Loading...
Minutes - 02/20/2006 - Plan CommissionF) 3. 9 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 20, 2006 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON MARCH, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: 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 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL: Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Members, Gopal Lalmalani, Moin Saiyed, Marcia Tropinski and Gerald Wolin ABSENT: Members Paul Adrian and Raju Iyer IN ATTENDANCE: Jeffrey Kennedy and Robert Sanford, Trustees, Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development, Margaret O'Connell, Assistant Village Attorney, Dale Durfey, Village Engineer, James Bodony, Fire Chief. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES The minutes were not presented for approval. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED Busmi✓ss There was not any unfinished business to discuss. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. CHRIST CHURCH OF OAK BROOK — 501 OAK BROOK ROAD -- CHRIST CHURCH OF OAK BROOK SPECIAL USE --V TO AMEND SPECIAL USE TO INCLUDE THE - soI OAK PROPERTY AT 3222 YORK ROAD ABANDON AN EXISTING BROOK ROAD - SPECIAL USE - DRIVEWAY AT 3202 YORK ROAD AND INSTALL A NEW RIGHT -IN, ADD PROPERTY RIGHT OUT DRIVEWAY ON OAK BROOK ROAD (31 st STREET) AND Io.D - YORK o INSTALL A NEW RIGHT -IN RIGHT -OUT DRIVEWAY ON YORK ROAD. DRIVEWAYS Mr. Walter Morrissey, Attorney for Christ Church of Oak Brook, summarized the application and request. Christ Church of Oak Brook is a non - denominational church located on 31" Street at York Road. The church has approximately 520 residents that are members of the congregation. They are seeking to amend the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page --1 of 14 February 20, 2006 r---' ZLe existing special use. The property is located in the R -2 district. • The first part of their request is to include the property owned by the church, commonly known as 3222 York Road, to be included in their special use area. The second part of their request is for approval of two right in/right out driveways. The County of DuPage has approved and issued a pen-nit to the church to install the two right in /right out driveways since they have jurisdiction over 31St Street as well as York Road. The church owns the property that was formerly known as 3202 York Road, and there is a driveway and a garage on the property. They would like to abandon the existing driveway on that site and install the right in/right out driveway just south of the existing driveway. That would provide direct access for traffic that is going southbound only on York Road to have direct access to the south parking lot of the church. That driveway would also prevent traffic using that from turning north onto York Road against traffic. The full access of the driveway on York Road and the separation distance between the two driveways would be 250 feet. The Village Code suggests that the distance should be 40% or 400 feet of the boundary line, so they are seeking a variance to allow a reduction to 250 feet. The final part of the request is to allow a right in /right out driveway access on 31" Street across from Lincoln Road. Traffic currently coming in must make a 180- degree turn to go back westbound to get to the west parking lot. There are two other important reasons for requesting the right in/right out driveways. The access road on the site, that controls traffic in and out, has drop off, pick up, and handicap spaces. The handicapped spaces are slightly down on an incline and the handicapped and disabled have to walk across the driveway. They would like to relieve the traffic using the main access on York Road and get as many as they can to use the right in/right out and therefore provide greater separation between the signal at 31St and York and get the traffic further away from the building by the handicapped and drop off areas. The driveway across from Lincoln Road restricts the access so that you can only a right turn and traffic would go eastbound toward York Road. The driveway that exists at 3202 York Road is at a 90- degree angle to York Road. The proposed driveway will be angled and will not be a straight 90- degree angle; it will be at a curve and there will be an island with landscaping which should mitigate any headlight concerns for the neighbors on the opposite side of the street. In the case file there is a letter from the neighbor on that side of York Road in favor of the project. Another variance they are seeking is in regards to the width of the driveway on 31St Street. The driveway access point is 14 feet from the pavement and under the DuPage County Arterial Road Standards; the driveway is approximately 72 feet in width in order to comply with the DuPage County Arterial Road Standards. The Village Code allows 45 feet in width when there is a median in a two -way drive. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 14 February 20, 2006 They have filed two applications, one to amend the special use and they have addressed the standards in writing that are in the case file. They also filed a second application for the variation requests. In terns of safety, they believe these requests provide two new access points and do not increase traffic, but they provide four driveways. Two restricted right in/right out and service the existing traffic. It will improve the traffic patterns on site. It will put the traffic toward the rear of the parking lots and away from the handicapped and disabled access parking as well as the drop off/pick up areas as well. It will relieve congestion at the main access on 31St Street and York Road. It will reduce the amount of traffic making the 180- degree turning radius on the main access on 31St Street. That provides for the traffic delays for the time that it takes to the turn and creates more waiting time there. It will provide direct access to the west driveway and direct access to the south lot. On York Road the church is proposing to exchange one driveway for another, so they are actually only adding one driveway, because one already exists. They have provided a traffic study as part of the submitted material. The driveways will add to the safety and improve the traffic patterns on site. They will reassign traffic and divide it between four driveways instead of the two. It is their opinion it provides better spacing from the intersection at 31" and York Road. Raymond Fylstra, Trustee, Christ Church of Oak Brook and the Chair of the Facilities Committee. The Facilities Committee is responsible for the buildings and grounds for the church. He has been a member of the church since 1981. Christ Church has been a member of the Oak Brook community for over 40 years, founded in 1965 by 5 local families that issued a call to Arthur DeKruyter to start a new church in Oak Brook. The Butler School gymnasium was used by the church until 1968 when its new sanctuary was completed. Paul Butler, who was an early supporter of the organization, donated the property. Over the years, the church has acquired additional properties. They are seeking to add right in/right out driveways and they believe it will provide better ingress and egress for the property. It will also provide better fire department access. The way that the driveway is presently configured on York Road, they have to navigate a very tight u -turn to get in. An average automobile cannot make the turn into the lot without encroaching on the outbound side of the driveway. Having the right in/right out access on 31" Street will provide direct access into the back of the parking lot. They also seek to improve circulation on site. There are two detention areas with a narrow bridge in between them, which traffic needs to go to get from one side to the other. The current configuration forces a lot of traffic internally to go past the front door that does not need to do so, unless they are dropping someone off or picking someone up. They are not adding any traffic; they are seeking to disperse it among four driveways rather than two. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 14 February 20, 2006 I'-- �- Mr. Killian, Metro Transportation Group, Hoffman Estates said that they reviewed the peak activity periods of the church, which are Sunday morning, Monday evening, and Wednesday evening. They took traffic counts during all three of the peak periods. They also observed traffic flow into and out of the church parking lot as circulation within the parking lot. There are 2 areas of concern. The first is the existing access on 31" Street. To enter the parking lot coming from the west, a car must make a 180- degree turn. It is a very difficult turn and many drivers use the outbound lanes to make that turn, which conflicts with traffic exiting the site at the same time that traffic is coming in. By developing an access point opposite Lincoln Road, they are able to intercept the traffic entering the site so that they do not need to go all the way down to the front of church. The change allows the traffic to fill in the lot directly from the rear. The other area of concern is the area immediately in front of the main entrance. There is a one -way roadway that is a pick up /drop off lane and intersects with the main circulation road tying the two access points together and feeding the main parking field. The intersection in the lot is very difficult and congested during the period that traffic exits and leaves for the different services. The proposed access points will relieve those two conditions by dispersing traffic and drawing it away from the front of the building and feeding the parking fields from the rear. It not only improves the accessibility, but also the safety of the parishioners near the building and crossing the internal road, particularly the elderly and handicapped that are crossing the road. David Melvin, Executive Director, Christ Church of Oak Brook, said that he was born in 1959 to a family that lived at 324 Oak Brook Road. As a young boy, he used to play in the polo fields. His feel for Oak Brook comes from those early days and he loves what Oak Brook has to offer. He has been working at Christ Church of Oak Brook for 2 years and has had the opportunity to preach in many churches throughout Chicagoland and most of them are less than 500 members, 500 members is a very large church; and his point was that this church is not an insignificant, bothersome presence in the community. He is proud to be back and glad to be in his position so that he can work with the neighbors and would do anything he can as the man who is responsible for running the property and support ministries at the church. Stanley Strahan, 27 Robin Hood Ranch, located just south of the church property One of his concerns is that currently York Road is 4 lanes, which narrows down to 2 lanes and that traffic would back up down York Road. He said that he misunderstood and that after it was explained, that although the entrance at 3206 York was going to be abandoned, it was going to be replaced with another driveway; he felt better about that He did point out that it was reported in the Doings newspaper that there is no intention of widening York Road. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 14 February 20, 2006 Director of Community Development Kallien said that York Road, south of 31" Street is under the jurisdiction of DuPage County and they have indicated that if it were ever improved, the maximum amount of improvement would involve a turn lane at the intersections. They do not see it as being more than one lane in each direction at this point. Thomas Doyle, 7 Robin Hood Ranch, said that he has lived there since 1971, and was on the Plan Commission for about 7 years and the Safety Pathway for about 6 years. He has a concern regarding the development and request by the church to change the zoning on the lot at 3222 York Road. He asked that the commission separate the two issues between the driveways and the zoning change because they are two totally different issues. Robin Hood Ranch is a residential area. The church has been here since 1965. The subdivision has been here is about 1950 and has been a good neighbor to the church. The church is infringing on the subdivision, not the other way around, and the Commission should take that into consideration. When you live in a residential neighborhood with residential property around you, the expectation is that the property is going to remain residential. The church in effect is saying, no, that they are going to change the property to whatever they want to use it for, which they have to return to the Village for. If they decide they want to buy additional homes south, they could create a magnificent parking lot. The Commission has a responsibility to the residents, to assure them, that the property they bought as residential property has the expectation that the property around it would remain residential. This should be observed, and he hopes that the Commission would take that into effect The change in zoning affects property that is more than 250 feet from the edge of the property line. He is more than 250 feet from the property and did not know about the requested change. Although the subdivision is going to be affected, the people in the subdivision were not notified as a group; and he thinks that is a serious flaw in the system. It is not just an individual property that is being affected; it is the entire subdivision and the commission should consider those. When he was on the Plan Commission they were very concerned about spot zoning, and technically this is not spot zoning. However, it seems to come close to it. Pieces of property that had been residential are being requested to change, that relates close to spot zoning. The request is for special use, for what, they are obviously not going to keep it residential, otherwise, they would not need a special use permit. Property that is not residential, that abuts residential property is not going to add to their property value; it will take away from it. He would hope that the Commission would very seriously consider denying this request. Kay Macken, 2 Robin Hood Ranch, said that her property is 8 feet from the church property. She questioned what use the church has for the property since they have obtained it. Mr. Melvin responded that the open lot next to Mrs. Macken is a grassy open area VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 February 20, 2006 �ee where kids can play volleyball, sit and read or walk around. The same applies to the property just north of that. They do not want to rezone the property; they want to include it in their special use permit. Mrs. Macken asked what they meant by a special use. Mr. Melvin responded that it is a technical term that requires that the church work in cooperation with the village. He said that they do not want to rezone the property so that the church could do whatever they wanted. They are happy to be continually working with the village and the neighbors to determine what they should be doing on the property. The special use permit would allow them to do what they do right now. They could not build one square foot on the property, without the village approval. Director of Community Development Kallien said that what we have here is usually a two -step process. Many times when a property wishes to be part of a special use, it is included within a special use area and is well defined as to what the property can be used for. Many times, there is a very detailed site plan indicating parking lots, landscaping, building elevations, etc. In this particular case, the church has requested to bring the property into the special use area, but because there are no detailed plans, they really cannot use it for anything other than its current use. If they ever wish to build on it or use it for something different than its current condition, they would have to come back to the village, which would involve a meeting before the Plan Commission, a public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals and ultimate approval by the Village Board. What happens with the property has not been entirely defined by any means. Patrice Macken, 4 Robin Hood Ranch, and she and her husband also own the property at 2 Robin Hood Ranch. She has lived in Oak Brook for 2 years and is not familiar with zoning issues. However, for seven years she has been on boards for churches and knows how the Protestant churches work. Underneath all of this, it is a business. You have to pay your bills, you have to market, and you have to grow. She would argue that part of what they have done is to buy these properties because they do have a plan for growth. They have not told us that yet, but that is their plan. Right now at her church, they have gone to the congregation and have received permission for phase 1 of a new project. They also have phase 2 and 3, but they have not brought it forward to the congregation, because they do not need the funding yet. They have bought both properties for approximately $700,000 each and say that they have no plan for it; and she would argue that it will not be maintained as residential land, which is what she and her husband purchased the properties for; and it was next to residential land. She asked what the total numbers of congregants were in the church; it was her understanding that Oak Brook residents comprise about 10 %. Mike Macken, 4 Robin Hood Ranch and has lived there since 1980. He said that about 2 months ago the church sent out some letters notifying them of some plans. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 February 20, 2006 They met with them and at that point was quite surprised to find out that they considered they had special use for the property that borders his at 3306 York Road. He had a conversation with Mr. Kallien and was told something different. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that there is no record that 3306 York is part of the special use. Mr. Macken said it appears to be a substantial conflict of fact between the Village and the church, so he is not sure how they could move ahead. He would like to know whether the property is part of the special use since it does border his property. Mr. Morrissey said that they could not confirm that this evening. Mr. Macken said that he purchased 4 Robin Hood Ranch in 1980 and about that time, the church as about 360 yards away from his property, which is about 3 football fields end to end and that is a lot of space. Now there is no distance between his property and theirs. One would hope that some space is going to be allowed between his residential property and the institutional uses of the church. The Robin Hood Ranch Homeowner's Association, President, Richard Allison has been very helpful and suggested they meet with the Fullersburg Woods group to bring their issues before them. They did that about a month ago and their president, Mario Vescovi suggested that he would meet with the trustees of Christ Church. He said that they would talk with them about the advantages of meeting people from the neighborhood before coming to the Plan Commission. Unfortunately, this meeting was not held until last week, so there was never any dialogue between their neighborhood and the church, which they had hoped would have happened before the matter came to the Plan Commission. The village sent out notices last week and he is sure that it was done the way these matters are handled, but it wasn't exactly adequate for some of the people from Robin Hood Ranch to at least know this was corning. There might have been other families interested in this issue and some are in Florida. One weeks notice was not very helpful. It would be helpful for anything involving the church to contact the residents a month in advance, as well as contacting everyone in the homeowners association, as opposed to those that are only within 250 feet of the church. He does not understand why they want the driveway changes; and on Sunday, he went out and counted them. There were about 730 cars in their parking lot that has about 1000 spaces. Between the 10 a.m. service and their next service there were about 350 cars going in and out of the south exit, over about an hour. About 190 cars went through one 20- minute period. That would seem to be a lot of cars, but they have a simple, ingenious way of solving the traffic issue, a police officer comes out and stops cars on York Road to let people exit and enter the site. He thought that would back up the cars on the road, but it did not. The only delay on York Road lasted between 10 and 20 seconds. He asked if the driveway on the far south side of the lot is really part of some larger plan. They do not really have a problem getting in and out of the south exit. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 February 20, 2006 He looked over the Special Use section of the Village Code and condition number 3 states: "Would not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located " He said that the only way he could deal with this point was to have an appraisal done on his property. Not being informed until last week, he could not get an appraisal completed, but asked for a document outlining the appraisal company's general conclusions (a copy of which was made part of the official file). The appraisal will be completed next week. He restated his request to receive notification of the hearing earlier. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he has had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Macken several times and he has brought up some good issues. In regards to notification, the Village follows a very good process that works. The Plan Commission holds an informational public meeting, where information is taken in, the applicant is allowed to present their case, the residents are allowed to speak, and a recommendation is rendered to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Village Board. Ultimately, the Zoning Board of Appeals conducts the formal public hearing and there are very specific requirements for that hearing. The process used for this application is the same that we have used for all other similar type applications that come before the Plan Commission. We have enhanced our ability to communicate and inform the public by requiring public hearing signs on the subject property. Signs were placed on both the church frontage along 31st Street and York Road to allow passing by to see the sign and at least give them an indication that something is going on. We did not do this before, but it does generate some phone calls and is beneficial. A copy of the notice was sent to all of the homeowner associations so they are enlightened as to what is being proposed. The meetings are videotaped, and the reason for that is, for any other interested entities have the ability to view the commissions and boards meetings. The public process is not completed at the close of this meeting; this is only the first step. If the Plan Commission chooses to make a recommendation at this meeting, it