Loading...
Minutes - 05/05/2006 - Plan Commission0 3. MINUTES OF THE MAY 15, 2006 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON JULY 19, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: CALL '1 O 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 7:37 p.m. ROLL CALL: Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Members Paul Adrian, Raju Iyer, Gopal Lalmalani, Moin Saiyed, Marcia Tropinski and Gerald Wolin IN ATTENDANCE: Jeffxey Kem-iedy, Robert Sanford, Trustees, Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development, Margaret O'Connell, Assistant Village Attorney, Dale Durfey, Village Engineer and James Bodony, Fire Chief APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINU'T'ES REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2006 Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Saiyed to continue the reading and approval of the meeting to the next regular Plan Commission meeting. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. UNFIN BUS ISHED BUSINESS USINIS BINESS S A. BRITTWOOD CREEK LLC — APPROXIMATELY 57 ACRES OF VACANT B TT O n °E 83 PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF 35TH STREET AND EAST OF ROUTE AND 35 "' - MAP 83. MAP AMENDMENT — TO REZONE THE WESTERN PORTION OF AMEND AND PRELIMINARY THE PROPERTY FROM R -1 TO R-2, PLAT — 35 -LOT PLAT WITH SUBDIVISION WITH VARIATIONS TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS — VARIATIONS -- 35 -LOT SECTIONS 14-6-2,14-6-3,14-6-3D,14-6-3E, 14 -6 -3F 14 -6 -3G AND 14 -6 -31, SUBDIVISION Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed the status of the review. Chairwoman Payovich announced that the public comment portion of the hearing was closed at the last meeting and no further public comment would be taken. Walter Morrissey, attorney for the applicant said that the response to the factors had been submitted as requested. He said that all expert witnesses were present to VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 25 May 15, 2006 answer any questions. He said that there was still a question remaining with Brittwood Creek in regards to the secondary access from the site. On behalf of the applicant, he respectfully requested that the hearing on the matter be continued to the June 19, 2006 Plan Commission meeting, so that they would have further time to explore the secondary means of access. One is on 35th Street and the other is on Route 83. The Route 83 access presents difficulties such as IDOT and the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County because of the 50-foot wide corridor they have between the western boundary of this property and Route 83. The Village also has to be a party to those discussions and there is a pipeline easement on the east side of Route 83. Chairwoman Payovich said that based upon the applicant's comments, the motion would be considered. Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell inquired what discussions had already taken place regarding negotiations with the Village and the other two parties. Mr. Morrissey responded that there were a series of memos and comments from the Village Engineering Department and the Community Development Department. Mr Callaghan had communicated directly with the head of the land department in the Forest Preserve District about the feasibility of getting a secondary access off of Route 83 and they were willing to discuss it, providing all parties of interest sit down at that meeting. Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell asked if he was referring to the Village Engineers memo dated May 11, 2006 contained in the case file, where this issue is raised in paragraph 5. Mr. Morrissey responded yes and referred to previous memos regarding the issue from Fire Chief Bodony and Village Engineer Durfey to Director of Community Development Kallien. Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell said the Plan Commission rules are clear that the Commissioners can make a decision whether or not it is appropriate to grant a continuance at this time. It appears that the request comes from documents that were created within the Village and the Commissioners should be mindful of that and the Village itself has to be a participant in the negotiations with the two other parties outside of the petitioner. She referred Commissioners to page 79.b, paragraph 5, so that everyone would have a better understanding of the concerns raised by the Village Engineer, The Commissioners reviewed the memorandum. Village Engineer Durfey said that it states, "a secondary means of emergency access should be provided. The Forest Preserve District (they own a 50 -foot strip between this site and Route 83) and MOT (they control access control) have stated that they would entertain discussions toward that end. Additionally and as an alternative, it is feasible to utilize the internal road network of Breakenridge Farm subdivision by VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 25 May 15, 2006 providing for said secondary access. This would not only provide an emergency access for Brittwood Creek, but and possible more importantly provide emergency access for Breakenridge Farm. It would truly be tragic if we waited until a tragedy occurred with loss of life before Breakenridge receives a secondary emergency access point when this can be easily accomplished now." He said that the brunt of this is documentation from IDOT and the Forest Preserve District, which said that they have not closed the door. They are willing to discuss access along Route 83. The other point was that if it is possible to tie in with Breakenridge Farm, it provides them with a needed secondary access point for their safety also. Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell reminded the Commissioners that early on in this application, this issue was raised and it was very clear that the residents in Breakenridge Farm would not agree to and stressed that point. With due respect to the Village Engineer's concerns it would be appropriate for the Commissioners to consider that what is at stake here is the possible future residents of Brittwood and based on what the Plan Commission has heard, the only realistic secondary access for Brittwood is going to come off of Route 83. Member Adrian said that he recalled the Breakenridge group had indicated they would litigate if they tried to get secondary access through Breakenridge Farm. Mr. Cappetta said that there was no representation of that was made by him and he is the person that represents that group and he did not specifically say that was what they were going to do, which would have been a quote from him. He said that he said they were opposed to it and would study it. Member Adrian comx-nented that currently there is no secondary access in Breakenridge Farms. Mr. Cappetta said that was incorrect; that there is a secondary unused road. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there was another alternative for Brittwood Creek. There was discussion early on with the applicant that if the Route 83 access could not be achieved, there may be an ability to achieve a secondary access off of 35'x' Street as far as they could get it off of Route 83. Mr. Morrissey responded that was correct, however, from the standpoint of the petitioner, the preference is to get access off of Route 83, if it is feasible. The reason is because the secondary access off 35th Street would be because they are mindful that the residents are concerned about the traffic and they want to minimize that. With respect to the comment about Brealenridge Farm, Mr. Callaghan stipulated for the record when the amended application was filed that he would not seek emergency access from Breakenndge Farm Road. There is a written document with an objection filed in this proceeding that said if the name of the subdivision was not changed and if there was an attempt to use Breakenridge Farm Road for VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 25 May 15, 2006 emergency access, there was a threat of litigation being pursued. Director of Community Development Kallien said that for access to be achieved off of Route 83 it would take another governmental entity, not present at this meeting. There are memorandums in the file that there could be the potential to discuss and achieve an access off of Route 83, but if that were to fail, a secondary means of access could come off of 35th Street and would be between the Village and the applicant, without the intervention of another governmental entity. Chairwoman Payovich polled the Commission on whether to grant the applicant's request to continue the matter to explore this issue. Mr. Cappetta was permitted to comment and said that this petition has been pending since around November of 2005. The application has been changed several times and he complained about that to the Commission, which he felt was inappropriate due process for the objectors. He felt when the petitioner filed this petition; they should have the right to object. As they objected, the petition was changed and they needed a new argument, which has happened twice already. He believes the same thing is happening now and that the petition in its third formulation, which is pending before the Plan Commission has removed the intrusion into Breakenridge Fan-n, which pleases them. They are now suggesting something not in this petition, regarding the placement of the secondary access and that is not before the Commission. What is pending is the third petition and what he is hearing is that there are going to be amendments to this petition and they would have to go through this again. The residents have spent a great deal of money to bring in experts and professionals to the meeting to object. If the Commission allows them to continue there will never be a conclusion. They asked that a vote be taken and if the applicant wants to come back at a later date with a better or different version that is their prerogative, but that is not the way the conduct of this hearing should be. He said that in the LaSalle Factors Mr. Morrissey went on to talk about changes of configuration of the lot, which is inappropriate and would cause a further delay. The applicant, objectors and all the experts have talked about the petition before the Commission and that is the one that should be voted on. To continue it would be inappropriate on a matter that has been before the Commission since November. Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell responded that she has a great understanding of the time, the money, and the effort that has been expended by Attorney Cappetta and his clients. However, the request for the continuance is not based on the petitioner seeking to change the current submission. It is based upon a concern that has been raised by the Village Engineer, so that has to be brought forward and the Commissioners need to understand that this request comes from concerns raised by the Village regarding safety. It is not that the petitioner is seeking to amend their current application. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 25 May 15, 2006 Member Wolin said that in the past, they have voted on matters and imposed conditions, and questioned that this type of issue would fall into the same category. Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell said that if the petitioner wanted to make that request that could do so, but they have not requested that. She agreed that the petitioner could have made that request. Member Wolin spoke to the reasons that the matter should not be continued. Member Lalmalani said that he agreed and that the issue of emergency access is a secondary issue and the main issues should be discussed. Member Wolin motioned, seconded by Member Saiyed to deny the request to continue the matter to the next Plan Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner, based on the fact that the reason for the continuance could be contained as a condition of a vote and many people have attended the meeting with the expectation that it would be discussed and voted on. The matter has been going on for a long time and the issue could have been taken care of before. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 — Members Adrian, Iyer, Lalmalani, Saiyed, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried Director of Community Development Kallien said that the issues that must be reconciled are whether the Commissioners have any questions relative to the LaSalle Factors that have been presented by the applicant and the objectors. Also the preliminary plat request should be discussed and the Village Engineer has presented an extensive list of comments relative to the plat. Member Wolin said that as a point of clarification there is more than one set of LaSalle Factors. The Assistant Village Attorney has provided a set to the Commissioners, which is also located in the Plan Commission Rules of Procedures and suggested that those be used in the basis on the discussion. The attorney's submitted ones that are very similar. 1. Character of the ueighborhood Member Wolin said that the immediate neighborhood is rural, wooded, with rolling hills and a stream. In his opinion the more dense the zoning, then the less it is in with keeping of the neighborhood. The proposed development is not totally out of character; it is very similar and much better than a lot of other types of developments, The more dense it becomes above and beyond the 2 -acre lots, is does somewhat have a negative impact. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 25 May 15, 2006 4--�? Member Tropinski said that it is rural and wooded, and what bothers her is the pond in the neighborhood. They look very forced and she asked with the slopes of the land how are they going to be maintained. Concrete blocks form a pond next to a creek detracts from the natural beauty of the land. She asked how stormwater detention was going to be dealt with, how much of the ponds is decorative, how much is related to getting water on the property and the watershed problems of Bronswood Creek, which are unresolved issues that can detract from the character of the neighborhood. John Green, Engineering Resource Associates, stated in response to the questions, that the ponds that have designed on the plat comply with the County and the Village Stonnwater Management Ordinance. The ponds are all related to stormwater management and there is one pond behind Lot 33 that will be used for some wetland mitigation. A very small patch of isolated wetlands that is non - critical is located on the property. They plan on stormwater detention on all of the ponds and the one pond on that northwest corner will have a smaller bounce so that it would be suitable for wetland mitigation with some naturally planted vegetation. The concrete retaining walls are due to the topography of the land. There is about 30 feet of fall off from Route 83 towards the creek, so the primary part of the water has to be stored at the lowest point of the property, which is along the creek bed area. Member Tropinski asked if the Army Core of Engineers had been consulted. Mr. Green responded that there is a buffer along the wetlands, so they are not only preserving the wetlands but an additional vegetated buffer that will be platted in a conservation easement along the creek. They are not developing up to the wetlands they are staying 50 feet away from the wetlands. She asked how the existing wildlife was going to be supported along the creek. He said that there are going to be conservation easements platted. It is their intent along the eastern border of the project to preserve as much of the natural vegetation and trees that exists both on the east and west side of the creek beds. The retaining walls help them to blend the ponds into the natural topography as best as possible, while still complying with the village ordinances for safety requirements and setbacks. Member Tropinski asked how high the concrete walls would be in order to keep the pond. Mr. Green responded that all the details have not been worked out yet, that would come at the time of final engineering. They intend to comply with the village codes with respect to retaining walls. Member Tropinski questioned that the other side the retaining walls would be high enough, so that instead of the natural topography you would see a retaining wall. Mr. Green responded that the retaining walls that are planned in detention ponds along the creek bed would be on the easterly side of the ponds, such that they would not necessarily be visible because they would be up against some heavily vegetated VILLAGE OF OA.I{ BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 25 May 15, 2006 buffer areas. So the view would primarily be water feature itself and the plantings surrounding it. The ponds will be landscaped to blend in with native vegetation and existing trees. Member Lalmalani said that this property is the final piece of the 200 -acre area He passes by 351h Street many times during the day. Page 43 of the Comprehensive indicates the less dense the area the better, so the less number of homes, the less dense it will be and will continue the ambiance of the area and the beauty of the land and keeping the open space as much as possible, which is more in sync with what the Comprehensive Plan also dictates. 2. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions. Member Wolin said that this is a- confusing factor and he did not think either attorney fully addressed the issue. Mr. Cappetta included actual cases that had been tried before the Supreme Court. One case clarified it for him and it states that almost all rezoning cases, the subject property would be worth more if the restriction was not imposed. Therefore, this factor is usually not considered persuasive. The Illinois Supreme Court has held that it is not a mere loss in value that is significant, rather the loss in value to the plaintiff must be considered in relation to the public welfare. His understanding is that from Mr. Callaghan's perspective is the value diminished by not getting the approval he is seeking; and the answer is yes. However, the factor says that is always going to be the case. Typically the denser you make an area the more money you will make. Therefore, the Supreme Court has held that is not all that relevant, which makes sense to him unless the attorney or anyone else has a different interpretation. 3. The extent to which the removal of the Existing Limitations Would Depreciate the Value of Other Property in the Area. Member Wolin said that in his opinion the proposed increase would have a slight negative impact due to increased resident traffic, less open space, vegetation and wildlife. Iii addition, the more homes that are built the more construction traffic would exist, which is an interim problem, but is a nuisance. It is a negative impact although, not a major impact. Member Lalmalani said that the higher the density the greater drain the burden on the municipal services, including the schools, fire, police, etc. 4. The suitability of the Property for Zoned Purposes Member 'Wolin said that in Mr. Morrissey's response, he responded to this as part of another factor on general suitability and pointed out that it is suitable from the standpoint of density. A number of points that were made were of interest, but not directly of interest. Such as, Hunter Trails is R -2 zoning and we understand that VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 25 May 15, 2006 1-1� because it has direct access to 31St Street and serves as a buffer to the rest of the area, however he neglected to reference the R -1 zoning, which is adjacent in Breakenridge. Mr. Cappetta emphasized that the residents in the immediate adjacent area purchased and developed their property because of the unique characteristics of the area. None of these are black and white; they are all shades of gray. It is a close call but Mr. Cappetta's argument carries a little more weight. 5. Existing Uses and Zoning of Nearby Properties. Member Wolin said that Mr. Morrissey pointed out that there are other nearby properties zoned R -2 or greater density. However, Mr. Cappetta pointed out that right next to Brittwood are R -1 properties. Both arguments are valid, but he placed a little more weight on Mr. Cappetta's argument. 6. The Length of Time Under the Existing Zoning that the property has remained unimproved considered in the context of land development. Member Wolin said that he did not think that this should really be considered. IBLP made no effort to develop or market the property since their request to rezone it for student housing was denied. IBLP gained a significant tax advantage by keeping it as open space. The Commission knows from other issues with IBLP that they like keeping property undeveloped for as long as they can and they like the open land concept. Based on that he did not think it should be considered in the Commission's evaluation. Chairwoman Payovich clarified that it was not the factor that was found insignificant, but rather the circumstances surrounding it. Member Wolin agreed and said that it could be an important factor in some cases, but it is not relevant in this case. 7. The Relative Gain to the Public as Compared to the Hardship Imposed on the Individual Property Owner. Member Wolin said that Mr. Morrissey cited a number of points, but it was difficult for him to understand how any of them contribute to the relative gain to the public. The one exception that it would be a gain to the public would be that it would be nice to have the property developed in order to remove uncertainty. The property has had an uncertain destination for a long time. It has been pointed several times and he does not see a hardship for the developer. The property was purchased recently with a significant knowledge of the area. The price that was paid took into consideration all of the factors such as the proximity of the property to Route 83. 8. The Extent to Which the Proposal Promotes the Health, Safety, Morals or General Welfare of the Public. Member Wolin said that Mr. Morrissey pointed out there would be increased taxes paid to the school and park districts. It would be a net benefit to the park district, but whether it is a net benefit to the school district is questionable. The Village VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 25 May 15, 2006 Attorney did point out that the school consideration is not before the Plan Commission. Mr. Callaghan is abiding by the rules in regards to the contribution to the schools. It is not held against him, but he is not sure that it is a benefit to the schools. The Village does not have a property tax, so he is not clear where the benefit would be to the Village. If more people move in there could be more sales tax revenue, which would be a net benefit to the Village. A big concern that has been raised is the traffic. There are traffic studies that show statistically that the traffic will not be an issue, however there has been enough testimony provided by the residents in the area about the existing traffic problems, which should have something done before density is increased any more that what it is zoned. 9. The Relationship of the Proposed Use to the Comprehensive Plan. Member Wolin said that both attorneys cited the Comprehensive Plan on a number of pages as a defense of their position. He read the appropriate references and said it could be interpreted either way and could understand how each attorney could make their points. He said that from a personal standpoint there were a couple of things that stood out. On page 43 of the Comprehensive Plan, it states, "as the Village of Oak Brook is nearing its maximum developable ability, care must now be taken to avoid higher density land use than might be a deterrent to the genteel, rural atmosphere of the Village. Careful planning will allow Oak Brook to maintain its reputation as a trendsetter for the entire DuPage County." He said that the general objectives include, "maintain the low density character of the Village, and preserve the maximum amount of open space. Under established controls to enhance the visual aspects of the Village through good design, preserve, protect vistas and other unique open space features." Member Wolin agreed with Mr. Morrissey, where he cited a number of things that could be interpreted that the Comprehensive Plan supports the increased density. He said that the plan could be read either way, but he supports where the plans states to stay with the existing low density. Member Saiyed said that the Comprehensive Plan clearly states to maintain the low density and the character of Village and to preserve the open space and the open rural character of the Village, which is very important, and has been emphasized in the Plan. It also states to preserve the floodplain land for open space and improve the streams and creeks. Oak Brook is reaching its maximum development so it is important to maintain the low - density character of the Village. Member Lalmalani agreed and said that overall the focus was on the low density and high ambiance, high quality homes. 