Loading...
Minutes - 02/05/2002 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES February 5, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. U. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Acting Chairman Members Chairman Member Director of Community Development George Mueller Louis Aldini Richard Ascher Manu Shah Champ Davis Ayesha Zaheer Robert Kallien Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Aldini, to waive the reading of the September 4, 2001, 2001 regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. W. FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT of DuPAGE COUNTY — AMEND SPECIAL USE ORDINANCE S -841 TO INCLUDE AREAS IN THE RETREAT WING ADJACENT TO THE MANSION TO ALLOW ADA ACCESS TO THE MANSION Acting Chairman Mueller swore in the petitioner, Michael Palazzetti, Program Services Division Manager for the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County, reviewed the request to amend their existing special use permit. He introduced Christy Holworth, Mayslake Peabody Estate Supervisor, who will be onsite supervising the banquets and weddings on the property. Mr. Palazzetti said that this relates specifically to the mansion portion of the Mayslake property, which is located north of Oak Brook Road west of Route 83. The mansion area as well as the Portinicula Chapel is on the National Registry. The current special use area, which was established when the Mayslake Conservancy was on site, did not allow for any use of the retreat or the breezeways. At that time, the Forest Preserve had not yet decided what they wanted to do with that area. The Mayslake Conservancy was basically charged with trying to save and restore the mansion area. As time went on, they needed to put in public bathrooms and ADA access, and after reviewing many different alternatives and the age of the building, it was decided that it was worth saving. They also felt that it was better to put the public washrooms in the proposed area rather than the mansion area. They later discovered that it was outside of the special use area. This portion of the retreat wing is not part of the special use area and respectfully request that the permit be amended to allow the public to use the public washrooms and provides the required ADA access into the mansion. It is an older facility that has stairs at different ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -FEB February 5, 2002 levels, by utilizing the breezeway they are able to come in build a ramp that allows people into the retreat wing to access the bathrooms and back into the mansion proper. Within the first floor of the mansion they have a portable ramp for wheel chairs. Acting Chairman Mueller asked if the requested area would be secured from the rest of the building. Mr. Palazzetti said that doors have been installed that will be locked. Other doors will be fixed. Mr. Palazzetti noted that within the next six months they would be coming in with their future plans for the remainder of the building and property. Unless they get a large grant or some benefactor, it could take 10 -15 years to complete the full restoration of the site. Acting Chairman Mueller asked if this amendment would allow the opening of the mansion in the near future. Mr. Palazzetti responded that it would and the work they are currently doing will be completed by the end of February. The amendment to the special use will give them the ability to have public occupancy because they will have ADA access and use of the public washrooms. The project on site is not only for ADA, but also for life safety. There is a sprinkler system being installed, along with heating and air conditioning. They want to get people into it so they can see the potential of this building and assist with some fund raising so that it can be restored room by room. Member Ascher asked when the Board would see the rest of the project. Mr. Palazzetti said that the draft from the design team is under review, they need to add comments, review it by their board, run it by the Trinity Lakes Subdivision, because they were promised that all their needs would be addressed. After that it will go forward to the Plan Commission within the next six months. Member Ascher asked how much the project has cost to date. Mr. Palazzetti said that it is 2.6 million, another million will be part of the future plans for landscaping, parking, and detention. To complete what they are proposing could be another four million. Acting Chairman Mueller asked where the funds have come from so far. Mr. Palazzetti said that most of it has been through state grants. Member Ascher asked how many parking spaces are being proposed. Mr. Palazzetti responded that currently the plan is proposing just under 200. That will facilitate what is required by the village code along with a few extra spaces. Member Ascher said that his problem is not knowing what the final plan will look like and approving requests on a piecemeal basis. The project started back in 1995 with the Mayslake Conservancy. Seven years later the whole thing is still being pieced together and we still do not have an idea of what it will look like or what kind of trouble we may get into by approving this part of it and then having the Forest Preserve District come back again later asking for approval of parking, etc. That is his problem in trying to understand the whole issue. Mr. Palazzetti said that technically approval of this request, would allow them to get the public into the building to tour the mansion. It does not change any of the programmatic elements that they have. The Forest Preserve District plan that will be submitted within the next six months, will give the village the entire plan for the program and parking. If the village is not comfortable with the programming, then the parking does not happen either. This requested amendment to the existing special use allows the public into the building, which they could not do before because the building could not meet life safety or ADA access requirements. All of the events have had to be held on the outside in a tent or out of the building on the grounds. This approval allows access for the public. They will continue the banquets and weddings that they have been doing on the grounds at the small chapel. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -FEB 2 —17-11-4- f February 5, 2002 Acting Chairman Mueller questioned that nothing has been held inside the building at this point. Mr. Palazzetti responded, no, that there is no activity going on in the building. Approval of this request will allow the public into the building and to do some small activities. The Forest Preserve is beginning to create a foundation to generate funds for the mansion and they are seeking grants to do some of the buildout. Some of the money acquired for the property was in bond referendums for the district and the commissioners in that area chose to put some of the money back into this project to help bring it up to standards rather than to buy additional land. Member Ascher said that after this project is done the only usable space would be the ground floor. Mr. Palazzetti, responded that these are guided tours and is not the entire area of the building, only the areas where they meet life safety standards. Sections of the basement will not be accessible. Audrey Muschler, 55 Yorkshire Woods, spoke in favor of the request. She commended the Forest Preserve District. She specifically wanted to address Member Ascher's comments. The property was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1993. It is a National Register piece of property. It is a magnificent mansion with its architecture on a 90 -acre site. There is no other site in the state of Illinois equal to this. This property will receive national and international recognition when it is completed. The Forest Preserve District did not have the funds to restore the property, so it was taken over by another organization in 1995. They were unable to raise the funds because corporate and foundations do not pay for life safety improvements. The commissioners realized the significance of this property and in 1999 took over the property; so, the Forest Preserve has managed it for three years. They have done a wonderful job in providing the life safety requirements; they have received grants from the state of Illinois, and their programming for historic architectural tours. The full picture is not yet seen, but they will be back in the near future with all the details when they seek the special use permit. Director of Community Development Kallien asked Mrs. Muschler, that in the retreat wing, the only thing that will be used are the bathrooms, because the special use as currently delineated with the addition only allows that utilization. Mrs. Muschler confirmed that is only area being sought. This solution was recommend because there are hand carved staircases and hand sculpting in the building. They did not want to disturb or destroy those areas for public bathrooms, so they hired professional consultants who recommended that the retreat wing become a service building to the mansion. Mr. Palazzetti said that currently on site there are two small office trailers the staff utilizes behind the garage. Part of the future plan was to hire an architect to give them options as to how to best facilitate the site. They are trying to bring this to a level that it is a historic museum type cultural programming and they are looking at the retreat wing for their support. The staff offices and theater group will be housed in that space. These are things they will be proposing and will be part of their formal request. If it is decided that is outside of what the village is comfortable with, then they will have to redo their programming and reevaluate what kind of program they want on the site and amend their plans accordingly. The building is structural sound and it would have cost as much to demolish it as it would be to facilitate some use in it. They chose to keep the building and use it as a support area. The area discussed tonight is just a connector between the solarium of the mansion and the retreat building. It had stairs so a ramp was added to a portion of it. It allows access by people with wheelchairs. They do not have an elevator, so they do not have full ADA access. To put an elevator in a historical building deters from the building. They are looking at a larger plan in the future, but it is really up to the Village. No one was in the audience spoke in opposition to the request. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes February 5, 2002 3 ZBA- MTG.2002 -FEB Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Aldini to recommend that the petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend for approval the Special Use Amendment as requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted. 2. That all other provisions of Ordinances S -841 and S -986 are in full force and effect. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 3 - Aldini, Shah, and Mueller Nays: 1 - Ascher Absent: 1 - Zaheer and Davis Motion Failed. IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENT — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — CHAPTER 11 — SIGN REGULATIONS Director of Community Development Kallien said that currently in zoning ordinance, signage is scattered throughout the ordinance. It has been the recommendation of the Village attorney that a chapter be created within the code that just deals with signage. In reviewing various text there have been very minor changes. They tried not to change any of the substance. Oak Brook has very restrictive sign regulations and it is everyone's intention to maintain that stance. Some additional language has been added to support the sign regulations. Also a number of new definitions have been created to clarify the intent of the ordinance. The minimum and maximums have not been changed. 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. 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. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 4 ZBA- MTG.2002 -FEB February 5, 2002 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. Member Ascher asked for an explanation of signs on residential property in Section 13- 11 -6 -E. Director of Community Development Kallien said that this deals with "for sale" signs. One sign is allowed on a lot, except for corner lots. Typically in a residential area it is not a significant element and is not desirous. Off premises signs are not allowed by right. No one spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Shah to recommend approval of the text amendments as presented and as recommended by the Plan Commission. The petitioner has met the standards as required by ordinance for recommending approval of the proposed text amendments. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4- Nays: 0 - Absent: 2- Motion Carried. V. ADJOURNMENT Aldini, Ascher, Shah and Mueller Zaheer and Davis Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Aldini to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 5 ZBA- MTG.2002 -FEB J D�, Director of Co munity Develop nt Secretary March 5, 2002 Date Approved February 5, 2002