Loading...
Minutes - 02/06/2001 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES February 6, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Champ Davis Members Paul Adrian Arrived 7:30 Richard Ascher George Mueller Arrived 7:35 Manu Shah Ayesha Zaheer Louis Aldini Director of Community Development Robert Kallien Village Engineer Dale Durfey Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Adrian, to waive the reading of the December 5, 2000 regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Ill. DuPAGE MAYORS AND MANAGERS CONFERENCE — 1220 OAK BROOK ROAD — TEXT AMENDMENT AND AMENDED SPECIAL USE All those present to represent the petitioner in this matter were sworn in by Chairman Davis. Craig Cobine, Dommermuth, Brestal, Cobine and West Ltd., 123 Water Street, Naperville, attorney for the petitioner, briefly reviewed the request and background of the property. The site is approximately .918 acres and zoned R -3. DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference has occupied the property since 1992, under a 15 -year lease with the Village of Oak Brook. They are now seeking to purchase the property and to set more clearly the zoning for the property. They are seeking a recommendation for approval of a text amendment which is a special use in R -3 District, to clarify the special use to include "conference of municipal governments and related uses." The request is made so that they will be able to continue carrying on the use that they have been doing in that building. As part of their application, they are also requesting that the Village approve a special use for the property in accordance with the revised text amendment. They currently have approximately 2900 square feet under roof and they are proposing to expand the facility by 2700 square feet and approximately 13 parking spaces. This is an expansion of the facility due to the nature of the business they carry on. Tim Fluck, Policy Analyst with DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference said that the Conference has been in existence since 1962 and has been located at its current address (1220 Oak Brook ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes February 6, 2001 1 Road) since 1992. They are an organization of 36 DuPage County Municipalities, including the Village of Oak Brook. They promote excellence in local government and carry on a wide range of activities. They have a very active legislative program, which makes their members aware of developments in Springfield and Washington D.C. They carry out intergovernmental relations and efforts to improve communication between municipalities and DuPage County. They carry out special programs in planning and regulatory issues to make the members aware of recent development in those areas. They also have a number of direct services such as their auction of surplus motor vehicles, which the Village has been a participant. The proposed addition is largely to the south toward Oak Brook Road. They plan to have only a single story building and the entrance will remain on the parking lot side of the building. They currently have a staff of eight full -time employees and plan to increase that by about five. They are also proposing to expand the parking lot over to what is now called Lot 82. They sometimes have meetings that involve members and regional organizations and want to ensure that people use designated parking spaces and to not park on the access road or along Oak Brook Road or any other place. They are providing substantially more parking than is required by Ordinance. Craig Cobine said that the text amendment request is to add language to the Ordinance that specifically included council of governments. Member Zaheer questioned the northwest elevation of the proposed expansion, on page H (A2.o) calls for siding. Tim Fluck responded that the area is currently a loading dock and the present material is siding and they are planning to just enclose the area. Brick could be provided for the last five percent of the exterior fagade. Chairman Davis questioned the number of increased parking spaces. Tim Fluck responded that they are going from 28 spaces to 41 spaces. No one in the audience spoke in support of the proposal. Dan Callaghan, majority stockholder of Forest Gate, Inc. which is the property known as Forest Gate Subdivision that is directly north and west of the subject property. He spoke with the Plan Commission and explained that overall the Mayors and Managers has been a good neighbor and they also want to be a good neighbor. The plan is not a bad one as a general layout, but it does have some flaws that he believes could be easily rectified by the plan presented at this meeting. The number one concern he has is the "peek -a -boo" effect of the landscaping surrounding the parking lot. The current Oak Brook Code requires 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The building with the new addition will be 5700 square feet, therefore the Village requirement states that there has to 19 spaces plus 1 handicap space. The plan provided basically takes away 3 parking spaces, which will leave them 38 spaces, which is not a substantial decrease in the amount of parking spaces that he is asking the Board to consider. One of the points of special use approval is that certain criteria must be met. One criteria is to make sure that you do not diminish or decrease the adjoining land owner values. The