Loading...
Minutes - 05/20/2002 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES May 20, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:39 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Stelios Aktipis Members Paul Adrian Samuel Girgis Surendra Goel Barbara Payovich Anthony Tappin ALSO PRESENT: Village Trustee Alfred Savino Village Trustee Elaine Miologos Village Engineer Dale Durfey Director of Community Development Robert Kallien Village Attorney Richard Martens A quorum was present. U. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Goel moved, seconded by Member Girgis, to waive the reading of the April 15, 2002 Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. 111. DUPAGE HOUSING AUTHORITY — 3400 ST. PASCHAL DRIVE — PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 6.189 ACRES FROM THE MAYSLAKE FOREST PRESERVE PROPERTY — TEXT AMENDMENTS and SPECIAL USE IN THE CR DISTRICT to CONVERT THE EXISTING FRIARY BUILDING INTO A SENIOR CITIZEN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY Chairman Aktipis said that the matter has been discussed extensively during the previous three meetings and the decision was deferred to this meeting, subject to some final issues that had to be negotiated between the petitioner and Trinity Lakes Homeowners Association. That matter has come to fruition and he expects the matter to be voted upon tonight. He extended his appreciation to the petitioner for their patience and cooperation with the Commission's very extensive review of their project. Chairman Aktipis asked the petitioner if they would like to address the Commission. Arnold Germain said that since the last meeting, the Trinity Lakes Homeowners Association, along with the Village Engineer, their engineers and the Forest Preserve District came to a conclusion regarding an alternative design for the silt storage (added to the site plan, C1 -A, page 35 of the petition file). It is a very good situation that allows flexibility in the future and saves some costs for the Trinity Lakes PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG. 02- MAY.doc May 20, 2002 Association. A letter from the Trinity Lakes Homeowners Association confirms that the matter has been resolved. Member Adrian asked to hear from the President of the Homeowners Association. Ron Cullum, 908 St. Stephens Green, Chairman of the Lakes Committee, said that they had brought up the initial concern. Their letter states that they have come up with a win /win solution. They are very pleased with the cooperation of the Housing Authority. Member Goel asked how much money has been spent on the preparation of the plans and the project to date. Mr. John Day said that they have incurred $500,000+ to get this far. Public Comment Chairman Aktipis asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in support of or in opposition to the project. Constantine Xinos, Briarwood Lakes, said that he did not hear from Trinity Lakes at the first meeting, but he sees now that Trinity Lakes addresses this matter from their own interest and their own perspective. Mr.Cullum said that they have struck a deal. He said that we are not here to strike deals. The Plan Commission is here to make a decision as to whether this project is in the best interest of Oak Brook, that is the only issue. Trinity Lakes has apparently decided, and he only means the board of Trinity Lakes. Because they want the lake dredged, they want a place to put the dredging, and they do not have a place to put the dredging for free. So they have approached the Forest Preserve and the Housing Authority and cut a deal. "You let us dump our dredging on your property at no cost and we will come here and speak in support of this project." The real issue is would they speak in support of this project if the Forest Preserve and the DuPage Housing Authority would not let them place the dredging on their land. The answer of course is "no." They were not at the first meeting. No one wants a housing project, because that is what this will turn out to be. 20% welfare and there is no guarantee that it will stay 20% subsidized. There is no guarantee that Oak Brook residents have priority in placement at the facility. Whether your own common sense tells you that people who can afford to spend five or six thousand per month are not going to want to want to live with 20% of the residents who cannot. Those who profess to be the representatives have been bought out. He asked why Mr. Cullum was not at the first meeting if it was such a good idea. Another question, is if it is such a great idea why didn't he talk about what a great idea it would be to have HUD involved in a project in Oak Brook, yards from expensive houses with people who cherish their privacy. They ask the Commission to approve something that is not in the best interest in Oak Brook because they have a place to put their dredgings. This is not a good plan. They paid to have their dredgings taken care of. Do not buy it. Ron Cullum responded that he has been at three meetings, and Xinos has been to two, so he's one up. The history on this is that the Housing Authority presented their plan to the Trinity Lakes Homeowners Association several months ago. At that time, the Board was there and