Loading...
Minutes - 10/21/2002 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES October 21, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. Chairwoman Members Village Trustee Village Engineer Director of Community Development Barbara Payovich Paul Adrian Samuel Girgis Anthony Tappin Surendra Goel Alfred Savino Dale Durfey Robert Kallien IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Adrian, to waive the reading of the September 16, 2002 Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as amended. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. Ill. YORK ROAD PROPERTIES — 2122 YORK ROAD — TEXT AMENDMENT and SPECIAL USE TO ALLOW NON - RESIDENTIAL, POST BACCALAUREATE SCHOOLS IN THE 0-4 DISTRICT Susan Hammersley, Vice President, The John Buck Company, identified those that would be providing testimony as follows: Greg Merdinger, Principle, The John Buck Company, Wayne Draudt, Executive Vice President, Lewis University and Dr. Michelle Young, Off - Campus Activities, Lewis University. Lewis University is a benevolent institution. It provides professional education grounded in the interaction of knowledge and fidelity in search of truth. Lewis promotes the development of the complete person through the pursuit of wisdom and justice. Fundamental to its mission is the spirit of association, which develops community in all teaching learning and service. Lewis University has been an important part of the educational infrastructure in the Oak Brook community for over twenty years, when it first started conducting classes at the Oak Brook Marriott in 1978 before locating to its current home at 2625 Butterfield Road in 1988. Lewis University in relocating to 2122 York Road would operate under substantially the same use as they have been during their time in Oak Brook as a university satellite campus with an emphasis on graduate programs in adult learning. Secondary uses would include educational related corporate training, meetings and seminars, certificate programs, select undergraduate courses and administrative functions. A minimum of 75% of these classes would be conducted in the evenings and on Saturdays. Having Lewis University at this location would provide many benefits to the property, surrounding uses and the community as can be outlined as follows: • It would provide for Lewis greater access for highways, from two main arterial roadways (York Road and 22 "d Street) and with most classes in the evening; and this would allow for efficient egress and ingress out of the property. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes October 21, 2002 PC -MTG 02- OCT.doc l�- t • There is public transportation available on both York Road and 22nd Street, which would assist users to Lewis classes. • Lewis University would also be an amenity to the property and would continue to remain an amenity for the surrounding area and the surrounding community. • At this location, Lewis would continue to support the economic development and educational opportunities in the Village of Oak Brook. • The proposed text amendment and special use would support the Comprehensive Plan's goals and objectives by enhancing education, services to the community, compatibility and efficiency of mixed uses and economic vitality of the area. Member Tappin had questions as to how many students are expected as well as, traffic, parking and safety issues. Ms. Hammersley said that they will have an MBA program in which they will be teaching classes and they would do corporate seminars, certificate programs and things of that nature. She said that most classes start after business hours, between six and nine p.m. Due to the location and the time of the classes, traffic will not be effected. There is ample parking and during the evening and no other uses on the campus would be using the parking. Member Tappin asked what uses would be going on during regular business hours. Ms. Hammersley responded that administrative functions as well approximately 25% of the classes would be held during the day. Dr. Michelle Young said that they expect approximately 50 students during the day. There are two daytime programs; criminal social justice and nursing are daytime classes. In the evening there are approximately 150 students, although it is variable day to day. Mr. Merdinger said that it is not incremental use as it is filling space that would otherwise be occupied by an office use and from a traffic perspective it would take incremental vehicle movements and bring them to off -peak hours. Chairwoman Payovich asked if the proposed use would be the same use as found on Butterfield Road. Mr. Draudt responded that it would be the same. The new facility is approximately 1500 square feet larger and a nicer building. They are excited about the building. It has good curb appeal and good access for the students. The evening program has done well for over 20 years. It has served them well and continues to be in demand. Member Girgis asked how the text amendment compares with the previous application from the Institute of Basic Life Principles. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that they are distinctly different in that the area surrounding the Institute was residential and the case tried to add the educational element to it. This is basically transferring the existing use from the older part of the office quarter to a new location, so it is not like adding something that is not already present. Member Adrian asked if the office building would be supplying any kind of food services. Mr. Merdinger commented that there is a vending and limited service cafeteria that would remain in service whether or not they extended the hours, it would be predicated on the demand. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that this is a use that compliments the Office district and is a current use that wants to move to a new location. He does not see how the proposed use would be detrimental to Oak Brook. He does not anticipate anyone that wants to reuse the old space for educational purposes. The 2625 building is becoming outdated and at one time, there was some interest in possibly doing significant redevelopment of the site. Mr. Wayne Draudt passed out a fact sheet with some information regarding Lewis University. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 02- OCT.doc 12 Y Z October 21, 2002 None of the members had any further questions regarding the request. Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Adrian that the petitioner has met the requirements to recommend approval of the text amendment as proposed. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Adrian, Girgis, Tappin, and Payovich Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Goel Motion Carried. Member Adrian moved, seconded by Member Tappin that the petitioner has met the requirements to recommend approval of the special use as proposed. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4- Adrian, Girgis, Tappin, and Payovich Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Goel Motion Carried. IV. ZUBI's PLAT OF SUBDIVISION — 3719 MADISON — FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION Director of Community Development Kallien said that this case along with the following case, Beard's Plat of Resubdivision are existing parcels in the area improved with single family homes. The two owners would like to modify their common property line by moving it over twenty feet, which would effect Mr. Beard's subdivision. Mr. Zubi has two lots that he would like to combine into one and he has agreed to the modified common property line. If approved, the existing home would be torn down the and a new home built. Neither petitioner was present at this meeting, he believed they were aware of the hearing process and it would be his recommendation that both matters be continued to the next Plan Commission meeting. Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Girgis that the matter be continued to the next regular Plan Commission meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. V. BEARD's PLAT OF RESUBDIVISION — 3711 MADISON — FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION Director of Community Development Kallien said that this case along with the previous case, Zubi's Plat of Subdivision are existing parcels in the area improved with single family homes. The two owners would like to modify their common property line by moving it over twenty feet, which would effect Mr. Beard's subdivision. Mr. Zubi has two lots that he would like to combine into one and he has agreed to the modified common property line. If approved, the existing home would be torn down the and a new home built. Neither petitioner was present at this meeting, he believed they were aware of the hearing process and it would be his recommendation that both matters be continued to the next Plan Commission meeting. Member Adrian moved, seconded by Member Tappin that the matter be continued to the next regular Plan Commission meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 02- OCT.doc �3 October 21, 2002 Vl. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENT — TITLE 13 of the VILLAGE CODE — CHAPTER 3 GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS — SECTION 13 -3 -6 -B FENCES Director of Community Development Kallien said that at the last meeting a suggestion was made by Member Girgis to seek out some fencing design information. Chain link fencing is kind of basic with only several differences available such as the gauge of the wire, color, slats and fabric coating. The Board's original recommendation was to establish parameters to encourage certain degrees of color and gauge of the wire. The referral from the Board does not address other issues. The Board did not approve the six -foot perimeter fencing because it could result in a random "hodgepodge" look. There are situations in Oak Brook where subdivisions literally control large distances of land. Language could possibly be crafted to address those particular areas where only one kind of fence would be allowed so that the fencing looks uniform. The reality is that when fencing is installed in pieces, even when it is the same style, it would never look the same because fencing ages differently. A discussion ensued regarding the different types of fencing that exists throughout the village. There is 5 -foot high chain link along the perimeter of Saddlebrook. Butler National has approximately 6 -7 foot high chain link fencing. Midwest Club has a 42 -inch high chain link, but has extensive landscape running through it. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he and former Village Manager Veitch drove throughout Oak Brook and found that there is at least 30 miles of chain link fencing in town. Some of which is not the Village's. Some are not owned by Oak Brook, some is owned by the Toll Authority and another section by the Butterfield Country Club neither have to follow the rules in Oak Brook, so a lot of fencing exists out there. Member Tappin said that any place along the border of Oak Brook should be uniform, but a higher fence should also be permitted. The style can be controlled by approving the fence permit for a certain minimum distance (length) so that longer stretches are uniform. It would not make any difference if a mile or so of wood fence, were separated by trees or roadways and then another %2 mile of area has a stretch of chain link fencing it would not look hodgepodge because the entire stretch would be of the same material. The strict fencing control needs to be with individual homes where they interface with other homes. Trustee Savino said that the Callaghan fence prompted the Board discussion. The Board questioned why it was not done in another color so that it would not stand out like it did and from that point, other thoughts on the fence issue were expanded. After it was drafted, the Board saw some problems with the hodgepodge look. It should probably be taken back on the issue of chain link only. If chain link is going to be allowed, then make it so that it is as aesthetically appealing as can be. The 42 -inch high standard has withstood the test of time. He would not be in favor of raising it. If someone has a particular problem, they can come in and request a variation. The Village is amenable if someone has a hardship and a unique situation. In regards to allowing the chain link, then what controls can be placed in the Ordinance so that something appealing and of a better quality would be installed. Member Tappin said that a 42 -inch high fence would do nothing for the Saddlebrook Subdivision. There should be a standard set within Oak Brook and a standard on the perimeter of Oak Brook. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there is a consensus by the members to create a color standard, landscaping and certain integrity to the fence. Member Adrian asked if a requirement could be set similar to what Midwest Club did to include landscaping around the fence. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the fence regulations effect the perimeter of the properties. If someone wants to put a six -foot fence in their buildable area, there is nothing in the code PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 4 PC -MTG 02- OCT.doc October 21, 2002 to say that they cannot. As far as landscaping as a requirement around fences, landscaping does not last forever and some is not hardy. When it dies there has to be some mechanism in place to require it replaced. Trustee Savino said that it would be a difficult thing to require landscaping because there are people in large areas that have chain link all around their property and to require landscaping all around that would be a real burden. Director of Community Development Kallien said that around many of the lots there are utility easements. The Forest Gate fence is different, but between two lots, some subdivision covenants allow them while others do not. The suggested language would be 42- inches high, 9 -inch gauge PVC coated green wire, knuckled with a top brace. Slats are not allowed. Member Tappin said that his concern was that the fence has strength and durability so that it would not break down easily. Member Girgis asked if the Commission would need to define the purpose for the fence and if that would help determine what the criteria for a fence should be. Is the purpose for the fence protection, aesthetics, for durability, should it be maintenance free, it should be consistent, visual protection, intrusion protection, to define an area. Member Adrian noted that unless a fence is six -foot high it would not keep anyone out. Member Tappin added that it would help to contain small children. Chairwoman Payovich also noted that if someone really wanted to they could add landscaping, which would offer them more protection. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the text amendment was proposed to allow open fences. If they decide to use a chain link fence, it should be of a certain type, size and color. The members agreed that the chain link fence specifications should be as those that were outlined by one of the manufacturers located on page 12 of the case file, the page was titled: Residential Colored Chain -Link. Director of Community Development Kallien summarized that in Section 13 -3 -6 -B of the Zoning Ordinance the chart would be amended to add the following: "Chain link or wire fence shall be at least 9 -gauge wire, shall be constructed with a top member or brace with wire material (finished side) facing the neighboring property and shall be painted or coated in a dark color (e.g., black, brown, or dark green)." In addition, the section of the chart regarding fences adjacent to patios and swimming pools shall include the following: "See requirements for chain link or wire fences set forth in the preceding item." Member Adrian moved, seconded by Member Girgis to recommend the text amendment as proposed with consideration given to included the following additional language: Material specifications: Gauge — 8 or 9 (Bob to check out with fence manufacturer) Mesh — 2- inches, PVC coated, 42 -inch high maximum, Selvage — Knuckle- knuckle, Color — Green only, Top rail required ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 4- Nays: 0 - Absent: 1 - Motion Carried. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 02- OCT.doc Adrian, Girgis, Tappin, and Payovich Goel 5 October 21, 2002 The Plan Commission further requested that the Village Board refer back the issue of perimeter fencing to the Plan Commission so that it could be reviewed in more detail. Vll. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business on the agenda. Vill. ADJOURNMENT Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Adrian to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Director of Co u evelopment Secretary PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 0 PC -MTG 02- OCT.doc November 18, 2002 Date Approved October 21, 2002