the planning and zoning board they cannot do anything without coming here right They can have any buildings or parking lots or anything. So when they come in with a building, Natalie, if they require more parking lots, they have to put more parking lots. We don't have to address it today.

But doesn't the real issue kind of center around the 619, which is already granted, you know, part of the million four and how that gets allocated? And

BUT WE AGAIN CANNOT TELL SOMEONE WHO ALREADY OWNS THE PROPERTY WHAT TO DO TO THAT EXTENT WITH THEIR PROPERTY. IN THEIR POINT, IF ONE OWNER COMES IN AND NEEDS, I DON'T KNOW, 80,000 OF THAT SQUARE FEET FOR SOMETHING TO COMPLY WITH whatever they're building, then they can give that $80,000. They don't need, but what if in our allocation recommendation, we only gave them $15,000? You see what I'm saying? I think we're planning for future, but we should be focusing on the present to a certain degree. And they have to come to the plan development for anything on that property.

Rebecca, why don't you explain how you derived at the numbers and how they were got?

sure well and i do want to kind of respond in some way um one of the the conversations about the future of the of the lots and so forth is that because of all these shared assets you can imagine that because of the irregular shape of it these shapes are kind of based on the existing improvements And I think that the reason for the subdivision asking for regular shape in lots is so that the development pattern that the community can expect in the future, it conforms with the infrastructure as designed. And so if you create subdivisions based on where buildings are, I have often asked myself that question as to how the future development of that parcel will go. So FYI. And that, you know, going back to our first discussion this evening about tax and tax controls, because these are tax parcels quite often. In this particular case, obviously, these will be deeded lots. It does beg the question when we approve these other subdivisions where they are floating lots in the middle, it's being done for a tax purpose just as one of the possible reasons. And I don't know if land development and taxes are always intertwined like that. The other item I was answering your question, the four items that I was thinking of as an overall topic for discussion are not the same as the four conditions that have been proposed for this approval. And one of them is the 619 square foot and if it should or should not have an allocation in it.

I'd like to offer my thoughts on the irregular lots as that's one of the things that's brought to us. There is a plan for this. This isn't a net just sketch drawing somebody, there is a reason for it. And I don't think we've been provided a sufficient explanation of what that reason is.

It may- I disagree. I mean, I've studied the plan, the topography, and I think it's very thoughtful and appropriate the way it's subdivided. It gives the new three lots the ability to develop on each three lot and with all of the improvements are there with the topography and everything that's there. This is a thoughtful, appropriate division of the lots.

I agree that it is thoughtful, but I don't think that I'm satisfied with what the thought is. In other words, it could be a simple thing that they want to get one of the lots out of the floodplain so they can get a loan on it. I mean, it's not, I'm not, criticizing it i just don't feel like i know sufficiently why they want the irregular lots it's it is thoughtful it's not a natural sketch try it's there's a there is definitely a reason for it and i don't know it but that doesn't mean that it's a wrong reason but i that's where i'm at i just don't feel like i know sufficiently the reasoning behind drawing irregular lots when the recommendation is that you should try to have regular lots.

And if we drew regular lots, we wouldn't comply with the zoning code, as the staff indicated. And the code requires us code, your subdivision code requires that our lots comply with the zoning regulations on lot size. And the staff acknowledges in their staff report that if we didn't do that, we would have to come for a variation because all of the lots would not meet the minimum requirements. one of the main reasons, a very logical reason. I think I've said all of the reasons. Again, I'm not hiding anything. I've explained all of the reasons why we're doing the subdivision and why the lot lines were drawn the way they are. I'm not hiding anything. I have no reason to.

No, but there's no accusation or thought to that. It's just that There is a reason for it, and you've explained that it's, you know, comply with the zoning. But maybe the zoning idea was not to have so much density. That's why they, you know, so you're drawing these, you know, like a flag lot, a way around to get the number of square feet, something like that. You know, that's just a thought.

Look at the map. If you try to break that in three regular lots, you have to rip the parking lots out. There's no other ways of doing it. and the hotel will end up with no parking.

The three lots now give the ability to expand on each lot, the existing buildings, expand the existing parking lot in each lot. There's access to each lot. independent this is an appropriate division although irregular and i know the board likes everything cut and dry masonry but this has got curvy lines and it's got a lot of differentiation but it takes into account all of the natural features and all of the constructed features we talk often about maintaining the character of property and this plan does just that i agree the the and if you follow the topography and the floodplain they've given the setbacks around the part and yes water can change but these are maintained ponds i have a pond across the street from right now that they're finally maintaining but This is a good plan, and it's appropriate. And I think the square footage is going to come to each lot. We should not be worrying about development at this point with 619,000. That's based on an 80-lot parcel. Now we have three lots, three real lots. Before, we had one real lot and one obscure lot, too, where the Saddle Club was. Unfortunately, it's gone. But aside from that.

Peter, let me ask you. You just said something. So character of the neighborhood. Right now, when it was McDonald's and now it's you guys, I drive Joy Boulevard every day. It's very picturesque. The landscaping is very nice. There's continuity of everything that's going on. When it gets divided, lot one and lot three will have all the Jewelry Boulevard frontage. Is there a plan with your owners association to have some sort of easement, some sort of something where that landscaping will continue to have continuity? Or if you guys get rid of parcel three or you get rid of parcel one and all of a sudden we have different owners who have different ideas, it no longer looks like it just kind of flows down all the way to get to the golf course and around the corner.

IT'S ACTUALLY PARCEL LOT ONE AND LOT TWO ARE ON JEWELRY. LOT THREE FRONTS TO TWO. THIS IS THREE. ONE AND TWO ARE HERE. SO THEY FRONT JEWELRY.

OH, I'M FACING THE WRONG WAY. OKAY, FINE. THE LOTS THAT ARE ON JEWELRY. I'M LOOKING AT IT BACKWARDS.

