Loading...
Minutes - 03/07/2006 - Zoning Board of AppealsMINUTES OF THE MARCH 7, 2006 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON APRIL 4, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Champ Davis in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:34 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members, Baker Nimry, Jeffrey Bulin, Glenn Krietsch, Manu Shah and Steven Young ABSENT: Member Richard Ascher IN ATTENDANCE: Robert Sanford, Trustee, Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development, Dale Durfey, Village Engineer Chairman Davis revised the order of the meeting agenda. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7 2006 Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry, to approve the minutes of the February 7, 2006 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to discuss. 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. KARIOTIS — 12 NATOMA COURT — VARIATION — TO ALLOW THE KARIOTIS - 12 NATOMA COURT CONSTRUCTION OF A LOOP DRIVEWAY. - VARIATION - DRIVEWAY Chairman Davis swore in David Kennedy, PPKS Architects, representing the property owner, Mr. Kariotis in his variation request. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 18 March 7, 2006 Mr. Kennedy provided the Zoning Board written approval from Old Oak Brook architectural review committee for the requested driveway. He said that they are seeking to install a circular turn - around drive for the home at 12 Natoma Court. Two variations have been requested. 1. To decrease the required minimum distance between driveways of approximately 102 feet to 72.6 feet, based on the distance of the lot line and the 40% distance requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. To decrease the minimum distance between the actual driveway and the lot line adjoining the street on Natoma Drive, which is to the east of the property. They are requesting a 46.4 -foot offset where the Code would require 20% of the distance of the front lot line, which would be approximately 50.98 feet. He reviewed the reasons for the request. The plat of survey shows that the lot, which is on a cul -de -sac, has a very irregular shaped corner. The geometry to enter and exit the driveway was somewhat complicated because they wanted to keep the drive on Natoma Court as opposed to locating it on the cul de sac itself. There is a single driveway located on the west side of the house that is set back quite a bit from Natoma Drive. They are trying to keep the driveway on the west side close to its existing location. They have placed the drive on the left to allow for adequate turning as well as trying to maintain two existing trees on the lot, and to place the driveway between those trees. If it were moved further to the west it would meet the ordinance and the setback off of Natoma Drive, but they would have to remove at least one of the two trees. The homeowner is sensitive to trying to keep as many of the trees on the lot as possible. The overall scope of the project is an overall interior renovation with the addition of the driveway. The distance between the first driveway and Natoma Drive is primarily an issue of maintaining an existing tree. The distance between the two driveways is to maintain the existing curb cut and it would be very awkward to exit the driveway and face right into the center island of the cul de sac. They feel that the hardship is the unique size and shape of the lot. He responded to the standards for the variation as follows: 1. a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if it is permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located. RESPONSE: Although the turn around drive is not critical to the value of the home it is a convenience, enhances the property, and will add some value. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 18 March 7, 2006 1. b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: The front lot dimension is wide enough for an adequate turn around, but the front yard ends in a cul de sac. The driveway would be in an awkward position in relationship with the cul de sac and would somewhat interfere with the neighbor's driveway to the west. In the second variation request, the distance between the right of way and the first drive is also due to unique circumstance and if it were moved further to the west a tree would be removed and would need to be moved a minimal distance in order to meet the ordinance. 1. c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: It will not alter the character of the locality. 2. a. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out. RESPONSE: The hardship is due to the fact that if the driveway were to meet the ordinance two trees would have to be removed, and they feel that a potential hazardous condition would exist if the driveway is exited into a landscaped island and toward the neighbors driveway. 2. b. The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning classification. RESPONSE: This exact condition would not be applicable to other lots in the subdivision, with the exception of the lot directly across the street, which is also on the cul de sac. For the most part, the lots in the subdivision have adequate frontage to do a turn around driveway without interfering with their neighbor's property, the cul -de -sac, and can meet the standard in the ordinance. 2. c. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. RESPONSE: The maneuvering of vehicles would be improved if the variation is granted and there would not be any detriment to the public welfare. 