10. Community Need for the Use Proposed by the Property Owners. Member Wolin said that Mr Cappetta had responded that there was no demonstrable community need for R -2 zoning that is not being served by current VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 25 May 15, 2006 2 availability. He also said that there is a current high demand for low - density estate type residential homes since so few communities offer such an alternative, and that the 57 -acre parcel is the last R -1 area available for development. Mr. Morrissey did not directly address this issue; however, the expert witnesses did establish a need for R -2. Member Wolin said that there is a need for both. It is a beautiful area and whether it is zoned R -2 or R -1, people are going to buy the homes. It is not a question of needing one more than the other, so he is not sure that it is a significant factor relative to this decision. Member Saiyed said that Mr. Morrissey had mentioned Route 83 as being a factor. In 1966, when they developed the zoning for R -1 it was only one lane and now 35 years later it is a big highway. He was in leaning toward agreeing for property facing Route 83 as R -2; and was in agreement with Hunter Trails, which also has R- 2 facing Route 83, but they cannot vote on anything they do not have the authority to, so they will vote on what is presented before them. Member Lalmalani said that the developer knew going into this that the property was zoned R -1. Route 83 has never moved and is going to be there. The immediate neighborhood has had the understanding that this is an exclusive area with low density. It would not be fair to change the rules in the middle of the game for the community that they serve. Member Wolin said that as he went through the factors, it is not black and white and it is not like someone wants to locate a strip mall next to Breakenridge. He believes that Mr. Callaghan would build a very nice development that would be an asset to Oak Brook. After reviewing the factors, it is tipped in favor of keeping the zoning R -1. The Commissioners gave no other comments. Chairwoman Payovich closed the deliberations. Map Amendment Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Saiyed, to recommend denial of the petitioner's request for a snap amendment from R--1 to R -2 for a portion of the property to accommodate future development of the property for up to 35 single - family lots. In making this recommendation to deny, the Plan Commission finds that: 1. The applicant has submitted all required documents to the Village for a map amendment. 2. The current requested map amendment from R -1 to R -2 was reviewed on March 20, 2006, April 17, 2006 and May 15, 2006, 3. Testimony was presented by the applicant and a team of expert witnesses supporting the requested map amendment. VILLAGE OF OAT{. BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 25 May 15, 2006 4. Testimony was also presented by a number of objectors and their expert witnesses objecting to the requested map amendment. 5. Testimony was presented by the objectors that also addressed in detail the LaSalle factors, which governs zoning modifications in Illinois communities. 6. With respect to the individual LaSalle factors: a. The objectors have established that the proposed development is not in keeping with the surrounding land uses and zoning of the 150 contiguous acres (i.e., character of the neighborhood). b The objectors have established that the highest and best use of the subject property is residential but because of the physical characteristics of the area, not less than two -acre development should be approved. c. The objectors have established that the value of the property is not diminished at all by the current R -1 zoning. d. The objectors have established that the proposed Brittwood Creek development does not promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the public because the project will significantly increase the burdens upon municipal services when compared to the impact of developing the property at its current R -1 zoning. e. The objectors have established that there is no gain to the public if developed as proposed. f. The objectors have established that the residents of the adjacent 79 acres have a right to expect the subject parcel to be developed to the same standards that existed when the existing R -1 zoning was adopted. g. The objectors have established that the property has remained vacant due to the owner's choice. h The objectors have established that the proposed development of Brittwood Creek is inconsistent with the current Oak Brook Comprehensive Plan. 7. The objectors have established that the plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances. The petitioner knew that he was buying the property that is zoned R -1. 8. The objectors have refuted the testimony from the applicant that the proposed development of Brittwood Creek will not negatively impact the adjacent properties. 9. The objectors have also provided testimony that the development of VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 25 May 15, 2006 5 Brittwood Creek is in conflict with the natural area and will be environmentally unfriendly relative to existing trees, wetlands and wildlife. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 — Members Adrian, Iyer, Lalmalani, Saiyed, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. Preliminary Plat Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Saiyed, to recommend denial of the petitioner's request for a preliminary plat of subdivision map for up to 35 single- family lots based upon the Plan Commission recommendation to deny the map amendment the proposed plan would not conform to the zoning. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 — Members Adrian, Iyer, Lalmalani, Saiyed, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. A five - minute recessed was called. NEW BUSINESS A. BEARD'S RESUBDIVISION NO. 2 — 3711 MADISON 403 GLENDALE AND VACANT LAND — FINAL PLAT WITH VARIATION — 4 -LOT SUBDIVISION Director of Community Development Kallien provided an overview of the request. The two owners of the parcels would like to adjust the property lines to better reflect the current ownership of the lots. There are no plans at this time to apply for a building permit, or to rezone the property; it appears to be a housekeeping item to match the ownership of the land. There are 4 lots existing and the request will result in 4 lots. A letter was received from an adjacent property owner to the east, which has raised the issue that there may be some court ordered covenant relative to this property. The applicant was asked about this, nothing has been found, and Village Engineer Durfey, who has been with the Village 30 years, is unaware of any issues that affect that property. If there were a covenant that precluded the development of the property that is enforced by the individuals themselves; the village is not a party to that, so the matter is to adjust the property lines. Ken Beard, owner of 3 of the 4 lots, said that John Lanphier owns lot 4 and could not be at this meeting and they are seeking this approval. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD. Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 25 May 15, 2006 -� NEW BUSINESS BEARD'S RESUB No 2 -3711 MADISON, 403 GLENDALE AND VACANT LAND — FP WITH VAR — 4 -LOT SUB Member Wolin asked for clarification on the driveways. Gil Evans, Project Engineer, Bollinger and Lach, said that access to Lot 4 is via a 20 -foot access easement that currently exists between the Lanphier's property and Glendale Avenue. Access to the other two lots is through an existing 20- foot access easement that runs along the south side of Lot 1 and partially into Lot 2 to get to Lot 3. It is no different from how it was essentially configured before. There was a 20 -foot driveway along the south side. The subdivision prior to this one actually had a tail on Lot 2 that was an access easement. It was reconfigured to add an access easement across and through as opposed to a long tail sticking out on one lot. Member Wolin asked what was on the other side of Lots 3 and 4. Mr. Evans responded that there are existing subdivisions on the other side, Tall Oaks and Acorn Hill. Director of Community Development Kallien said that an adjacent property owner questioned why there is a front yard setback identified on Lot 3. In response to that comment, the Subdivision Regulations require a designation to the front yard setbacks for a plat to be recorded. It is nothing more than to comply with the regulations. Michael Zubi, 3719 Madison Street, owns approximately 2 acres just south of Lots 1 and 2. He said that although the plan shows a driveway, there is no existing driveway. He had purchased some property from Ken Beard five years ago and in doing so, they had agreed on some restrictions and covenants, of which he has built his home. His concern is that he had to build his home 290 feet from the front property line, which sets him at 78 feet to Lot 3. Although Ken Beard has told him, he has no intentions of selling or developing it, at some point someone will and Mr. Zubi plans on living in the house a very long time. The driveway that would be put in would come very close to the north end of his home and there are some very old and mature trees that would come down along with a lot of beauty when doing so. Lot 3 is heavily wooded, which is his concern. He would be concerned in any future development how emergency vehicles would get in and out without disturbing his property. Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell noted that currently there is not a request before the Plan Commission for the development of this property. The Commission cannot enforce a covenant between two private parties. They are respectful of his concerns regarding the possibility of future development. Mr. Zubi said that due to the fact that he has already built his home his lot is up against Lot 3 regarding future development. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 25 May 15, 2006 Member Wolin questioned the Fire Department's position on this type of access. Fire Chief Bodony responded that they have other similar situations in town with flag lots where the driveway run adjacent to the property that fronts a primary street, and they have not presented a problem to date. They do not need the requirement of turning around; the vehicles back down the driveway and exit in reverse. Member Adrian said that as the Commission, they need to be sensitive to Mr. Zubi's concern, because they are reconfiguring the existing lots. Although it may be a very simple process, he has seen how future development can affect existing homes. By granting approval, Lot 3 could be developed and adversely effect Mr. Zubi's home. He thinks the Commission should try to address that concern. Mr. Evans said that in actuality, if this reconfiguration did not go through, there would still currently be a buildable lot on Lot 3. They are not creating anything that is not already there. There is already a buildable lot and in actuality the Lanphier's by adding a portion of the lot into their property, actually decreases the buildable area that is left back on Lot 3, which by the FAR means that a smaller building would be constructed compared to what could have been built if this didn't happen. Mr. Zubi said that Lot 3 is actually accessed from Glendale Avenue. Mr. Beard said that he is not sure how to respond to Mr. Zubi's comments since he talked to him Saturday about this and a number of other items. He owned a piece of the property that Mr Zubi is building his home on. When selling that portion of the property, part of the deal was that, he would keep the 20 -foot access road so that he would be able to provide access to the back lot. This additional lot became available for purchase and Mr. Zubi was not interested in buying the lot for whatever reason; so he bought it. He believes that the engineer did a wonderful job in the reconfiguration of the lots. He is not sure what the issue is, because he is conforming to all the necessary codes and requirements of the village. Mr. Zubi had elected to build his house as he has and does not understand how this could be such a pertinent issue at this point. Mr. Zubi said that he originally owned a flag lot prior to buying additional property from Mr. Beard. There were a number of contingencies part of the deal; and one was that he kept a percentage of the 20 -foot section of the lot. At the time, he agreed to the restrictions because Mr. Beard was concerned and wanted to maintain the beauty of the area and was aware of the size of the home that was to be built so he wanted it as far from his property as possible. In addition to the 20 -feet, they also agreed on the restriction that his house would not be closer than 35 feet of Mr. Beard's property line even though the Village VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 25 May 15, 2006 11-� allows a 15 -foot side setback, so there is a lot to this issue. His primary concern is that he is within 78 feet of any new construction in the rear. Karen Zahran, 721 Acorn Hill, owns property adjacent to the property. They have been there since 1981 and about 10 years ago, there was a lady from Glendale Avenue owned the property that went way back. There was a big controversy about building flag lots and the access on Glendale would have been next to Dr. Darby's home. At that point there was a legal issue and the fudge decided to sell at fair market value the people that had properties there. She thought that they were not to develop those lands because it is such a beautiful piece of property and difficult to get in there. She does not know how many people bought it but it would not hurt to hold this matter off and find out what the legal issue was about 10 years ago and said that Mr. Beard was part of that. She said that they were not privy to the information. Mr. Beard responded that he was involved at that time and bought Lot 2 when the Mizen's developed the entire property, which was approximately 6+ acres. Since then the other lots have been built on. Lot 3 was left vacant and Bob Parks owned the property just north of his Lot 2. This took place in 1991, and he is not aware of any covenants that would restrict building on that property. The initial plan that was put forward by the Mizen's and St. Issac's Church was to make it one development with a huge turnaround off Glendale. Everyone objected to that proposal, so it was felt that the way it was done at the time was the least intrusive way. He bought Lot 2 because he wanted to keep it as it was at the time. 4 people purchased the five lots. Bill Wayne owned Lot 3 and elected to sell it about 6 months ago. Mr. Beard bought it with John Lanphier. Mr. Zubi had an opportunity to buy it as well as others. They bought it and as a result they took the one -acre and Mr. Lanphier added to his property and he took the other and incorporated it with his lots 1 and 2 and made what he feels is a very reasonable development. In response to Mr. Zubi's comment regarding the 20 -foot access road it was located there before, it is not new. From his perspective, they have met with Village Engineer Durfey and Director of Community Development Kallien and have met the requirements to subdivide the property. Mrs. Zahran asked if it would be developed. Mr. Beard responded that he has no plans to develop it in the near future, but he did buy it with the idea that at some point. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there are 4 existing lots and under this proposal, there will be 4 lots. All 4 lots meet the Subdivision Regulations as confirmed by the Village Engineer. There are no outstanding issues. He suggested that if the matter moves forward, a condition could be VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 25 May 15, 2006 attached as part of the Village Board action that it be asked to be delayed until more is found out about the issue raised by Mrs. Zahran. Village Engineer Durfey and he will make every effort to see if anything is there. He asked that the applicant and Mrs. Zahran see what is there and what the real impact is. Chairwoman Payovich then stated that all the parties would research it before it moves to the Village Board. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he thinks that the subdivision can be approved and that the issue brought to their attention would potentially impact the actual development of these properties. If it exists as a court order or a covenant, that is really between the property owners to reconcile and is not something that would involve the Village of Oak Brook. If a building permit is applied for and it meets all of the regulations, we would have to issue it. If the property owners decide to take some type of action, that would be amongst themselves. The Village Board needs to be knowledgeable as to what the facts are and that would be provided to them. Assistant Village Attorney O'Connell said that if the Plan Commission finds that the applicant has satisfied the requirements for the final plat of subdivision as well as the waivers and variations to the Subdivision Regulations as requested they could include language in the motion. Member L,almalani, seconded by Member Wolin that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations to recommend approval of the petitioner's request for the final plat of resubdivision, waivers and variations to the Subdivision Regulations. A report of the facts will be provided to the President and Board of Trustees prior to any final decision, regarding the issues raised in Mrs. Zahran's May 12, 2006 letter as to whether or not a valid covenant exists regarding the development of the land on the subject property. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 — Members Adrian, 1yer, Lalmalani, Saiyed, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. B. YORK TAVERN — 3702 YORK ROAD — CERTIFICATE OF FORK TAVERN - 3702 YORK - APPROPRIATENESS -- TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE KITCHEN CERTIFICATE TO MEET CURRENT MINIMUM HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF APPROPRIATEN REQUIREMENTS AND THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT ass (ADA) Director of Community Development Kallien provided a review of the request. York Tavern is on approximately 1.75 acres and is zoned R -2, which is a Single - VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 25 May 15, 2006 Family Residence District with a minimum 1 -acre lot size. The York Tavern significantly predates the Village of Oak Brook and its zoning. The Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1966 and the property easily predates it by over 100 years. The DuPage County Health Department, which has a responsibility to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the residents and patrons relative to food safety has provided in letter form, some directives for the owner to adhere to and if these issued are not reconciled, they will lose the ability to continue business as it exists. There are underlying setbacks that affect the property York Road has a 100 - foot setback, which is measured by the centerline of the road. The applicant has addressed that by proposing an addition that does not encroach into that area. In his opinion, the 100 -foot setback becomes moot. The issue of nonconformity is included in his staff report, that by the rule of law, some modifications can be made to a building as long as it confonns to a higher standing of law. Chairwoman swore in all applicants and witness that would provide testimony. Frank Lucchese, 512 West Van Buren, Elmhurst, Illinois, is the Project Architect for York Tavern. He acknowledged and thanked the Community Development Department staff, since a Certificate of Appropriateness does not come forward very often and they felt somewhat like pioneers going through this process because there was not a standard to go through. Through the help, insight and counsel of staff they were able to create a presentation that will meet with the Village approval. York Tavern has a special place in the hearts and minds of its residents in the community and they are very sensitive to that; and the fact that it is in the historical district, it is even more so important, thus they hired a historical architect. In addition, they went out into the community and sought the advice and counsel of two highly respected historical consultants, Jean Follett and Audrey Muschler. They had many meetings with them, where they were advised of the historical aspects of this building. They believe they have put together a good project based on that. They met with Al Savino, President of the Oak Brook Historical Society and had two meetings with residents who surround the property. They advised and kept them apprised of what they were doing. Included in those meetings were the Fullersburg Association and the Robin Hood Ranch Association and it is their belief that those residents agree with what they are doing. Walter O'Brien, 1900 Spring Road, Oak Brook, is attorney for the petitioner and resident of the Village. He said that there was a great deal of community concern originally because there were two plans that had been drawn up to address the health department issues. The issue is not a zoning issue and would remain R -2 if the request is approved for the Certificate of Appropriateness. They are looking at a June 7th date. The historical architect and consultants believe the structure should stand on its own and be able to be viewed for what it was. It is a legal nonconforming use and would remain that way if the certificate of appropriateness VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 25 May 15, 2006 ,__� is approved. Some concerns were raised that the alteration is almost as big as the existing structure. There are federal, county and village requirements that must be met; the first being the health, safety and welfare mandates of the health department. The village has required compliance with its fire codes and fire sprinkling of the building. The reason the structure is this size is because they have dealt with ADA compliance, Health Dept compliance. This included the kitchen, dry storage, refrigerated storage on both levels and an outside ingress that has to be brought to the lower level. Not only are they required to provide ADA bathrooms, but ADA access for ingress /egress. These requirements have created the size of the building. .The letter included from the Health Department stated that they have met the minimum health requirements, so there should not be an issue regarding the size of the footprint of the building. Terrence Russell, Larson and Darby Group, 324 W. State Street, Geneva, IL, said that he was the restoration architect on the Frederick Graue House. The York Tavern was built in 1843 and has been in continuous operation as a tavern for 163 years, and that is what really gives it, its historic significance. The building itself is a folk style or early railroad style building. It is not the prettiest of buildings, but it was never intended to be. It was always intended to be a rather simple style building, which is still reflected today. Its significance is the fact that it has been in use for 163 years as a tavern, except for a brief period in the 1920's during prohibition. The building is mostly timber frame construction based on what they ,see in the basement. The addition located on the south is much later; probably early 20`x' century built dimensional lumber. The existing siding is a simple clapboard exterior and the windows are 9 over 6 style. The trim on the building is somewhat minimal, which is very consistent with this type of building for this time period. The roof was most likely wood shingle. There are 2 non - historic additions to the building that would be removed. The photographs in the case file show a concrete block addition and a small air lock entrance to the front; both will be removed as part of the renovation. The addition does not infringe on the front yard setback. They want to emphasis the 1843 building so the addition is pushed off to the side so that the major elevation from the south and east really emphasizes the existing building with the major elevations being restored to the way they were when they were new. The ridge of the roof is specifically kept lower than the existing ridgeline, which emphasizes the original building. Due to the Health Department upgrades, they have created a well on the roof to hide the kitchen exhaust and the mechanicals that would distract from the historic building. The detailing on the addition will match the existing building exactly. They will keep the 9 over 6 windows, simple trim, clapboards and the wood - shingled roof. There is a new entrance that is accessible from the southwest. The existing entrance would remain just as an emergency egress from the dining area. It appears that the building is surrounded by parking, but the parking configuration is exactly the way it is now with planting and landscape islands being added. It will be repaved and restriped. The parking from the north and the east, which is one of the major views from the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 18 of 25 May 15, 2006 parking lot would all be screened with pine trees so that in the winter you would not have to see the parking lot. It also helps the view from Werules Court. The existing signage will be removed. The new signage fits within the historic guidelines. It is a small monument sign, stone with letters applied to it. Audrey Muschler, Interim President of the Fullersburg Historic Foundation spoke in favor of the proposal and its historic preservation. The Foundation was formed 20 years ago at the request of the Forest Preserve District, so that there is one voice that would speak for the entire district. It includes the Graue Mill, Ben Fuller Hinsdale and Oak Brook Historical Societies. They are very pleased at the sensitivity of the owner and the architect. They have been very receptive to the integrity of the tavern and they support the approval of the plan to allow the owner to continue to operate the tavern by complying with the DuPage County Health Department requirements and the expansion of the kitchen, handicapped bathrooms, dry storage, and inside staircase. They noted that there is no increase in the size of the service area, no increase in parking, and no change to the zoning. The York Tavern was built in 1843 by Benjamin Fuller and qualifies for the listing in the National Register of Historic Places under the criteria of history according to Tracey Sculle of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. In addition, they would like to request that Village review the Gateway Ordinance and possibly revise the ordinance to allow that if any of the historic buildings and there are five historic buildings that they could be rebuilt and the tavern could also be rebuilt. Jean Follett, 425 Bonnie