I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE MASTER PLAN IN TERMS OF ITS INTENT TO KEEP THE VILLAGE SOMEWHAT RURAL IN NATURE. And those specific words are in the master plan? Seems to me to be a pretty logical way to deal with it.

My expectation is that the covenants will have landscaping requirements, of course. And it's going to be to the benefit of our ownership, which is going to own both those lots for many years, to maintain them exactly.

That happens sometimes. You and I know that.

Even if life stops for one person, it still could be owned by the same entity that owns it now. But that Drury Boulevard is, of course, very important. And I can't imagine a situation where they would not maintain the landscaping.

But do you think in the covenants there's going to be something about?

Yes.

Okay. Okay.

Rebecca, is this the first time that any subdivision like this has ever been presented to the boards of the commission?

No, we've had lots of subdivisions presented to the commission, but we haven't had any of that have gone through this process of going to the board and coming back. And not in, I can't think of a similar method for handling the body of water. Generally, if there is a body of water when the and within the residential subdivisions we have many, they own either the entire water body is taken out and is put on a separate parcel or the lots as in Ginger Creek will own to the center of the waterway and their lots lines will come directly at the 90 degree angle from the road all the way out, you know, and then they meet up.

Do I understand correctly that the way this is drawn, the waterways exist primarily fall primarily in one lot?

Correct. LOT 2.

BASICALLY IN ONE LOT.

LOT 2.

LOT 2 IS ALL OF THE WATERWAYS. EXCEPT FOR SALT CREEK. WE'RE GOING TO CHECK THE OTHER SLIDE.

DOESN'T THAT MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE VILLAGE AND THE OWNER TO HAVE CLEAR ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE COUNTING AND MAINTENANCE OF THE WATERWAYS? CORRECT. IT DOES. ANOTHER THING I LIKE ABOUT THE WAY THEY DID IT. There's kind of one throat to choke as it were on a thorny issue of water.

Yes, I think this is a good way to subdivide the current parcel, three new lots that meet the minimum size requirement for OR A3.

i would agree with jeff i think there's some good both architectural and civil engineering thought that went into this in order to to carve it out per the existing contours and bodies of water etc that are there my question to you is related to the kind of division of the 619 over those three lots i understand um that was to try to control or at least give guidance to that remaining 619 and what is the pushback for that i understand there's the process but

Well, just going back, I think McDonald's when they got that anticipated Continue continuing to develop the property. So what I they had a specific plan That of course didn't come to fruition. They never used that square footage. The ordinance was never amended. It still exists the Apart from the process and I'm not minimizing that I think it's a serious legal issue for the village to continue try to condition the subdivision on reallocating square footage that was granted in the zoning ordinance. So apart from that, we just don't know. I have no idea why would we start guessing, and I can't figure out how the reallocation was even done. Nobody asked us about how it was going to be done. And so to us, it seems very arbitrary, procedurally problemic, and guessing work, when there is nothing in the offing. It's just, it's very... And frankly, 20, 30 years, whenever that may be that somebody may actually ask about this or want to do something, it may create a problem, an unnecessary problem. Because then they're going to be like, well, you know, 20 years ago we said that this lot was going to have this amount and now you want more. Well, now that lot owner all of a sudden has to... somehow fight against something that was arbitrary when it was done. So to us, it's a procedural problem and it's premature and it's just not necessary right now.

Peter, what about a condition that instead places the requirements to address these issues prior to any conveyance of the property so that, because right now it might make sense because it's one unified owner. If there is a point in time where there's three owners, I can see some issues. What about an approach where the issues need to be addressed prior to a subsequent conveyance after, if this were to get approved? Yeah, I'd have to ask the owner about that.

Because it seems as though a proportional distribution of that 619 would be logical.

For sure, but just again, that's $600,000. It's illusory. It never has to, the village is not obligated to ever allow that much. Understand. Yeah.

But it is a maximum. It's a maximum. All right. And Rebecca, do you want to comment on the calculation?

I just wanted to point out that it's not just the zoning ordinance because what, and again, I wasn't here in 1997, but the articles when these ordinances were passed, you'll see that they didn't just say the improvement plans literally read that these in accordance with the provisions of the article of the subdivision regulations of the village of Oak Brook relative to the development of the property commonly known. So they were they were approving the improvement plans and always did so noting both agreement with the subdivision regulations and zoning regulations simultaneously.

Yeah, but that's just because they were approving an improvement plan because they were building something that the subdivision code did not establish the reallocate that did not establish the 600,000 square feet that was a zoning provision and a zone a plan development approval by the village these were like prior to the plan developments of that's why it was pursuant to a zoning ordinance that was adopted i think i mean i also think half the problem is is this that the plan development was granted as a plan development with

in the manner that the property exists now, I think there's also an argument to be made where if it splits into three separate parcels, does that require an amendment to the original plan development?

Yeah. Show me that provision. Show me anywhere in these documents. Because we've looked. We looked for anything that said, if you ever subdivide or if you ever do anything, that's an amendment. If it's there, we'll comply with it. But we don't think it's there. And we looked.

Rebecca, the question that I asked is how the division of the numbers based over the three lots and how those were accounted for?

Calculated? I have to apologize, but those were numbers that were provided to staff. Oh, Rama suggests that they're based on the FAR. Of course we need a microphone. Rama knows because I was on vacation that week.

Good for you.

The final document in 97 said that the maximum of 1,400,000, that's the maximum area that they're going to use. I believe this was allocated according to the FAR. And then the document also said that it's not going to go beyond 0.43 FAR. So according to what the building square footage is, or the total square footage of each building on each proposed lot is, and whatever is the... total FAR and I believe that was how it was divided and then allocated accordingly.

So it's based on current zoning and zoning regulations as far as FAR?

Yes, and also based on the 97 document which said that it should not be more than 1,400,000 square feet.

So if you avoided the $619,000 and just recalculated the FAR based on each of the new lots, what would the buildable area be on each of the new buildable lots?

I'm going to say more than 619,000. That's true.

If we split it, they got the right.