2. d. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RESPONSE: The variation would not alter the supply of light or air to the adjacent property and no dangerous or negative impacts to property values if granted. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 18 March 7, 2006 2. e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property. RESPONSE: The request is for practicality and convenience as well as a desire to save existing trees on the property. 2. f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. RESPONSE: The hardship is due to the existing conditions of the lot, not to any person having an interest in the property. They believe that it is a straightforward request and requested that the Zoning Board will vote in favor of it. Chairman Davis questioned how the neighbors and the homeowner association had been notified of the request. Mr. Kennedy responded that Mr. Kariotis had spoken to a few of the neighbors. All of the neighbors are in the homeowner's association and the matter was discussed at the homeowner association board meeting last week. He submitted a letter from Estella Cronk, the Treasurer of the homeowner association, which stated that they were aware of the variation request, understand the issues with Mr. Kariotis' property, and support the request for the variations. Chairman Davis asked if they had received a copy of the proposed site plan to review. Mr. Kennedy responded that they had. No one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the request. Mr. Nimry questioned if a blind corner would be created by the relocation of the driveway. Mr. Kennedy said that the landscaping plantings would not impact the site. Mr. Bulin said that in the Zoning Ordinance Section 13- 12 -3E.5 states, "... spacing between driveway entrance and right -of -way line of an adjacent intersecting street (measured from the nearest edge of the driveway pavement at its intersection with the street pavement to the nearest right -of -way line, extended, of an adjacent intersecting street): no less than twenty percent (20 %) of the length of the lot line adjoining the street being entered...." not from the center, which is what, is shown on the proposed site plan. The measurement of the 46.4 is from the right of way to the center of the driveway and the ordinance states it should be to the nearest edge of the driveway. Mr. Kennedy said that as they worked with the Village and reviewed the Code they knew that they needed a variation, but they were measuring to the centerline as shown on the plats. They would like to maintain the request as VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 18 March 7, 2006 shown and amend the location of the measurements. Member Bulin noted that the revised measurement is more significant. Chairman Davis asked Village Engineer Durfey for his comments on the matter. Mr. Durfey responded that they looked at the site plan for an initial review and had no objection to the request for a single family home, which does not generate much traffic. He confirmed that Member Bulin did interpret the ordinance correctly. Director of Community Development Kallien said that instead of the 46.4 -foot dimension, for the purpose of the ordinance as it moves forward, the correct dimension should be referenced. Chairman Davis said that the request would be amended to reflect the appropriate dimensions. Chairman Davis said that the variation standards have been addressed in testimony and in writing. Motion by Member Shah, seconded by Member Nimry that the applicant has addressed the required factors in testimony and in writing on pages C -C.1 of the case file and recommend approval of the variation for the property at 12 Natoma Court as amended subject to the following condition: 1. The corrected dimensions are to be added to the Site Plan. 2. To be constructed in substantial conformance with the plan as submitted and amended. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 1 — Member Ascher. Motion Carried. B. CHRIST CHURCH OF OAK BROOK — 501 OAK BROOK ROAD — SPECIAL USE and VARIATION — TO AMEND SPECIAL USE TO ABANDON AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY AT 3202 YORK ROAD AND INSTALL A NEW RIGHT -IN, RIGHT -OUT DRIVEWAY ON OAK BROOK ROAD (31st STREET) AND INSTALL A NEW RIGHT -IN, RIGHT -OUT DRIVEWAY ON YORK ROAD. Chairman Davis swore in all parties representing the petitioner. Mr. Walter Morrissey, Attorney for Christ Church of Oak Brook presented the following for the record: VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 18 March 7, 2006 CHRIST CHURCH OF OAK BROOK — 501 OAK BROOK RD — SU and VAR - 2 NEW RI /RO DRIVEWAYS • A letter from Christ Church of Oak Brook dated December 5, 2005 to the neighbors inviting them to a meeting that was held at the church on December 11, 2005; • a letter dated March 1, inviting the neighbors to a meeting on March 9, 2006. The letters were sent to the neighbors within 250 feet of the outside perimeter of the church property, excluding right of ways. The most recent letter was delivered by hand by Reverend Melvin; and • a color graphic of the property. They are seeking approval to abandon the driveway at 3206 York Road, and to insert a right in/right out driveway that would restrict traffic to exit south on York Road. It would connect to the rear of their south parking lot. The full access of the driveway on York Road and the separation distance between the two driveways would be 250 feet. The Village Code requires that the distance should be 40% or 400 feet of the boundary line, so they are seeking a variance to allow a reduction to 250 feet. The application also includes a right in/right out driveway on Oak Brook Road (31 St Street), and that driveway lines up at the intersection with Lincoln Road and with a parking aisle that is southbound only. It will provide access to the rear of the parking lot. The relocated entrances will allow traffic to enter at the rear of each lot, rather than entering at the front of the church and coming into conflict with the pedestrians, the pick up /drop off area, as well as the handicapped parking. The final variation is for the width of the driveway on Oak Brook Road. The Code requires a width of 47 feet and the proposal is designed to be 72 feet. The reason for the request is to comply with DuPage County Arterial Road Standards. DuPage County has jurisdiction over Oak Brook Road and York Road. DuPage County has issued permit number A042548 to Christ Church of Oak Brook, approving the installation of the two requested right in/right out driveways. They bifurcated their special use application before the Plan Commission. Part of the application was to add a residential lot, which the church owns at 3306 York Road to their special use. They have requested that portion of the application be deferred to the Plan Commission for further review. They have also notified some of the neighbors of this by telephone. They will be having an informal meeting with the neighbors about those issues. Issues before the Plan Commission were as follows: Add a traffic berm on 31s' Street. The church will do what is reasonable in regards to the line of sight and safety issues. They will work out the issues with the neighbors, but it will have to be subject to County approval. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 18 March 75 2006 Traffic volume will be the same. They are dividing the traffic into two access points on York Road and Oak Brook Road. York Road does start to narrow at their first access point. They are requesting to abandon the driveway at 3202 York; and are seeking to add a right in/right out drive toward the rear entrance of the south parking lot. The entrance will reduce the amount of conflict in the south parking by directing vehicles away from the handicapped parking and pedestrians in the front of the church and will reduce the amount of traffic coming in. The traffic volumes will not increase. Traffic will be restricted by allowing right out only. The internal traffic flow will be improved. There is an addendum attached to the application that addresses the standards as required by ordinance for the variations. Raymond Fylstra, Trustee, Christ Church of Oak Brook and the Chair of the Facilities Committee. The Facilities Committee is responsible for the buildings and grounds for the church. He has been a member of the church since 1981. Christ Church has been a member of the Oak Brook community for over 40 years, founded in 1965 by 5 local families. They issued a call to Reverend Arthur DeKruyter to start a new church in Oak Brook. He oversaw the church as its original and senior pastor for over 30 years. The Butler School gymnasium was used by the church until 1968, when its new sanctuary was completed. Paul Butler donated the property on the corner of York Road and 31" to the church. Christ Church has in excess of 500 members that are Oak Brook residents. The total membership is approximately 5000 and the worshipping congregation on Sunday is approximately 2000. The church is a regional church, and many that attend live within 5 to 6 miles. It is not just a neighborhood church, which can be said of the Village itself. There are 8000- 9000 residents, but 80,000- 90,000 people come to the Village every day to work or enjoy the , Village and we do not refuse to provide for those traffic needs because they do not live here. They feel the same way about those that come to the church on Sunday. They feel they have presented a well justified application that is intended to divide the existing traffic, among 4 driveways instead of 2, to reduce some congestion and allow more convenient access to the back of the parking lots for people who do not need to drive up near the building to drop someone off or use the handicapped spaces. The church is willing to put in as much landscaping on 31" as the village desires, consistent with safety. They believe the new entrance on 31St Street will also provide better fire department access and will improve the circulation of traffic on site. They had a meeting with the neighbors in December, which was sparsely attended; and are having another meeting on March 9, which was at the suggestion of the Plan Commission. Over the years, Christ Church has made its facilities available to VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 18 March 7, 2006 community groups and has made its parking lot available to individuals who need overflow parking for one reason or another. They have accommodated businesses that need overflow parking and provide parking when there are events at the Sports Core or the Polo Field. With the existing configuration, they have noticed when the lot is used for purposes like the soccer fields, people park in the back of the lot. Since there is not a control point for them to focus themselves when they cross 31s' Street, they climb over the berm, from wherever they are and swarm across the road in all different