Loading...
Minutes - 07/16/2001 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES July 16, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Members Arrived 7:55 p.m. MEMBERS ABSENT: Members ALSO PRESENT: Village Trustee Director of Community Development Village Engineer A quorum was present. IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Stelios Aktipis Stephen Allen Samuel Girgis Surendra Goel Anthony Tappin Barbara Payovich Alfred Savino Robert Kallien Dale Durfey Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Goel, to waive the reading of the May 21, 2001 Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. Ill. KOSOWSKI — 341 FOREST TRAIL — FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL USE and VARIATION — TO ALLOW IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING HOME IN THE FLOOD PLAIN The petitioner John Kosowski was called out of town, Tim Kral, Construction Manager for the Petitioner reviewed the request and apologized for the petitioners absence. The flood plain level is 661 and the grade for the property is 660.7, and is almost completely out of the flood plain. The property was not subject to any flooding during the flood in 1987 and since the dredging of the creek and the Elmhurst Quarry, if the flood plain maps were ever revised this would not be an issue. None of the proposed improvements would be located in the flood plain, but because a portion of the existing home is, a flood plain special use permit is required. Chairman Aktipis noted that the proposal has several variation requests, which will be not be heard by the Plan Commission, those issues will be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Plan Commission only hears the issue of recommending approval of the flood plain special use permit. Member Tappin asked Village Engineer Durfey when the Village expects the updated report from the County and whether he has an idea of what the report might contain in regards to the flood plain maps. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes I PC -MTG. 01- JULY.doc July 16, 2001 Village Engineer Durfey responded that the County has told the Village that they should have the Salt Creek Flood Plain maps redone in about two years, however, they have been telling him that for the last seven years. When the state dredged Salt Creek (after the 1987 event) Neil Fulton, from the state told the Village they could expect a change (i.e., drop) from one (1) to one and one - half (1%2) feet because of the dredging. On top of that, the quarry is now on line so it should be dropped no less than that when they finally do the maps. Member Goel questioned the status of other buildings in the area, whether or not they are at the same level and if variations have ever been granted for anyone else. He was concerned that approval of the request may set a precedent for the area. Chairman Aktipis said that this appears to be the first time that we are dealing with an expansion of a footprint. Village Engineer Durfey said that he is not aware of any applications for flood plain special use in the Timber Trails area, but that the Village has approved flood plain special use permits in other areas of town. He also added that the state at one time advised them that if the improvement/addition to the structure is a second story, it is okay as long as it is not built in the flood plain. He said that the petitioner has met the compensatory storage requirements. No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal. Chairman Aktipis noted that on page 17 of the petition file the applicant has addressed the standards for recommendation of approval of the flood plain special use. Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Allen that the petitioner has addressed the factors as required by ordinance to recommend for approval the petitioner's request for a flood plain special use subject to the conditions contained in Village Engineer Durfey's memos dated June 12, 2001 and July 12, 2001. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Allen, Girgis, Goel, Tappin and Aktipis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Payovich Motion Carried. IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENT TITLE 13 of the VILLAGE CODE — REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 12 OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING The petitioner in this case is the Village of Oak Brook, the Director of Community Development, Robert Kallien reviewed the request. The actual text being considered is on pages 3 -3o of the petition file. On March 19, 2001, staff began the in -depth review and discussion on the proposed update of Chapter 12. Follow up discussions continued through the April and May meetings and covered issues relating to: a.) establishing maximum lot coverage (asphalt for parking lots), which was a by- product of the Christ Church petition; b.) establishing some sort of design review /advisory process and/or committee with a goal to review and "raise the bar" on new commercial construction; and, c.) discussion on the merits of creating a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) scheme that could be used in the future in Oak Brook. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes July 16, 2001 2 PC -MTG. 01- JULY.doc Even these items are important, all three do not directly relate to off - street parking and loading provisions, but evolved during the discussion process. Each item has some merit, and cases can be considered as we review and update other zoning chapters in the future. In regard to the proposed update of Chapter 12, following are several items that need to be addressed (page 3 of the file). 13- 12 -3 -D. Recommend language that permits with conditions, construction of seventy -five percent (75 %) of the required parking, as a condition of occupancy. The remaining spaces would be set aside or landbanked in a written covenant against the property and constructed when the Village determines these spaces are needed. This would apply to larger projects and the trigger mechanism could be controlled within the building permit as construction progresses. As part of a multiple phase project, occupancy of the building or restricting issuance of other permits could also be set as an additional control. This would allow order to be kept to this provision. 13- 12 -3 -J. Recommend language that clarifies the concept of a collective parking arrangement. Excess parking from one parcel can be allocated to another parcel if it meets all other applicable requirements of the chapter, particularly 13- 12 -3 -B. It was suggested that additional language be added to require a written agreement between the parties and be submitted to the Village. 