will go onto the Zoning Board of Appeals and they will hold a more formal hearing. The residents can speak at that meeting and can speak at any future meetings of the Village Board. The Village has made a reasonable effort to get people involved in this process. If we had unlimited resources we could go out and notify everyone, but at what point do you stop. We are being responsible and reasonable and are following the letter of the law. He added that the church contacted the village about a year ago regarding ideas relative to their property and he was very clear with them at that time, and with their attorney, to take every advantage to meet with the adjacent property owners, so that there are no misunderstandings as to what the issues are. He believes that they have done that and commended them for that. Perhaps it could have been expanded, but they did make the effort. Norm Vokaty, 3007 Lincoln Road said that many years ago when they first built the parking lot they went to meetings and were assured that when the parking lot was VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 February 20, 2006 built, there would be 6 -foot landscaped berm on the north end of the lot. Ten years ago, they wanted exits added at the end of Lincoln Road and they were not supposed to be able to see it. He has never had a problem with traffic on Sunday; he believes that it is all an internal problem. He can see where the driveway on 31St Street is a dangerous thing. He saw the public hearing sign on 31St, which is how he found out about the hearing; he did not receive a letter. He would love it if the berm stayed the way it is according to the original agreement with the church. Linda Lojewski, 3004 Lincoln Road, said that no one in the audience could see the plans that are displayed on the ledge for view by the Commission. As far as she knows, no one in Westchester Park received any kind of communication. There are only 13 homes and it does not take much to send 13 letters. In the past, the church has always been very good about communicating with their neighbors. She does not understand why there is going to be a right in/right out on 31St Street because those coming from the west would not want to go east when they exit, they would want to go back west; so why would they use it? Mr. Melvin showed the pattern that people would exit. She asked if the church would have a policeman at the corner of Lincoln Road to direct traffic and added that she was concerned that Lincoln Road would turn into a major intersection, which no one wants and it would not look good for the village. She would like the church to reconsider relocating its proposed location for the drive directly across from Lincoln Road. Tom Doyle, 7 Robin Hood Ranch said that it does not seem that all the requests for the special use fit together in order to make an intelligent decision. Mr. Morrissey said that although Mr. Macken stated that the church did not make a good faith effort to contact its neighbors; that was not true. The church wrote a letter to its neighbors in December and invited them to come to the church to have a question and answer information session. In fact, Mr. and Mrs. Macken were at the meeting, so he assumed that gave them notice of the process and the opportunity to dialogue on the subject with their neighbors. They gave the notice that was required by the Village. A legal publication was printed in the required local newspaper to notice the entire community. They did write and call, but only 2 neighbors showed up in response. The church did make a concerted effort to tell the neighbors what they are doing and invited them to come to a question and answer session. He asked that the Commission disregard the letter presented by Mr. Macken from an unidentified appraiser. He stated that a full report would be submitted at a later date However, a general statement without quantifiable detail to support it cannot be given any weight in the proceedings. The existing south driveway on York Road is a driveway that is used today that will be abandoned, so an additional driveway is not being added. A question was raised as to whether the southernmost property was included in the special use and is an issue that can be answered before going before the Zoning Board of Appeals. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 14 February 20, 2006 Finally, there were comments being made regarding to a request for a change in zoning. They are not asking to rezone any property. They have asked to include the property at 3222 York to the adjacent parcel to be part of their special use. Mr. Killian responded to a comment made regarding the driveway on York Road. He said that that this is one of the few times when he can speak about a project that will not add any traffic to a site. What they are doing is improving the access by providing two additional points of access and thereby distributing traffic a little more evenly over the road system. They are not adding any more traffic to the streets; they are distributing it better externally as well as internally. A comment was made about using police officers on Sundays, and because of that, things move smoothly at the access points. However, they do not use police officers on Monday and Wednesday evenings, which are critical periods because traffic on adjacent streets are significantly greater during these time periods than on Sundays. Even though less traffic is generated through the church during those time periods, the combined volume is significantly greater and the access points will help to distribute that traffic more evenly and minimize the delay for traffic both entering and exiting, as well as for through traffic on 31St Street and York Road. The intersection at 31St and Lincoln will not become a