places, which is a safety issue. If the driveway is located there, it is a natural place for people to go, if they are trying to cross the road. They intend to keep making their facilities available for those that need them. Member Krietsch said that the eastern most entrance and exit will still have a westbound exit and the traffic exiting the new location on 31" will be directed toward the traffic heading westbound, which does not occur today. Mr. Fylstra responded that they will still have traffic officers directing traffic on Sunday that would control the traffic exiting to make a left turn. They have approximately 500 -700 cars in the lot on Monday and Wednesday evenings. Member Nimry questioned how many neighbors were sent letters from the church. Mr. Fylstra responded approximately 45, which were all those within 250 feet of the church property. Member Bulin noted that about 10 trees would be removed. Mr. Fylstra responded that 2 trees have already been moved. The trees were not cut down; they were good trees and were moved elsewhere. Member Nimry asked why the parking lot was moved far west on 31 St St. Mr. Fylstra responded that the County wanted the driveway across from Lincoln Road and it aligns with an aisle in the parking lot that is already southbound. Member Young asked what kind of growth they are expecting at the church. Mr. Fylstra said that they do not have any target to increase the number of members. Member Young asked if a capacity study had been done on how utilized the parking lots are during the services. Mr. Fylstra said that some services are at 80 %. On certain holidays, such as Easter and Christmas, they are at capacity, but that is not every Sunday. They have 3 services on Sunday morning at 8:30, 10:00, and 11:30 with two evening services. The most popular is the 10:00 and then the 8:30. They have a 5:30 p.m. celebration service that is attended by 100 -200 people. They have a later contemplative service, which is rarely VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 18 March 7, 2006 attended by 100 people. Their peak time is the half -hour is between the conclusion of the 8:30 service, which is around 9:30 a.m. and the beginning of the 10:00 a.m. service. Member Bulin asked if any pedestrian crosswalk along the driveway would be added at the new driveway, so that people are not dumped into the new drive path. Mr. Fylstra said that if a crosswalk needs to be added, they would need permission to do it. People already park there with or without permission, and currently climb over the landscape, then dart out onto Oak Brook Road, which sometimes occurs during services with traffic flowing in. Member Bulin said that being a good neighbor and knowing that pedestrians cross there, it may be the appropriate thing to do. Mr. Fylstra responded that if that is a desirable request, they would commit to do it, but it may require a wider cut. Member Young asked if lighting was being added and the response was that no additional lighting would be added. Mr. David Melvin, Executive Director of Ministry Services, Christ Church said that when people use the parking lot, they are asked to bring their own traffic control, which is usually some civilians that help direct the traffic inside. They have also retained the services of a policeman or county sheriff. They would especially ask those that use the new entrance, to have it manned, because they would expect that people would be crossing there. He said that there is usually post- modern worship service on Sunday night, for the younger generation. It is not held regularly, but it does happen often, especially going into Easter week. He has held his position at the church for 2 years. His responsibilities are not the normal ones for a minister. He oversees the accounting and finance, facilities, operations, communications and media. He works closely with the trustees and the committees. It is his responsibility to execute the will of the congregation. Decisions are based on goals of ministry ideas. They approached the Village last year about these ideas and possibilities. They were informed to contact their neighbors, which they were happy to do. They received their list of 45 neighbors that were within the 250 feet, and sent them a letter on December 5, 2005. The letter stated very clearly what they were planning to do; and invited them to attend a meeting on December 12 to talk through any concerns. Only Mike and Patrice Macken attended the meeting. They gave him copies of the plans so that it could be copied and shared with his neighbors in Robin Hood Ranch. He received a written response from their neighbor Arlene Birkhahn, who resides immediately to the south of the church, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 18 March 75 2006 at the corner of York Road and Robin Hood Ranch. He also received a letter of support from John Romanelli after meeting with him. He owns the property just east of their current York Road exit. They also received a letter from the Forest Preserve District. On March 3, 2006, a letter and invitation was sent to the neighbors in Robin Hood Ranch and the Westchester Park Subdivision. He also spoke with Linda Lojewski who expressed frustration that she had not been contacted earlier. He either personally met with the neighbors, or if they were not home, put them in their door, if no one answered. He received 11 responses so far, with 8 planning to attend the meeting on March 9, 2006. He talked with neighbors to the north of the church that were supportive of the request. He spoke with neighbors on Coolidge that liked what the church was doing. They do have a goal at Christ Church and it has nothing to do with growing their congregation. Their goal is to have 75% of their worshipping congregation involved in small groups. They see the most growth in someone when they develop relationships with people. He said that he was born in 1959 and lived at 324 Oak Brook Road for 23 years. He remembers when the area of Christ Church and York Woods were open fields. He felt crushed when houses in that area and the church were being built. He had the opportunity last fall to interview the Reverend Arthur DeKruyter, who made it clear that Christ Church was meant to be a neighborhood church, but Oak Brook was a regional community. They made a conscious effort in Oak Brook, as part of Paul Butler's vision, to reach out to the larger Chicagoland area. They have 5,000 members and 500 of those are Oak Brook residents. Most churches in America are under 500 members. They are a good -sized community. He invited everyone to attend the upcoming church services. Chairman Davis asked what was going to be discussed at the meeting; and whether they were going to be discussing the conditions from the Plan Commission. He questioned what benefit it would be to discuss them after this hearing. Mr. Melvin responded that they want to have a full airing of all the issues that are before the Village. He said that they would be working through the whole process, as well as the building permitting process. Richard Allison, 31 Robin Hood Ranch asked Mr. Melvin if they were looking to increase participation growth by 75 %, and the congregation has 5,000 members and only 2,400 actively participate, wouldn't that increase the car traffic by 50% of its current levels. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 18 March 7, 2006 Mr. Melvin responded that it would not. They are trying to encourage those that have made a weekly commitment by coming to church, to be involved in small groups and to interact with a couple other people. They are not interested in bringing in more people and taking their money. They are more committed to growing those who already attend, to make them more of a value to the community, which is the social fabric of our area. Patrice Macken, 4 Robin Hood Ranch questioned the average attendance on Sunday. Mr. Melvin responded that it was between 2400 and 3000 on Sunday. Chairman Davis asked if the traffic would be increased. Mr. Melvin responded that it would not. Mr. Morrissey said that the amended application has an addendum addressing each of the factors. The church would take into consideration the pedestrian access, as described by Member Bulin; and would incorporate it into any final design work. The church voluntarily withdrew the request to add one of the residential lots. The discussion with the neighbors will be as narrow or as far ranging, as the neighbors want it to be. Member Krietsch question what kind of hardship would be imposed if the request were continued until after the church had an opportunity to meet with the neighbors. Mr. Morrissey responded that the concern of the Plan Commission was not the right in/right out request, aside from the landscaping on 31" Street, which the church has committed to do whatever, is reasonable, suitable, and appropriate within the safety standards. The issue was whether the church had a massive growth plan. The church has testified that they are not. He believes the neighbors are going to ask what is going to happen to the two parcels of property to the south of the church. He does not see anything material coming out of the meeting regarding the two driveways. Mr. Krietsch commented that the church could not state, with certainty, what the resident comments would be as to entrance and exit of the driveways. Mike Macken, 4 Robin Hood Ranch questioned if it has always been 5,000 members. Chairman Davis said that the matters before the Zoning Board of Appeals relates to the traffic and how it is controlled. Member Young said that the traffic study was based on the peak service on Sunday, so they do not know what the traffic would be if the other services VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 18 March 7, 2006 were included in the study. Jennifer Mitchell, Civil Engineer, Metro Transportation said that generally you look at a peak hour for impacts on roadways, so they chose the peak service, which is 10:00 a.m. on Sunday. Member Young asked what the impact would be if the other 4 services were included in the study. Ms. Mitchell responded that generally they look at the peak hour for impacts on roadways. They do not cumulatively add up the services for impacts on the roadway. Member Young asked what the current average time was to exit the parking lot. Ms. Mitchell responded that without any of the recommended changes, at the 31s' Street and the church access, it would be 35 seconds or longer. He questioned how that would be improved, if the improvements were made. She responded that it could reduce it to 20 -25 seconds, per location. The purpose of the changes is to really disperse the traffic and the impact on the locations. Ms. Mitchell addressed the following concerns that were raised. • The reasoning for the plan. She used as an example that when people go to the movie theatre, they all access one location and when they leave their cars, it is a mass direction of pedestrian flow towards the building. As