13- 12 -4 -B. Recommend language, which requires maintenance of landscaping and be required to screen off - street parking spaces. Member Tappin noted that on large landscaping plans, the Village needs to have the plan reviewed by an aborist to determine the type of plant material to be used will better survive the conditions in which it is installed. Too often, it is suggested that pine trees be added, when certain pines will not survive under the conditions in which they are installed. Austrian and Scotch pines do not survive the salt spray conditions of winter and are very expensive to replace. Saddlebrook has had many problems with these trees in the subdivision. The Village Boards, by requiring evergreens along 1 -88 made a mistake, because they could not survive the salt spray and many have died. Director of Community Development Kallien said that they have discussed sending landscape plans for larger developments to an aborist or someone on staff that has some skill so that problems are not created by putting in the wrong types of bushes or trees. Trustee Savino agreed that the Village could have the plans reviewed either by an aborist or by the forester consultant that is used by the Public Works Department. 13- 12 -4 -C. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. Currently the ordinance requires at least one tree to be planted with a maximum spacing of seventy -five (75) feet (be changed to forty (40) feet) provided that at least one tree is located in the area occupied by every twenty (20) (be changed to every fifteen 15) interior parking spaces. It should further be stated that the caliper of the tree be not less than three (3") inches. Member Goel added that in support of placing the trees closer and making them larger, there is an added benefit to provide more shade for more cars. Director of Community Development Kallien said that when there are more than two bays, you are required to put in a landscaped area in the parking lot and that is where the trees would be planted. The Commissioners discussed the cost versus benefit for developers. Member Tappin said that requiring more landscaping would reduce the number of parking spaces that can be placed on a site. In some instances it may be necessary to build a garage rather than adding more surface parking and at what point would there be a burden placed on the developer. Member Allen agreed and asked whether it would be better to require parking structures rather than to expand the surface lot to accommodate more trees; or is the goal to keep it more compact, so that the parking lot is not spread all over the property? He said that he would rather see a parking structure PLAN COMMISSION Minutes July 16, 2001 3 PC -MTG. 01- JULY.doc developed than the land being covered by asphalt. At what point, would this place a burden on the developer? Several members agreed. Director of Community Development Kallien said that under the Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) concept, you could require trees every ten feet, as a trade -off. That is why communities that use the P.U.D. concept end up having high quality buildings with more landscaping. 13- 12 -4 -J. Recommend revised language for landscaping, screening, and design of new parking decks. To enhance appearance of these new structures additional landscaping would be required. Additional language relating to architecture and design has been proposed which should provide a visual consistency between the parking strucurtre and the principal building. Several lengthy discussions have taken place regarding this section. There is a consensus that we want new parking structures to be of a higher aesthetic design and appeal than what have been built in the past. We want to provide some type of design linkage between the principal building on the lot and the accessory parking structure. The proposed language appears to have done that. There were a number of suggestions made as to how much landscaping should be placed in front of the new structures. Originally, it was said that for structures which are four floors or less in height, there should be a minimum of ten feet of landscaped area in front of it. For structures that are over four floors, it has been suggested that it be increased to twenty. The discussions suggest an average of fifteen feet so that it gives some flexibility to the developer, but included in the language would be to strongly encourage the developer to use evergreens wherever possible and appropriate for survival because they provide more year round screening. The Commissioners agreed that the following should be added into the text cover the following: 1. Add text that will keep the horizon uncluttered. The poles on the top deck should be placed in the middle of the deck and low profile lighting standard should be used. The criteria should be something similar to what was used at the AT &T building, which is a short standard with indirect lighting. Security measures are to be maintained. 2. The interior light source is not to be visible from the outside. All light sources to be screened so that the bulb is not seen from adjacent property. 3. Linking the building and parking structure, aesthetically, architecturally and using material so that the parking structure design structure is complimentary to the main structure. 4. Landscape plans. An average of fifteen feet of landscape to be provided in front of the building and Increase the requirement of the percentage of evergreen required to be used. The issue of maximum lot coverage should be addressed as part of the Ordinance review of other chapters. Attorney Martens is unsure about the statutory authority to create formal design review committee. An advisory body may be allowed, however there would need to be very specific criteria and standards. What the criteria should be is unknown. The issue of PUD's may be the technique to capture what everyone seems to want to require in new developments. Member Girgis brought up 13- 12 -4 -H. Striping and Traffic Circulation. The proposed text states: Parking spaces shall be delineated by white lines. Add deleted text to read: Parking spaces shall be delineated by double white lines approximately eighteen inches (18 ") apart. Member Girgis suggested the text not be removed because it seemed that it would keep the cars further apart and reduce the chance for dings. The other members agreed that it should be suggested the text remain. The Plan Commission desires to keep the double lines, as long as it is not in conflict with some other Village standard. If a conflict exists, it is to go back to the Plan Commission and they may reconsider the recommendation to this section. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes July 16, 2001 4 PC -MTG. 01- JULY.doc Member Goel moved, seconded by Member Allen to recommend approval of the revised text in Chapter 12 as presented with the above stated conditions taken into consideration. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Allen, Girgis, Goel, Tappin and Aktipis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Payovich Motion Carried. V. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — FURTHER REVIEW of CHAPTER 3 — 13 -3 -6 -B - FENCES The recent proposal to modify the fence regulations (Chapter 3) has been referred to the Plan Commission for further study. Trustee Savino advised the Commission that before making the recommendation to the Village Board he had concerns that if approved, the Village could be left with a checkerboard effect of fencing. Neighbors could be putting up different types of fences, wood, metal and different designs. He does not believe this is something the Village wants to have. The Village Board had a brief discussion regarding it and felt it warranted further review by the Plan Commission. Trustee Savino said that the issue is aesthetics. People have the ability to block a view; they could do some heavy landscaping and really would not need to put up a fence. As far as perimeter areas of the Village where there have been some problems with people coming in and vandalizing, in the past, such as in Saddlebrook the Village approved a variation to put up a fence to do that. People can come in and seek variations from the Ordinance. The good thing about Saddlebrook is that they put up the same type of fence throughout the subdivision. Member Tappin responded that they have a chain link fence that gets broken down by vandals very easily, so they would like to get a stronger type fence to protect the property from the invasion and trespassing. The fence is between 8 and 10 feet high, but it is continually getting broken down and the subdivision pays for the repairs. Trustee Savino asked what the solution would be. Member Tappin said that perhaps a more substantial metal fence. Member Allen suggested wrought iron. Trustee Savino said that at O'Hare, they removed all chain link fences and installed wrought iron fences. Chairman Aktipis said that the present way that highways are screened from subdivisions is with uniform solid wood fences. Chairman Aktipis suggested that perhaps a description of the type of fence that the Ordinance would allow, with the specifications added, like the highway department would require. Member Tappin asked who would pay for these fences, if they would be around the perimeter of Oak Brook. Would Oak Brook get involved to help pay for it, or would it paid for individually? Trustee Savino said that he did not believe that the Village would get involved with putting up fences for individual homeowners or subdivisions. Member Tappin said that vandals breaking down the fence is a very big problem. They have tried many things, including greasing the fence, to try to deter the activity, nothing has worked. Member Allen said that perhaps the Ordinance should state what type of fences cannot be installed. For example, the fencing along 31s' Street and Route 83 around Forest Gate looks terrible. Something like that is not aesthetically pleasing. However, to install a wrought iron fence around an entire subdivision would get very expensive. Member Tappin said Midwest Club also used chain link fencing, but they planted ivy and bushes have grown around it so that now you cannot see the fence. Member Allen said that the idea of landscape screening is a good idea, but then it would require proper maintenance so that it looks decent. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes July 16, 2001 5 PC -MTG. 01- JULY.doc V. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the key words with the proposal was that this provision would permit the construction of solid six -foot high fences when certain other criteria can be developed. It does not say that it would allow a six -foot high chain link fence because it is not considered a solid fence. The only types of solid fence are wood or brick, which becomes very expensive. In Oak Brook today we allow 42 -inch high 50% open fences for everyone. The proposal adds an additional visual barrier to allow some type of solid fencing, if other criteria are met. Chairman Aktipis said that does not respond to Trustee Savino's concern of ending up with a hodgepodge of different styles. Member Goel questioned whether this concerns fences just around subdivisions or individual homes. Chairman Aktipis answered that it is both. Member Goel said for example in Saddlebrook, there is a requirement that no two houses should be similar, the same thing should apply to fencing also. Member Tappin said that there is over a mile of fencing in Saddlebrook to protect the property, it is the end of Oak Brook property and it happens to coincide with residential property. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there are some subdivisions that have a common area where there could be a uniform fence, then there are other properties that literally back up to an adjacent community. How do you differentiate between the two? Member Tappin added how do you get every homeowner to put up a fence? If you do not have a continual fence, the rest of it is useless. The people who are trespassing are going to come through the openings. Member Goel questioned who put up the fence in Saddlebrook. Member Tappin said that it was originally put up by the developer. The homeowner's association is maintaining it at a good cost. The fence is not working, because they cannot keep the vandals from coming in. Chairman Aktipis said that the suggestion from Director of Community Development Kallien is to defer the decision on this issue until he has an opportunity to research standards used by other communities. We can see what other communities have done where individual homes and association's abut commercial areas. Perhaps when the Plan Commission has an opportunity to review more information some determination can be made. Member Goel moved, seconded by Member Allen, to continue this hearing after sufficient information has been provided for further review of this matter. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. A ADJOURNMENT Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Allen to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m. C. Director of Commu velopment Secretary PLAN COMMISSION Minutes f� PC -MTG. 01- JULY.doc August 20, 2001 Date Approved July 16, 2001