Loading...
Minutes - 01/05/1999 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES January 5, 1999 L CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Members ALSO PRESENT: Trustee Village Engineer Director of Community Development A quorum was present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Champ Davis Louis Aldini Richard Ascher Adam Butler Manu Shah Alfred Savino Dale Durfey Thomas Hawk Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Ascher, to waive the reading of the November 3, 1998, regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Ill. BARBARA — 25 BREAKENRIDGE FARM - AN APPEAL OF A BUILDING INSPECTOR DETERMINATION A letter was received from John Brechin, attorney for Barbara, advising the Board that Mr. Barbara will not be able to appear tonight. He requested a continuance to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Shah to continue the hearing on the Appeal to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on February 2, 1999. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Chairman Davis advised that the matters will be held out of order this evening. He noted that Attorney Gooder requested the Parks matter be heard last this evening. E.M. Enterprises - Office Park of Hinsdale were present and agreed to the change. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes January 5,1999 1 IV. E.M. ENTERPRISES - OFFICE PARK OF HINSDALE - 3821 YORK ROAD - FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL USE WITH VARIATION Chairman Davis swore in all witnesses. Tom Heuer, Heuer and Associates, reviewed the proposal. Office Park of Hinsdale joins Sav Way Liquors in the application request. Sav Way is surrounded by Hinsdale on 3 sides. Office Park has negotiated an agreement for use of the eastern 100 feet of the Sav Way Liquors property for the construction of a parking lot. The project area adjoins the 911 Elm Street office building owned by Office Park of Hinsdale. The parking lot has been designed so that it does not encroach or displace the volume of the flood plain. The parking lot is a unique situation because Office Park is across municipal boundaries and will build and maintain the lot and dispose of it at the end of their lease. The biggest issue is that the entire property is within the flood plain of Salt Creek. In the event that Salt Creek does flood, the parking lot will be covered in water at a depth of approximately 2.75 feet at the deepest part. Raising the lot on stilts would not be feasible cost wise. There will not be a lot of public access. The lot is an accessory lot to a much larger lot in Hinsdale. The predominate use will be for the purpose of overfill parking. Carol Heerwagen, General Manager, Office Park of Hinsdale, said that since it is primarily an accessory lot, and the most remote from the other lots, it would really be used for the employees. Chairman Davis asked how far the lot would be to the building. Heuer responded that it would be approximately 250 -300 feet away. Chairman Davis questioned the reason they are unable to elevate the lot. Heuer noted that it is not feasible financially. Building it as proposed will require 300 lineal feet of pipe under the parking lot. If the elevation is increased to raise it 1 1/2 feet would require over 1,000 feet of pipe, and is not practical from a cost standpoint. In that case they would be building a platform, and due to the Appropriateness issue, they will try to hide the parking lot within the contents landscape which is the intent of Ordinance and with the plantings, they have tried to effectively screen the lot. Chairman Davis asked why they have requested from 1 foot to 2.6 feet. Heuer said that it is measured from the catch basin to the flood plain elevation. Chairman Davis asked if this is a temporary lot. Heuer said that originally they were going to build a lot and at the conclusion of the lease, it would revert to Malloy. The need was created due to an increased amount of traffic during patient visits peak times, to provide overflow parking. Chairman Davis questioned the duration of the lease. Carol Heerwagen said the original intent of the lease was 20 years with some 'renewals. Abandoning the lot in ten years is what they now see as the only way to get approval, unless there is any other means. Member Shah questioned, the possibility of someone being injured due to the flooding, who would be responsible. Heuer said that Office Park is responsible and that the property will be posted with a warning sign. There is full time maintenance at the building that will secure the area and close the parking lot in the event of a flood. He explained that Salt Creek needs to overflow is banks and cover York Road and Sav Way Liquors before it reaches the parking lot. There is only a 1 % chance in any year that this will happen, and for the flooding to occur on this property the entire Salt Creek Watershed would be effected. A 100 -year event should it occur will not surprise anyone, it will no fall down on the parking lot alone. Flooding will not occur immediately. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes January 5,1999 �P/ 2 Chairman Davis said there is a memo in the file from Bruce Macki of the DuPage County Dept. of Environmental Concerns. He said that the committee seems to be concerned that the Office Park is a private entity trying to seek this type of relief and although the committee has not objected to variances in the past for flood depths greater than the 1 -foot maximum, but these variances related to public parking improvements in forest preserves, public parks and other local government facilities. They are concerned that a private entity is coming in seeking this relief Their argument is that variances were granted in recognition of the specialized use of the parking facility and the ability of the agency that was granted the variances to control access to the facility. It appears that this proposal will not be a widely used lot and the facilities are controlled well. He asked if there is a chain that can be installed at the lot, so that if there were some flooding the lot could be closed and warning signs posted. Carol Heerwagen said that the Plan Commission had asked them to address these issues and they are willing to do so. The lot will be .closed and locked if danger of such a situation should occur. Chairman Davis said that it appears they will be able to address that concern. Tom Heuer said that he spoke with Macki and he did not understand the public versus private controls, because private entities have much more power to control the use of their properties to the public than public entities. Member Butler said that he thought their concern was based on the establishment of a precedent, because they also noted in the memo that while some of the conditions placed on public parking lots, could be applied to private parking lots, staff is concerned that this would establish a much broader precedent. If approved the variance would allow for considerable development of parking lots subject to flood damage within the flood plain. Chairman Davis said that setting a precedent has always been the argument, however, he said that he believes the Board needs to be satisfied that this is a unique situation. Member Butler pointed out that the committee did not feel it was unique circumstance. Heuer said that they are agreeable to a sunset provision to tear the lot out after a ten year period. He said he does not believe there are many private businesses that put in a parking lot and then plan to tear it out after ten years. The need that the Office Park has is to get them through the crunch they are having until they can get a permanent structure built. Chairman Davis asked Heuer to review the standards as set forth in Section 15 -236, a -f of the Ordinance. These were addressed in Mr. Heuer's letter of December 29, 1998 on page 14 of the petition file which he reviewed with the Board. Chairman Davis said that since they are willing to make this a temporary facility, it makes some of other remedies even less feasible. Heuer said that the cost to expand the underground storage would be cost prohibitive for a temporary structure. Member Shah asked what stage the parking structure was at presently. Heuer responded that they are at the design and financing stage. Member Butler clarified that the plan would include a new parking structure that would subsequently take the place of this parking area and what happens to this structure at that time. Heuer said they would remove the driveway and would restore the land. Chairman Davis asked what time frame would be needed to complete a permanent structure. Heuer responded that within 10 years in order to work out the amortization costs on a 300 stall parking structure. Hawk said that a variation could be granted with 10 -year sunset provision with the stipulation that the lot be removed and the land returned to its original condition. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes January 5,1999 01- Member Shah asked about the current parking situation. Heuer said that during the day the turnover rate and volume is very high, because the doctors are scheduling appointments on a very tight cycle, so you need a lot of parking during visiting hours. The doctors are complaining to management about adequate parking for the patients during visiting hours. Their changing office needs have created the present problem. Ten years ago there were very few medical offices in the building and now there are quite a few. In there long range plans this needs to be addressed fairly quickly. Carol Heerwagen said that they have a 20 -year term lease agreement with Mr. Malloy based on a different set of circumstances. They are trying to keep him appraised of the process. The agreement is stipulated to become null and void if they do not get the approvals necessary to construct the lot. Member Aldini questioned the enforcement. Hawk said that for any property in violation of a sunset provision or termination provision, it would freeze any activities and progress or changes that pertain to their whole operation. Mr. Malloy has considerable more buildable F.A.R. on this property than the current use is taking. Member Ascher asked what will happen to their agreement if the Board places a 10 -year sunset provision on a approval and what security they can have that the lot will be removed. Carol Heerwagen said that they will have to review the lease agreement with him. Hawk said that the Village could demand that they abide with their agreement with the Village and remove the parking lot. Carol Heerwagen said that Office Park is a good neighbor, that has over 40 acres in Hinsdale. They are part of the Advent Health System and Hinsdale Hospital, and they would not want to tarnish their reputation. They are a For - Profit corporation, stand alone, but they are part of the Midwest Region of the Adventist Health System. Member Shah was concerned for the safety factors in case of a flood. Heuer said that the flood water rises slowly. He said the whole basin would be effected, over the Graue Mill dam, and it will take many hours to effect this lot. The employees cars would be removed, and the lot closed down to prevent access. Member Davis moved, seconded by Member Ascher, finding that the petitioner having satisfied the necessary factors for variation as specified in the Ordinance, recommended approval of the requested variation with the following conditional elements: 1. A 10 -year sunset provision be imposed. At such time the lot is to be removed and the area restored to its original state. 2. No overnight parking to be permitted. 3. Lot is to be closed with a chain or gate in the event of flooding. 4. Signs are to be posted. 5. Final Engineering approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Aldini, Ascher, Butler, Shah, and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 0 - Motion Carried. Tom Heuer reviewed the factors relating to Flood Plain Special Use. He stated that the Use would not detrimentally effect other properties and reviewed the necessary standards as submitted on page 10 of the petition file. It will benefit the community by making available much needed space. It is compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed site can be accessed by ordinary and emergency ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes January 5,1999 / / 4 vehicles from the 911 street property. Parking lot access will be restricted during periods Salt Creek is at flood stage. They will provide the compensatory storage. Chairman Davis said that these are the standards required in granting the special use. The special use is for the parking lot described. Chairman Davis moved, seconded by Member Ascher, finding that the petitioner having satisfied the factors relating to Flood Plain Special Use as specified in the Ordinance, recommended approval of the requested Flood Plain Special Use with the following conditional elements: 1. A 10 -year sunset provision be imposed. At such time the lot is to be removed and the area restored to its original states. 2. No overnight parking to be permitted. 3. Lot is to be closed with a chain or a gate in the event of flooding. 4. Signs are to be posted. 5. Final engineering approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Aldini, Ascher, Butler, Shah, and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 0 - Motion Carried. V. PARKS - 3701 MADISON - AMENDMENT OF A PREVIOUSLY GRANTED FRONT YARD VARIATION Chairman Davis swore in all witnesses. David Gooder, Attorney for the petitioner, reviewed the site plan and the location of the home at 3701 Madison. Mr. Gooder said that the original variance was approved to reduce the front yard setback from 40 feet to 18 feet. They are seeking an amendment to allow the 18 foot setback to extend to cover the proposed new home. Bob Parks said that he has lived in the house for 20 years. He married 5 years ago and now has two small children. The house is very small. They attempted for a while to renovate. The age of the house made any improvements very costly. When they rebuild the home, the location is important because the entire area is heavily wooded. The new footprint is not much different than the existing. It took a lot of pains to save trees that were very close to the house. With the present plan there are only 2 soft maples and couple of small pines that need to be removed. David Gooder said that the reason for the original variance was to add a garage. The new use would be for living quarters and bedrooms. The original variation states that it is for the purposes of an attached garage. They are seeking to have the variation amended to change the language to add the proposed residential use as it is spelled on page A -2 of the petition file. Bob Parks identified the location of all surrounding neighbors. The nearest neighbors are over 100 feet away. It is a heavily wooded area and 9 months out of the year, you cannot see your neighbors. He has spoken to several of the neighbors he knows. Hawk noted that all neighbors have been notified. There was no public comment in support of or in opposition to the request ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes January 5,1999 �* 5 Member Shah stated that the original variation was granted to build an attached garage, but he questioned the rationale of the needed variation if they are building a new home. Dave Gooder responded that the shape of the property restricts the position of the home. There is a deep ravine and many trees on the property. By building the home in the same area, it will protect many of the very large trees and it will not create any significant discomfort to the neighbors to the west. Member Aldini questioned any future plans for Lot 1 or Lot 2. Mr. Parks said the main reason he bought the lots was to make sure that he would have enough room to build a house. He has no intention to build or sell Lot 2. Parks noted that to move the house out of the existing footprint would mean the removal of many very large oak trees. Some of them are 30 -40 inches in diameter. Chairman Davis asked what the depth of the ravine was. Hawk said the lowest point was approximately 20 feet. Attorney Gooder reviewed the standards as stated on page E -1 of the petition file. Very few lots have the same topography or are as heavily wooded. The proposed variation will not be injurious to the neighbors. The hardship was not created by the homeowner, nature created the difficulty. Granting the variation will also preserve the nature of the locality. Member Butler moved, seconded by Member Shah to recommend for approval to amend the previously granted variation as requested on Rider B (page A -2 of the petition file). The petitioner has satisfied the standards required to grant the variation as they did when the previous variation was granted. The house will be built in substantial conformity with the proposed site plan dated July 24, 1998 (page H in the petition file). ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5- Nays: 0 - Absent 0- Motion Carried. V1. OTHER BUSINESS Aldini, Ascher, Butler, Shah and Davis None. Tom Hawk informed the Members that Hans Hasen has tendered his resignation, effective immediately. Chairman Davis asked that the record reflect the Zoning Boards' deep appreciation for his years of service, commitment and contributions made to the community. They will miss him and wish him the very best in the future. All the Members acknowledged and shared in those sentiments. Vll. ADJOURNMENT Member Butler moved, seconded by Member Aldini to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9 :25 p.m. Director of Community Development Secretary Date Approv ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes January 5,1999 (