the lot on the church exists today, the access points direct the vehicles towards where the pedestrians are walking. One of the issues is to separate the users and how they are getting into the facility and into the building. Adding the right in/right out accesses, directs the vehicles into the back of the facility. The parking is then front loaded towards the back, so that everyone pulls far forward to the front to park. It fills in from the front to the back, it then reduces the pedestrian and vehicular conflicts, because the vehicles are entering from the rear and the pedestrians are walking toward the building as they exit the vehicles. They want to separate the users on how they get into the facility and how they get into the building. • 31St Street location. The reason the entrance was placed at the far western edge of the lot on 31St Street is to reduce a potential conflict for vehicles turning left to go west, from the eastern full access driveway. There is stopping sight distance requirements, which they are meeting, so that if a vehicle were exiting the new right out toward the east, the vehicle attempting to head west from the full access driveway, has time to visualize and assess how fast the oncoming vehicle is traveling, and whether they have time to cross the roadway. It is located at the far western edge of the property because DuPage County Department of Transportation required lining it opposite the existing intersection. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 18 March 7, 2006 Lincoln Road is a full access, which allows left turns. Having them lined opposite each other allows everyone to identify their proper right of way. The access aisle entering the site from the western entrance is a southbound aisle, so when people enter the lot, there is no decision making to turn left or right, you must go straight in and then turn left or right at the end of the aisle. • Wednesday night service traffic. The street peak hours are between 4 to 6 p.m. The church peak hour does not occur during the same peak hour, it occurs after 7 p.m. The Wednesday night activities may have a high peak usage at the site, but the street traffic is much lower than the normal peak hour, so the conflict is not as great as if it were occurring in a peak hour. • Parking lot study. They did not do a study, however she did do a quick overview of the site plan. The western lot has approximately 500 parking spaces. The southeastern lot has approximately 200 spaces. The Sunday peak service had approximately 500 vehicles entering the lot so there was more than adequate parking. The other services have less traffic so the parking is never at full capacity. Member Nimry asked where the bulk of the traffic is. Ms. Mitchell responded that it is slightly more on 31St Street. On Sunday, there were approximately 270 vehicles on 31St Street and 220 on York Road. Chairman Davis said that it was his understanding that the applicant is requesting the proposed improvements to help improve internal traffic flow; and that the external traffic flow is not negatively impacted by the improvements. Whether or not the requested improvements are approved, nothing will change with respect to the external traffic flow. Ms. Mitchell agreed. Ms. Mitchell pointed out that at the end of a church service, everyone does not leave as quickly as when they come into the facility. In their traffic study, they observed that when people are exiting, it is more equally spaced over the hour than when people are entering the site, which is a peak half hour of vehicles entering the facility. The conflicts are not as great for the right turn exit onto 31" Street toward those making a left hand turn to go west. Also, during heavy volume times on Sunday, there is a police officer controlling the gaps that are created for the vehicles to turn. Bernie Chow, 20 Robin Hood Ranch asked for clarification of the traffic pattern from the southeast lot on York Road. Ms. Mitchell responded that the purpose of the driveway is to prevent people from turning right at the north location on VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 18 March 7, 2006 York Road, so that they enter the lot from the southern right -in drive, so that the parking lot is filled in front to back. There will still be some right turns at the first location, because some will be using the handicapped parking or to drop someone off in front of the church. The purpose is to reduce the amount of traffic from the front, so while the pedestrians are walking toward the church, they are not walking into cross traffic. They have identified that about 70% of the traffic would utilize the southern exit onto York Road. John Romanelli, 3121 York Road said that his property is directly across York Road. He asked if the officers would still be used at both York Road and 31St Street. Ms. Mitchell responded that they would be in place at the full access driveways only. Chairman Davis questioned what would induce the use of the southernmost right in. Ms. Mitchell responded that it would be the ease in entering the lot because traffic backs up at the northern entrance. There is an officer that currently controls the traffic at the intersection in the parking lot, due to all the conflicts that presently occur. Since traffic backs up, people would want to use the southernmost entrance, so they are not delayed in entering the facility. Member Young questioned Engineer Durfey whether the proposed changes would create drainage or