Brae Road, Hinsdale, also Hinsdale Village Trustee, and has been working in the area of historic preservation for 30 years. York Tavern is near and dear to her heart for many reasons. This group of buildings at Salt Creek is extraordinary in Northeastern Illinois; there is nothing else like it where you have multiple first generation buildings that are in their original location; with the exception of the Ben Fuller House, and that was just moved across the street. They all tell a story that the rural area in the Comprehensive Plan refers. It is the rural history of Oak Brook. It is amazing that they are still there. The timbers in the York Tavern were milled at the sawmill that stood on the site that is today Graue Mill. She is grateful there is a plan that saves this building and does not dramatically alters or demolishes it, which is what they were worried about six months ago. It is great that it is going to be added on to in a way that makes it useful in the 21S` century and maybe there will be another 160 years worth of use out of it. She agrees with Audrey statements and applauds the fact that the two villages have worked out this ordinance 20 years ago, and thinks it needs to be reviewed again. She also would like to see stronger protection in the ordinance, due to the extraordinary character of this area. It has been a long 15 -20 year struggle to protect this group of buildings. She hopes that the Village Board in Oak Brook takes a serious look at strengthening the ordinance to provide better protection for this amazing group of buildings that includes the York Tavern. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 19 of 25 May 15, 2006 Larry Heiman, 413 Luthin Road, said that in a way he is speaking for his neighbors. He thanked the Moraci's and advisors for soliciting the input of the neighbors as well' as working closely with Audrey Muschler and Jean Follett. They have worked out a good working relationship over the last couple of months and the plan this evening is a vast improvement from where the project started. He reminded the Commission that this is a nonconforming use and while they are sensitive and empathetic to the Health Departments edicts, that does not in of itself present a hardship because they are operating a nonconforming use. The fact that the Health Department may have problems with the way it is being operated is not really an issue that the Village needs to respond to. They would like to see what has been substantially proposed here, completed. Mr. O'Brien said that he believed the neighbors support the project, that is generally true, but there are a number of conditions that the neighbors would like to see included in whatever legislation is adopted. 1. They do not have the expertise themselves, and are not sure if the size of the addition is the minimal size to comply with the Health Department and are concerned that the size is larger than what really might be required. 2. It has been suggested that the proposed addition would not increase the occupancy, number of seats or parking spaces and they would like that incorporated into the legislation as well. 3.- 4. They understand that Audrey and Jean have been working with the York Tavern to attain landmark status and that helps to assure them that the use proposed here would be preserved in the future. They would like to condition approval on landmark status being sought and accepted by the owners. Finally, it is their understanding that there was an ongoing discussion with the owners to sell the back portion of the lot to the Forest Preserve District. They strongly support that as well and ask that something be included in the legislation that would mandate that as part of any other approvals needed that it be conditioned on the sale of that back piece of land to the forest preserve district. He thanked everyone for coming up with a very nice proposal. Al Savino, President of the Oak Brook Historical Society, said that they are very interested in preserving the York Tavern because of its historical significance dating back to 1843 and is one of the oldest structures still standing and in use in DuPage County. The York Tavern also brings something to Oak Brook that is good and unique. There is a lot of white tablecloth dining, but there is nothing else like the York Tavern. Its hamburgers seem to be mystical, it brings in a lot of business people, college students, and a lot of residents enjoy stopping there to have a hamburger or sandwich. For these reasons, and those that were stated in their letter, they urge the Plan Commission to recommend approval of the request. Richard Allison, 31 Robin Hood Ranch, and Acting President of the Homeowners Association. He said that Mr. Herman was very eloquent and spoke about most of the critical issues. He pledged their support as residents in the area of the Moraci's concept. Last fall when the original proposal was offered to the neighbors, they had contemplated tearing it down and putting up a large masonry structure. In response VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 20 of 25 May 15, 2006 to the neighbor's issues with that plan, they were invited to a meeting at the York Tavern where they listened to the neighbor's opposition and they listened, and came up with a new footprint. They will be very happy to see the York Tavern built in the fashion proposed. As a board member in the Fullersburg Woods Area Association, their prime concern was any deviation from the current zoning for this property. He would like to see the nonconforming issued codified to some extent should the Moraci's sell the property in the future and the issue would be revisited as a potential zoning issue. Most of the residents on York Road with Christ Church encroaching on Robin Hood Ranch from the north, and York Tavern to the south would fight a zoning change. They would like to see it approved tonight. Director of Community Development Kallien said that from his understanding, the Certificate of Appropriateness is very similar to a special use, which sets very restrictive and specific standards that apply to the use and layout of the property. Any changes to the approvals would require that the new owner go back through the process. What you see is what you get relative to the potential approvals. The applicant, residents and staff have worked hard to work out an arrangement that satisfies the maintenance of this use while maintaining the integrity of the zoning. He had advised the applicant when they first came forward to work out the issues with the neighbors and they have done that. Samuel Girgis, 506 Wennes Court, said that they appreciate the responsiveness to the neighbors concerns and questioned how large the addition is going to be and how large the existing structure is today. Mr. Lucchese responded that the existing building is almost 1400 square feet, which includes the second floor and does not include the basement. When the storage to the east and the front entry is removed but not including the second floor, they end up with 915 square feet. The new addition is 1168 square feet without the basement and there is no second floor. The basement duplicates the square footage on the existing as well as the new addition, both, which are 915 square feet for the existing and 1168 for the new addition. Mr. Girgis wanted to know if this is the most reasonable size to satisfy the Health Department requirements. Mr. Lucchese responded yes; that he has talked to the Health Department many times, and in their letter, it is stated that the approved plan meets the minimum requirements. The have met with them and reviewed a number of different schemes. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Village enforces zoning and building codes but the issue of food service is solely a county function; so we have to rely upon their expertise. A number of meetings were held with the Health Department and in fact talked about what would be the minimum and the letter stands on its own. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 21 of 25 May 15, 2006 11-� Member Wolin said that it was important to address the points addressed by Mr. Herman. 1. It appears that the proposed size of the addition is what it is. 2. There was a discussion regarding occupancy, which currently is 50 seats. Fire Chief Bodony responded that occupancy is a blended calculation of square footage and seating capacity. They really do not have a function for standing room only for public assembly occupancy due to egress. The occupancy load for the York Tavern may have been diminished due to its combustible nature and lack of some fire protection. It can be researched and allow it on the finished product. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there are 50 seats there now and we are not adding to the use. 3. The current parking lot is gravel and it meanders. The new lot will be paved and will have handicapped parking stalls, which do not currently exist. Mr. Lucchese noted that the Village code requires 10 spaces per 1000 square feet and they exceed that. They will have about 36 spaces, which exists today. 4. Attaining landmark status is something Mr. Moraci could be encouraged to do, but it cannot be required. They would have to apply for it. Mr. O'Brien responded that there is not enough time to go through the process before their rune deadline. The building is in the historical district and the owner gets a credit for doing the remodeling work and would be a larger credit if the building were actually on the registry, so it is in their best economic interest to get that done. They intend to maintain the structure as a historical structure. They also would like more protection for the structure because if it would be destroyed, under the nonconforming provisions of the ordinance it could not be rebuilt. However, this is not a zoning hearing and they will work with staff to work on the possibility of a text amendment to allow structures completing this process to rebuild. They will not agree to contribute their property to the forest preserve. 5. To require the owner to sell it to the forest preserve district would be very complicated. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it the owner tried to take the piece of property off to sell it to anyone, there is no way to divide it because it is less than 2 acres and the zoning district in that area is a 1 acre minimum lot area. The village would create a new nonconforming issue that would have to be reconciled. There are zoning issues. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he reviewed the Gateway Development Plan requirements and he could not find a case where the petitioner could not meet the requirements. He was unsure of a few issues related to lighting that have been clarified by the architect; and as part of the building permit process, it can be easily reconciled. There are not any outstanding issues relative to the code. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 22 of 25 May 15, 2006 There was a discussion regarding whether the expansion was larger than required. Contained in the case file is a letter from the DuPage County Health Department stating that the proposal has been approved and has met their minimum requirements. It was also noted that any further changes to that approved plan would require an advance review by the Health Department. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Health Department is aware of the intricacies of providing a minimum expansion. There were several meetings held with them on the site. If the food items are going to be served as proposed at this location, this type of facility is required, so we need to rely upon their expertise in this area. Mr. O'Brien added that the requirements are a legal opinion. The kitchen is just a part of the expansion there is handicapped bathrooms that need to be provided for as well as ingress /egress, plus a HVAC system. These are the minimum requirements by law. Director of Community Development Kallien added that we not only have had the input of the applicant's architect, but also the input by the historical architect, the Oak Brook Historical Society, and Audrey Muschler. There is a sense of scale that needs to be looked at too; in terms of whether the addition fits in with the overall scale of the building. The footprint of the building shows that symmetry has been provided. It does meet the County requirements and does fit in aesthetically, with what exists, which is one of the requirements of the G•aue Mill Gateway requirements and it appears that they have satisfied that requirement. Member Wolin said that in making the recommendation, the Plan Commission found that: 1. The York Tavern structure has existed since the mid 1840's at its present location. The existing building encompasses approximately 1055 square feet. 2. Even though the tavern use has existed prior to the incorporation of Oak Brook and adoption of the current zoning provisions for the property, the subject property is zoned R -2 Single - Family Detached Residence District and is classified as a legal nonconforming use under Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Normally, any modification to a nonconforming use is limited to ordinary repairs and alterations, which do not involve an expansion of the nonconforming nature of the use. 4. However, Section 13 -13 -2 of the Zoning Ordinance states: "Ordinary repairs and alterations may be made to a nonconforming building or structure, provided that no structural alterations shall be made in or to such building or structure, all of which is designed or intended for a use not permitted in the district in which it is located, except those required by law, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 23 of 25 May 15, 2006 or except to make the building or structure and use thereof conform to the regulations of the district in which it is located." Therefore, the proposed modifications to the building addresses issues raised by the DuPage County Health Department and to also come into compliance with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Without these building improvements, the DuPage County Health Department has stated in writing that, "they will not have a valid permit to serve food or beverages and must cease operations." 5. In accordance to Section 13 -8 -3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant has submitted all documents and information to satisfy the Gateway Development Plan requirements, which must be included in the application for a certificate of appropriateness. 6. The plans that have been submitted for this request have been reviewed and approved by the DuPage County Health Department. 7. The plans have also been reviewed and approved by the Oak Brook Historical Society as well as the LZT /Filiung Architects, an architectural firm who has experience in working with historical structures. 8. The proposed interior modifications will include improvements that relate to the Village's life safety and building codes that enhance the public, health, safety and welfare of those persons who work and visit the York Tavern facility. 9. The proposed building elevations and site improvements appear to be consistent with the Graue Mill Gateway area and historical area that is adjacent to the York Tavern property. 10. Even though the building will be physically improved, the integrity of the residential zoning of the area has not been compromised Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Saiyed to recommend approval of the petitioner's request for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness in the Historic Graue Mill Gateway Area. This would allow for the issuance of the building permit to allow the construction that would increase the size of the existing building approximately 1100 square feet, and to meet the interior and exterior building alterations as required by the DuPage County Health Department and improvements to the physical appearance of the site. The recommendation is subject to the following conditions: 1. Maintain the current policy towards establishing seating capacity of 50 based upon current adopted codes; 2. Parking to be constructed as shown on the existing site plan; 3. The applicant is encouraged to seek landmark status; VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 24 of 25 May 15, 2006 I-ia 6 7. 4. To be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted and contained in the case file, including: Foodservice Equipment Plans approved by the DuPage County Health Department dated April 20, 2006 on page 6; Proposed building elevations on pages O (concept plan) and R (Sheet A -5, dated April 17, 2006); Site Plan dated April 17, 2006 on page P (Sheet A -1, dated April 17, 2006); Landscape Plan page Q; and Floor Plans on page S (Sheet A -4, dated April 17, 2006). 5. Final Engineering and DuPage County Health Department approval ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7— Members Adrian, Iyer, Lalmalani, Saiyed, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Motion Carried. OTHER BUSINESS OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Adrian, seconded by Member Saiyed to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m, VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, Dir ctor of ommunity Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Conunission Minutes Page 25 of 25 May 15, 2006