If Rama is suggesting that lot three is the largest of the three, so that's 32 acres. Now the improvements for ACE, the current ACE hardware Corporate area and the parking lot that they have is Significantly larger, but I don't I'm sorry.

I don't have the numbers in front of me Why couldn't we just void the six hundred nineteen thousand and when they come back for a new? project whenever the hell that may be you recalculate a new FAR for the lot.

I would suggest though that you're not going to void the 619 because I don't think that even the applicant is suggesting that the improvement plans are voided by the subdivision improvement, or excuse me, the subdivision plat.

The applicant just does not like how we've subdivided the 619. That's all they're saying. They don't agree with the 325 to lot 1, 214 to lot 2. That's all they're saying. They just don't like how we've subdivided. So I mean, again, it's there. They have to come back for planned development. And just to point out, this was in 97. We're in 2026. That's 29 years. Somebody created this discussion 29 years ago. And we're trying to plan for discussion 20 years from now.

BUT THAT MAKES IT PRUDENT THAT WE BASE IT ON WHAT IS CURRENT. I MEAN, IF THE FAR OF THE CURRENT ZONING ELOCATES A DIVISION OF THE THREE OF THE 619 SQUARE FEET IN A ROUGH NUMBER It's not, you know, we're basing it on something. We're basing it on the FAR of the current zoning requirements of the total that was for one acre, or 80 acres, is now for three 24-acre sites, with one of them having a reservation restriction. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT'S A PRUDENT AVENUE TO FOLLOW. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT, LIKE THEY SAID, IF THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO WORRY ABOUT, IF THEY'RE NOT BUILDING ANYTHING, OKAY, MAKE IT. AND THEN WHEN THEY COME DECIDE, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING ON IT, THEN, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN ADDRESS IT AT THAT POINT. IT'S PRUDENT TO GIVE, YOU KNOW, SOME DIRECTION TO SAY, OKAY, THIS IS WHAT OUR CURRENT ZONING IS, SO IF YOU WANT US TO DIVIDE ONE LOT INTO THREE, HERE'S HOW WE SEE THAT THE FIRE FITS EACH LOT. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S JUST KIND OF BASIC.

I DON'T KNOW.

WHAT WAS THE MAIN OBJECTION TO THESE NUMBERS? JUST REMIND ME, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF THESE NUMBERS.

So the reallocation of the square footage, it's legally improper to do as part of this subdivision.

Correct. So this is a planned development. This would be for the plan. There's nothing being developed. So the FAR applies when we are discussing a development that is taking place, not a property that's already developed to a degree. Let's just remember. WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, LIKE, THIS IS SUBDIVISION. THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT MASONRY, SQUARE FOOTAGE, PARKING LOTS, RETENTION PONDS, NOTHING. IT'S SUBDIVISION.

DO YOU AGREE THAT IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE?

I'M SORRY?

DO YOU AGREE WITH THE GENTLEMAN'S STATEMENT THAT IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE? NOT LEGALLY?

I THINK THAT AS A CONDITION TO APPROVAL, WE'LL APPLY TO IT'S PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT PLACE TO ADD THAT, BUT THEN AGAIN, THIS GOES BACK TO THE INITIAL QUESTION, A PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS FOR ONE COHESIVE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT. IF WE SPLIT THIS INTO THREE, AND THERE'S THREE OWNERS, THREE DIFFERENT USES, IS IT Should this be an amendments to a plan development is the next question as opposed to just a straight-up plan of subdivision without addressing all of the issues that tie all this together?

That's the that's what I think the question is Right because I I'm sorry to add to it, but the improvement agreement doesn't get updated unless there's a proposed improvement and the applicant has said that they're not intending an improvement

If Rebecca if we divided and if it gets divided into three lots Is there any current use that now doesn't have parking that it requires parking? I In other words, right now it's one lot, so the parking's just shared. But if we divide it into three lots, is the hotel on a lot that needs parking and doesn't have it, or is there any use currently happening that if we divide it into three lots, we now create a lot that has no parking that needs parking?

Yes. That said, that's very common. Because the village's zoning ordinance also allows for the shared parking arrangements. So lot two has no parking to be really, to be seen.

And that's why we answered Mr. DiBernardo's question that the covenants that we're going to provide will show that lot two will have use of the right to use the parking on the other lot exactly as the staff has indicated happens all the time.

And that covenant would travel forever?

With the land.

Forward?

With the land, recorded against the property. But it does happen, but it's always a debate. I mean, parking is a huge debate each time. I think the commission could all agree with that. It's not one of the issues that typically goes unnoticed. That's why we're bringing it up because it does happen. And we often find out later that we don't have enough parking, but that's why it comes up.

all right let me just add potentially a little clarification so um the numbers and the allocation of the 619 you're just objecting to on principle because it's a subdivision not not an application for new new construction per se

Procedurally, yes. But in addition, as I said, it's not logical. It's only logical in the context of a proposal. That's when you would decide how it should be allocated. Doing it now in a vacuum makes no sense to us.

Not going to argue that for the minute? Yep. so to michael's point though there is the covenant that restricts that that total to the one million four in in aggregate right and as one owner it's probably sort of your choice right um how you're gonna gonna do that per se um but to the point of dividing it into three lots now, you have the FAR, which would control that, but then there's the not to exceed number. And to Michael's point, at some point, should you transfer it to another separate entity, not all three, and you came back with the allocation subject to approval, would that be tenable? sorry would that be what would that be agreeable that that if you were to parcel his suggestion that prior to uh acquisition by a new owner there would be an agreement i have to check with my client on that because that just that would seem reasonable that you make that determination how that's going to go and then the village would then agree or not you know can i can i ask a question

Let's assume we allocate those 619 square 619,000 square feet a lot number one gets 200,000 square feet but Based on the code they could build 300,000 additional 300,000 square feet are we gonna tell them no because you're allocated is only 200 That's what we're saying here is that was that was also my point

Is that how do you this plan development was approved as one? Unified plan development with one owner for these reasons this this building we got three and now you're you're What's being presented to you as a plan of subdivision to divide this into three with three potential owners? There are some issues that Could cause problems down the road if they are not addressed now whether that's whether whether a plan of subdivision condition is the appropriate place to do this at and Probably not.

Exactly.

Because you've got to be able to, you've got the 619 cap of future expansion.

If you do the allocation, you're going to have a problem. That's what I'm saying.

That's what I'm saying. At the time of subdividing, not subdividing, but selling off any individual parcel, the owner would then come back to us with how much of that FAR and that 619 they would allocate.

I can't imagine a scenario where a buyer would agree to a transaction without knowing in advance how much of that 619 is available to them. So it would have to be sorted out in the event of a purchase.

Exactly. So why can't we leave it up to the discretion of the owner? Because it's their property. I mean, let's be honest. It's three subdivisions, but still one owner. To this point, We're solving for a futuristic problem, which I get. It's advisable. But any time they want to sell all three lots 20 years in the future or 20 days in the future, they will still have to come back and say, hey, we sold lot two. And by the way, that 619, we gave them $100,000 of that. But making it a condition of approval, I don't see it. That's where I'm coming from. I don't see why it's even in here. I get it. The board put it in there too.

And the practical reality will sort itself out because you can't do a transfer without the answer.

I'd be more amenable to saying the remaining 619, 146 square feet of previously approved building area shall be allocated according to the owner's something. Give me a word, people.

Yeah, upon sale, prior to the sale of any lot.

Or development. I mean, again, we're seeing sale. They may decide to develop on that lot themselves. And they could use all 200 or 300 or 400, right? So again, one owner right now, and just say it will be allocated according to the owner, period. Not for sale. I mean, if they sold it, they'll have to allocate it, to Simon's point. If they develop on it, they still have to comply with the FAR and all of the other things. So it's a moot point at this point.

Why do they have to allocate it if they sell it? They have to stay.

Why? So if they sold all three lots, that's 619. So then they don't. They could keep the 619 for the other lots.

I think that was the main issue that I had is that if they don't allocate it at the time of a sale, then there's two property owners, potentially three property owners, that are fighting over this 619,000 square foot figure.

But that's their problem, not mine.

It does become the village's problem when you have three proposals that are presented to the village, each for 600,000 square feet, and they're fighting over who gets that

AND WE SAY NO BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT'S 619. THEY HAVE TO DECIDE WHERE IT GOES. I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE PLACE FOR THIS DISCUSSION. IT'S ABOVE MY PAY GRADE, BUT I DON'T GET PAID FOR THIS.

For one thing, we're significantly diminishing the value of lot two with the pond. I mean, all the value is going to be in lot one and three, because lot two is going to be in a flood zone, so it's going to be restricted consistently. It's going to have lending issues. We're definitely diminishing the value of lot two, but we're not selling real estate here, but the point is, We have addressed this issue with FAR, with the 1900 Spring Road building. When the doctor's office wanted to build, they said, you only allotted so much for a restaurant, but you allotted more for the other property. So since it's not gonna be used there, we wanna put it on our farm. So we have addressed that issue of FAR before, but it's prudent to give some guidance to say, look, our current zoning would say, you know you've got 1.4 million uh square feet roughly on a billable area on a for the fire on one lot 80 acre lot but now if you're going to subdivide it here's what each lot could have and we added the 619 divided out to what's currently there it just makes sense to me but um WHETHER, LIKE MICHAEL'S POINT, SHOULD WE EVEN BE, SHOULD THIS ALL BE GOING THROUGH AN AMENDMENT AND NOT EVEN BE BEFORE THE PLANNED COMMISSION IS A VERY VALID POINT.

THAT'S A DISCUSSION FOR A DIFFERENT TABLE. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

Going back to what you're saying as far as future development, I think it is capped, right, at the 619. And as a single owner, you wouldn't have to allocate it at that point because you could kind of, you own all three lots. You can kind of place it where you deem necessary, correct? long as the village approved it yeah as long as um but once you start to sell off any given parcel then you get into this fight of who owns what portion of that 619 and i think at that point it does become very important for you as the owner to assign i mean to that

it's not our i don't have the right to assign it right it's ultimate like that would be an application to the village on a proposal and the village would have to approve any assignment yeah subject to approval but right i mean rather than having the village to just do some

MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION FOR IT. YOU OWN IT, YOU ASSIGN IT, VILLAGE APPROVES IT, AND THEN IT TAKES AWAY THAT ARGUING OF WHO, YOU KNOW, THREE OWNERS FIGHTING FOR EACH ONE.

THE OTHER THING THAT MIGHT HAPPEN IS, AGAIN, THAT'S WHY I DON'T THINK, I THINK IT'S PREMATURE TO BE HAVING THIS DETAILED CONVERSATION WHEN THERE IS NOTHING HAPPENING, BUT 10, 20 years from now, one lot is sold to somebody who wants to do something. And they go to the village. The one thing that could happen is the village could amend the 600 number. Say that number isn't really relevant anymore. That was from 50 years ago when it was McDonald's. That's two owners ago. So in order for us to approve what you want to do on your lot, CONDITION OF THAT IS THAT BIGGER NUMBER IS GOING TO FALL. THAT COULD HAPPEN TOO. AGAIN, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO IMAGINE 600,000 MORE SQUARE FEET ON THIS PROPERTY GIVEN THE VILLAGE'S REACTION WHEN PREVIOUS PROPOSALS WERE SENT, WHICH WE RESPECT.

I would just add that historically it has gone actually the opposite where McDonald's incrementally asked for additional land area.

McDonald's. Michael, what's your recommendation?

I think the best advice that I can give you is whether you feel comfortable moving forward with the approval of a plan of subdivision with what's been presented to you.

Could we craft a position that is dependent, a condition that is dependent upon the zoning requirements and the plan development requirements at that date when it becomes necessary. And why force ourselves into a corner now when the process defends us? They can't do anything without our approval.

