Loading...
Minutes - 09/20/2004 - Plan Commissioni MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ' PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON October 18, 2004. 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Payovich in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:31 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Members Paul Adrian, David Braune, Surendra Goel, Jeffrey Bulin, Marcia Tropinski and Gerald Wolin. IN ATTENDANCE: Robert L. Kallien, Director of Community Development and Dale L. Durfey, Village Engineer. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 21, 2004 Motion by Member Goel, seconded by Member Braune, to approve the minutes of the June 21, 2004 Regular Plan Commission meeting as amended and waive the full reading thereof. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. REFLECTION CIRCLE SUBDIVISION f/k/a FALCO SUBDIVISION — PRELIMINARY PLAT — 2901 OAK BROOK ROAD — 3 -LOT SUBDIVISION Director of Community Development Kallien said that this matter was previously before the Plan Commission as the Falco Subdivision and the applicant has requested the name be changed to Reflection Circle Subdivision. Originally the request was- for a 4 -lot subdivision, the request has been amended for a 3 -lot subdivision for 2 new homes plus the existing home. The previous proposal had the access way and a separate lot. There are a number of engineering and technical issues that have delayed any deliberation. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK so Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 19 September 20, 2004 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL MINUTES UNFINISHED BUSINESS REFLECTION CIRCLE SUB f/k /a FALCO SUB — PREL PLAT — 2901 OAK BROOK RD — 3 -LOT SUBDIVISION Jim Flowers stated that he represented the property owner, Vito Falco and introduced Jiun Lin, from Balsamo -Olson Engineering Co., the engineering firm for this project. Mr. Flowers said that the property is zoned R -2 and the site has approximately 4.69 acres. Considering its existing topography and stormwater issues they believe the proposed new plan not only meets, but exceeds all Village requirements. It will provide for a very nice aesthetic view for the development as well as a very pleasing environment as a result of all the stormwater and compensatory issues related to the movement of earth. The existing home is on Lot 1. They are proposing a circle drive that would enter and exit onto Oak Brook Road. They are providing substantial stormwater management facilities on the west side behind the proposed Lot 2 and Lot 3. They are proposing an expansion of the existing pond that is on the northeast side of the property. They believe they have met the stormwater management facility requirements, and have had extensive meetings with Village Engineer Durfey and with Earth Tech, the Village consultant, and the wetland engineers. They have the acknowledgement that there are no wetlands on the property, nor do they need to address any wetlands issues. There ,are some wetlands on the Village property just west of the site and they do take into consideration the 50 -foot buffer zone. There are two lots proposed for new residential development on the west side of the proposed drive. They are trying to maintain a consistent look for the subdivision. The stormwater facility to the south would be a dry basin but it would retain water up to the required water level in the event of a 100 -year storm. There is a substantial amount of earth work that is required in order to meet the compensatory storage requirements, which also provides a fair amount of earth that would need to be removed in order to provide for water storage. The removal of the earth would be moved over and elevate the proposed Lots 2 and 3, which would increase the proposed elevations for those lots, which would come more into line with the elevation of the existing Lot 1. When you look across Oak Brook Road there will be a consistent horizon for the front entry of the homes. There is some slight variation as far as the elevations, but a lot of the earth work is going to be kept on site rather than having to remove it off site. Anything that cannot be used on site would have to be taken off site. They have to meet a substantial compensatory storage issue which is 1.5 times per acre foot of earth that is removed in the flood plain had to be compensated for out of flood plain or within the entire development; and they have met all of those VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 19 September 20, 2004 requirements. Mr. Lin reviewed the topography of the existing site and the proposed engineering design for the preliminary plat. There is an existing home and driveway on the site. There is floodplain on site. The floodplain elevation is 699.3 which means that under a 100 -year storm, theoretically the water would get up to that elevation. He then reviewed the proposed subdivision, the location of the water main, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer. The storm sewer is proposed to covey the on -site or off -site drainage to the proposed detention pond, which is located in the backyards of proposed Lot 2 and Lot 3. The proposed detention pond was sized for a 100 -year storm. In the event of a of a storm greater than the 100 -year storm the water will be overtopped and water will flow into an emergency spillway into the existing flood plain instead of spilling over onto the property. There is no disturbance around the existing building. The area of the proposed building pads for Lot 2 and 3 must be elevated to get out of the floodplain elevation. There is a significant amount