Loading...
Minutes - 10/15/2001 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES October 15, 2001 L CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Members ALSO PRESENT: Village Trustee Director of Community Development Village Engineer A quorum was present. ll. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Stelios Aktipis Samuel Girgis Surendra Goel Barbara Payovich Anthony Tappin Alfred Savino Robert Kallien Dale Durfey Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Goel, to waive the reading of the August 20, 2001 Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. Ill. THE OAKLAND PLAT OF SUBDIVISION — 121 and 209 OAK BROOK HILLS ROAD — PRELIMINARY PLAT — THREE -LOT SUBDIVISION Rachel Robert, Day and Robert, P.C., is the attorney for the petitioners Dr. Alias and Hope Sabbagha, who have been residents of Oak Brook for the past six years residing at 408 Bridgeway Court. She reviewed their request to seek preliminary plat approval of subdividing two lots into three lots. The property is located at 121 and 209 Oak Brook Road, east of York Road, west of 1- 294, south of Oak Brook Road. There is approximately 7.7 acres of land which was bought on January 31, 2001. It is currently zoned R1 and surrounded by R1 zoning. A preliminary engineering assessment has been done on the site by Christopher Burke that reflects no wetlands or floodplain on the property. The site is heavily wooded. Currently there are two lots with a direct access point for the western lot onto Oak Brook Road. The eastern lot has access to a toll roadway which is maintained by the State of Illinois, in conjunction with a frontage road that serves as access to the site as well as some other parcels located to the east. They have met with staff several times to review the proposal. No rezoning is being sought. All of the new lots will meet the minimum requirements of the R1 zoning district. All setback requirements will be met. They are proposing to eliminate a direct access point onto Oak Brook Road. A private looped configured driveway will serve each lot and will have a teardrop landscape center. The private drive would be owned by the homeowners association. Easements would be PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG. 01- OCT.doc { C- 1� October 15, 2001 on all three lots relative to the ongoing maintenance of the driveway and landscaping of the teardrop center. The reason for the loop is to allow for the preservation of the existing mature trees. The property is heavily wooded and many trees are over 100 years old. It contains white oak, burr oak, scarlet oak, hickory and cherry trees. The petitioners are very interested in preserving and maintaining the overall integrity of the trees so that any disturbance to them could be minimized while maximizing the aesthetic nature of the site. Detention will be provided on the southeast corner and will flow west to east. The detention area is designed to be a dry bottom facility and will be maintained through an easement agreement. There have been a couple of previously approved subdivisions in the village that have tried to incorporate similar types of features as far as preservation of trees and for private driveways, such as the Sue Boon and the Mizen Subdivisions. Six of the seven requested variations to the subdivision regulations deal directly with the maintenance of the private driveway as opposed to having a public street. The variations requested are as follows: 1. 14 -6 -2 -B — Lot 3 the southern most lot does not abut a street but a private driveway. 2. 14- 6- 3 -A(c) — The turnaround of the private driveway is less than 120 feet, it is actually 90 feet. 3. 14 -6 -3 -A — The street is 20 feet wide at the entrance and 16 feet wide for the turnaround. They are trying to minimize the pavement and stormwater runoff associated with the street. 4. 14 -6 -3 -A (3) — They are also seeking a waiver of the requirements of curb and gutter. 5. 14 -6 -3 -E — Seeking a waiver of the requirements for sidewalks. 6. 14 -6 -3 -F — Seeking a waiver of the requirements for street lights 7 14 -6 -3 -D — Requirement of sump pump connection to the sewer or detention system. In conclusion, they believe this subdivision will be a positive attribute for Oak Brook. Chairman Aktipis asked how the road connects. Attorney Roberts responded that the existing road is maintained by the Toll Authority and runs almost to 1 -294 that is just east of the site. They are adding the primary access to come off the frontage road for all three lots and will access Oak Brook Road indirectly. Member Tappin asked about the water main. Paul Bates from Spaceco responded that the Village Engineer offered two possible solutions to either come in and loop the water main through the subdivision or have the main line as an actual service to lot 3 and the other two lots would tap in off that service. They will abide by either choice. Member Tappin questioned if the solutions work for the Fire Dept. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the Fire Department does not review the service. Director of Community Development Kallien clarified that the Fire Department was concerned with the way the line was delineated and the solution they are offering addresses that issue. Member Girgis questioned whether the turning radius was adequate for the Fire Department. Rachel Robert responded that the design as configured has been reviewed and is of an acceptable width and radius. Director of Community Development Kallien said that is something that will need to be checked, and Village Board approval will be one that provides suitable movement for the fire trucks. Paul Bates added that the drive can provide truck - turning movement, but if it becomes an issue, the turning radius could be expanded to accommodate the trucks to traverse the loop. Member Tappin questioned the possibility of underground power lines being placed on the lot at time of development. Attorney Roberts responded that the matter had not been discussed, and PLAN COMMISSION Minutes October 15, 2001 2 PC -MTG. 01- OCT.doc could not commit. There was a brief discussion regarding the burying of power lines. Member Goel and Member Girgis both questioned bringing the lines underground for just these three lots in that area. Rachel Robert said that they are going from two to three lots and to bare what may be an extraordinary cost for solely burying the lines for 500 feet in the front, they may be hesitate to undertake that additional work. Chairman Aktipis noted that it might not be fair to impose the financial burden on one petitioner. Chairman asked if there were any plans to bury the entire system along Oak Brook Road. Engineer Durfey commented that the Village Board at one time discussed the matter, and it would have cost approximately one million dollars a mile, so the idea was shelved. Engineer Durfey said that the Village has an agreement with ComEd and that a specified number of feet per year can be required to be buried at their cost. It is a small cumulative number per year. Member Goel questioned the existing pavement width of driveway. Paul Bates said that the existing was just private drives, which is why they are much smaller than the drives that have been proposed. The reason for the wider width is that the drive is going to be serving three lots. They needed to provide enough width that would allow two cars to pass by each other if one was pulling out. There is a twenty -foot width at the entrance and sixteen foot on the roadway so that if someone is parked another car can get by. Member Tappin asked if there are cars on the driveway, would there still be enough room for emergency vehicles to get through. Engineer Durfey said that it depends on far off the road they pull when they park. The Sue Boon subdivision is a three -lot subdivision with a private drive. The driveway is twenty feet wide and services all three lots by an egress easement. The Mizen subdivision on Glendale Avenue is a three -lot subdivision that would share a common driveway through an easement. There was no width stipulated for the driveway. Pete Pointer said that in contrast to the situation where the width of the drive would be determined by those who built their homes, they have shown a twenty -foot width. Even a parking lot in the downtown area is only eight feet wide for parallel parking. A car can park there and still leave ample room for a fire truck, an ambulance or delivery truck to pass by. Each of the individual property owners will also have a driveway going to their garage. There is a minimum thirty -foot setback so there will be room for parking on the driveway in addition to the access drive. There are some situations in Oak Brook where a fire truck does not have any turn around, cul -de -sac or loop, so they have to pull up into a driveway to turn around. The worst that could happen would be that if the biggest equipment could not make it in one turn, they would need to back up a short distance and then cut the radius. Their engineer will work with the fire department to find something acceptable to them. In terms of the parking, there will be only three families living there. It will not be like the traffic that you have on a public street. The sixteen -foot area is the loop that would serve lot 3. The twenty -foot section is where the driveway would come off to serve lot 1 or lot 2. There has been a modification to the concept to shorten the loop a bit. The central spine road coming in is twenty feet in width. Member Tappin believes this should be reviewed and approved by the fire department. Rachel Roberts responded that any concerns of the fire department would be addressed. Engineer Durfey said that the comments in his memo have been reviewed and some things are drafting revisions that they are proceeding to make. He noted that there are no conceptual issues, there are details for which they need to revise the plans. The biggest question was the access because a driveway with an ingress egress easement, is the point to measure the setbacks. Rachel Roberts said that they were taking the thirty -foot setback from the actual lot line as opposed to the pavement. As a result, they are in the process of working some minor revisions. They want to keep the loop driveway, and believe it is an aesthetic plus for the subdivision. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG. 01- OCT.doc 3 C � � 6' October 15, 2001 No one spoke in support of or in opposition to the proposal. Director of Community Development Kallien said that this is a preliminary plat and all the issues raised by the Village Engineer and the Fire Department will be corrected before it goes to the Village Board. At some point in the future, it will come back as a Final Plat. Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Payovich, that the petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend for approval the preliminary plat for the Oakland Plat of Subdivision, along with the requested variations to the Subdivision Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. Fire Department approval. 