it was unanimously approved that they thought the plan was a good idea. At that point in time, the plan did not show the detention basin they are referring to. He came to the second meeting because in the newspaper there were several very negative comments and did not express their view as the Homeowner's Association. They thought as a group that it was a very good idea. His comments were expressed at that meeting. At the end of the second meeting, the Housing Authority had a revised plan that had this area added. It has not been confirmed that they are going to dredge the lake. The issue was brought up to preserve flexibility in the future. Before the last meeting, a notice to all the Trinity Lakes homeowners, special attention was paid to ensure the properties that border up to the project were aware of the meeting. Discussion of the dredging did not come up until the end of the meeting. The Homeowners Association again agreed that this was a good idea. Mr. Xinos' contention that they were bought out is a bald faced lie. The fact that they changed their plans is a bald faced lie. They came because they thought it was a good idea. They had a particular concern with the way that the silt could be stored. If they can store the silt on the site there is a cost savings. Only a little could be stored there and a vast majority of it would PLAN COMMISSION Minutes May 20, 2002 2 PC -MTG. 02- MAY.doc have to be hauled away anyway. They do not have approval with the forest preserve yet; they do not have approval to do the dredging. The speech that was heard here was extremely deceptive and inaccurate. Member Payovich said that on the construction cost, and sometime when renovating an old building there can be some unfortunate surprises. Is the Housing Authority comfortable with the reserves that have been set aside to address those issues? Mr. Germain said that to get any project off the ground takes a great deal of money. One of the things money is spent on is analysis, which includes the cost of construction. The numbers they have are deemed to be very conservative by the financial people. They have enough reserves as determined by the consultants and financial people reviewing the project. Member Payovich asked if the construction managers that the Housing Authority has been dealing are experienced in this type of building. Mr. Germain responded yes. They have had experience in major construction projects. Member Girgis said that in any project there is an out, what is the out if they do not succeed. What happens to the building if they do not achieve the 80/20- percentage mix or if it becomes financially not successful what happens. John Howlett said that the deed, which runs from the Forest Preserve has to be owned by a municipal corporation and used for senior assisted living and conform to the affordable housing. If it does not happen arguably it goes back to the Forest Preserve. Oak Brook would not let someone else come in and do something other than what has been ordained in the Special Use Ordinance. The Forest Preserve will be the same way. Affordable means that there will be people that will pay less. It is not for welfare people. It is for senior citizens on a fixed income that are not able to afford $4,000 rent, so there will be an element of subsidy there. It will not be public housing. Mrs. Hoye, Hoye Consultants said that the income level for a qualifying senior in DuPage County could have yearly income up to $52,000 in order to qualify for one of the subsidized units. Those types of seniors do exist in this community. Member Girgis asked where the requirement comes from. Mrs. Hoye responded that it is about $50,000 and comes from the Home Program that establishes the rates for various counties all over the state. Member Goel said that he has poured over this subject as everyone else has. He has three considerations. They are the financial feasibility of the project, the structure feasibility, and the viewpoint of the neighborhood people. The privacy of those people is paramount to his consideration. For the financial feasibility, it seems that it is on the high side. If they built a brand new facility for 93 people, it would cost about the same. The cost per person is about $5000 per month, which is on the high side. AARP 2002 report says that assisted living facility run $1000 to $3000 per month or more. All said, he believes that this Commission is in the right position to decide this project on the financial feasibility alone because others are reviewing it from the financial feasibility. The project has not been decided very lightly, they have already spent %2 million and that is his point. He had looked at the building originally from the outside and it looked to be in poor shape. He had the opportunity to view it from the inside and it is a very solidly built structure. It is so solidly built, that no one in their right mind today would build a structure like that. This structure can take some more. Once it has been restored from a safety point of view, they should not have a problem. He hopes that much of the woodwork can be preserved. He attended the Trinity Lakes meeting and he thought if there were any opposition he would see it there and he did not. For him to say that the privacy of anyone would be disturbed would not be right. These comments made, this structure will preserve the heritage of Oak Brook and sees no reason why it should not be done. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 3 PC -MTG. 02- MAY.doc - � -af! May 20, 2002 Member Girgis said that this has been a tough decision for all. As a Commission they say, what is our job, why are we here and that is to do what is good for the citizens of Oak Brook in the next 10 or 20 years. Initially, there were real concerns regarding the inexperience of project management because they have never done this before. However, things can be done if the proper professional help is received. The Housing Authority has relayed that they have enough professional help and have spent a lot of time and money doing so. The immediate neighbors appear to support it. Having toured the facility, the building will probably give joy to many senior citizens for many years to come if it succeeds. The concern is what if it fails. If it is not successful we need to know what is going to happen with it and we have been told it reverts to the Forest Preserve District. Text Amendment Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Adrian that the petitioner has met the standards as required and to recommend approval of the text amendments as requested. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Adrian, Girgis, Goel, and Payovich Abstain: 2- Tappin and Aktipis Absent: 0- Motion Carried. Special Use Director of Community Development Kallien briefly reviewed the standards that the petitioner is required to meet. 1. Is deemed necessary for the public convenience at that location. 2. Is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected; and 3. Would not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located. These standards are very specific and relate to the impact on adjacent land use. The applicant on pages I through 1 -2 goes into some detail as to how this proposal addresses each of these standards. In addition to the original submittal there is some very good information that was contained in the appraisal report that is part of the file (page 27). The appraiser goes into great detail as to what is the real impact on adjacent land use. Discussion Member Adrian and Girgis addressed concerns that some mechanism be placed in the special use that should the project fail, the property would revert to the Forest Preserve. Mr. Howlett explained that it can go back to the Forest Preserve if it is not used for the purpose as approved in the special use. The Village has the ability, because if it is not used for the approved use it cannot be used at all without further approval by the Village. Chairman Aktipis added that these are two different issues, that should the Housing Authority fail, any municipal corporation could use it for the same use. If the use cannot be sustained then it would revert to the Forest Preserve. Mr. Howlett said the Village would not allow a use that has not approved by Ordinance. Property can revert back to the original grantor of the deed if the restriction is not followed. Member Girgis said that he was concerned that the wording regarding any municipality left the options open ended. Village Attorney Martens said that the wording states an instrumentality which is a group basically controlled by the entity that creates it. In these kinds of situations there are often interlocking PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 4 PC -MTG. 02- MAY.doc May 20, 2002 boards that control the finances. Mr. Howlett said they were just seeking flexibility. They have several instrumentality's that they operate with. There is a not - for - profit management and finance corporation. Attorney Martens questioned what control the Housing Authority exercises over the not - for - profits. Attorney Howlett responded everything except that they legally stand - alone. The not - for - profit boards are directors of the Housing Authority and in some cases are chosen by the Housing Authority. Mr. Howlett said that what the Housing Authority and the Forest Preserve District was trying to accomplish, was that in order to be intergovernmental you had to be with a government. The Forest Preserve District did not want the Housing Authority to come in with the project and then have it operated by a partnership of independents. They wanted it to be owned and operated by a government entity. The City of Chicago or HUD will not come in. It is a market project with some affordable housing. The expectation that some entity outside the jurisdiction would want to come in to operate this will not happen. Constantine Xinos, Briarwood Lakes said that the Housing Authority is going to get private financing. They are going to sell revenue bonds, not general obligation bonds. Someone will invest in tax -free securities. If the project fails, there will be an auction on behalf of the bondholders. Someone will buy it subject to the restrictions the Village approves. This is the critical time to set controls. HUD can step in or some agency that would fit into the definition of a municipal agency. Chairman Aktipis added that if that were the case they would have to operate