of fill placed on the building pad in the front yard. The proposed detention pond also takes out the storage of the floodplain. In order to compensate for the floodplain fill proposed, they will excavate what they fill down to the level so they can compensate what they filled in the flood plain at a ratio of 1.5 to one which meets the County standard. f They have proposed a two tiered retaining wall around the middle pond, at the detention basin they proposed a stand alone wall going on the west side along the west perimeter of the detention pond and going along five feet within the west perimeter of the property line. They feel the retaining wall has to be proposed in order to provide adequate detention volumes. They have worked with the Village consultant and the Village Engineer extensively on all the potential issues on the engineering. The stormwater management design includes the detention and the floodplain compensatory storage was satisfactory to and signed off on by the Village consultant on the preliminary engineering basis. Village Engineer Durfey reviewed his memorandum dated September 13, 2004. He noted some as follows: • Under the private street concept all of the proposed storm sewers would become private under the ownership and maintenance of the homeowners association. • The wetland assessment contains several inaccurate statements. Those need to be corrected and resubmitted, before the Preliminary Plat is approved. • The subdivision proposes two - tiered retaining walls around the lake on Lot 1 along the inside of the private road. Two - tiered walls are VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 19 September 20, 2004 .__ �\ t also proposed on Lot 3 west of the private road. The walls range in height from zero feet to seven feet, each tier. On Lot 1, the top wall is also immediately adjacent to the back -of -curb which presents a considerable safety concern. ■ Within Lot 1 and inside the private road, the concept is to have a six -foot to seven -foot wall adjacent to the back -of -curb, then a four -foot sidewalk, then an additional four -foot wall down to the normal water level of a lake. Staff has informed the applicant of the Village's concerns on past project relative to walls. ■ The walls around the lake do not match the typical lake section within the Public Works Construction Standards above the normal water level, which usually has more of a sloped configuration. The Village should consider the uniqueness of this site with so much flood plain and detention requirements in concluding whether or not this design is appropriate for this site. ■ The proposal also calls for a concrete wall five feet inside the westerly property line of the site to contain the drainage on this site. This wall would be approximately four feet above grade on both sides. It is not a retaining wall just a concrete wall with air on both sides. During a flood condition the site would hold water in the detention basin. ■ Permission needs to be received from DuPage County on the concept to for the two private road access points onto to Oak Brook Road. They have received a verbal okay; they just need the written approval. ■ The proposed top of foundation for Lot 3 is approximately 11 '/2 feet above the existing ground elevation and the proposed top of foundation elevation for Lot 2 is approximately 11 feet above the existing ground. Additionally, these tops of foundation would be approximately thirteen feet above the ground elevation of the property to the west. Additionally, the proposed private roadway is up to nine. feet above the existing ground elevation. It appears that the applicant is artificially raising the site in order to provide walkout basements for the two new homes. This does not appear to be in the best interests of the area; the Village needs to carefully review whether this is appropriate. Member Tropinski questioned whether the flood plain approval also needs to go to DuPage County for approval. Village Engineer Durfey responded that it does not because Oak Brook is a full waiver community. Member Tropinski questioned the radius of the private road. Village Engineer Durfey responded that it meets the Fire Department standards. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK is Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 19 September 20, 2004 Member Goel concurred with the concerns of the walls around the lake. Mr. Flowers said that the wall details are on the lower right hand side of page 19. Due to the nature of the volume of the water they are required to retain in the event of a 100 year flood, they have determined from an engineering and hydrology standpoint that they can contain more water by having a more vertical approach to the containment area then by providing a berm with a 4 to 1 slope providing for a more gentle appearance. If they provide for a sloped berm it would take a majority of the allowable area within the compensatory area and would severely limit their ability to contain water in that area in the event the water levels would rise as substantially as it could in the event of another 100 -year flood. As far as the construction of the physical wall, it would be done under the supervision of a structural engineer that would make certain it met the requirement to hold back the earth on one side and water on the other side. The only difference between the vertical wall proposed versus the standard retaining wall seen in most village's, is that they use a typical keystone block that would have a more segmented and angled view than what they are proposing. The difference is minimal in appearance, but considerable when they look at the amount of water they