major intersection because they are simply adding a right in/right out opposite Lincoln Road, which will act as a T- intersection just as it does today. They are allowing traffic to enter the site via right in, which does not impact the intersection; and allowing traffic to exit right out, which does not impact the intersection because you cannot cross over 31St Street. Tom Doyle said that the attorney stated they are not requesting a change in zoning, which is accurate. A special use, in effect, changes zoning. The legality of the property remains R -2, but it does not get built with R -2 type properties. Mr. Macken said that the efforts of the church were decent. He was asking the village to do a little bit more, such as, 30 days notice and contact everyone in their neighborhood. The fact that the village did what was required and the church did was required they did not do more than what was required, but at least they had a chance to talk. Member Wolin said that he did not understand the point that was made by the resident regarding the southbound traffic on York Road. Mr. Strahan said that there are five lanes on York Road to 31" Street. Going south on York, at 31St Street, the right hand lane is going to lose that lane between 31St and the first driveway. During rush hour, what happens is a drag race coming off 31" Street with people trying to merge in at the exact time that people are trying to make a right turn into the church parking lot. His concern is that there is a slowdown from people making that right turn on the new drive that could back up to the merge area at the same time. His concern is a safety issue. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 14 February 20, 2006 Director of Community Development Kallien said that this same issue came up when the church wanted to build the small parking lot on the east side of the church and it created many of the same comments by the resident at that time. His question to the applicant is that when DuPage County approved the new access point, did they give any guidance relative to a deceleration lane down to the access point. Mr. Killian said that one of the reasons a deceleration lane would not be appropriate at this location is that, there is a taper area where the two lanes narrow down to a single lane, and there is insufficient distance to create a deceleration lane to taper. If you take the two lane sections to the driveway, it becomes a drop lane and then you would have through traffic inadvertently being directed into the drop lane and forced inadvertently into the church parking lot. It does not make sense at this particular location to try to develop a deceleration lane. Member Saiyed said that there are 2 different issues here and he does not see a big problem here. There 1s a concern from the residents and asked if more dialogue could be created with the residents and the church and continue that part of the request regarding the property at 3222 York. Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed the options regarding the ability to separate the requests of the church. He also said that in regards to the issue of the property at 3306 York being part of the church's existing special use, he reviewed all the ordinances and there is nothing in the ordinances that indicate 3306 was ever part of the special use area. If the church can prove otherwise, he would be glad to see it; his opinion is based on the information we have here. That does not negate the issue that the church owns the property and that they have certain rights. Member Wolin said that he is not in a rush to vote on the request to expand the area of the special use to include the property to the south (3222 York). The residents have raised valid concerns because the expectation when they moved there that it was going to be residential and to expand the special use area close to their property may now not be in their best interest. Relative to the driveways, he sees merit to the church, but questions were raised in regards to the benn and the view from Lincoln Road and whether there was a safety issue on York Road with the narrowing of the road. He asked why the width of the driveway was an issue. It appears to him, that the County requirements are different from the Village. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that is why they need a variation to our requirements, which will be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals It is a design issue, which may be a shortcoming in the Village Code or the design of right in/right out accesses. Mr. Morrissey said that the application process with the DuPage County Department VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 14 February 20, 2006 of Transportation mandated the right in/right out locations and in order to change the location, they would have to go through the entire application process again. In response to some of the concerns raised, Christ Church would be agreeable to have that component of the application continued to the next Plan Commission meeting. They would like to see the appraisal that was talked about and they would like to get one of their own in order to discuss fair and equitable property values. He made a public announcement, inviting all neighbors to have a meeting at the church to discuss their concerns. A letter will be sent to their homeowner associations or a contact person and they will have an open question/answer forum. The neighbors will be given at least 10 days to 2 weeks notice, so that there is no question. By that time they should also have the appraisal. Director of Community Development Kallien asked that Mr. Morrissey inform the Village staff when the date and time of the meeting with the neighbors has been set. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he would need to consult with the Village attorney regarding how procedurally this would move forward. Mr. Morrissey said that the applicant would consent to this being treated as bifurcated application, with respect to the component of the special use application to include the additional property to be dealt with separately from the component of the special use application relating to the right in/right out. Director of Community Development Kallien requested that a formal letter be sent making the request. Trustee Kennedy noted that he agreed that the application could be bifurcated. Director of Community Development Kallien noted to Mr. Macken that the appraisal letter submitted to the Village references the wrong property. Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Lalmalani to continue the applicant's portion of the special use request to expand the proposed area of the special to the next regular Plan Commission meeting on March 20, 2006, unless they are unable to meet with all the homeowners to resolve their concerns. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 — Members Lalmalani, Saiyed, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 2 — Members Adrian and Iyer. Motion Carried. Member Wolin said that relative to the right in/right out on 315 Street, the only question he had was the appearance of the access from Lincoln Road. He accepted the fact the County has approved the proposed location; however, he was concerned with improving its appearance from Lincoln Road and what could be done. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 14 February 20, 2006 Mr. Morrissey responded that the church would talk about the possibility of a berm or some other constructive ideas that would be mutually acceptable at the meeting. Director of Community Development Kallien said that some type of landscaping enhancement should be provided so that any impact of the access is minimized. He added that the Village may require additional signage so that people do not snake a left turn out of the Oak Brook Road access. It could cause a lot of conflict and potential accidents, so we should do whatever we could to utilize signage to make sure that something bad does not happen. The other issue is how this will work internally on the site. The way that the parking lot is set up there are islands that parallel on the south edge of Oak Brook Road. A new access point is going to be instituted and he questioned if there would be a potential conflict between the two westernmost islands and the ability to come into the property and move out of the property; and they may need to be pared back or altered in terms of size. There is good rationale why the church needs the drives in order to enhance things internally; but have the internal issues been fully refined. Mr. Morrissey said that traffic direction was one of the main points raised by Mr. Kallien earlier in the process and the church will work with staff and the village engineer to satisfy those issues. The church is committed to do whatever provides the most efficient and safe traffic flow on the site. He is sure that it will be resolved before the matter gets to the Village Board. Director of Community Development Kallien said that ultimately a building permit for the project would be required and approved by the Engineering Department and Community Development. If there are any conflicts, there is ample time to rectify any problems. He wanted it addressed for the record that there may be some modifications required inside the parking area. Mr. Morrissey added that Engineering approval might be needed in regards to any benning issue with regard to line of sight types of issues. The church is committed to work through any issues. Member Wolin noted that there were a few concerns. Landscaping should be provided so that Lincoln Avenue is as good, if not better than today. The safety issue on Fork Road due to the narrowing of the road, which he would like some additional input from the Village Engineer. His final concern was in regards to the internal flow of the parking lot. There is merit in approving the request from the standpoint that it will benefit the church, but would like the concerns noted so that the Zoning Board of Appeals would be alerted to the concerns and make sure that they are adequately addressed before voting on it. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 14 February 20, 2006 1"2-`t Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Lalmalani to recommend approval of the request to amend the existing special use for the property at 501 Oak Brook Road to allow the construction of the new right in/right out access points as proposed on Oak Brook Road and York Road subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the requested variations; 2. To be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted on page L of the case file; 3. Final Engineering and County approval; 4. Approval is subject to adequately addressing the following concerns: a. Improvement of the appearance of landscaping by Lincoln Road right in/right out access; b. Safety concerns that were raised about the right in/right out access on York Road; c. The internal traffic flow on the property; and d. Proper signage for both right in/right out accesses. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 — Members Lalmalani, Saiyed, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 2 — Members Adrian and Iyer. Motion Carried. 5. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. 6. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Saiyed to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, ommunity Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 14 February 20, 2006 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT