Loading...
Minutes - 04/02/2002 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK SPECIAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES April 2, 2002 L CALL TO ORDER The special meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Members MEMBERS ABSENT: Member ALSO PRESENT: Village Trustee Director of Community Development Village Attorney A quorum was present. Champ Davis Richard Ascher George Mueller Manu Shah Ayesha Zaheer Louis Aldini Alfred Savino Robert Kallien Richard Martens Il. CONSIDERATION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Chairman Davis noted that this special meeting is for comprehensive amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Village Attorney Martens said that at the March 5, 2002 meeting the proposed amendments to the Board's Rules of Procedure were reviewed. There are rules in place and the existing rules provide that the Board can only receive amendments to its rules at a meeting then act on the proposed amendments at a subsequent meeting. The only change from the previous draft of March 5, 2002, was in Section 11.2 (page 7) about notices, where the language was conformed to the same language used in the Plan Commission rules, where the tax assessors records are used for notice purposes. The two substantive changes to the proposed rules are as follows: 1. Conduct of the Hearing. The Village of Lisle case (i.e., Meijer) where as the law is today in Illinois, administrative bodies such as the Zoning Board of Appeals, are required to allow cross - examination. It is currently before the Illinois Supreme Court and a contrary opinion may come from them, however that is the status of the issue. SPECIAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes April 2, 2002 1 ZBA- MTG.2002 -APR 2. Section 13.5 addresses the vote. It takes four affirmative votes of the Board, whether or not there are vacancies to offer a positive recommendation on a request. This situation came up in the February meeting, with a matter that is now up for reconsideration. There was a three to one vote, and it was suggested that it would be best to allow the absent members to review the tapes so that any applicant has at least a fair chance to get four affirmative votes. If there were only four members present it would have to be unanimous, which makes it difficult, especially when there are vacancies. Chairman Davis asked if the Board should wait until the Supreme Court rules. Attorney Martens answered that the Board should move ahead, because it is the law today and the applicants should be afforded that opportunity. Chairman Davis asked what they should do if the Supreme Court reverses the decision. Attorney Martens answered the rules could be amended in whatever fashion the court would recommend. Chairman Davis said there is a reference to reviewing the tape or transcript and asked if it should be changed to minutes of the meeting. Attorney Martens said that the statute refers to the transcript. Chairman Davis asked for the Board's purpose, would the minutes constitute transcript? Attorney Martens said that the tape should be the option used. Chairman Davis asked if the minutes are a transcription of the tape, someone could review them. Attorney Martens said that if the minutes are a transcription of the tape that would work depending upon the level of detail in the minutes. Chairman Davis said that the Board' s minutes are kept in fairly good detail. Member Ascher asked what the process is in other communities. Attorney Martens said that they were based on his experience in Oak Park from the early 1990's. A number of communities were canvassed prior to amendment to the Plan Commission rules. The statute referred to is the zoning enabling act, which is part of the municipal code and is specifically about zoning. Director of Community Development Kallien said in Naperville, they used the tape itself. The only exception to that would be when a court reporter prepared a certified transcription done for very complex cases. Member Ascher said that in the unforeseen circumstance where the Board would be reduced to four, what would the proposed text mean on ruling on any matters. Attorney Martens said if there were only four members present, there needs to be a unanimous vote of four. If the vote were 3 to 1 in support of the proposal, it would automatically be continued to the next meeting to allow the absent member(s) to listen to the tape or read the transcript. If they come back at the next meeting and state they have done one of the two, then they can vote. The minutes of the first meeting would reflect a 3 to 1 vote, and under the boards rules it would automatically be continued to the next meeting. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Shah to approve the comprehensive amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Zoning Board of Appeals as submitted and revised. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Aldini Motion Carried. SPECIAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 2 ZBA- MTG.2002 -APR April 2, 2002 Ill. ADJOURNMENT Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Zaheer to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 7:18 p.m. C Director of Comm nity De opment Secretary May 7, 2002 Date Approved SPECIAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes April 2, 2002 3 ZBA- MTG.2002 -APR VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES April 2, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. Il. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Members Member Village Trustee Director of Community Development Village Attorney Champ Davis Richard Ascher George Mueller Manu Shah Ayesha Zaheer Louis Aldini Alfred Savino Robert Kallien Richard Martens Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Zaheer, to waive the reading of the March 5, 2002 regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. III. 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 Chairman Davis swore in the petitioner, Michael Palazzetti, Program Services Division Manager, Forest Preserve District of DuPage County. Mr. Palazzetti said that he oversees the educational /recreational facilities throughout the county for the Forest Preserve. A full presentation was made at the February meeting, although it appears there may have been some misunderstanding of what was actually presented. Since 1996 there has been a special use permit for the operation of the cultural and educational facility, which is in the mansion area. It was originally approved through the Mayslake Landmark Conservancy. The very first special use permit allowed the programming within the facility as long as they achieved occupancy for the mansion within two years. The problem was that they were unable to get the public into the mansion, or interested enough to provide the monies that were necessary for the ADA and Life Safety measures. It is difficult for a not - for - profit group (Mayslake Conservancy to get monies for these things, because they believe that is the property owners' responsibility. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -APR April 2, 2002 Approximately two years ago the Forest Preserve District had determined that it was their responsibility. At that time they took over the operation and have been proceeding with the project to provide the required ADA and Life Safety for that facility. It was accomplished with the assistance of a grant from the Illinois Preservation Society who consulted with them and recommended that they did not put public washrooms in the historic structure. The washrooms were moved into the 1950's portion of the building. Once they were well into the plan, they discovered that the original boundaries of the special use ended right at the mansion. They are seeking an amendment to add the area of the retreat wing, that includes the breezeway (which provides ADA access), the foyer, and the two public washrooms. Since the last meeting, they have had final inspections with the Oak Brook Fire Department and as a result, the County approved the mansion for occupancy in the licensed area. Chairman Davis said that he was absent at the February 5, 2002 presentation of this matter and has reviewed the transcript and is prepared to vote in the reconsideration of this matter. Member Zaheer said that she was also absent at the February 5, 2002 presentation, has heard the tapes, and is prepared to vote in the reconsideration of this matter. Member Ascher said that the Village has granted 6 extensions to the special use permit and he believes that it has now expired. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Forest Preserve District did request a continuance, which was granted by the Board of Trustees and expires on April 15, 2002. The expiration date was for the Forest Preserve District to be granted occupancy for the structure. Once the occupancy has been granted, there is no longer an expiration date for the special use. Chairman Davis asked if occupancy of the structure is based upon Village approval of this request. Director of Community Development Kallien said that they have received occupancy for meeting ADA and Life Safety issues, however, the required Life Safety washrooms are outside the parameters of the approved special use, so they have the difficulty of getting to something that is critical to the operation of the facility. Mr. Palazzetti said that the paperwork had been prepared for hearing, prior to the special use expiring, however, there was a problem having a quorum over the holiday season, so the 60 -day extension was approved to allow adequate time for review by the boards. When the Mayslake Conservancy started the special use, they were given two years to obtain occupancy, they received two one -year extensions. The Forest Preserve District then came in and obtained a one -year extension, along with the additional 60 -day extension. The Forest Preserve had to take over in order to generate the funds to do the Life Safety and ADA, because the Mayslake Conservancy could not earn the monies to provide for the project. The project has been completed and they have the occupancy permit required by the special use. At this point, they are seeking approval to allow for the extension of the area approved by the special use, so that the public washrooms can be used. It is a historic structure, so they did not want to overly modify the structure to provide ADA access. Chairman Davis clarified that the request is simply to expand the geographical area covered by Special Use Ordinance S -841. Mr. Palazzetti agreed. He said that in order for the public to get inside the mansion to utilize the programs that were part of the Special Use, they need permission to enter through the breezeway and to have public washrooms that are ADA accessible. Mr. Palazzetti said that originally the retreat wing was going to be removed. After numerous meetings, and changes in board members, it was decided that it would be saved. They have been ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes April 2, 2002 2 ZBA- MTG.2002 -APR working for approximately two years formulating some kind of program and plan to get it through their various political boards in order to put together a request to Oak Brook. They will be meeting with the Trinity Lakes Homeowners Association in May, and then they will bring it through the Village for permission. Member Ascher said that the reason he was opposed to it in February and will probably be opposed to it again is that his remembrance of the whole situation was that the referendum in Oak Brook was to acquire that property. The referendum was slightly in favor of the property remaining open land. The Forest Preserve District was approached and then acquired the property for $17.6 million that was funded by bonds that were sold to the public. The intention of the residents at that time was to keep it open space. The buildings that are being discussed were nowhere in that referendum. It is his contention that the village residents believed they were going to get open space. At one time the Mayslake Conservancy was considering demolishing the retreat wing and was not going to maintain it. Now the project has been expanded to the point where it has cost $4 million of taxpayers money, and will probably end up being $7.5 million. The plans as he understands them, is to take 55,000 square feet in the retreat wing and turn it into an office environment and it will be filled with not -for- profit organizations. The Forest Preserve District has also sold the Friary to DuPage Housing Authority for one dollar. In that matter, they intend to take 44,000 square feet of 110,000 square feet in that space and turn it into a retirement community. What began as the intention for open land has turned into an office complex, attached to the Peabody Mansion. If approved there will be an assisted living facility. The original choice was to have 96 homes built, and would have resulted in approximately 180 people. Somewhere along the line this has turned from open land into property that will be occupied in greater density than had the residential development been built in its space. He has a problem with the way the entire project has progressed and continues to change. The Village continues to piecemeal all of this into what is going to be a much more dense area, than what the residents had indicated and intended for it to be when they originally voted for it in the early 1990's. Chairman Davis said that his recollection differs slightly, and he thought the vote was to preserve the Peabody Mansion and not tear it down. He is not sure how the Friary enters into this matter. He questioned what programs were allowed in the special use and was advised it is detailed on page H of the petition file. He clarified that if the expansion to the special use adds only a specific portion of the retreat that would not change any other aspect of the special use. Mr. Palazzetti agreed and said that this approval allows them occupancy of the mansion without any modernization of the historic mansion. The washrooms are set up to allow for the programming that was intended to be on this site. It does not change any of the programming, Village approval will allow them to now get the public inside the mansion. Although it is not restored, they can begin reconstruction tours, to enable them to get people into the building and hopefully get some benefactors to help facilitate the restoration of the site. Chairman Davis asked (in response to one of Member Ascher's concerns) whether the retreat wing could be used as office use under the current special use. Mr. Palazzetti answered no. He said there is the ability to have office space in the mansion. Initially, Mayslake had further permission to have a caretaker and limited office space on site in the mansion. They are currently working out of trailers until they can get to a phase where they can move back in. He further stated that Member Ascher is correct in that the referendum, the original intention of the Mayslake Conservancy was to save both of the historic structures and the land and natural resources. The way the referendum was written, it does appear that it is just open space, which intention was to have the historic buildings in an open space setting. Their own elected officials have had that same quandary, which is one of the reasons the project has taken so long. They have gone back and forth, and from the people they have talked ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes April 2, 2002 3 ZBA- MTG.2002 -APR L to, the building has a lot of historical value and is a jewel within the area. They believe that they can provide the Village of Oak Brook a fabulous facility. Chairman Davis said that in a sense it is open space because, at the time of the referendum, there was a proposed development that was going to take place on the property. By passing the referendum, the Forest Preserve's purchase of the property prevented the development from occurring, so it did preserve a substantial amount of open space. Mr. Palazzetti agreed and said that it was not going to reduce what was on the site at the time of the referendum, but it would not create additional. Mr. Palazzetti said that the Plan Commission approved the amendment to the special use, and that they have met the required occupancy, and have followed the intent of the original special use permit. Audrey Muschler, 55 Yorkshire Woods, said that the referendum was actually countywide. There were two groups involved in it. A historic preservation group and an open space group came together to form a coalition to pass the referendum, save the buildings, and nominate them for the National Register. The entire 90 -acre site is on the National Register of historic places. The mansion is on the register because of its architecture. There will be the preservation of the cultural heritage of the Village. There will be an outstanding cultural, educational facility in the Retreat Wing in the future. The Forest Preserve cannot address that right now, but the complex will be a tremendous benefit to the Village. Member Ascher said that he has spent a lot of time reviewing this matter. He may be the lone ranger, but his purpose is to bring up the awareness of what went on. Also, the Forest Preserve District is a taxing body and by all rights has the ability to tax the residents to pay for these sorts of things. The public ought to be aware of what they are getting. He may be a party of one, but the retreat wing that was built in 1950 does not appeal to him. He would rather see the mansion restored without the wing, which is one person's opinion. The Forest Preserve at least has plans and will be making a presentation. They are trying to make some sort of practical use out of both of the buildings. He believes that a lot of money is being spent on this as residents of this county. He has reviewed the history of the architect and found that he was famous; he did the Drake Hotel in Chicago and built other mansions. Whether or not mansion is saved will not make a great deal of difference in our lifetime. It has been made part of the registry and we have to live with that. However, when money is spent on these sorts of things we need to be aware of what it is being spent for and what we are getting out of it. He does not believe the village residents bargained for an office in the Mayslake Conservancy. The group of people might have had the foresight to save the mansion, but he does not believe that they have bargained for the other things the village is getting. As members of Zoning Board, they have a chance of bringing this to the attention of the community. If as a group they feel strongly, they can come together as a group and deny this and when they come forward with the other plans, they can be denied. Maybe then the forest preserve can go back to what the village resident's want, which is open land. Hopefully they will come to a conclusion that will the best for the village and bring some awareness to the community and perhaps there will be greater discussion about it. Member Shah asked Member Ascher if he thought that the Forest Preserve would buy the land and tear down the buildings as a result of the referendum? Member Ascher said that if he read the newspaper articles correctly, that was never a part of the consideration in the referendums. Actually, it was a vote for open space. There was never a referendum to preserve any one of the buildings. That has all come lately. As Mr. Palazzetti said, there was quite a debate at the forest preserve level to keep these buildings when they first took over the land. Mayslake Conservancy did go out and get the buildings designated as historically ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 4 ZBA- MTG.2002 -APR April 2, 2002 significant, which puts them on the National Registry and there is nothing you can do about it once it is on the Registry. It costs $40,000- 50,000 to maintain the Friary, so they have been looking for a way to get rid of the Friary for the past few years. Right now, the DuPage Housing is proposing a use to the Plan Commission. It has multiplied into the use of these buildings; however, when the residents expressed themselves that was not one of the considerations. There has never been a consideration by the residents of the Village of Oak Brook whether they want those types of buildings over there. Chairman Davis said that his recollection was that there was a campaign to save the mansion, and perhaps his recollection may have dimmed over the years, but he does not remember anything about saving the Friary. However, he does not know how any of the history is relevant to what the Zoning Board is doing with this matter. If the goal is to save money, and use less of the taxpayers money, then if the special use is expanded to include the wing, then the tours can take place sooner, rather than later and maybe some other funding can come in and lessen the cost to the taxpayers. Mr. Palazzetti agreed and said that it has been difficult not allowing people into the building. You cannot gain any interest in the structure itself. Inside there is unique architectural design that was put into the building. They are hoping that some people will come forth with some monies to assist with the restoration of the historic site. Chairman Davis said that if the special use is expanded, the facilities will be incorporated into the special use and the use of the building can take place. Mr. Palazzetti said that the programming that was approved with the special use could now take place. Since, 1996 they have not been able to meet the programming needs that were addressed in the special use, because of the Life Safety issues. They sought help from the Illinois Preservation Agency and were still required to install the sprinkler systems and fire code requirements. It took a long time to get it in and to be as least abusive to the building as possible. In a historic building, running pipes had to be done very cautiously and to blend as best as possible with the crown molding, etc. Member Zaheer said that her understanding is that part of Mr. Ascher's concern is that while the Peabody mansion is a historical building, by extending the special use, we are now saying that the retreat wing will now stay there, and it is not of historical value. The use of the Peabody mansion would now be dependent upon the ADA compliant washrooms. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if the Forest Preserve District comes back and tries to add other areas of the retreat wing and if they were denied they could not use it, and might ultimately take the building down, with the exception of the washrooms. Mr. Palazzetti said that they are hoping to come back and be able to seek approval of a reasonable plan to meet both the village and the Forest Preserve District's needs. Originally they were talking about removing this building, but there was still going to be a need for support facilities. They would not want to put the bathrooms and office in the historic buildings, so there would have been a need at some point to build some type of support structure on the site. Their board reviewed many factors, the cost of demolition, cost of repair, cost of building structure and the best practical use for the facility, because it was still a sound building was to utilize it as the support structure and to allow offices for not - for - profit groups that will be assisting them with the programs. Some of these groups would be the Illinois Extension Service that has the master gardeners program and would assist with the historic gardens on the site, and the theatre group, etc. There will not be offices for doctors and lawyers or private individuals, it will be groups that work with their organization to provide the approved programming. This process has taken over one and a half years to get to this point and they do not see this happening overnight. They do not have the money at this point. They will utilize ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -APR 5 -0-if- April 2, 2002 these and will eventually expand them if their program expands into that area. If it goes away, it could be torn down and would have to provide somewhere on the site the ADA washrooms to allow for the appropriate use for the building. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Shah that the petitioner has met the requirements to recommend approval of the request to amend Special Use Ordinance S -841 to include specifically, the breezeway, the foyer and the two washrooms in the retreat wing. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 1 - Ascher Absent: 1 - Aldini Motion Carried. IV. WARNER — 26 BAYBROOK LANE — VARIATION — TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION of DRIVEWAY GATES ON A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE Chairman Davis swore in Patrick McCarty, AIA, Matocha Associates and Richard Cremieux, Attorney, Baker & McKenzie both represented the petitioner, Ty Warner, the owner of the property. Chairman Davis informed Mr. Cremieux that he is with the law firm of Davis, Mannix and McGrath in Chicago and their firm has had a piece of litigation against the petitioner and another possible matter. He said that these are business matters and will not affect the way that he would vote on this pending matter, but disclosed the information. He gave them the option as to whether or not they would like him to participate in the vote. Mr. Cremieux responded that he had no objection to his participation. Mr. Matocha thanked the board and particular thanks to the staff for their assistance in the process. He acknowledged that there has been an error in the procedural matters with regard to the installation of the gates. The gates are installed. Mr. Warner had directed some of his staff to install the gates and they went through the process without the proper procedures. Once he received notification from the Village of that, he and Mr. Cremieux were brought in to help clarify and resolve the issues. There was no intention of not going through the proper proceedings; the individuals involved overlooked it at that point in time. The property is owned by Mr. Ty Warner who is the founder and inventor of beanie babies, Ty Inc., and other hotel properties. Mr. Warner has been a resident for over ten years. He is regularly out of town and is the sole occupant of the residence. No one else lives, stays or takes care of the facility while he is out of town. Some of the staff come in periodically to look at the residence, but no one is there full time. Various websites and articles of notoriety are presented to him and he is known both nationally and internationally for his accomplishments and wealth. The nature of his concerns and the primary concern for the request and the need for the gates is due to privacy and security. He is looking to deter unwanted guests, admirers, sales calls, and business acquaintances from coming to his personal residence. It has happened in the past, and there have been police officers within the village that have been notified and the matter discussed. Although it has died down recently, there has been a frenzy with regard to the product that he produces. There have been several instances not only by admirers, but where people have made threats on his own person as well as his company on his residential property. By adding the gates, they are trying to keep people an additional distance from the house and keep people from entering the driveway, mostly, on the vehicular side. They have tried other security and privacy measures previously and there is a security system on the house, but that works primarily on the interior. There is a significant ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes April 2, 2002 6 ZBA- MTG.2002 -APR .1 amount of landscaping on all sides of the residence to provide privacy and screening. These have not deterred people from entering the property and coming up to peek in the windows or actually sit in the driveway and wait for Mr. Warner to come out of his residence and have blocked him from actually leaving his