2. Verify that the Safety Pathway Committee is not contemplating facilities on this site. 3. Address the issues contained in the memorandum from Village Engineer Durfey dated October 9, 2001 and final Engineering approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Girgis, Goel, Payovich, Tappin and Aktipis Nays: 0- Absent: 0 - Motion Carried. IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — FURTHER REVIEW of CHAPTER 3 — 13 -3 -6 -B - FENCES Director of Community Development Kallien stated that the Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals and ultimately the Village Board approved text amendments to Chapter 3, which dealt with general zoning provisions. As part of that chapter review, there were issues raised regarding fencing. In particular, changes were proposed where residential development abuts nonresidential development or the municipal limits of the Village and gives the owner the ability to construct a taller 6 -ft. high solid fence. Even though the Village Board approved amendments to Chapter 3, they did not act on the fence issue and sent it back to the Plan Commission to further analyze. At the last meeting, staff presented information on the fence issue from a number of other communities. As a follow -up to that discussion, staff further analyzed the fence regulations from other community's to determine how they may regulate chain link fencing. Of the communities who were contacted, most allow chain link fences while two were found to prohibit/limit their use. Others allow them with certain conditions such as location, height, and gauge of the fence or being combined with landscape treatments. Chairman Aktipis said that he does not care for chain link fences, however, based on ongoing discussions and others views he has would not be opposed to limited use of this type of fence. Several members have suggested black chain link fences, with the added provision that they are fully sealed by landscaping on both sides within two years of installation. That would probably be a good way to deal with them. He would also like an additional limitation that they be allowed only in side and rear yards. Member Tappin said that Butler National has a green chain link fence and prefers that to black. He agrees with the side and rear yard restriction and that it be covered with vegetation. It should definitely be colored. Some of the homeowners associations prohibit fencing, which would prevail over the village code. Member Payovich asked if an existing fence had to be repaired, could the Village require that it be brought compliance with any new changes made to the code. Director of Community Development PLAN COMMISSION Minutes G! PC- MTG.01- OCT.doc (� October 15, 2001 Kallien said that normally, when something is modified, it is subjected to the new zoning provisions that are in place. However, if repairs are made to only a small portion of the fence, there has to be a standard that establishes a specific percentage of replacement before it triggers the new code provisions. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there are some types of metal fences that no one objects to, such as wrought iron. Both wrought iron and chain link are constructed of metal and 50 to 80% open. Based on these similarities, how do you differentiate between the two? One is believed to be okay, however, the other needs to be landscaped significantly. The Village Attorney is very concerned that if the only thing we are trying to address is aesthetics, then something else needs to be added to the equation. Chairman Aktipis said that they are addressing aesthetics, but requiring a specific type of construction would seem to be enforceable. Member Payovich asked how Chicago does it. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the state statutes are written so that Chicago is excluded from some of the provisions that affect other communities. In essence, they follow a whole other set of rules. In Illinois, there are non -home rule communities like Oak Brook. There are home rule communities where certain regulations can be adopted, and then there is Chicago, that can generally do what they need to do. Director of Community Development Kallien said that we are not advocating a change at all to the ability to place a fence on certain areas of the property or the height of the fence. At the last meeting issues were discussed on how to create an environment where you avoid conflicting designs of fencing. One of the pictures showed previously was where a number of properties had installed wooden fences along the rear property line that individually looked very nice. They were expensive fences, but when they were all next to each other, none matched. Is that an important issue considering that the solid fence provisions would only apply to properties that back up to another community. In most cases, some of these areas are already screened with existing fencing /vegetation. How much new fencing will we potentially get? Chairman Aktipis said that if the village cannot impose any particular style of a fence for the community as a whole, then they are in a discussion that has no conclusion. Director of Community Development Kallien said that at this time, it is very difficult to draft a standard that controls the style of a fence while ensuring that it is uniform from one property to the next. Solid, board -on -board fencing of a certain height and finish can be stipulated, but that does not guarantee uniformity between one property to the next. Currently we allow fencing to be 42 inches high and 50% open, with the exception of fences around pools that are to be a minimum of 48 inches high which is a safety issue. As part of the proposed text amendment, do we want to go one step further and allow areas at the perimeter of the community that back up to another jurisdiction, as well as residential properties that abut up certain types of commercial zoning, to offer them any additional fencing opportunity. This is now split into two issues. How to handle chain link fencing, and still make a recommendation to the Village Board on the original discussion, which related to limited use of solid wood fences. There was a general discussion regarding the issue of chain link fences between residential homes. It was discussed that the chain link fence should be of a particular color, no slats, and landscaping should be required on both sides of the fence. Existing fences would be grandfathered for repairs only. If they need to be replaced, they would have to follow the new requirements. Many of the subdivisions do not allow fencing. The Village zoning ordinance is the basic standard from which development follows. If we allow a certain type of fencing, and subdivision chooses to be more restrictive, they can do that. They cannot be less restrictive than the Village standards, we establish the threshold. After a further discussion, it was agreed that chain link fences would not be allowed between houses. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes ,G7 PC -MTG. 01- OCT.doc L- 'r October 15, 2001 Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Goel to recommend for approval that the following text be proposed as an amendment to the fencing provisions of Chapter 3. In areas where residential property abuts the corporate limits of the Village or abuts non- residential areas, perimeter fencing is allowed with the following conditions: Is a minimum of six -feet in height, be a green chain link fence, be constructed of not less than 9 gauge wire and be landscaped on the Oak Brook side. Also, slats are not allowed. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Girgis, Goel, Payovich, Tappin and Aktipis Nays: 0- Motion Carried. Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Goel to recommend for approval that the following text be proposed as an amendment to the fencing provisions of Chapter 3. Chain link fencing is not allowed in residential areas, other than previously specified. If chain link fencing were desired, Village Board approval would be required. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Girgis, Goel, Payovich, Tappin and Aktipis Nays: 0- Motion Carried. V. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENT — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — CHAPTER 11— SIGN REGULATIONS As part of the Village's comprehensive review to the Zoning Ordinance, Director of Community Development Kallien summarized the proposed text amendments to Chapter 11, Sign Regulations, as follows: Add a section entitled "Purpose" which establishes the foundation for the sign regulation and identifies specific benefits to the community. 13 -11 -1. Specifies when permits are required to install, modify, relocate, or alter a sign. 13 -11 -2. Specifies the specific types of signs and attention getting devices that are prohibited. 13 -11 -3. Specifies the types of signs that can be located in the Village without the benefit of a permit. 13- 11 -5 -B. Recommends language which helps to ensure that the design and scale of the sign on a building or lot is compatible with the principal building and adjacent land uses. 13- 11 -5 -C. Recommends language to ensure that ground signs and directional signs be consistent in shape with the principal building. Also, it is recommended that all ground signs be properly landscaped and maintained. 13- 11 -5 -D. Provides language that confirms the current position on signage in the Village. In particular, signs shall be illuminated by a white light and that light sources shall be screened so that light /glare does not spill onto adjacent property. When signs are internally lit, they are to be backlit on an opaque background. Language has been added to require that exterior light sources placed at the base of signs for illumination should be screened. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes October 15, 2001 6 PC -MTG. 01- OCT.doc 13- 11- 5 -D(3). Recommends that the maximum illumination of a sign or any other light source as measured at the property line of any adjacent residential property shall not exceed one -half (1/2) foot - candle. 13- 11 -6 -E. Recommends language that limits the number of additional ground signs to be located on a residential lot. 13- 11- 7 -A(3). Add language which confirms that the maximum size of any sign on a single business in the B -1, B -3 and B -4 Commercial Districts is 240 sq. ft. 13- 11- 8 -A(3). Add language which clarifies that signs internal to the shopping center (i.e., Oakbrook Center) in the B -2 District that are not visible to the any exterior street and /or parking lot are exempt from the size limitations contained in the Chapter. 13- 11- 10 -A(2). Recommends language which limits the number of additional ground signs to be located on a lot in the Institutional District. 13- 11- 11 -A(2). Add language which confirms that the maximum size of all signs does not exceed 240 sq. ft. in the ORA -1, ORA -2 Office - Research - Assembly Districts. 13- 11- 11 -A(3). Add language which confirms that the maximum amount of ground signage on a lot shall not exceed 160 sq. ft. 13- 11- 14 -D(2). Amends the fine that is contained on the sign which designates a handicap parking space from $50 to $100 which is the current law in the Village. In addition to the above changes, pages 3q and 3r of the petition file contain a list of definitions that need to be moved /established /amended and integrated into the Chapter 2 Definitions. No one was in the audience to comment on any of the proposed amendments. The members agreed to continue the discussion to the next meeting. Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Payovich to continue this matter to the next regular Plan Commission meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Vl. OTHER BUSINESS Brief discussion regarding the Plan Commission members that would be attending the Zoning Seminar being sponsored by the DuPage Mayors and Managers on October 20, 2001. Vll. ADJOURNMENT Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Goel to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 7 PC -MTG. 01- OCT.doc Director of CommurvISEC16<elopment Secretary January 21 2002 Date Approved October 15, 2001