runoff problems into the parking lot. Village Engineer Durfey responded that it would not. Mr. Morrissey said that the growth of the church has been static or flat since 1995 and has not grown dramatically. This was in answer to an earlier question. Mr. Richard Allison, 31 Robin Hood Ranch said that he and his wife have been residents for 35 years and he is the president of the Robin Hood Ranch Homeowner Association, which is a group of approximately 30 homes and was asked by those residents to address the board with a few thoughts. The church has been a wonderful neighbor and he has never seen traffic as an issue under its current conditions. He said that he does have a pet peeve with signage. He said that it was testified that there would be signage next to the relocated driveways. There are approximately 76 signs on York Road between 31 St Street and Ogden Avenue. The County has placed 7 six -foot bright yellow stanchions indicating one curve. As a point of clarification, Mr. Vokaty, who lives on Lincoln Road, was upset because at the Plan Commission meeting, he had been told by the church that there would be a berm and extensive landscaping on the north side of the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 18 March 7, 2006 church facing their homes on Lincoln. The reason that some of the Robin Hood Ranch residents are concerned and why the application was bifurcated at the Plan Commission was a question over one of the church owned parcels being added to its special use. Unbeknownst to the residents of Robin Hood Ranch the church has accelerated its growth by purchasing 4 lots over the last decade. There were 4 homes on those lots, now 2 have been torn down. The area was originally zoned residential. The last church owned lot to the south of the church abuts 3 homes in Robin Hood Ranch. The problem has been the lack of communication by the church. Recently, there has been some effort by Reverend Melvin to interact with some of the neighbors. Prior to that they only followed the letter of the law by contacting only specific homes within 250 feet of the church, which did not tell much to the residents of Robin Hood Ranch. Hopefully, the communication record will be improved, however they need more notice. When the church provides such short notice to the residents it gives them the feeling of things being a done deal. Hopefully, there will be more people at the church meeting on March 9. There is no objection to the church request per se, but they would prefer to see the Zoning Board defer voting at this meeting, until information is received relative to the special use petition that is still before the Plan Commission. He questioned if there was no plan for growth, why did they purchase the buildings and seek to add the land to their special use. The lot next to the subdivision is going to effect property values and the church needs to do a better job with communication. Mike Macken, 4 Robin Hood Ranch said that his house is right next to the lot owned by the church. He said that the testimony given regarding 80,000- 90,000 people entering the village each day could be correct, however, certain areas are zoned for that. This area is zoned R -2. The church uses the home on York Road and he said that the home looks the same; the parking has not been expanded and has a modest amount of exterior light. Their lack of plan raises the question. He believes with the way the driveway is proposed on York Road, there must be some type of plan in mind, because you do not cut up your property with driveways. His obvious worry is that the next construction would come closer to his home. Chairman Davis questioned the church's timetable. Mr. Morrissey said that once they have obtained approvals, they would bid the project, because they have not put it out to bid until they have the actual approvals. They are hoping to install the driveways during this construction season before winter. Chairman Davis asked what hardship would be created if the matter were continued. Mr. Morrissey said that it puts them back to seeking bids in May and June, which would add 45 -60 days to their process. He sympathizes with VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 15 of 18 March 7, 2006 Mr. Allison's comments, but the exterior signage is controlled by the County ordinance and the Village controls the interior signage. They will do what is appropriate and mandated by the County. In terms of the 2 lots, there has been a lot of speculation regarding matters that are not in front of the Zoning Board this evening. The 2 residential lots have specifically been deferred to the Plan Commission in order to separate the issues. There is not a secret plan to develop the property and to his understanding the church does not have the funding if they had a plan. They will discuss that at the meeting with the residents. He does not believe anything substantive would come out of the meeting with the neighbors in regards to the issue of the right in/right out driveways. Chairman Davis said there may be a condition imposed for a crosswalk and the request for special use can have conditions imposed. After discussion with the neighbors, it may lead to other appropriate conditions to be included in the special use and it may be helpful to defer the matter Mr. Morrissey noted that the Plan Commission deferred the application in order to give the homeowners a chance to express themselves. It is planned as a meeting with wide -open issues that do not relate to the applications before the Zoning Board. However, they would voluntarily agree to take the suggestion of the board and continue the matter. Chairman Davis polled the board. Member Young agreed and said that he did not believe there was enough traffic study presented, because he was concerned that the additional exits would cause traffic to pour out onto the streets faster, but not really improving traffic flow; and that could possibly cause an external gridlock faster. He asked that they review the loads that would force traffic into a gridlock faster. Specifically, it appears with the new drives traffic can be pushed faster onto the street causing a gridlock faster, but what is being done to improve traffic flow. Ms. Mitchell responded that in general, not specific to this street, the traffic on 31" Street is what is called free flow. There is no stopping traffic on 31" Street, unless a police officer is there to control it, at an appropriate gap. Whenever an analysis is done, for the existing driveway, the delay that occurs is to the driveway not the through traffic, because they have the right of way. In the traffic study, table 3 called "capacity analysis summary" there are 5 different locations where they did existing and future conditions with the reassigned right in/right out. She reviewed the table. She said that free flow does not get impacted, what gets impacted is the traffic exiting the site with either by an increased or decreased delay, dependent upon the gaps that occur on 31 st Street. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 16 of 18 March 7, 2006 There is no impact on the through traffic, and it cannot be exhibited any other way than how it is shown. The police officers will be present with or without the right in/right out driveways. Chairman Davis requested that any suggestions made by the homeowners at the meeting with the church, would be discussed at the next meeting. Chairman Davis asked about the timing of the application before the Village Board. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that this matter was anticipated to be before the Village Board at its April 1 It" meeting. If there are no issues remaining, it would be possible to still be on that agenda. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in this case, there is a fundamental issue that should not be overlooked. York Road and 31 St Street are county roads and both of them are fully improved for the future. The most that would be improved on York would possibly be a turn lane added where deemed appropriate. The County has granted the church approval for these new access points. They have a very sophisticated process that they go through. There are engineers and studies are reviewed when they do their analysis. He questioned Village Engineer Durfey that some of the concerns with overloading the road or queuing is taken into consideration by the County prior to approval. Village Engineer Durfey said that they do. Director of Community Development Kallien said that instead of having the applicant do additional studies, perhaps the engineer should get verification from the county that states they have reviewed this. In terms of use, the church is not adding any additional traffic, it will be moved around differently. It will not increase or decrease by the proposed change. If the special use is amended to increase the use, then we will need to review the capacity of the roads and the accesses. The existing access points were located properly when the church was very small, now the church is grown and their only alternative, outside of relocating the church to a central location on the site, is to look at additional access or modified access, which is what they are doing. Ms. Mitchell added that she respects the concerns of the board, and as a traffic engineer she is concerned with traffic impacts. She stated that this traffic study was submitted to DuPage County and reviewed, which is what they based their approval on. If they did not agree with the content in the report and the capacity issues, they would not approve the proposed accesses. It was approved based on the same information provided to them and to the Village. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 17 of 18 March 7, 2006 no 7. Member Krietsch said that the open issue is what the impact is on the Village and what the residents have to say, and then the evidence is weighed. Chairman Davis noted that with respect to the traffic, it appears that further studies do not need to be undertaken, but after the meeting with the homeowners, if any other conditions are brought up that may be appropriate to the special use would be discussed at the next meeting. Motion by Member Krietsch, seconded by Member Nimry to continue the public hearing of the proposed special use and variation to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on April 4, 2006, VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS: OTHER BUSINESS There was a brief discussion on rescheduling the July 4, 2006 meeting, which RESCHEDULE JULY will be added to the agenda and addressed at the next meeting. 4, 2006 MEETING There was no other business to discuss. ADJOLT,NMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Nirnry to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carved. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, for of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE Or OAK BROOK. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 18 of 18 March 7, 2006