plan provided by him succeeds in that, and the plan presented by the petitioner does not. He has had conversation with staff and they are concerned with a couple of pine trees in the island near the access road. The houses adjoining this property are $850,000 that back up to the development. He acknowledged that the development was there before the subdivision, but the proposed expansion is going on property that was donated by Forest Gate, for them to do the addition in the first place. He kindly asked for the Zoning Board's consideration that what he is seeking is so minute that he does not understand the opposition that he is getting for it. His other concern is that the architect hired to do the Mayors and Managers plan has not shown the northwest corner consistent with that of an actual survey. On the plan presented by Callaghan, there is a dark line drawn where the actual curb exists, not where the architect has shown it. The dashed lines show where the access drive now exists. The pine trees mentioned on the plan are six feet tall, however on the elevation of the plan shows twelve or sixteen foot tall trees. In actuality, the pine ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 2 ��k February 6, 2001 trees located between Oak Brook Road and the parking lot are six feet, which will not cover anything. The tall full growth trees that exist now on the site appear to be removed. He also stated at the Plan Commission that he would be willing to pay for the four or five pine or spruce trees that are on the west line, just west of the access drive. The reason for that is to provide the homeowners on Lot 18 and Lot 19 that look toward that area, now have that view, and he feels somewhat responsible to take care of the that view. The plan still shows Mayors and Managers supplying those trees, if they want, he has made the offer to supply the five mentioned. In addition, he has drawn two additional pine trees on the north line, just east of emergency access road. He is trying to protect a site condition that currently exists between the homes and the current parking lot and does not believe the Mayors and Managers should be responsible for that type of buffering. He is just asking for permission to plant those seven trees on the property. He asking that the Board consider and recommend that the tree height should be at least 10 to 12 feet. He can buy 10 -12 foot trees for about $600 each, which is about half of the going rate. He has been buying in bulk for Forest Gate and would be willing to share that savings with his neighbor, and not necessarily for all of the trees, but for all of the pine trees that would exist in the area where there is the loss of two parking spaces. If there are no pine trees, the view will be to look at all those parking spaces. If the site from those houses can see into the cars the plan presented is bad. Craig Cobine said that the spaces would be rarely used. They are willing to work with Mr. Callaghan as far as the site distances regarding the trees on the island, however, they are looking to the Village for guidance on this issue. They are concerned with pine trees obstructing the view for the cars from a safety hazard standpoint. Dan Callaghan suggested to the Board that a stop sign would alleviate the problem, because vehicles would come to a complete stop. The request is for a loss of only three spaces. They will still have 38 parking spaces, which is many more than required by the Village Ordinance. He also said that perhaps they could consider making the drive one -way. This would prevent anyone from exiting the Subdivision. The construction trucks used on the site exit through the main entrance to travel east, so that would not be a problem. His request for the buffering effect is to make sure that the property values will not be diminished. He also noted that they are requesting and the Plan Commission recommended that the parking lot lighting be turned off at 10 p.m. each evening. The Mayors and Managers property is located within the R -3 zoning district and is a special use and he would like to see these considerations given. The present plan does diminish property values, but if additional steps were taken to buffer the Forest Gate Subdivision with solid landscaping, they would have no objection. He stated that he was not telling the Board what to do, but he asked if they were the people buying those lots, what concerns would they have if the parking lot were expanded into their backyard. He believes the requests are minimal and would appreciate the Board considering them. Suzanne Gordon, 317 Trinity Lane, a 15 -year resident of Oak Brook greatly admires the work of the Plan Commission, Zoning Board and Board of Trustees which have made the town one of the best places to live in the western suburbs. Their future home is under construction in Forest Gate on Lot 20. The property is in excellent condition and the existing landscaping shelters it well. She supports the purchaser's right to expand the building and parking lot, and trusts that the Zoning Board will accept an aesthetic, and well designed expansion. In part they purchased the property because they would be able to have an enclosed outdoor patio. As the Mayors and Managers plan is proposed, they would be looking right into the parking lot. She urged the Zoning Board to look out for their best interest. Her main concerns are the additional trees to