Loading...
Minutes - 01/21/2008 - Plan Commission2. 3. El MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 21, 2008 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON MARCH 17, 2008 CALL TO ORDER: The Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Payovich in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL: Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Raju Iyer, Richard Knitter, Gopal Lalmalani, Mintu Shanna, Vivek Singhal and Marcia Tropinski IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Wolin, Trustee, Robert L. Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development and Dale L. Durfey, Jr., Village Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES: REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2007 Motion by Member Lalmalani, seconded by Member Iyer to approve the minutes of the November 19, 2007 Regular Plan Commission Meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. Chairwoman Payovich welcomed the new Plan Commission members. UNFINISHED BUSINESS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL MINUTES UNFINISHED BUSINESS B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TEXT AMENDMENT — REAR YARD voi3 - TEXT AMEND - REAR SETBACKS ALONG STREETS — REVIEW AND .AMENDMENT OF YARD SETBACK s APPLICABLE TEXT AI.,ONG STREETS This matter was taken out of order and was heard after New Business concluded. Director of Community Development Kallien provided an overview and history of the request. The section of the code goes back to the first Zoning Ordinance in 1966. This issue relates to setbacks primarily to residential properties that abut Oak Brook Road (31st Street), York Road (north of 31St Street) and 22"d Street. There are only a few residential properties in York Woods that abut 22'd Street. Even though all the properties are zoned residential, there is R -1 with a 100 --foot rear yard setback, R -2 with a 60 -foot rear yard setback and R -3 with a 40 -foot rear yard setback. Those properties that fall under this provision of the code have a significant setback of up to 100 feet. After consulting with the Village Engineer, when the ordinance was created in 1966, 22"d Street, York Road, and Oak Brook Road were VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 10 January 21, 2008 all 2 -lane roads and much smaller than they are today. They were Oak Brook's major thoroughfares and over time, they would expand to deal with a growing community and be able to address increased traffic demands and as a result, that has happened. 22nd Street is between 4 -6 lanes; 'York Road north of 31st Street is 4 lanes and Oak Brook Road is improved to 4 lanes. Even though the road improvements are done, this provision requires a 100 -foot setback from the property line for properties on 22nd Street and on York Road north of 31St Street; and 110 feet from the section line for properties along Oak Brook Road. The implications for some of these lots are significant. (Aerial pictures were provided showing the properties impacted.) Many houses were found that are currently located in the setback. If the rules were complied with, they should never have been given a permit and none sought or were given variances, In addition, there are swimming pools, decks and detached garages and technically, the way that the code is written they should have never been built. This year, an issue arose for a resident at 11 Dover (York Woods) whose house was located approximately 80 feet from the right of way line. There was a large back yard entirely shielded with mature trees, along with those located in the right of way. He applied for a permit to build a detached garage. The Plan Reviewer correctly looked at the zoning district (R -3) and approved the permit for the detached garage. The way that the code is written, accessory structures can be built within S feet of the rear property line. In this case, there was no place on his property that he could have a detached garage. He could not add a swimming pool or even a deck and was very limited. It was found that this was quite common along these major thoroughfares. As a result, several alternatives have been proposed. The first would be to keep the language as it is. Secondly, to follow the underlying zoning district and allow the rear yard setbacks as specified in that district, allow detached accessory structures to follow the rest of the code as they apply to other properties in that district. It would open up a lot of opportunities for the property owner. Another alternative would be to continue with the extraordinary setback for the principal structure to snake sure that the house has to be setback, but allow people some flexibility to add pools, decks and things like that in the rear yard. It is something that needs to be corrected. It comes up rarely, but when it does, it has a great impact on the property owners. In response to Member Singhal's comment regarding growth over a historical period of time, Director of Community Development Kallien said that he did not see any consistency as to how the provision was enforced over the years. The historical perspective is from 1966 on. Over the last 8 years, it has been enforced the way that it is written, but now it is time to look at the intent of the code and hardship and conflict placed upon some residential properties and modify the language. Member Singhal asked if that would be the case in just the code or in several other instances as to what the Village, demands in a true sense today versus how the growth has taken place. After a month long trip to Delhi, he was amazed how the city had grown. All of a sudden, the people realized that the new Commonwealth gains would be coming in, so they needed to have some systemization. In reality, they found that almost 70 percent of the structures would be in violation with the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 10 January 21, 2008 codes; that meant that the powers to be could really destroy any of the structures. Several structures had been destroyed because they had been in violation. He would like the board to consider what other things are really in violation today, not just for this particular instance, but for other instances and should they really think about this as a bigger issue. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that out of the approximate 4000 properties in Oak Brook, the significant majority, in excess of 99 percent, are fully compliant with all of the codes and ordinances The reality is that over time because there are different people that enforce codes, they can be interpreted in different ways. In this particular case, there are parts of the Code where one section contradicts another section. Depending upon the section reviewed, they would believe it was done correctly and that is how some permits could get issued. It is recognized that there are some inconsistencies and contradictions; and it is time to fix them so that the Village does not end up with conflict in the future. Over time, there will be additional changes made. The Zoning Ordinance dates back to 1966 and Oak Brook is far different today than it was at that time. As the Commercial Revitalization process commences there will be things that will be expected to be changed. Oak Brook is evolving; the structure heights have increased, commercial structures are being demolished and new ones are being replaced with structures that are more grandiose, which is part of the maturing process that one sees in a community, and the codes are typically updated in that process. There are other major thoroughfares in the Village, such as Midwest and Meyers Road. They are also under DuPage County jurisdiction and the properties that back up to them are treated far differently than the properties along Oak Brook and York Road. The traffic levels and the type of road improvements are very similar, but there was a difference on how the Code was written and applied. The playing ground should be leveled for these other residential properties. Member Knitter said that he would like to see that the main structures are not built within the 100 or 110 -foot setback, but that ancillary structures could be built, such as pools and minor structures. The reason for that would be that somewhere in the future that buffer is kept there if it is needed. Existing structures could be grandfathered so that someone with a house located there would not need to be torn down. It is good to look forward to keep the corridors open to the future. Whether it is public transport, internet or wireless cable, it is something that does not exist today that would have a corridor going east to west/ north to south and connect to other places Then there would be the opportunity to place those things someplace, whether it would be buried in the ground, in a tunnel, or people flying by on something, it would be nice to have that opportunity to be able to utilize that future technology. He favored Alternative 2. Director of Community Development Kallien said that land is very valuable and if someone wanted to buy one of the properties to demolish and rebuild, there is a VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 10 January 21, 2008 variation process available where it could be sought and it takes off the burden for accessory structures. The required hearing process for the property owner at 11 Dover was approximately 90 days. The project had to be stopped while he went through the process. Member Tropinski confirmed that all utilities easements would remain on the property to handle any kind of anticipated growth that would be needed for all utilities and cabling. Director of Community Development Kallien acknowledged that they would remain. Member Tropinski said that she favored allowing the property to revert to the underlying district She acknowledged that land is valuable and that people could then develop and enjoy their property. Since the streets are developed and would not be widened further, especially because that would encourage more traffic through the residential streets. Village Engineer Durfey said that all of the newer subdivisions (since the mid 1970's) have a ten foot public utility easement located on the rear lot lines. Director of Community Development Kallien added that accessory structures cannot be located in any existing easement and are reviewed as part of the permitting process. Property owners are even discouraged from planting vegetation in the easements. It was also found that many of the right of ways are very wide. The portion along the east side of York Road north of Oak Brook Road is 60 -70 feet from the centerline of York Road. The property at 11 Dover still had 80 feet from the edge of the road to his property line. This area could accommodate some of the things Member Knitter mentioned. Member Sharma questioned whether different areas could be held to Alternative 2 while others held to Alternative 1; such as applying Alternative 2 to the section of Oak Brook Road between York Road and Route 83 be and then applying Alternative 1 to the properties located on York Road north of 31St Street. Director of Community Development Kallien said that could be done. He noted that most of the parcels have been developed, so there are few, if any vacant tracts of land in these areas. The impact is placed on redevelopment and how to be able to minimize the impact of the restriction on some of the existing properties. Member Singhal said that there is a large house in the Trinity Lakes Subdivision on 35`E' Street at Midwest Road that is almost on the street. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in that case, there is a 40 -foot setback and because of the very tall houses, it looks close to the roadway. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 10 January 21, 2008 Member Knitter said that is why it 1s important to keep Alternative 2 for the entire length. If some technology comes forward and a tunnel would need to be buried beneath the side of the road for public transit or some other unknown entity, it would be good to have the use of it. Midwest Road and many of the other roads are not an option; so it would be good to keep open an option. Because someone had planned this in the past, we should continue to try to have that option as far along the road as possible. If it becomes necessary to exercise eminent domain, instead of taking someone's house, it would be a tennis court, or some other accessory type structure. Member Tropinski commented that part of the Commercial Areas Revitalization Plan, the plan is to keep the existing residential area, residential and someone is not going to want to have public transportation going through their property or the residential area. Member Knitter commented that it could be kept all residential and no one would know that a tunnel was buried underneath. In Boston, they put a huge highway underground. On top, the highway is a park and you cannot tell that it is there. Member Singhal commented that there was a huge cost involved in that type of development. Member Tropinksi said that she did not think that the residents there now or in the future would want it. Residents want to maintain the peace and integrity of the residence that is your home. Member Knitter said then it could be called a large internet fiber cable that would provide free instant health access. He does not know what it is that would be going in there, but guaranteed that we would need and want it in the future. Member Tropinski said that if a poll of the residents were taken that they would favor of Alternative 1 because land is very valuable and the taxes are going up. Member Knitter did not disagree that the homeowner would favor it. However, 30- 40 years down the line, the entire Village of Oak Brook would love to have this as an option to utilize in the future; just as it was thought to utilize it when it was started in 1966, so that 31" Street could be widened. Today there is a wide 31St Street that works well. Imagine if 31 st Street would need to be quadrupled in size, it would be sad if they had to come right up to a person's home, rather than a garage or swimming pool. Eminent domain is not whether a person wants to sell the land; it would be a function of the government needing to for the long -range plan and good of the whole community and not just an individual homeowner. It is true that an individual homeowner would prefer Alternative 1. Chairwoman Payovich asked the number of properties that would be affected between the proposed Alternatives. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD. Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 10 January 21, 2008 Director of Community Development Kallien responded that properties along Oak Brook Road and 31" Street would still be treated differently than all of the other thoroughfares. Most people probably would not care, because they are not going to be demolishing their home, but they would care significantly about the ability to be able to add accessory structures. Alternative 2 is not a bad first step and over time, we would continue to review the Code and may look at this again. Chairwoman Payovich commented that Alternative 2 would give the property owner more of an option for the future. Member Lalmalani questioned what possible downsides there were with Alternative 2. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that along these thoroughfares there is significant mature vegetation. Over time, when vegetation dies, it is up to the homeowner to replace the vegetation and if it is not replaced, it opens up the rear yard of the property and allows things to be seen. When structures are allowed to be located closer in those areas, some may be perceived as being too close. In the future, if we work towards maintaining the vegetation that would limit the issues, which is the only downside that can be seen in that scenario. The easement would still be protected and would allow people to better use their property. However, there is nothing wrong with taking steps and Alternative 2 would be a good start. Chairwoman Payovich polled the members regarding their preference to the Alternatives presented. Member Sharma said that she would definitely agree with Alternative 2, but looking at the different subdivisions, Alternative 1 should be considered for certain areas and she would be open to a combination of the two. Member Knitter responded that he would like to see Alternative 2. Member Tropinski said that she preferred Alternative 1. Member Iyer, Singhal and Lalmalani said that they agreed with Alternative 2. Motion by Member Singhal, seconded by Member Lalmalani to reconunend approval of Alternative 2 as proposed on page 14.b of the case file to modify the language in Section 13 -3 -5 of the Zoning Ordinance and how it relates to residential setbacks for properties that abut those named streets. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Iyer, Knitter, Lalmalani, Sharma, Singhal and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 1 — Member Tropinski. Motion Carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 10 January 21, 2008 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. DANA PARK RESUBDIVISION — 3111 -3115 CARA LANE — FINAL PLAT DANA PARK RESUB - FINAL — FIVE -LOT SUBDIVISION PLAT - 5-LOT SUBDIVISION Frank Drukas, owner and developer of the property, provided an overview of the request. The property is 3.5 acres and .5 acres of that 1s dedicated to a private gated cul -de -sac. The original plan was 3 one -acre R -2 zoned home sites, which replaced 3 older homes. Due to the commercial viability, an application was submitted to rezone the property to R -3 with variations. The Village Board approved the request. The property is fully improved with water, sewer, utilities, landscaping, and flood plan management, with the exception of seeding and some retaining walls that were deferred until the actual construction of homes are developed. The approved plat included variances for a private street, a reduced right of way width to 45 feet and a waiver from installing sidewalks. The new subdivision plan is for 5 new home sites with a reduced front yard setback to 30 feet. Lot 1 also has a side yard setback reduced to 30 feet. The new plan will also need some additional regarding of the site. The two additional lots will require two new sewer and water lines. They will be eliminating two retaining walls on Lots 1 and 2 and retaining walls will be added to lots 3, 4 and 5. The retaining walls are approximately 3 feet high and are decorative walls that will create additional yard space. They will provide a vacation of the easements from the original plan and new easements will be provided to accommodate the new plan. New landscaping will not be required and the integrity of the compensation area and flood plain management will be maintained per the original plan. The Flagg Creek Reclamation District is currently reviewing the sanitary plan and they do not anticipate any issues. They are seeking a recommendation of the resubdivision plat. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Chairwoman Payovich asked the Village Engineer if there were any outstanding issues that should hold up the proposal. Village Engineer Durfey responded that all the issues were little details and there was nothing of a conceptual nature. Member Knitter questioned the vacation of the existing easements and whether a fire truck can ,,Hake the turn in the cul -de -sac. Mr. Drukas responded that the easements are related primarily to the utilities. Jiun -Luang Lin, Ridgeline Consultants said that the 6 foot public utility easement is being vacated because there are no utilities located there now. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 10 January 21, 2008 5. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the cul -de -sac met Village standards and could accommodate a fire truck. Member Singhal asked if the Midwest Club residents had been contacted. Mr. Drukas responded that all the neighbors were notified and in some cases, they did not receive any feedback and in other cases, they received positive feedback. They were pleased to hear that the project was moving forward. One Heritage Oaks resident questioned the number of lots when they were seeking the map amendment. Motion by Member Tropinskz, seconded by Member Iyer that in making the recommendation, the Plan Commission found that the applicant had met the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and recommended approval of the request to approve the Dana Park Resubdivision as requested, which includes the following: 1. Section 14 -6 -3E to waive the requirement to construct sidewalks (previously approved in the Dana Park Subdivision) 2. Section 14 -6 -3 a variation to the requirement to allow private streets and the reduction of the right of way width to forty -five feet (45'). (previously approved in the Dana Park Subdivision) 3. Approval of the Plat of Vacation regarding certain detention and drainage and flood plain easements. (previously approved in the Dana Park Subdivision) 4. Section 14 -6 -2B a variation to allow the reduced front and side yard abutting a street setback lines as approved by the Village Board. 5. Final Engineering approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 -- Members Iyer, Knitter, Lalmalani, Sharma, Singhal, Tropinski and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TEXT AMENDMENT — PERFORMANCE vo$ - TEXT AMENDMENT - STANDARDS — REVIEW AND AMENDMENT OF APPLICABLE TEXT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Director of Community Development Kallien provided an overview of the request. Perfonnance Standards are regulations to guard against excessive noise, light, smoke, etc. They are protective measures so that anything that is truly onerous and harmful can be managed. Many of these standards come about really for industrial type issues from the impacts of such things as a junk yard, steel mill, or uses that produce continuous or excessive noise, smell, matter or smoke. Originally, there were some manufacturing uses in Oak Brook and many of those have gone away. There is minimal warehouse and as Oak Brook has evolved, it is mainly office and commercial. The way that the Code is written, it is applied to all properties in Oak Brook, so it applies not only to nonresidential but residential as well. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 10 January 21, 2008 Last year, the Village became involved in a situation between two homeowners whose properties backed up to one another. One of the properties had a pool with pool equipment and the other property did not. The property owner without the pool raised objections to the sounds coming from the pool equipment and said that the sounds exceeded the allowable limits as spelled out in the Village Code. There were many meetings, correspondence, and staff inspections of the site. A device that was needed to measure the sound was borrowed and it was found that the sound was over the limit by 2.5 decibels. The standards were then applied to air conditioning and roof top units and it was found that there are things, which exist that may be out of compliance; however, they may not be deemed as excessive. There is a number that exists and the number contradicts how the regulations are written. There is a lot of ambient and background sounds and noise throughout the Village, including the tollway and Route 83. Many people have lawn services and the use of lawn equipment. There is noise that comes from jets and traffic. The background noise is very high compared to what you would find in a rural setting or some other suburban areas. As a result, the standards should be reviewed and determine numbers that are reasonable and that can be measured easily; and with a goal to keep the Village out of disputes with property owners. Many of the surrounding communities' ordinances have been reviewed for comparison. Member Iyer questioned the number of cases that have come up regarding this issue over the past three years. Director of Community Development Kallien responded one. Member Lalmalani asked what the outcome was with the case. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the Village tried to treat it in a reasonable way. They tried to get the property owner to replace the equipment. They did have an enclosure built around the equipment, but it was still slightly above. As a result, the homeowners association became involved and asked the Village to review the Code because they would like to have peace and harmony amongst its residents. As the Village continues to develop and redevelop, the houses have gotten larger and the number of air conditioning units has increased. Previously, each house had one, now some of the larger house have four units or more. It may be time to review it and really reflect the reality; and manage it in such a way that anyone who reads it could understand it, so that it cannot be interpreted in other ways. Staff will review it further prior to the next meeting and he asked any commissioner to call him if they have had any history with this type of issue; such as anything contained in their existing subdivision covenants. Member Lalmalani asked if the suggestion was to liberalize the codes. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that maybe it should reflect the reality of what exists today. Oak Brook is in an area where there is a lot of sound to begin with. When the sounds are multiplied, maybe all the sound is not VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 10 January 21, 2008 rel VII actually coming from the neighbor's equipment, it may be the cumulative effect that is pushing the numbers over the threshold. Should an individual be punished or should the numbers be modified slightly, not to be liberal but a little more flexible Member Iyer said that it appears a couple of things are being addressed. Slightly increasing the threshold and providing a simpler model of measuring the sound. Director of Community Development Kallien explained that in a commercial building, before the Fire Department allows occupancy, they go in with a sound meter to measure the decibels from the alarms because the Code requires them to be loud enough to ensure that anyone, in any part of the office, can hear them. They test the office area from all locations, which is one way to measure the decibels. Our Code states that not only are the decibels measured, it requires that the octave bands of sound are measured, which is very technical. As the octave bands change with the sound, the bands with the very low sounds are very wide. As the pitch increases, the octave bands get very small because the sound is moving quicker. Some people cannot hear the decibel levels at the highest pitch; the decibel levels are not very high, which is where some problem occurs. If the fan in a room had a slight problem, it could be over the level, and that is not what he believes the intent of the sound regulations are for, to stop something like that. It is really designed to stop things that are onerous and harmful. He said that the intent is not to redevelop language, but rather to use something that other towns have done, instead of spending a lot of money studying this issue. Member Lalmalani, seconded by Member Iyer, to continue the hearing to the next Regular Plan Commission Meeting. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. OTHER OTHER BUSINESS $us�N BUSfN CSs Director of Community Development Kallien briefly discussed the upcoming review of the Commercial Areas Revitalization Plan. There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Tropinski, seconded by Member Iyer to adjourn the meeting at 8:44 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, D' ector of unity Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 10 January 21, 2008