garage. They have met the criteria, except for lot size and so they are seeking a variation on the lot size. With regard to the lot size, the particular hardship that was created is the shape of the lot and the context of the lake itself. If it were a square lot, it would be over the one -acre requirement. In addition, there is quite a distance of frontage of approximately 250 feet. It is quite different from the neighbors that are in the immediate proximity who have much less frontage along Baybrook. They do not believe that there are any detrimental effects created to the area or other properties. The gates are installed and designed in such a way so they blend into the landscape, therefore they believe they are tasteful and minimal in their form. Other gates are installed in Ginger Creek, so precedence has been set. Chairman Davis requested the standards be addressed and Mr. McCarty responded as follows: 1 -a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located. The return is a non - issue. The purpose is not to gain or enhance the value of the property. 1 -b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. They have reviewed testimony regarding his celebrity status, his own personal safety, and security being the sole occupant of the residence. His being out of town for extended periods of time, which does present its own problems with not knowing who is coming or going within the property itself. 1 -c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. This variance will not alter the character of the locality. The photographs provided show that the gates are well screened and hidden. They are distinctly secured back within some of the existing landscaping and additional landscaping would be provided. 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 mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out. The physical surroundings do not prevent trespassers at this point in time from entering the driveway and making the loop on the property. Also, with regard to the size, shape and topography of the lot, particularly on the back of the lot with the lake and drainage way to the north and how it cuts into a spillway does have particular characteristics that are unique to this specific property and where it is situated. That is one of their contentions under this item. Chairman Davis asked if there are a substantial number of trees along Baybrook Lane, such that the entrance to the house is hidden. Mr. McCarty said that once you get into the driveway and at the entrance to the garage or the front door, the area is hidden from view from the street in its entirety. Therefore, anyone could do anything they wanted to for an extended period of time before someone would notice. 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. It is the same zoning as all R -2 within the area. There are other properties in the area that do have gates on them. Whether there is a distinction between one acre or larger is very hard to discern when you drive through the area as to whose lot is one acre more or less. If you look at the frontage ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes April 2, 2002 7 ZBA- MTG.2002 -APR it would appear that Mr. Warner's lot due to its long frontage seems substantial particularly compared to his neighbors. His lot has 250 feet of frontage compared to other neighbors who have between 150 -200 foot frontage. It does look like a larger lot, it is just that it has the pie shape and is chopped off by the lake on the west side. 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. The gates can be walked around in case of an emergency and there is a manual release on the gate to open it in an emergency. 2 -d. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property of substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The gate will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties, endanger the public, nor impair property values within the neighborhood. 2 -e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon the desire to make more money out of the property. The purpose of the variation is not to make more money off the property. 2 -f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The owner has not created the hardship described. They believe it is a naturally occurring hardship on the property itself. It is unique to the individual and the property. Mr. McCarty said that they sent notification to the four neighbors and were acknowledged by two. He personally went to each of the neighbors, no one was home at the time, but he placed a letter along with a self- addressed envelope and his business card, in case they had any questions. Member Zaheer asked what was the size of the property. Mr. McCarty responded that it is approximately three - quarters of an acre. Chairman Davis said that his argument is that if you look at the frontage because it is expanded, and that the gate is related to acreage because of appearance purposes, at least there is an appearance of a larger lot. Mr. McCarty said that the photographs show where the road curves, both gates cannot be seen at the same time. This is due to the amount of vegetation and to the curvature of the road. William Lindeman, 11 Pembroke Lane, Brook Forest Subdivision, said that many subdivisions in Oak Brook do not have one acre lots, therefore they are not permitted to have gates on those driveways. Every time someone asks for a variance, they point out others that have gates. The situation described by the petitioner is not unique to Ginger Creek or Mr. Warner. There are many celebrities residing in Oak Brook. He is concerned that if these gates are permitted, there would be someone from another subdivision demanding the same type of variance for whatever reason they may have, celebrity status, paranoia, whatever. He could not comprehend that the gates were already installed without the awareness of the requirements for such an installation. He doubts the gates would have any impact on anyone wishing to do harm to Mr. Warner. They block the access of a vehicle, but certainly do not prevent the access of someone determined to approach the home or a vehicle capable of going over the grass. Removing some of the landscape to reveal the hidden areas can solve the lack of visibility. He does not believe that they will be able to accomplish what they want by installing gates. It will open the door for others to do the same. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -APR April 2, 2002 Mr. Cremieux said that the unique situation is not just due to celebrity status, but the unique configuration of the lot. Under normal lot lines, this property would be in excess of one acre. That is the only requirement that has not been met. It is simply the curve of the lake that makes the variance required, which is part of the test for the way the ordinance is structured. Director of Community Development Kallien referred to additional information that was given to the Board members this evening (page 9 of the file). One of the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for gates is that the lot be a one -acre minimum. Secondly, the gates cannot open outward and the reason for that provision is so that someone could park in that area in front of the gate without blocking traffic if the gates open. In this case, the gates open parallel to the street. Because the driveway opening is located at the edges of his property line, when the gates open, it appears that the gates do not open outward, but actually encroach open the neighbors property. This particular issue must be addressed. We cannot allow an encroachment of the gates onto another's property. It is not allowed anywhere in the Village. Mr. Cremieux said that they were not aware of that until this evening. He said that on one side of the home there is a neighbor that is friendly with Mr. Warner. He is sure a license could be obtained that would allow the gates to move back and forth. On the other side, there is detention drainage. Mr. McCarty said that on the survey it does not show that it is Mr. Warner's or the neighbor's property. When the survey came back there was other ownership that was not disclosed. He said that they could either obtain a license or move the gates. Mr. Cremieux suggested that the board could leave the matter to staff to ensure that it is satisfied to staff's satisfaction. Chairman Davis asked for clarification of the encroachment. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it requires the utilization of another person's property to utilize the gate. If there were a fence or significant landscaping on the neighbor's property, the gate could not be installed the way it is. He noted that during the normal building permit process, this is something that would have been addressed. Chairman Davis said that in addressing Mr. Lindemans comments, he believes personally, and does not hold much weight to an argument that others have been allowed to do the same thing, therefore a variation should be granted. Under the standards for a variation, the situation has to be unique. He is favor of granting the request, but the decision does not rest on the fact that there are other gates in the area. He believes that there are enough unique circumstances, in particular, the threats to the person and dense vegetation that allows a vehicle to be hidden. The unique size of the lot, and that there is 250 feet of frontage on the lot. There have been very few requests like this. It is his view that the standards have been satisfied. Member Mueller asked about the position of the Ginger Creek Homeowners Association and that they are not in favor. Mr. Cremieux said that they ordered a copy of the declaration and there is no reference to gates in it. It is a forty -page document so they will try to address whatever they feel is necessary. Director of Community Development Kallien said that as a point of clarification, there is one other set of gates that had been approved. Ginger Creek is zoned R -2, but in the review of the lot sizes for Ginger Creek approximately 60 -70% of the lots are under one acre. Even though they have R -2 zoning, which requires one acre, many undersized. It is a unique subdivision in that the large and smaller lots are all inter - mixed. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -APR April 2, 2002 Chairman Davis moved, seconded by Member Shah that the petitioner has met the standards required for the recommendation of approval of the variation to install the driveway gates on a residential property of less than one acre have been satisfied, subject to the following conditions. 1. That action is taken that the petitioner obtains the required permit. 2. That the swing of the gates meets the intent of the Village Code. 3. That any encroachment of the gates onto other property is resolved. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4- Nays: 1 - Absent: 1 - Motion Carried. V. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. V1. ADJOURNMENT Ascher, Mueller, Shah, and Davis Zaheer Aldini Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Shah to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes EN ZBA- MTG.2002 -APR :j L_ L--- Director of Com&C ity Development Secretary May 7, 2002 Date Approved April 2, 2002