Put conditions on the approval of a plan of subdivision based to a jury.

Consistent with our zoning requirements at that point in time.

It doesn't happen anyway. I mean, if they want to do something else in the future, it's based on what our rules are that day, not what happened when McDonald's moved in in 1970, whatever.

Anything in the future, to your point, anything in the future is going to have to comply with the zoning ordinance that exists at that time and the McDonald development documents that exist today.

And as long as we agree that the safeties are in place, the planning development process, and the self-interest of all parties, I don't think we have to force a decision now. It feels arbitrary and a little divorced from reality.

I think we're given an ordinance that we're stuck from before when nobody expected McDonald's wouldn't be here and we wouldn't have 80 acres because in staff notes it says, all existing development rights, height limits, open space requirements, parking ratios, and access restrictions continue to apply to all subdivided parcels. These standards run with the land, not with the ownership or parcel configuration. The approval of ordinance S878 and ordinance 879 identified a total development of 1,400,000 square feet and a total FAR of 0.43 with a lot coverage of 22 acres. It runs with the 80 acres. And in here they discussed, is it divided? Is it this? It's that. They didn't think it through. And so I don't think we can solve it. I don't think we have the right to solve it, but I can tell you what the issue is going to be 20 years from now or 10 minutes from now. We're going to have multiple owners, and somebody's going to come in and ask, somebody with the biggest lot is going to come in and ask for 600,000 square feet, which is going to fit on their land, and the neighbor on lot two is going to object because he's going to say, I'm entitled to part of that 600,000 that you think you get all of, and that's going to be our fight. don't think we can solve that here i think that's going to be a lawsuit between them to figure out who gets the 619 because that's what i see i see two owners somebody's going to object and say no no you don't you don't get the whole six because what if i want to do something in five years that's going to be not our michael headache if i might if you could help me with this i'd like to suggest that we vote for the approval

without the reference to the allocation, but add something that says that we will provide to the board our rationale for why we want to remove that element from the equation.

I'm sorry. Do you want to remove the condition that's recommended by staff?

I'm thinking about removing the reference to the allocation, approving everything else, AND THEN ON SOME SEPARATE PROCESS, WE HAVE STAFF EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD WHY WE THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT POSITION TO TAKE.

SO I THINK THAT IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER, THERE WOULD BE THAT EXPLANATION WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATION THAT ULTIMATELY GOES TO THE VILLAGE BOARD. IN THE MINUTES. Yeah, so I don't know if there's anything specific that you would need to modify the motion on. I got you.

I'll modify the motion when I read it.

Peter, could you repeat one more time why it is inappropriate for this board, or the trustees even, to ask for this allocation? Could you please?

From a legal standpoint?

Yep, from a legal standpoint.

That number, the 1.4 and the 600,000, was all contained in ordinances that the Village Board adopted as part of a plan development. In order to amend a plan development, there's a procedure in the Village Zoning Code that requires an application, requires a public hearing before this body, requires the Village Board to amend those ordinances. That's completely separate than a subdivision process that is not asking for any amendments to the existing zoning documents and that complies with the subdivision regulations. It's just not to condition a compliant subdivision plat on changes to a zoning ordinance. It's apples and oranges. It just can't be done.

That makes sense. But now my next question to Rebecca is, are there times when a petitioner comes to the village and wants to petition for something and we direct them, no, you can't just ask for a variance. You need to ask for a variance and something else. They came in and they've asked for one thing, but maybe what they're asking for isn't appropriate for what we have to work with, so.

The applicant earlier this evening applied for a lot of consolidation. The lot that they were creating was undersized for the zoning district, so they were told and sought a variation, which is why you had to vote twice on it. The variation was because they were not compliant with the lot size.

Density wise you're going to have less house, but Okay, so now the question is although they've come to ask us for this particular thing are they not asking us for enough because they I'm putting words in your mouth. Don't don't mind me because they can't get the other thing they want So they're saying we're asking for this you don't have the right to deny that but in order Like the earlier thing in order to get what they want They really should have been asking us for two things because we do have this odd thing that we've never had before where we had 80 acres one owner and We put these rules on it and now they want to divide the 80 acres and keep those rules which really don't work for the three parcels and we wouldn't have done it that way had there been three parcels. So the rules we set up for 80 acres don't work on three 25 acre parcels. So now what? We're about to create I don't even, I don't know the right word.

Isn't that a separate process, though? Like, that's the planned development process. Like, because it was, the rule was for a, whatever they got was for a planned development. This is not a planned development discussion. There is no planned development in front of us today.

They're changing the board. So we started with a game, and now they're changing our game board, and they want to keep those same rules.

But they're playing by our rules, though, by our law.

I think what Natalie is suggesting is that THEY'RE ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF A PLATF SUBDIVISION BECAUSE THERE'S THESE PREEXISTING ISSUES AND APPROVALS THAT ARE TIED TO ALL OF THE PRIOR ORDINANCES AND AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT TO GET THE PLATF SUBDIVISION, REALLY, THERE SHOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO CLEAN UP THE RECORD FOR ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES. IS THAT CORRECT, WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO SAY?

THANK YOU. THOSE WORDS WORK BETTER THAN WHAT I GOT OUT. I APPRECIATE THAT.

that would apply pursuant to your question about at the time of a sale, but not now, right? All we're doing is changing the lot lines. We're not doing anything else that would trigger, it's still one owner as it's always been one owner. So we're not triggering, even if I, and I'm not sure I agree with the analysis that even subdividing it, even if there's a new property owner, that's an amendment to the plan development. I WON'T EVEN GET THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK IN ANY COURSE IT'S TRIGGERED BY JUST CHANGING THE LOT LINES. AS I SAID, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE ZONING REGULATIONS, IN THE ZONING REGULATIONS, IN THE MCDONALD'S APPROVALS, IN THE SUBDIVISION CODE THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO SEEK AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO SIMPLY CHANGE THE LOT LINES IF THE OWNER IS STILL ONE OWNER.

OKAY, SO IT WORKS IF THERE'S AN OWNER. Maybe, Michael, you had a good idea, but then the question is who bears the burden of the cost? If there is any ownership change, and you'll have to word that so that when you transfer between your own entities, you don't trigger something. I get that. But when there's a arms-length transaction with an unrelated party where one or multiple parcels are transferred, Can we get a condition where then you will do whatever Michael said I said we should do to bring this to a point where the village then doesn't have some crazy problem on their doorstep where everybody wants the 600 and everybody's going to sue everybody, including us, because we give it to somebody? And I know you can't answer that until you talk to your client, but.

So I would just suggest if... Because that issue just came up, I don't know how to respond to it. I would request respectfully that it not be a condition, but it be something you said which the board should consider that so we can have further discussions about that. I'm happy to have those. But I just don't want, I'm trying to avoid a situation where there's a recommendation including a condition that is somehow unworkable. But you guys have to make that decision.

Quick question. By subdividing parcels into three you're creating new legal descriptions does that affect the prior ordinance and agreement because now it applies to a legal description that does not exist if that happens does that render the agreement invalid or anything affected affected that way the language that staff has in here it says

THESE RESTRICTIONS AND THESE ORDINANCES AND THIS 107 MILLION POINT 4 APPLIES TO THIS REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP, PARCEL CONFIGURATION, SUBDIVISION. THIS APPLIES TO THIS 80 ACRES. CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT. DIVIDE IT IN A MILLION PIECES. HERE'S THE RULE.

RUNS WITH THE LAND. WE AGREE.

RUNS WITH THE LAND. SO IT STICKS. THEIR SUBDIVISION DOESN'T LOSE THIS ORDINANCE. IT JUST MAKES A MESS FOR US BECAUSE THESE NUMBERS ARE TOO BIG FOR THESE PARCELS NOW.

Any buyer then of any particular lot would have that, you know, notice to them. Correct.

You'd think.

Not that you would think, yeah, they would. But it'll be on their...

If they didn't, it'd be their attorney's liability. Yeah, they would be notified of the conditions and the covenants of record. The issue still could exist where there's three different owners and they're all fighting over... the same 600,000 square feet. No matter what you do now, that's still a possibility. Whether it's going to happen, I don't know, but it's still a possibility because when this planned development was approved initially, it was for one development, one owner.

So what bothers me is when they asked the village indicated that it believes is probably inappropriate, like holding you to commitment because without doing all the research on it, but putting the 619,000 is I think fair to say that you indicated was more likely inappropriate than appropriate at this point. I don't like us going forward saying let's make a condition that legally may not stand ground. it be appropriate to seek an amendment of the ordinance before ruling on on the subdivision that would address you know these concerns on whose petition the village's own petition has to be the owner's petition and the owner well right right and the owner hasn't and they're not asking so so then the question is can we say no to this because they're not asking for right

COMPLETE RELIEF THAT THEY NEED TO GET THIS.

FOR WHAT REASON, RIGHT? LIKE, WE'RE SOLVING FOR A FUTURE PROBLEM, NOT A CURRENT REQUEST.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. WE HAVE TO TAKE THE FUTURE.

BUT THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THIS TO BE DISCUSSED. I DO NOT THINK THE 619 SHOULD BE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OR DENIAL. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. NOW, WE CAN TELL THE BOARD THAT THEY NEED TO FIGURE THIS OUT. WE SAID SOMETHING, YOU'RE GOING TO CHECK WITH THE OWNER AND MAYBE YOU'LL HAVE A RESPONSE BY THE TIME THIS GOES TO THE BOARD, WHICH IS REALLY WHERE THIS SHOULD COME UP WITH, BUT NOT HERE. THEY HAVE SATISFIED ALL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, ALL ZONING, EVERYTHING, COVENANTS, EVERYTHING THAT IS SUBDIVISION IS NEEDED. SO FROM A LEGAL OR OUR PERSPECTIVE, TECHNICALLY AND LEGALLY, WE CAN'T SAY, HEY, WE DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THIS, GO BACK AND CHECK. NO. THERE'S, WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION. THAT DECISION COULD BE THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT OF, I'M JUST, I DON'T WANT TO OVERSTEP we're supposed to be doing that's my concern like i'm pigeonholing them and i have said this before i do not like it when we are put on the spot to pigeonhole other people for something the board does not like or would like to see right that we've had this discussion they're going to watch this meeting hopefully they'll read the minutes they'll have their recommendations and then they can tell them what they what to do with 619 000 square feet my opinion

and this gives you the ability to go back talk with the owner um and prepare for potentially the recommendation that we're going to put forward um that says how do you how do you deal with that i'm sorry go ahead richard too many mics are on

I just have one question for Michael, who seems to be leaning that we need an amendment to the plan development. I'm wondering if we're comfortable with this one ownership, but we're heading down that path saying if there's any change in ownership, it will require an amendment to the plan development. At that time, we can maybe think about allocating at that time. At this time, we're okay, because it's following everything under one ownership, under one umbrella. The zoning works, everything works. When we start separating it out, splitting it off, that would kick in. Would that make sense?

Yeah, I think my initial suggestion was some kind of requirement or condition where these issues need to be addressed and figured out prior to a conveyance. Prior to any conveyance, right. Any conveyance, or I'm not sure. I don't know how that would be worded exactly, but... It's an amendment.

Why does that work if we can't demand they do it today? How do we have the right to demand they do it when they sell the property? You don't the right doesn't come up.

So I mean we don't have the right today We're not gonna have the right tomorrow, but we're gonna at that point be able to talk about allocating it We could allocate we don't have the right if we don't if we don't have the real realistically the issue with allocating is that even if it does get sold what what happens if 200,000 square feet get allocated to a property and then nothing happens with it. I don't have the answer to that question right now, I really don't.

Let me throw this thought out there. It isn't necessarily with the property being sold. Tomorrow, if we make a recommendation to the board to subdivide this lot, and then the board says, okay, we approve the subdivision, then the developer goes to the bank and says, hey, you know what, I got this property now, and it's three lots, and I want this loan on this, AND IT'S NOT ON A FLOOD PLANE. AND I GOT ALL THIS SQUARE FOOTAGE I COULD BUILD ON THERE. HOW MUCH OF A LOAN WILL YOU GIVE ME? AND HE GIVES ME A LOAN. AND YOU SAY, WELL, WHY DOES THAT MATTER? THAT'S CURRENTLY WHAT WE'RE LIVING THROUGH NOW WITH OFFICE BUILDINGS. OFFICE LENDERS WENT TO A BANK. I MEAN, A BUILDER WENT TO A BANK AND SAID, LOOK, I GOT SO MANY SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE. HERE'S MY PROJECTED RENT SCHEDULE REVENUE STREAM. AND THE BANK SAYS, OKAY, I'LL GIVE YOU A LOAN ON 80% OF THAT. THEN A COUPLE YEARS LATER, THE BANK CALLS THE BILL AND SAYS, HEY, YOU KNOW, YOUR REVENUE STREAM WENT UP. I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER $50 MILLION LOAN ON THAT PROPERTY. AND IT'S NOT INCOME TO THE PERSON, SO THEY CAN GO BUY BOATS AND YATS IN MIAMI. THEY CAN BUILD ANOTHER OFFICE BUILDING, WHATEVER THEY WANT. IT'S JUST NOT INCOME. So that's what we're living through now, because now the developers have spent all this money that they were given from these lenders on office buildings that they can't fill, so now the lenders have to take them back. So we could possibly be creating a scenario where when we divide the three lots, they go get a loan on the one lot and say, hey, they didn't say how much square foot goes with each lot, so I want my whole... WHATEVER MINUS WHAT'S ALREADY BUILT OUT OF 1.4 MILLION SQUARE FOOT. THAT'S WHAT I WANT MY LOAN AT. WHY IS THAT OUR PROBLEM? IT IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEN WE DEAL WITH SITUATIONS WHERE WE CREATED. IN OTHER WORDS, WE CREATED THE SUBDIVISION INTO THE THREE LOTS. SO WE NOW ARE STUCK WITH, THEY'RE GOING TO, JUST LIKE THAT OTHER DEVELOPER, YOU KNOW, HEY, WE CAN'T GET A LOAN, SO ON AND SO FORTH. THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO. WE CAN'T BUILD 22 STORIES. WE WANT TO BUILD 13 STORIES. IT ALL PLAYS OUT. THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO ACTUALLY FOLLOW THIS DEVELOPMENT IS WHERE THE MONEY GOES. SO WHEN WE CREATE THE SUBDIVISION, ARE WE CREATING A PATH FOR THE MONEY TO GO IN A DIRECTION THAT WE DON'T MAY NOT APPRECIATE. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THERE IS AN ACTION JUST BY DOING THE PLAN OF SUBDIVISION, WE ARE CREATING SOME PROBLEMS FOR US THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL. REALLY, THIS SHOULD BE DONE AT AMENDMENT FIRST, WHETHER THEY'RE BUILDING ANYTHING OR NOT. YOU KNOW, THERE WAS THESE SPECIAL AGREEMENTS THAT WERE SET FOR THIS PROPERTY, AND THOSE SHOULD BE AMENDED FIRST BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF DOING IT IN AND AROUND AND WE'RE OPENING UP OURSELVES TO A BAD SCENARIO. IT'S MY OWN THOUGHT.

I still don't see how this body can control how the owner represents themselves to a third party. We cannot control that. We should not be controlling that, right? There's nothing. They have satisfied all requirements for a subdivision. That 619 is a problem for a different body, different day. I don't think it's us tonight. That's my thing. Is it a problem? Absolutely. Does it need to be addressed? Yes. Is it our problem right now, right this minute? I'm not sure.

This is just a purely clarification. Although that the requirements for the subdivision are satisfied, that is absent any sort of conditions or obligations, requirements of prior plan development ordinances, correct? The whole reason why I brought up what I did was because the complications stem from the specific Conditions in the plan developments and that is not but that's that's that's kind of different than the the requirements or can to satisfy a plan of subdivision Can we get around it going through the back door and put a statement in there that each?

Lot has to meet the zoning code and the planning development conditions.

I

Don't worry about the square footage. They have to meet the goal. Oh, that's already understood. Each lot independently, not the three lots.

But the problem becomes... COULD EXCEED THE 619 IN AGGREGATE AS FAR AS FUTURE?

IN THE FUTURE. TO ME, IT SOUNDS SOMETHING WRONG HERE THAT WE CANNOT EXCEED THE 1.5 OR 1.6 MILLION BECAUSE THE CODE ALLOWS YOU TO DO THAT.

That point it would be an amendment or whatever That's the whole point like this is we're not there.

It's a subdivision plat They've satisfied everything the 619 is a throw in there because somebody doesn't want to deal with it No offense, and they want us to deal with it. No not this not our current subdivision plat problem

All right, so if you were to kind of, we've got the two issues, right? One is approval of the subdivision as it's currently plotted based on prudent engineering and guidance that was provided. And then the second piece of this, which is the piece that we have all the debate about, is what to do for future development, which isn't really part of the subdivision. Correct. But what we can do is, as part of the motion, not a condition, come back with the recommendation that this needs to be worked out. Yes. AND I THINK WE COULD MOVE FORWARD IF WE HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

CORRECT. AS LONG AS IT'S NOT A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. THE 619 CANNOT BE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. IT CAN BE A RECOMMENDATION.

BUT IT POINTS OUT A POTENTIAL, YEAH.

YES. THAT'S WHAT I

Separate the issues because they don't belong together.

Who would like to make the recommendation? Go ahead.

I would like to recommend the Oak Brook Reserve final plat of subdivision subject to the following conditions. Number one, final engineering approval prior to recording of the plat. A relevant declaration of covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements and shared maintenance agreement for the three parcels in a form acceptable to the village is required and shall be recorded which shall include preference to all prior development and improvement plans. Three, recording of the document by village staff. And four, adding the condition notwithstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all village ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application, except as specifically varied or waived.

And then? REBECCA, AT THIS TIME, DO WE NEED TO PROVIDE THE RECOMMENDATION OR DO WE JUST VOTE THIS AND THEN SEPARATELY STATE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION AND FOR THE TRUSTEES TO CONSIDER? I'M SORRY, RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROBABLY THE WRONG WORD, BUT THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE?

STAFF REPORT AND THE MINUTES AND THE CHAIR LETTER WILL ALL GO TO THE BOARD NOTING ALL OF THIS.

RIGHT. SO. CAN I ASK SOMETHING? WHO'S IN FAVOR OF REMOVING THE 600? WHAT IS IT? CAN WE TAKE A VOTE ON WHO'S IN FAVOR OF REMOVING IT?

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO. THAT'S PART OF THE MOTION. FIRE AN AMENDMENT.

I'M NOT DOING THE 619.

YOU DID NOT MENTION THE 600,000 IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

THEY HAVE REMOVED THE 619.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU VOTE ON REMOVING IT. THE VOTE THAT'S PENDING VOTES THAT THE VOTE THAT'S PENDING RIGHT NOW IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS RIGHT IN THE 619 NOT INCLUDING THE 619,000 CORRECT SO THE BALL POINTS ONE THREE FOUR FIVE YOU JUST DROP ONE THREE FOUR AND FIVE ALL RIGHT CAN I IS IT DISCUSSION OVER NO YOU CAN CONTINUE TO DISCUSS UNTIL I DON'T THINK SOMEONE MADE A SECOND YEAH WE JUST SAY THERE'S NOT A SECOND YET

i was just going to say we already sent this to the village board once and we got it back so are we just wasting the developer's time because we're just going to get it back again because they didn't like it the first time they're not going to like it this time we'll find out um we have a we have a motion roma do you want to take a role will zach no bulan yes de bernardo yeah hassan yes

Pantrelli?

Yes.

Capetta?

Yes.

Nimri?

Yes.

Simon?

Yes.

Ziemer?

Yes. So the matter has been recommended for approval. Rebecca, do you want to advise the applicant on the next steps?

Well, the applicant has advised me that they're available on the 22nd of September, which would be the second board meeting in September. And I believe in September, we return to the two board meetings a month. So I will go ahead and note that worst case scenario, they would go then to the October meeting if for some reason they aren't holding that second.

Thank you very much. I understand the concern and we'll have those conversations.

It's a great conversation. Thank you all very much.

Thank you.

Okay What I'd like to say is to removing it from that covenants not from this period Which is making suggestion to the board to do something about it And that would require no that's that's what I was saying is that's what we need to talk to do.

Yeah Include that in this report Other business Rebecca

The September 2nd meeting is at the first week of September, and we do have at least two items already on to that, one of which is one of the first subdivision applications for one of the Institute of Basic Life parcels that's located within the Village Boundaries. So that will come before you. oh yeah thanks rama it's actually going to be a bigger meeting rama just reminded me that we are asking the village board on the 11th of august to refer the oak brook motor condos to the planning and zoning commission so there will actually be not one but two exciting discussions that evening if the hits just keep on coming guys required pizza next time The Institute of Basic Life parcel, I believe that it's going to be conveyed. It's currently on Adams Road, and this would be south of Deer Path.

What's latest on the Amazon?

Thank you for asking. The August 11th meeting is chocked full of fun and applications. The certificates of appropriateness that you made the recommendation this past time, as well as both the ordinances for the Amazon, the final plat of consolidation, as well as the Murphy development request for the building at 1315 16th Street. So the August 11th evening meeting of the Village Board will have many of your just previously completed items, and the September 2nd will be the next time you get to discuss some fun stuff. Oh, I will note for you as an update related to Amazon and to the Murphy development that conditions that are recommended from this body go to the next stage and then it is once the board then will sometimes modify those conditions and then move them to the final stage. So that is what took place. For the most part, though, I would say the conditions from both were relatively intact.

Rebecca, I did one thought. You know, when I first started the Planning Commission in 2014, the Village President then asked me how we can get younger people in the Village of Oak Brook. So since I don't speak to the board members regularly and the Village President, throw it out there. that this may be one of their last opportunities to build on the 20 acres if they get that i know it's oprah motor club which is a very trendy development good economy will do good in a bad economy it's going to be vacant but if they took all those parcels the old lace part they could possibly get 20 acres BUILD A AGE-RESTRICTED COMMUNITY. EVERYBODY, AT LEAST ONE PERSON ON TITLE, HAS TO BE 45 YEARS OF AGE OR LESS AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE. IT'D BE THE FIRST TIME WE DID IT. ALLOW FOR LIKE A 7,500 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND BUILD, you know, maybe 2,200, somewhere between 2,000 and 2,500 square foot homes, try to get in the price range of 750,000. If the village, if that is in the school district, the proper school districts, if that is, if it's not, then it's a bad idea. But if it is, mention this to them because they're running out of space. They don't have many more opportunities. They're definitely not gonna go for it at the Bath and Tennis Club. oh man they shoot me but you know they asked me that was one of the first things i was asked when i joined the commission i was appointed to commission so i'm trying to throw it out there now that they're running out of space this might be their last space uh There, you know, it'd be across from the post office and across from the park space. So it could work. We would have to create a special zoning district. If the village has to subsidize it at all, then there would need to be a resale restriction. In other words, if you sell the home within two years, three years, then you have to pay a certain percentage uh back that's only if the village has to subsidize through some kind of tif district or whatever you know the development of the land but just throw that out there to them that they're running out of space so this might be the space all right thank you um is there any public comment thank you for attending by the way

So given no public comment, can we have a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

All in favor?

Aye.

Meeting adjourned.