have to store in the area. Mr. Flowers reviewed the location of the walls and described their appearance on the enlarged display. Chairwoman Payovich asked about the appearance of the concrete retaining wall. Mr. Flowers responded that they do not have an exact design for the final appearance because they are still investigating. They can provide for faux finishes that make it appear as though it is flagstone or river rock. The attachments demonstrate the possibilities to provide an aesthetic appearance to the retaining wall with its vertical approach. Member Adrian commented that the ponds are currently stagnant, and questioned whether they would be seen from the northern view. Mr. Flowers responded that the normal water level is something they have no control over. Once they open up the water the cross over of the water level of the ponds will only go up to the natural water level of 694.1. The reason for that is that they have natural drainage. Once it elevates to a certain height, it would flow into Ginger Creek. Under normal conditions they have backflow coming from Ginger Creek, which keeps the area under water. From 31St Street there will be no difference in what is seen today as far as the water level, except that it would be large and it would be visible from 31St. The wall will not be higher than the street level. They are raising the road level so that there is not such a steep approach and they are trying to utilize the earth they are removing on the existing VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 19 September 20, 2004 property. 0 Member Adrian questioned when dirt is removed and placed on the other two sites, he is concerned about the appearance it would have from the north and the Midwest Club exposure. Mr. Flowers responded that the elevation of Lot 1 is 714 and the proposed street height is 705, which is a 9 -foot difference. They are trying to maintain a similar view so that the front elevation of the homes is similar in height. They are five feet lower than top of foundation on the existing property. In order to make these homes look like they belong on this subdivision, they have to realize a greater height for the front entry. The elevations by Bear Manor and at the Midwest Club range from 707 to 714. Mr. Flowers passed out pictures of homes currently being developed in Oak Brook displaying some of the characteristics with walk -out basements and built up on hills and some of the current elevations of homes in the surrounding area. The Mueller home is not an issue where elevation is concerned. If the site is ever redeveloped the elevation would probably be greater than the single story residence there now. Director of Community Development Kallien said that relative to Mr. Mueller, he is very concerned over this project. Over the last 8 months the Village has enacted a significant increase in the height regulations for homes. The pictures provided by the applicant are of homes that were not built under these rules. If you factor in the increased grade, the backside of these homes could be close to 60 feet in height and no homes in this community are even close to that. In this case, the existing terrain would be substantially modified which is what is being used to base the allowable house height. The scenario of using the first floor elevation as shown on the proposed plan is an assumption of the applicant. Mr. Flowers said that they would like to see the top elevation of these homes as consistent as possible with everything in the area. In the area of the top of foundation which ranges from 707.7 to 714.5, they are still coming in below that at 709. They do have to rise approximately 4 feet above street grade because they are trying to maintain the consistency of the front elevation of the properties. They have no control over the view from the back side. Village Engineer Durfey said that for clarity, 31 St Street in front of the site is between 98 and 99, so if you go to the proposed top of foundation shown which is 10 to 11 feet above 31St VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 19 September 20, 2004 _ Mr., Flowers said to keep in mind that the road itself is being elevated approximately 5 feet in order to manage the water in the area to provide for compensation as well as the earth being removed to keep it on site and as environmental as possible. Mr. Lin said that when the project is developed, they will be making a major stormwater improvement on Mr. Mueller's property. Under the existing condition, a portion of the Bear Manor and a portion of the Midwest Club waters are going through the existing pitch and turn at Mr. Mueller's house to the existing pond. In their development they have proposed a catch basin within five feet of the site to pick up all the upstream that picks up that portion of Bears Manor and a significant portion of the tributary from the Midwest Club that originally went through Mr. Mueller's property. It will be a major improvement on the situation. Member Goel said that if the existing property was in the flood plain, a house would not be able to be built without lifting it up. Mr. Flowers responded that in its current condition the majority of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3 is in the flood plain. Member Goel said that when the Village increased the structure height, this increased height may be a consequence of the change, which was going to be there no matter what. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he agreed, however this is a situation where the land is being modified from its existing condition. Right now there is one home on this parcel. In order to get three buildable lots, there must be a substantial alteration of the property. The man made moving of the dirt in essence influences what the height would be. In other situations the topography is already established and there is not a need for a lot of artificial manipulation. This may work out, but he is trying to identify what is a discussion point as the matter moves forward. Village Engineer Durfey said that most of Lot 3 is in the floodplain. The floodplain is just above 699. To build a house, they would have to have a protected elevation a couple of feet above that, approximately 701 or 702. They are proposing the top of foundation at 709, which he thought was excessive. This is one of the reasons that he brought it up. He said that it needs to be 709 if they would like a walk -out basement. Mr. Flower said that the top of foundation is determined at the Final Plat stage. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 19 September 20, 2004 M-` Village Engineer Durfey responded that was correct, however due to the complexities of the stormwater management issues on this site, that is one of the reasons why there is so much engineering and typography issues on the preliminary plat. There would be some give and take from the preliminary to final but significantly it would be relatively close. Member Tropinski said that she was concerned about the usability of the land around the houses on Lots 2 and 3. She asked about the ability of the soil to percolate the rainwater. Sometimes there are downpours of rain and those are heavy slopes where the water would be running down then going into the dry basin that is created. If that is going to be part of the overflow for future floodplain would they need to put restrictions on future plantings and use of that land? Mr. Flowers responded that the area does have drainage, and there are two basin drains that drain off into the existing pond. Should the water level rise, and then it will drain off not only through natural percolation but through the drains being installed which would provide for water flow into the pond on the northwest side of the property. Member Tropinski asked since the area would be a dry basin area would there be a restriction on the plat for development in that area? Would the land be restricted for the way that they would use it such as to control plantings, play swings, etc? Village Engineer Durfey responded yes, and said that the entire detention basin would be described in an entire meets and bounds description as well as reduced picture that would be recorded saying that it cannot be used for anything other than stormwater. Member Braune said that he was concerned about the central pond in Lot 1 in the way that the roadway interfaces directly to the 4 -foot walkway. It appears that there is a 9" curb that keeps you from falling 3 feet into the pond. He would like to understand what the fence would look like around the inner part. He asked what will happen to the bike path along 31s' Street. Mr. Flowers responded that currently there is nothing along the bike path going from the east to the west. There are some trees that line that area that provide some buffer, and in the event that someone would go over the berm. The berm is elevated over the bike path; it would have to be an intentional move for a biker to go into the pond under the current and proposed conditions. They believe that the way it sits, is not a safety VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 19 September 20, 2004 concern any more than Ginger Creek is along the bike path. They believe the modifications they make would only enhance the safety of that area for anyone on the bike path. Village Engineer Durfey said that the bike path should be moved back a few feet. Right now the bike path is adjacent to 31St right at the back of curb and 31St Street, similar to the Kanan court Subdivision on Midwest Road. And they asked it be moved back 5 feet so that pedestrians and children are not next to 45 mph vehicles. Mr. Flowers said that they would look into and make an adjustment. They would like to move forward on their plan because they have incurred considerable expense and would like to Village to approve the concept and move forward. They have met all of the requirements of the Village. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Preliminary Plat is very important. It is far more than conceptual. Whatever is approved at the Preliminary stage, if the Final Plat is in substantial conformance with that, the Village Board must approve it. The issues with topography, grade and walls need to be worked out now. If it cannot be worked out now, it places a tremendous burden on the final plat stage and legally there is not that much latitude to deny a final plat. Village Engineer Durfey agreed. Member Bulin said that some sites were not intended to be wholly built on and this may be one of those sites that without a tremendous amount of intervention by man that may not be able to be built on in its entirety. Mr. Flowers said that they have met all of the requirements of the Village. He said that he doesn't believe there is developed property that has not be touched by man, which has not been modified in some way. This is one of those properties, which has substantial potential for this development and future home use. They believe it would be a misappropriation of land to not allow this development to go through to allow the addition of these two lots. Member Bulin said that sometimes you have to ask if you want all this manmade intervention in order to create the artificial ponds and walls, and along with the increased height, it seems to be a bit of overkill. Member Braune said that when the Plan Commission worked on the Midwest Road development, he is surprised that some residents from Midwest Club are not here. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 19 September 20, 2004 Mr. Flowers said that they would not be impacting Midwest Club at all, with the exception of a catch basin which would be an improvement to Midwest Club's current condition. Member Braune asked if there has been any contact with or comment from the Midwest Club. He asked if notification was sent out to inform them. Director of Community Development Kallien said that part of this may be a timing issue, this matter started more than a year ago, in July of 2003 and during that time there was a significant amount of correspondence with the adjacent property owners. During all of this time there has been numerous discussions between the applicant and Village Engineer Durfey. The final drawings came about very quickly. We made an attempt to send out letters to all of the property owners, just last week notifying them about this meeting. Chairwoman Payovich asked who the letters went to Gail Polanek advised that letter was sent out on September 13, 2004 the surrounding property owners listed on page 17.a of the case file. Member Goel asked what Mr. Mueller's concerns were. Director of Community Development Kallien said that one of the issues is height and that the alteration of the property will have a negative impact on his property. Member Adrian said that since Mr. Mueller was obviously going to be the most impacted by this development, did the applicant actually have any contact with him? Mr. Flowers responded that he did contact Mr. Mueller prior to the change for this specific design. They had numerous discussions and at all times he was made aware that there was going to be water on the property and the properties would be developed. He had a conversation with him before and after the last meeting in the hall and he personally did not receive any objection from him. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the original subdivision had two smaller water features and there was also substantial grading. Lot 1 had a projected top of foundation of 701.8 the lot to east was 701.8 also. There has been additional manipulation proposed with this scenario. It may be wise to strongly urge the applicant to actually have a face -to -face discussion with Mr. Mueller so that there is a complete understanding of what is envisioned and what would be the impact on his VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 19 September 20, 2004 .- - �\7ce property. Chairwoman Payovich polled the Commission. Member Goel had concerns regarding resolving the issues with Mr. Mueller and the proposed walls on the site. Chairwoman Payovich said that she questioned why there was such a difference from the original height and the elevation of the pads and why it was felt that it was necessary. Mr. Flowers explained that under the original plan there was a proposed single drive that made a cul -de -sac turn around and went back onto 31St Street. The believed the property needed to be elevated because of the landscape on the terrain of the eastern portion of the property in order to accommodate it so that they did not have to put another wall on the eastern portion of the property and somewhat barricade the property. They have dealt with the terrain on the eastern portion of the property as best they could, which meant they had to elevate the private street a fair amount so that any run off that would be caused on the eastern portion of the property would not be an erosion control issue. They believe they have accommodated that by the elevation of the street. In order to maintain the overall appearance they had to maintain some amount of consistency as you went around the drive from the east to the west. The drive was at that elevation and they had to work backwards to the homes and they looked at the top of elevation for Lot 1, that being 714 they needed to come in somewhere between the elevation of the street at 705 and 714 so they believe 709 was in order. Member Goel said that perhaps the plan should be modified to change it back to the single entrance. Mr. Flowers said they are dealing with the existing elevation on the east side. The U- shaped street allows them a better way to store the water on the site and provide sufficient ingress and egress. They will ' also provide safety rails and aesthetics, but they believe it is immaterial at this point, because they have to deal with the engineering on the lot. It will be addressed later. Chairwoman Payovich said that safety is a very important issue in the village and the Plan Commission would want that addressed before this is forwarded to the Village Board. The Commission discussed items that they would like the applicant to VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 19 September 20, 2004 ,, �\ �7 • • return with at the next meeting. Motion by Member Braune, seconded by Member Goel to continue the hearing on the Reflection Circle Subdivision to the regular Plan Commission meeting scheduled for October 18, 2004. The following material is to be submitted for review prior to the meeting. 1. Conceptual drawing and material to be used on the fence by the curb. 2. Proposed design and actual elevation of walls. 3. Show location of bike path; it should be relocated at least five feet from Oak Brook Road. 4. Protective measures to be used to protect cars and pedestrians from falling into the detention pond. 5. Elevation of the building pads. 6. Meet with neighbor, George Mueller to review revised plan and address his concerns. 7. Comparison and analysis of old (4 -lot) plan versus the new (3 -lot) plan. ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion carried. Ayes: 7 — Members Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 0 — None. Motion Carried B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — REVIEW PROJECT — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUD) Motion by Member Adrian, seconded by Member Braune to continue the hearing on the Village of Oak Brook — Review Project - Planned Unit Developments (PUD) to the regular Plan Commission meeting scheduled for October 18, 2004. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 5. A. YORK ROAD PROPERTIES LLC — 2001 YORK ROAD — SPECIAL PORK ROAD PROP. LLC - 2001 YORK USE — TITLE 13 ZONING ORDINANCE — SECTION 13 -10E -2 — 0-4 ROAD - SPECIAL DISTRICT — TO ALLOW A HELIPORT ON THE PROPERTY USE - HELIPORT Director of Community Development Kallien said that the owner of 2001 York Road has submitted an application for a Special Use for a heliport on behalf of Centerpoint Properties. Centerpoint Properties is located on Swift and have searched for a place to land helicopters. They have developed this proposal with York Road Properties to locate the heliport at this location. 18 VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 19 September 20, 2004 Chuck Henschel, Centerpoint Properties, Vice President of Airport Investment and Development, reviewed the request. They are seeking a heliport for infrequent use. Centerpoint Properties has been a commercial resident for about six years from downtown Chicago. They are a billion and half dollar real estate investment trust public traded company. They are very happy in Oak Brook, some live in the community and in the surrounding communities. The prettiest property they own is their corporate offices in Oak Brook. They have about six acres of land. They have a need for a heliport facility. Currently they use a quarry in Elmhurst. Their heliport requirement is driven by their far reaching portfolio. Most of their heliport use would he for their Wall Street Investors and for some of their clients for the purpose of when you are involved in a 400 -500 acre development a lot more can be seen from the air than from the ground. The helicopter use is limited to a maximum of 20 hours per month, which equates to about 4 -5 uses per month. They actually lease time on a helicopter that is kept either at the DuPage airport or one of the other surrounding airports. Currently they take their clients and investors onto the helicopter. They go off for a one or two hour tour of the Chicagoland area or Milwaukee and come back. Essentially it is a drop off and pick up point. They had noticed that there was an empty parcel at 2001 York Road that has been empty for years. His understanding that the parcel was designed for development, but requires a significant amount of structured parking. They thought that it was unlikely that it would be developed in the near term. They looked near and far for locations. They contacted OAG and McDonald's. McDonald's said that they love their own heliport but they like it for their own use and have no inclination to let anyone else use it. They also contacted OAG and they said they no longer use it and had no inclination to have anyone else use it. The John Buck Co. had indicated that they would be more than willing to let them use it and to have the use of it occasionally (even though they do not have the use of a helicopter). They have had a preliminary meeting with Gary Stevens from the Illinois Dept of Aeronautics and viewed all the sites. They have had their aviation consultant do a preliminary design and they both indicated that it is feasible. Member Bulin questioned the two 5 to 1 approach/departure paths. Although they are the same slope they are shown as different lengths. Mr. Henschel responded that according to the State Department of Aeronautics one has to be considered a primary approach and one would be considered a secondary approach. They indicated that a primary approach would be to VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 19 September 20, 2004 and from the west and the secondary approach would be more appropriate to and from the east. There was a slight concern regarding the water tower and a flag pole, but they thought those were insignificant impediments. Member Wolin asked the following: How many heliports are in Oak Brook; What experiences have we had with them; Are there any located closer than 1300 feet to residential property; and can the usage be restricted? Director of Community Development Kallien responded that there are 2 in Oak Brook. One at McDonalds and one behind CL -TV. Over time helicopters have landed in Oak Brook, including those for emergency services. In the time he has been here, it is barely noticed that a helicopter comes and goes. The helicopters are less noisy than they previously were. The ability to accommodate helicopters is something that fits within the corporate image of Oak Brook. This request is logical. The only impediment seen is that they are locating on property that is developable. The John Buck Company has a plan in place for one or two office buildings in that location. If that should come, it may be possible to seek an amendment to the special use to perhaps relocate the heliport to the top of a building or parking deck. Member Bulin asked if a lease arrangement was in place. Mr. Henschel said they do have a lease. There is an understanding that with 90 days notice, if they should choose to develop the land they would have to make alternate arrangements. Member Adrian asked if they looked into Oak Brook Hills and whether or not they would have fueling capabilities on the site? Mr. Henschel responded that fueling is disallowed in the current zoning and they have no expectation of and no intention of it. Chairwoman Payovich clarified that basically the site would be used to land and take off. Mr. Henschel responded that was correct. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Zoning Ordinance text would need to be changed to allow fueling and the Fire Department would want to be involved in the design or on site. The Ordinance is very clear about not allowing fueling on the site. Member Wolin asked about restricting the amount of usage per month. He also said that it makes sense to have a heliport there. Chairwoman Payovich said that they are requesting usage of 3 to 6 times per month. Member Wolin said that he would suggest a limit of 10 times per month. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 40 Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 19 September 20, 2004 -�Or Mr. Henschel said that they would be willing to accept usage at 10 times per month. At this point their usage has not operated more than 6 to 7 times per month. It is uncommon that they reach their limit of 20 hours per month. The average operation is about 3 hours, by the time they come in land, pick up passengers, make the tour and then finally land again at the end of the trip. It is portal to portal so the helicopter goes back to DuPage airport. Member Braune said that he is in support and agrees that there should be a limit. Mr. Henschel commented that they do not want to develop an air taxi. They are in the real estate business and they would be willing to work with the Village if there are emergency needs or extraordinary requests. Their expectation is to use it 5 or 6 times a month and 10 times is well within the parameters. Member Goel said that there may be circumstances when someone may want to use the heliport and asked if they would be wiling to accommodate them within certain limits. Mr. Henschel responded that they would with the understanding that they are beholding to the John Buck Company and the same commitment has been made to them that they would not use it for other people's use unless they are given prior notice. • Chairwoman Payovich said that in the material the use was stipulated for their use only with the exception of the John Buck Company. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the utilization would have to be within the constraints and limitations and the spirit of whatever is stipulated in the special use ordinance. Circumstances arise with an unforeseen situation and as long as the ordinance is written in a way that can accommodate that, then it would be allowed. Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed the standards for a special use on page F of the case file. It is something that fits in with what Oak Brook is. The Ordinance talks about the Performance Standards that the applicant has addressed on page H. It appears that the applicant's response provided they will not be violation of those requirements. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Member Wolin asked if the homeowners had been notified. Gail Polanek responded that the surrounding homeowners were notified, the Homeowner's Associations were notified, all with a copy of the flight pattern. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 19 September 20, 2004 Director of Community Development Kallien said that someone could still appear at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Member Adrian asked what type of helicopter would be used. Mr. Henschel responded that it was a twin turbo engine. Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Braune that the petitioner has met the special use standards as detailed on page F of the case file and has met the Performance standards as required on page H of the case file to recommend approval of the special use request for the heliport as proposed to be located at 2001 York Road. Heliports are listed as a special use in the 04 District. The Plan Commission has previously reviewed and recommended approval of at least 2 special use requests for heliports that were constructed in Office Districts. 1. It is to be operated as detailed on page G and G -1 of the case file. 2. The proposed special use is deemed reasonable and does not appear to jeopardize the public health, safety or general welfare of any party. 3. The use is to be limit to no more than 10 times per month, unless Village of Oak Brook is notified and has approved the use in advance. 4. Operation of the proposed heliport will be constructed and operated in accordance to the Village of Oak Brook and IDOT standards. 5. Operation of the proposed heliport is predicated on receiving IDOT approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 — Members Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 0 — None. Motion Carried 5. B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TEXT AMENDMENT — TITLE 13 OF VOB -TEXT AMENDMENT- THE VILLAGE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE — CHAPTER 14 — CH 14 -AMEND ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT — AN AMENDMENT TO NOTIFICATION THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS Director of Community Development Kallien said that at the present time the Village of Oak Brook clearly meets the state statues relative to notification. For public hearings a notice is placed in the newspaper, there is a direct mailing summarizing the request and the date, time and location of the public hearing to all property owners within 250 feet of the subject property. As a courtesy, a letter is provided to all the active homeowner associations that are recognized by the Village