block the parking lot and the lighting because the rear of the house will face the lot. Chairman Davis and the Zoning Board discussed the issues raised. Craig Cobine noted that the Plan Commission recommended a low height lighting fixture, but did not recommend a height of three feet. They agree to turning off the parking lot lighting at 10 p.m. They ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes February 6, 2001 3 rl� believe the revised site plan submitted reflects improved landscaping. There will not be a large group attending the Conference often, however they are concerned with losing more parking spaces. When the participating communities come for a meeting, there would not be enough parking and they may park in the emergency aisle if there is not sufficient parking. Director of Community Development Kallien said that currently the only option Mayors and Managers would have to handle overflow parking would be to come onto the Village site, which would require travel across the busy intersection at Jorie and Oak Brook Road. The parking standards are a minimum of 3.3 spaces for office use. However, this use is really more institutional. Their need is based really upon people coming to use it. The access road is the main construction entrance for Forest Gate, with vehicles coming in and out of the development. The placement of evergreen trees may create a site distance problem. Member Adrian asked if there were any alternative trees that could be used that would not create a hazard. Dan Callaghan responded no, but added that stop signs would alleviate the problem. The members discussed the possible placement of stop signs, which would control the movement in the parking lot and access would not be interrupted, the time limit, and masonry being added to cover the entire building. Chairman Davis noted that the petitioner has responded to the factors as required for granting an amendment as listed on page F.1 and F.2 of the petition file. Member Adrian moved, seconded by Member Mueller that the proposed Text Amendment is deemed necessary for the public convenience and will be operated so that the public health, safety and welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in which it is located. The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend subject to the proposed text amendment to read as follows: "Public Utility. Transportation and Government Facilities: Public utility, transportation and governmental service facilities, including municipal offices and civic centers, public libraries, police and fire stations, public works facilities, a conference of municipal governments and ancillary uses including organizations which provide consultation services solely to units of local government." ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 - Adrian, Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Aldini Motion Carried. Chairman Davis questioned the possibility of making the parking lot one -way. Village Engineer Durfey said that possibility has not been reviewed just discussed. It appears to have merit but would require a thorough review. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Plan Commission did recommend approval of the special use based on any action that shall be reflected in a revised plan. A final plat will be done at the time of sale of the property, which will result in better detail being provided. It could be suggested that the Plat of Consolidation reflect the actual conditions approved. Member Zaheer moved, seconded by Member Mueller that the Special Use as amended is deemed necessary for the public convenience and will be operated so that the public health, safety and welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in which it is located. The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend approval subject to the following conditions: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes February 6, 2001 4 'QI.�C 1. Additional landscaping shall be added along the north and west property lines to better screen the parking lot from the homes in the Forest Gate Subdivision. Specifically, evergreens should be added per the landscape plan provided by Dan Callaghan (see page 25 of the petition file). 2. Parking lot lighting fixtures to be changed to a low height lighting fixture and shall be shielded from the adjacent residential area along with a timer system to turn off parking lot lights at 10 p.m. each evening. 3. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans as modified by the recommended conditions including a building expansion of 2,760 square feet and the reduction of three parking spaces to accommodate increased landscaping. 4. Provisions to be included that the landscaping will be maintained. 5. Require future approval of a plat of consolidation, which combines Lot 82 of the Forest Gate Subdivision with the existing parcel. 6. Per page H.(A2.o) of the petition file, require the elimination of siding from the building fagade and replaced by masonry brick. 7. Installation of two stop signs along the access drive to control vehicular access into the parking lot and Forest Gate Subdivision. 8. Consideration to making the access drive and parking lot one -way to minimize traffic conflicts subject to approval of Village Engineer Durfey. 9. Address the issues contained in the memorandum dated January 11, 2001 from Village Engineer Durfey including final engineering approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Adrian, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Abstain: 1 - Ascher Absent: 1 - Aldini Motion Carried. IV. CHRIST CHURCH OF OAK BROOK — 501 OAK BROOK ROAD — AMENDED SPECIAL USE FOR EXPANSION OF CHURCH FACILITIES WITH ALLOWANCES TO THE 100 FOOT SETBACK ON YORK ROAD FOR AN ADDITION TO THE BUILDING AND A NEW PARKING LOT. All those present to represent the petitioner in this matter were sworn in by Chairman Davis. Joe Beczak, Director of Operations for Christ Church of Oak Brook advised the Board that at the Plan Commission meeting they agreed to table discussions relating to the parking lot until they could work with the Village and County on further revising the plans so they would be acceptable to the Village and the Church. Tonight, they are seeking approval of the addition of two nurture and care rooms adjacent to the Sanctuary; the creation of an audio /visual center above the bridge; an allowance from the 100 -foot setback to allow for the expansion of the existing kitchen, including a new preschool atrium entrance. This portion of the request will be referred to as Phase A. The purpose of the nuture and care rooms is for the purpose to assist and to allow a room right near the sanctuary for families that are gathering for weddings, funerals, provide access to allow prayer for those in need before and after services, and for the elders preparing to administer communion to the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes February 6, 2001 5 "Qt,Y congregation. There would be a secondary room where there would be mothers with small children so that they could participate in the service, but would separate them from the service. The audio /visual center on the mezzanine area would follow the existing roofline and would add about six feet to the existing roofline. The diagram in the packet shows this. The center would allow both sound and lighting controls to be located within the sanctuary. The preschool entrance would allow the parents of preschoolers to have the opportunity to have community and fellowship as opposed to running kids in and out of a given area and to provide them with a covered area to meet with teachers and other children. They also have a friendship bible class, which is an adult handicapped bible class that meets on Sunday mornings. This would allow them much easier access on grade level to come into the building and be able to enter the classroom, opposed to walking the existing grade on the current parking lot area. There is an existing turn around that they could use to be dropped off and go into the room at grade level. The kitchen expansion is to handle the increased capacity of members and guests that come to the church. With the increase in programs, they have to be able to serve a meal and do it efficiently. The original design of the building was at a thirty- degree angle, which was 100 feet from the edge of the property line. There was a misunderstanding when they went to build that particular section of the building, because they thought it was 100 feet from the center of the road. The Board at that time, ruled that it was 100 -feet from the edge of the property line, which is the reason the church was built on an angle. It is his understanding the Village is reconsidering the proposal to be 100 feet from the centerline, which would give them another fifty feet. Right now, their request would encroach 30 feet into the 100 -foot setback. If the Village approves the text amendment, the proposed expansion to the building would not encroach at all. Chairman Davis asked about the status of the engineering issues on page 4 -4a of the petition file. Village Engineer Durfey reviewed each item as follows: Item 1- 3 are in the process of being corrected; Item 4 — not sure of the discussion regarding the parking stall striping on the remainder of the property; Item 5 — is up for discussion depending upon the configuration; and Item 6 — is not part of the issues before the Board at this meeting. Mr. Beczak said that they have addressed the standards required for approval of the special use request. Chairman Davis clarified that it is the petitioner's position that the modifications to the property are located and proposed to be operated so that the public, health, safety and welfare will be protected and that the enhancements would not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood. No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the request Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Adrian that the Special Use as amended is deemed necessary for the public convenience and will be operated so that the public health, safety and welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in which it is located. The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend approval of Phase A, which includes the following: 1. To permit the construction of building additions to include, two new nurture rooms, an audio - visual center located above the bridge, and an expanded kitchen and new preschool atrium. 2. In order to accommodate the expanded kitchen and new preschool atrium, grant an allowance from the 100 -foot setback to permit a 30 -foot encroachment into the building setback line along York Road; 3. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the site and elevation plans as submitted showing the proposed building additions to the Church; and 4. Address the issues contained in the memorandum dated January 8, 2001 from Village Engineer Durfey including final engineering approval. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes February 6, 2001 6 ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 6- Nays: 0 - Absent: 1 - Motion Carried. Adrian, Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Aldini V. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL USE FOR THE 2001 ROADWAY PAVING PROJECT IN TIMBER TRAILS SUBDIVISION Chairman Davis swore in Village Engineer Durfey who represented the petitioner in this matter. Engineer Durfey reviewed the proposed project. The overall project is the Timber Trails Subdivision area in the far north end of the Village abutting Roosevelt Road down to Salt Creek, not including Merry Lane. The project includes basic paving and resurfacing. He reviewed a typical section in the Timber Trails Subdivision as shown on page D of the petition file. He explained that they are adding two -foot wide concrete shoulders on each side like they did previously in Ginger Creek, Yorkshire Woods and Woodside Estates. As part of the addition of the two feet of concrete shoulder there is some minor filling taking place in a portion of the flood plain. They are compensating the proposed grades and regrading of swales as well as an outlet pipe in a lot just south of Merry Lane to discharge the water to Salt Creek. The consultant engineers have designed it to match the 1:5 to 1 compensatory storage requirement. He reviewed the flood plain map and noted that Forest Trail is the main north /south street. The areas in the flood plain are the areas in question. The existing road varies in width anywhere from 18 to 21 feet. The proposal is to make the roadways a uniform 19 feet wide, edge to edge of asphalt, plus the two feet of concrete shoulders. The compensatory storage will either be in the roadside swales, which will vary from a depth of 6 inches and to perhaps as deep as 2 to 2.5 feet. There will be some tree loss within the right of way with the working of the new storm sewers being constructed, for constructing new roadside swales along the roadside rights of way. During construction, they will try to mitigate and fine tune as much as possible to limit tree loss and damage to existing landscaping. Engineer Durfey advised that the 11 factors as required by Ordinance are on page 7 of the petition files. Chairman Davis noted that these are the 11 factors that must be satisfied for the recommendation of approval of a flood plain special use request. Member Shah questioned the reason for adding shoulders and raising the pavement as shown on the typical cross - section. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the concrete shoulders were a request of the residents and it is a basic resurfacing job. They are typically adding about 2 inches of asphalt. In some cases the pavement under existing conditions is super elevated. Some of the street is pitched across its entire length. Once the shoulders are added, both sides need to be made level and in some cases five or six inches may be added on one side and one inch on the other. For the most part it is a typical resurfacing. Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Shah that the Flood Plain Special Use as requested is deemed necessary for the public convenience and will be operated so that the public health, safety and welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in which it is located. The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend approval. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 - Adrian, Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Aldini Motion Carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes February 6, 2001 7 �.4 VI. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK- ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 3 GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS AND CHAPTER 12 OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING Director of Community Development, Robert Kallien noted that this is a continuation of the public hearing from last month. The Village is proposing an update to the Zoning Ordinance and the two items before the Zoning Board of Appeals is Chapter 3, General Provisions and Chapter 12, Off - Street Parking and Loading requirements. For the purposes of this meeting the public hearing will only pertain to Chapter 3 and it is requested that the public hearing remain open to discuss Chapter 12 at a later date. In our correspondence there were modifications to the text made so that it reads better. All of these were reviewed at the previous Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and discussed. However, there were a number of issues that were tabled by the Plan Commission that were in need of further review. Chairman Davis recommended and the members agreed to vote at the end, and any items of controversy can be dealt with as they go through the review. The items to be reviewed are as follows: 13- 3- 1 -A -2. Add language to permit allowances, which may be requested in conjunction to a special use. Eliminates the need to process special uses, which also involve variances as two separate cases. Such an application of allowances was used with recent review of the special use amendment for the Village Hall expansion project, which involved a 65 -foot wide driveway for the new Fire Station. This specific section relates to allowances. In the Ordinance, it basically identifies special uses and also special uses with conditions. The Village Attorney has recommended that we formalize the allowance concept. It was used with the Village petition for the Municipal Building Project, by allowing a wider driveway for the fire station. The Village Attorney recommends that when there is a special use, if there are any special conditions or deviations from the ordinance, they could be handled through allowances, rather than through variations. There is case law to support this type of action. This concept will just be to formalize the concept in the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Davis noted that "allowance" was the term used again tonight. He said that it makes it easier to be dealt with as a special use because the standards for a special use are easier to understand and apply. Since the Plan Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals both review special uses, it will give both bodies an opportunity to weigh in on a request that may be seeking some relief to the basic intent of the Ordinance. Chairman Davis added that under the Variation procedure the matter would come to the Zoning Board without the benefit of a review by the Plan Commission. 13- 3 -1 -B. Reference the date of the first Zoning Ordinance of the Village. When reference is made to special uses in the ordinance, the reference is to special uses and applies to the first Zoning Ordinance. If we were to say as to when it was amended then it would relate to when the amendment was adopted. We want to make sure that it references back to the 1966 ordinance, so that any special use approved back then remains legal. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes February 6, 2001 8 13- 3 -3 -B. Include a reference that all new lots comply with the Subdivision Regulations of the Village. This change clarifies that all new lots created in the Village must comply with the Subdivision Regulations. Currently the Ordinance is not clear on this point. 13 -3 -5. Establish specific setbacks along certain streets which contradicts some setbacks, which are listed in several of the zoning districts. Also, some of the assumptions, which were used to establish these original setbacks, may not be valid today. As an example, the current setback along York Road contemplates a five -lane cross section through Oak Brook. However, today's traffic patterns and volumes do not support this original assumption. Therefore, three alternatives are being offered for your review and recommendation. Alternative 1 recommends that portion of York Road, south of 31St Street be reduced from 100 feet from the property line to 100 feet from the centerline. This portion of York Road is primarily residential with many homes having direct access to the roadway. This area of York Road is now proposed to have an ultimate cross - section of two thru- lanes with a center turn lane instead of four thru -lanes that exist north of 31St Street. Alternative 2 recommends that the minimum setback along a street be consistent to the setbacks contained in the underlying zoning district with the exception to maintain the 22nd Street setback at 100 feet from the property line. Alternative 3 recommends that the minimum setback along a street be consistent to the setbacks in the underlying zoning district without exception. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that this deals with an alternative front yard setback. In the Zoning Ordinance there are some extraordinary setbacks contained in this section that apply to several of the major roads, York Road, 22nd Street and Oak Brook Road (31St Street). They go well beyond what is required by the underlying zoning district. For example, in the R -2 District along York Road, normally a 40 -foot front yard would be required. The Ordinance states that any development on York Road has this extraordinary setback which is 100 feet from the property line. The focus in this review has been narrowed down to the properties along York Road that are south of Oak Brook Road. Because the York Road cross - section will never be more than three lanes based upon current and anticipated traffic levels, it was felt that providing for a 100 -foot setback from the property line is really unnecessary. There are about 20 properties in that area significantly impacted by the 100 -foot setback. In many instances, and testimony was received, that to redevelop their property would require substantial variations. The property owner at the southeast corner of York and Oak Brook Road has testified before the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals and is well within the 100 -foot setback. Any opportunity for any redevelopment would require significant variations. After a close review, Alternative 2 and 3 do not work. Alternative 2 would result in a hodgepodge of setbacks. If all the underlying were followed, R -2 next to R -1, next to R -3 would change the setbacks from 40 feet to 50 feet to 30 feet. In Alternative 1, by measuring the setback from the centerline of the road, which still results in a setback greater than the underlying zoning, it is more in keeping with the actual development pattern that currently exists. If this change is made, the Village would be offering some redevelopment opportunities for some of the older homes that currently encroach into this extraordinary setback. At the previous meetings, several people spoke in favor of this change. The Zoning Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC) looked at all of the major roadways to see if there were any other opportunities or any other situations that need to be addressed and this one is the only area where there is conflict. The recommendation is for that portion of York Road south of Oak Brook Road, the setback on York Road be measured from the centerline of the road. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes February 6, 2001 9 Member Shah questioned the effect of this change. Director of Community Development Kallien said that as it relates to Christ Church, it will really give them another fifty feet. In most cases there are still some properties that if there would be a tear down, even with the new setback, there still may be a need for a variation. Those would be handled on a case by case basis and would have to meet all the factors contained in the Code. 13- 3 -6 -B. Delete "courts" in regard to permitted encroachments into yards. "Courts" in the Ordinance does not relate to something in the legal system or the end of a cul de sac. This provision says that certain encroachments could be made into the courtyard. The Village Attorney has indicated that if it is anywhere in the buildable area, you should be able to build. They could not come up with any viable reason to keep this provision in the Zoning Ordinance. 13- 3 -6 -B. Recommend a proposal to permit solid six -foot (6) fences where a residential district abuts a non - residential district or corporate limits of the Village. Oak Brook currently allows 42 -inch high fences and 50% open if they are located at the property perimeter. A caveat has been added that would permit six -foot high solid fences under the following conditions: For those properties that abut the municipal boundaries of the Village, where the property backs up to another municipality; or For those residential properties that abut non - residential properties. The Plan Commission thought this was reasonable, but the discussion went on as to whether or not to consider screening the backs of yards from major roadways. That was not the intention of the proposal. It would create a "fence tunnel" on both sides of the roadway. This would be contrary to what Oak Brook is about, however, this concept is appropriate where residential developments abut commercial areas to provide a little more screening. 13- 3 -7 -D. Clarify the timeframe habitable vehicles can be parked or stored on a property to three consecutive days. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the text of the Ordinance only addresses three days. It was believed that by adding "consecutive" gives it additional controls especially when enforcement is initiated. This is still difficult to enforce, because people can move it for an hour then move it back, but at least it gives the Village some opportunity to add to our enforcement capability of that provision. It is not a major problem in the community. 13 -3 -8. The original section which pertained to sewerage and water systems is deleted from the Zoning Ordinance because it exists in the Village's Public Works Construction Standards. The Village has a Public Works Construction Standards Code and they want to try to keep the things that relate to that in that part of the Village Code. 13 -3 -9. The original section which pertains to types of permits associated with special uses is deleted as it is addressed in other sections of the Ordinance. There is some language that relates to zoning certificates and things that are to be issued for special uses. The Village Attorney could find no record where this was applicable. 13 -3 -8. Originally 13 -3 -10, recommend deleting specific exceptions to our height requirements including smokestacks, silos and storage hoppers. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes February 6, 2001 10 Director of Community Development Kallien stated that these types of uses are really not appropriate in Oak Brook's development scheme and should be deleted. 13 -3 -9. Originally 13 -3 -11, recommend including a reference to microcells and a clarification that distributing equipment does not include cellular telephone towers and ancillary equipment. At the southeast corner of 22nd Street and Route 83 there is a pole with a small 3 or 4 -foot whip antenna that the Village owns. It is used to enhance wireless communications in the area. As technology evolves from the current dishes, there may be a technology out there that uses these whip antennas and locates them on various facilities. This has nothing to do with the large dishes or towers. The Village Attorney came up with the following definition for microcells that was recommended for approval by the Plan Commission: "Microcell — A wireless communication facility consisting of an antenna that is either a: four (4) feet in height and with an area of not more than five hundred eight (580) square inches, or; b: If a tubular antenna no more than four inches (4) inches in diameter and no more than six (6) feet in length in the associated equipment cabinet that is six (6) feet or less in height and no more than forty - eight (48) square feet in floor area." 13 -3 -11. Clarifies the screening requirements for rooftop mechanical equipment. These provisions will require that all mechanicals be completely screened in a manner that is consistent to the design and materials found in the principal building. The language currently says that rooftop mechanicals must be screened from any visual appearance or right of way, but it makes sense to have them screened entirely. This amendment strengthens our ordinance requirements. 13 -3 -14. Recommend a decrease in the minimum parcel size from two (2) acres to one (1) acre for driveway gates. Several inquiries have been made from residents concerning a desire to construct driveway gates on parcels that are at least one (1) acre in size. Director of Community Development Kallien explained that this issue is regarding driveway gates and said that it seems reasonable to include R -2 properties, which are large 1 -acre parcels. Several requests have been received to allow driveway gates on properties that have a minimum of one acre. It may be appropriate to extend it to properties one acre in size with certain caveats that for properties that are on local streets the gates be located no closer than twenty feet from the edge of pavement and for non -local streets, that distance be increased to thirty feet. The Plan Commission in their recommendation directed Village Engineer Durfey to come up with some definition as to what local and non -local streets are. They have developed a map that basically the non -local streets are those that are arterial or those that are collector streets, which is a common sense approach. The Board could direct the streets be listed as part of a recommendation, or Village Engineer Durfey to make that recommendation. The driveway gate provision would apply generally to properties that are zoned R -1 or R -2 and have a minimum 1 -acre lot. It does provide some new opportunities for some properties. The way the Ordinance is now written they would be required to seek a variation, and the standards for hardship are very difficult to prove. 13 -3 -16. Recommend creating language to permit temporary buildings, structures and uses of land for a time period of up to six (6) months with conditions. Currently, these types of activities cannot be accommodated. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 11 ��il February 6, 2001 After discussing this issue with ZORC, the recommendation is that this language is not needed here, it will be handled through some other mechanism and request that this item be dropped from consideration. 13 -3 -17. Recommend creating language to permit telecommunications towers on any Village owned property except property zoned CR Conservation /Recreation. Currently, new telecommunications towers are not permitted. Currently, we do not allow freestanding cellular towers in Oak Brook. There is no provision for them. All of the Village's cellular service is really derived from small antenna and dishes that are placed on top of the taller buildings along the corporate corridor or on towers that are in adjacent communities. Village Attorney Martens has suggested that to adhere to the Telecommunications Act, which says that you must provide some reasonable accommodation, he felt it would not be unreasonable to allow cellular antenna towers to be located on village owned properties. After reviewing these properties, it was decided that residential sites were not appropriate. The sites that were determined to be acceptable for the Village to use are as follows: 1. Village Commons — 1200 Oak Brook Road 2. Fire Station #2 — 22 "d Street and Enterprise Drive 3. Well House #2 — Windsor Drive and 1 -88. 4. Water Storage Tank — Tower Drive For a telecommunications tower to be located on any site in the Village, they need to work out a lease agreement with the Village Board. Member Ascher questioned whether the locations determined to be acceptable would satisfy the requirements of the Telecommunications Act. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the Village Attorney believes that it goes beyond what the Village currently allows, which is none. This proposal provides some reasonable accommodation, and with such a small community and where the sites are located he felt this would meet the test. If someone will come and want to use these sites and work out an arrangement with the Village Board, only time will tell. Chairman Davis added that this could be a revenue source for the Village. Director of Community Development Kallien added that the Telecommunications business is changing such that these kinds of towers may not be needed in the future. Member Zaheer suggested that perhaps a restriction should be placed upon the height and setbacks of these towers. Chairman Davis moved, seconded by Member Mueller to recommend to approve the text amendments for Chapter 3 of the Zoning Ordinance as presented by Director of Community Development Kallien. The proposed text amendments have also been addressed by the Plan Commission. The public hearing will remain open to begin discussion on the review of Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 - Adrian, Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Aldini Motion Carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes February 6, 2001 12 121& V11. ADJOURNMENT Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Mueller to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ,. en? Director of CommuCyoKevelopment Secretary March 6, 2001 Date Approved ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes February 6, 2001 13