under the approved standards. Mr. Xinos asked the Commission to cover the taxpayers when the project fails. If it is recommended for approval, send it to the Village Board with very stringent conditions. Attorney Martens suggested that a timeline be imposed requiring a building permit to be issued from the approval date of the Village Board. Also that the project be substantially completed by another future date. Director of Community Development Kallien added that when the special use was granted for the Peabody Mansion, there were time limits set requiring occupancy to be obtained within a certain timeframe. Mr. Howlett responded that was appropriate. Mr. Germain agreed and said that a one year requirement to obtain a permit and three years for substantial completion of the project should be sufficient. Mr. Xinos suggested that the language be changed from affordable to subsidized. Control it so that if the DuPage County Housing Authority is not running it, then they have to come back for Village Board approval. Otherwise, the judgment will be made by the people that ran it and made it go down the drain. Howard Trier responded that he is not scared of poor people, his entire family is poor, they work hard, they are very decent people that he is proud of. For us to sit here and imply that people who do not have the money, that a few of us have been lucky enough to accumulate is an embarrassment to everyone who cares about human beings. We ought to be very careful about following that tract, because that embarrasses Oak Brook in a way that Oak Brook does not desire to be embarrassed. Village Attorney Martens said that the ordinance for the text amendment is drafted so that an instrumentality of a municipal corporation can own or operate the development. The test of the issue is whether or not the Housing Authority controls the instrumentality. If it is a not - for - profit created by the Housing Authority, do they have a majority voice of the directorship of that not - for - profit, if they do, then it is an instrumentality of the Housing Authority. There is no way that HUD could be an instrumentality of HUD. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 5 PC -MTG. 02- MAY.doc May 20, 2002 Mr. Howlett said that the consultants advise them that you do not want to use the word "subsidize" because it means income levels of less than $12,000. Affordable means income levels up to $52,000. They are looking for affordable housing. Member Adrian moved, seconded by Member Payovich, that the petitioner has met the standards as required and to recommend approval of the special use on the 6.189 acres located at 3400 St. Paschal Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development to be in substantial conformance with the architectural plans submitted (page L) of the petition file and the Revised Site Plan C1 -A dated May 13, 2002, which depicts Alternate A (page 35) that addresses the issues of the Trinity Lakes Homeowners Association if it is necessary to store silt on the site. 2. That the Special Use would run to the DuPage Housing Authority, an Illinois municipal corporation or an instrumentality of the DuPage Housing Authority. 3. A building permit is to be obtained within one year of the date of the approved special use ordinance by the Village Board of Trustees. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained with 3 years of any ordinance approving the special use. 5. Development is to have a maximum of 93 total units of those, a maximum of 19 units would be affordable units, and in any event the percentage of affordable units to total units would not exceed 19 over 93. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Adrian, Girgis, Goel, and Payovich Abstain: 2- Tappin and Aktipis Absent: 0- Motion Carried. Preliminary and Final Plat of Subdivision Director of Community Development Kallien said that the final step in this request is to establish a subdivision plat that is consistent with the request. The Subdivision plat carves out 6.189 acres from the Mayslake Forest Preserve. Chairman Aktipis said that it is a very routine type of motion. The Commission did not have any issues with the plat. He asked Village Engineer Durfey if everything was in order from an engineering standpoint. Village Engineer Durfey said that it is all contained in his memo and it is not all in order as of yet. There are things that need to be addressed before it can be recorded. Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Adrian, to recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat of the Friary Residences of Mayslake subject to final engineering approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Adrian, Girgis, Goel, and Payovich Abstain: 2- Tappin and Aktipis Absent: 0- Motion Carried. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG. 02- MAY.doc May 20, 2002 Chairman Aktipis explained that his vote to abstain on all the issues does not in any way indicate his disapproval of the project. It simply reflects his special set of circumstances at this moment, since he has been selected to serve on the Board of Trustees until the next election. This project will be coming again in front of him as part of the Village Board and he felt it most appropriate to reserve his final vote on the subject at that time, rather than at the present time. Village Attorney Martens said that as a legal matter, generally an abstention goes with whichever way the majority goes so that is the way it would be counted. Attorney Howlett thanked the Commission and believes that the whole process has been fair and they have had a great opportunity to explain the project and they are delighted that they found it so that they could go forward. IV. NAGUIB — 824 MERRY LANE — FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL USE — COMPENSATORY STORAGE TO BUILD THE DRIVEWAYACCESS TO THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE. Mr. Jim Anthony said that he represented Dr. and Mrs. Naguib. Mr. Anthony expressed thanks to staff for helping the Naguib's throughout this process. The revised plan meets or exceeds the 1.5 to 1 ratios for compensatory storage. The calculations of the drawing correctly depict the 100 -year level. Everything regarding the retaining walls is outside of the flood plain area and will not be handled in the scope of what they are applying for regarding the flood plain special use permit. The benchmarks have been corrected and the 3 to 1 side slope is being maintained within the drawings that were submitted. Chairman Aktipis said that he has reviewed the file and it appears that Village Engineer Durfey has resolved all the problems with the petitioner and it now looks like a routine approval. Chairman Aktipis asked for any public comments. Marsha Hosler, 820 Merry Lane said that she lives on what will be the east side of her new neighbors, whom she noted are delightful people. She said that she is here because there are a few things that she does not understand. Last fall when the trees were removed from the property a situation began with standing water. At one time when there were trees and vegetation on the property, it was absorbed. Now it never goes away. The east side by her lot is very low and the water is approaching that end. The west side is very high. She accepts that a driveway is necessary but was concerned whether it would it go straight back and fill in the huge gully or would it slant and go over more. Appearance is important to everyone in the neighborhood and everyone wants the right outcome. Jim Anthony responded that the water was always there on the site. When the lot was cleared, it became visible. The lot is virgin and was cleared for construction. As soon as the construction starts, which will meet the codes and requirements of the Village, the aesthetics will completely change and the property values will rise. The proposed plan enhances the surrounding properties with safety and will provide water storage since there is compensation in the proposed plan. The water will not sit once the construction begins. The water sits now because there is no compensatory storage provided yet on the site. Mrs. Hosler said that she was looking for an assurance and clarification that the water would be taken care of and there would be no water standing when it is completed and that the Village would oversee the matter. No one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the request. None of the Members had any further questions or concerns. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 7 PC -MTG. 02- MAY.doc May 20, 2002 Member Goel moved, seconded by Member Adrian, that the petitioner has met the requirements to recommend approval of the flood plain special use request subject to final engineering approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 - Adrian, Girgis, Goel, Payovich, Tappin and Aktipis Abstain: 0- Absent: 0 - Motion Carried. V. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TEXT AMENDMENT — AMEND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Village Engineer Durfey said that the documents contained in the file show the text as it has been proposed. He reviewed the major items with substantive changes. He said that in the definition section (Section 14 -2) there are many revisions. All of the definitions regarding flood plain or stormwater items were removed because they will be placed in the chapter of the Code regarding flood items. Section 14 -2 - Definitions Lot — The definition was made more concise for either a subdivision or an assessment plat. No access strip — was changed to no vehicular access area, which is more in keeping with what they actually do. Public Way — added as a new definition. Village — eliminated because it is defined elsewhere in the Code. Wetlands — eliminated because it is defined elsewhere in the Code. Section 14 -3 — Preliminary Plats Anything regarding contour maps or flood plain issues are being stricken because it is a separate part of the Village Code. Section 14 -3 -4 — Land Improvement Plans and Specifications has been completely stricken because it has never been used and is not needed. Section 14 -4 — Final Plats Section 14 -4 -3 — Agreements and Performance Guarantee has been completely stricken and revised language has been provided. A lot of the language has been taken from the existing subdivision code as well as being augmented by the DuPage County Stormwater Ordinance. A discussion occurred regarding individual subdivision covenants. Member Tappin said that he wanted to know if the subdivisions can be notified prior to approval of permits so that the covenants are known prior to its release. Director of Community Development Kallien said that basically the Village cannot hold up permits if they meet the Village requirements. However, every effort is made to seek out letters from the Homeowners Associations indicating their approval or disapproval. Member Tappin would like to see the policy formalized and asked what happens if there is a conflict. Village Attorney Martens responded that it does not affect the village. It is like two separate entities overseeing a project. One may have stricter standards than the other may, but we are responsible to oversee the standards set forth in the Village Code. If the homeowners association has stricter standards, then the association will have to oversee the enforcement of those standards. Member Tappin said that he would like to see a mechanism in place that would allow the subdivision comments to come in ahead of approval by the Village. Director of Community Development Kallien said that they do not see a potential conflict in the subdivision process. It is when a building permit is requested on lots that are created either for principal or accessory structures. For example, the Village allows fences although there are a number of subdivisions that do not, or have other requirements. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes May 20, 2002 8 PC -MTG. 02- MAY.doc Village Attorney Martens said that the Village has been in the situation where the permit has to be issued in spite of the fact that it does not comply with homeowner association covenants. Member Tappin said when an application is received he would like to see the homeowners associations notified to make sure they look at the plans. Director of Community Development Kallien said that each resident that lives in a subdivision is a party to those covenants. When they purchase the property, they are obligated to follow those covenants. It is not necessary that the Village be the intermediary in seeing that the covenants are enforced. The Village encourages cooperation and that all of the parties are aware of what is going on. It is the Village's responsibility to enforce the Village codes. Section 14-4 -4 — Agreements and Performance Guarantee. This has been taken from the existing code as well as new language from the stormwater ordinance. A lot of the language in Section B and C was taken from the DuPage County Stormwater Ordinance. Section 14 -4 -7 — School Contributions. The fair market value of property is a changing item so the sentence was stricken. Section 14 -5. ORA3 District Requirements. This section relates just to the McDonald's property. Section 14 -6 -3 -3 Curbs and Gutters. Language was added so that it could be waived on occasion. Section 14- 6 -3 -J. Monuments and Markers. He spoke with some registered land surveyors and brought the language up to date. Section 14- 6- 3- J -2 -d. It is an unusual item. Language was added on a private street subdivision where the lot line goes to the middle of the road and an iron pipe cannot be put in the street, so an offset back in the ground area behind curb or shoulder which will be an offset for the property corner in the street. Section 14- 6 -3 -K. Easements, Language further defines what is actually done in practice. Section 14 -6 -4 Record Drawings, Engineer's Certification, Surveyor's Certification and acceptance of improvement. The revised language brings it up to date and what is actually done in practice. Section 14 -7 Administration and Enforcement. Provisions have been updated for plat fees and referring to other sections of the code where the fees are stated. Section 14 -7 -4. Variations and Amendments. Language was updated to what they actually do. Member Goel asked if an inventory is done to keep tract of the text amendments that have been done. Village Engineer Durfey answered that the subdivision code has not been revised for at least 15 -20 years. No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the request. Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Tappin to recommend approval of the amendments to the Subdivision Regulations as presented. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 9 PC -MTG. 02- MAY.doc May 20, 2002 Vl. OTHER BUSINESS Members Goel noted that this is Chairman Aktipis' last Plan Commission meeting and that the members formally acknowledge his services to the Plan Commission. The Plan Commission members greet the appointment of Stelios Aktipis to the Village Board and appreciate the services rendered by him to the Plan Commission through the years. Chairman Aktipis thanked Member Goel and the members of the Plan Commission. He said that he has tremendously enjoyed working with everyone in terms of providing good ideas and a collegiate atmosphere on the board. He will miss everyone and thanked Member Goel for his kind comments. V11. ADJOURNMENT Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Goel to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 10 PC -MTG. 02- MAY.doc i., Director of ComM. u e nt Secretary August 19, 2002 Date Approved May 20, 2002