so that they can inform VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 19 September 20, 2004 • those in their subdivisions. Over the course of history of Oak Brook this has worked well. We occasionally have people that come in and say they know nothing about the action being requested. They didn't read the paper; they did not fall within the 250 -foot requirement; the homeowner's association did not tell them anything; if it is on the cable or on the internet, they did not see it and did not know it was happening. Most towns around us provide something of this nature. A sign is placed upon the property identifying it as a property that there is going to be an upcoming public hearing. The drafted language we have proposed has allowed for that. The issues are simple. Should the sign be something that is designed and placed on the property by the applicant, or should the sign be something the Village of Oak Brook designs and actually places it on the property, then charges a user fee to the applicant for its use. Parameters have been established for what the sign would say, the maximum size, location, when it must be put up and taken down. We are trying to help the public become more knowledgeable about what happens. Member Wolin said that he is very much in favor of this proposal. He lived in Elmhurst until 3 years ago and it was a practice there. What has been said is true, many people never heard about the changes, but saw the sign and were made aware of them. As an alderman in Elmhurst he received calls from people just from seeing the sign. It makes a lot of sense and there is no question it should be done. He believes that it would be in the Village's best interest to prepare and place the signs. It will assure consistency in the way the signs look. If the Village does not do it, the signs could look different and people may not recognize it as such. The signs in Elmhurst could be identified from 500 feet away. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in Naperville the signs color and location made people aware that something was happening. Member Braune asked about the costs. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he would talk to the Public Works Director to find out the cost to make a sign and add a user fee to the application fee. This is something that is needed. Most of the development in Oak Brook is not large tracks of property, it's little pieces, such as the Reflection Circle Subdivision which can have a significant impact on the neighbors and they should know what is going on. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 19 September 20, 2004 ww"Iffiral 0 Member Braune said that he believes this is absolutely necessary. Director of Community Development Kallien said as an example, when the Park District petitioned the Village for a variance for the ball field lights, notification was sent to all properties within 250 feet, but there are houses all around that 250. If a sign or two would have been placed on the property, they would have known something was going on a then a dialogue could have been started. The Plan Commission found the following: 1. The notification process to inform the public of pending requests for zoning changes (i.e., map amendments), special uses, variations and subdivisions is viewed to be an important step in the Village's Board and Commission processes. 2. At the present time, notification for all public hearings involve: the placement of a notice that is published in a local newspaper; sending resident letters to all property owners located within 250 feet of the request (not including right -of -ways) informing them of the request as well as the date, time and location of the hearing. Additionally, the Village forwards a copy of the resident letter as a courtesy, to all Village recognized homeowners associations. 3. Despite the Village's notification efforts, some property owners have commented that they did not receive formal notification or did not have any knowledge that a property was subject to an upcoming hearing. 4. A number of other communities in the region require the placement of signs on the property that is subject to an upcoming public hearing. 5. The Village has considered the requirement to also require the placement of signs on the property that is subject to an upcoming public hearing. 6. The controlled placement of a sign on a property will provide additional opportunities for Village residents to learn of pending public hearings and provide them with the ability to participate in the process. 7.. No negative comments have been received from any resident or property owner relative to this request. Motion by Member Adrian, seconded by Member Wolin to recommend for approval the application of the Village of Oak Brook to revise the text of the Zoning Ordinance as proposed, subject to the following: 1. If possible, the Village is to manufacture and place the public hearing signs. 2. The signs are 'to be leased to the applicant at a reasonable fee (that VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 18 of 19 September 20, 2004 u I will be determined after the production cost of the sign has been assessed) 3. A sign shall be placed on each lot frontage that faces a street. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 — Members Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 0 — None. Motion Carried 6. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Braune to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, Direct t6kommunity Development Secretary Is VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 19 of 19 September 20, 2004 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURMENT