Loading...
Minutes - 04/04/2000 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES April 4, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. Il. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Members Director of Community Development Village Engineer Champ Davis Paul Adrian Louis Aldini Richard Ascher George Mueller Manu Shah Ayesha Zaheer Robert Kallien Dale Durfey Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Mueller, to waive the reading of the March 7, 2000, regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Ill. SAMATAS — 9 NATOMA DRIVE — FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIATION TO CONSTRUCT A FOOT BRIDGE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (A SMALL PAVILION — RECREATIONAL FOLLY) James Samatas, petitioner, was sworn in by Chairman Davis. Mr. Samatas reviewed the Village Ordinance and the DuPage County Countywide Stormwater and Flood Plain Ordinance requirements as to how they relate to his petition request. The footbridge was set aside as a flood plain special use permit and proceeded to the Plan Commission that has provided its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The folly came under the interpretation of the DuPage County Ordinance, and since it was not listed as an appropriate use, it was deemed to be a request for a variation and became necessary for review by the Zoning Board of Appeals. This particular request as was delineated in the narrative included in the application, somewhat describes that this is a unique request and primarily a recreational landscaping use as an uninhabitable structure. There are photographs included in the file (page 28) that describe what is being outlined in the petition. He asked the Board to review this, not as a variation in substance, but simply because the County Ordinance itself is void of really handling this type of question. It has not been addressed before in terms of how do you present a roman ruin folly or a landscape structure for recreational uses. Technically, it did not fall under a permitted use, therefore it comes before the Board as a variation. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes VL`L April 4, 2000 The property is located in Old Oak Brook, there is a neighbor to the north and one to the south. The rear portion of the property is a backdrop to Fullersburg Woods. There are no other neighbors that would be in view to any degree. There is an Oak Brook dam on the property that the Village is responsible for maintaining along with a sluice gate and a very narrow pedestrian bridge to allow for the maintenance of the gates. Somewhere is the mid- 1980's the Village constructed these items for the maintenance of the area. The pictures (page 28) reflect the current state of these items. The island itself is approximately 1 -1/4 acres. He is seeking to utilize the balance of the property for recreational uses and to upgrade the current state and condition of the bridge and folly, by having more accessible use to the island and floodway. He did consider and worked with the Village in terms of considering the expansion of the footbridge that currently exists. It is a flat open grid structure approximately 2 -1/2 feet by 40 feet long, which is the same length as the proposed bridge depicted on the submitted drawings and is on the upstream side of the current. Considering the costs and other risks associated with extending and modifying the bridge, he considered the closest area and the narrowest portion of the secondary channel of Salt Creek to construct the bridge. There is also a picture (page 28) of the folly and the bridge, in a style that currently exists throughout Fullersburg Woods so that it will assimilate well with the surroundings. The purpose of placing the folly on the island was to keep somewhat consistent with the Neo- classic design of the home constructed. It is an open roofed limestone structure. They are proposing to lift the structure on pylons so that the continuous flow of water would go underneath it and give an aesthetic old landscape appearance. Consideration was given to its impact to the surrounding neighborhood. His home is the only one that is directly visible from it. Everyone along the stretch of Natoma is subjected to the floodway. The structures will have minimum impact visually and in terms of any engineering concerns. Anything that has not been appropriately addressed with the Engineering Department will need to be addressed in the permitting stage. If he is successful in gaining the appropriate approvals, the balance of the task remains to complete all the appropriate engineering that satisfies, the Village, state and county. In response to the variation requirements in the Ordinance he stated the following: 1. Granting approval of the request will not alter the essential character of the locality, it will blend in and barely be noticed. 2. It will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. 3. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the danger of fire or affect public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The request is limited to accessibility and visibility from his property, and has no negative impact to this specific criteria. 4. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to make more money out of the property. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. To some degree, it is a self - inflicted problem, however, the problem comes before the Board because it was a request never contemplated by the drafters of the County Ordinance. It is an open ended issue that they had not specifically addressed or contemplated, as someone such as himself would come up with this kind of request. He has worked with Dale Durfey and Mike Meranda, in trying to address the problem, and have been very cooperative and guiding in terms of what he needed to go through. After reviewing the location of the bridge with Mr. Meranda, the conclusion was that where the bridge is depicted, was determined to be appropriate and would not impede the Village's ability to maintain the sluice gate. There are a number of studies that still need to be completed by Dale Durfey's review, but typically would be subject to the permitting stage when he makes application to obtain the building permit. The Plan ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes u-l-`I April 4, 2000 2 Commission also put certain conditions in reference to the timing of construction, bond, and to minimize and further impact on the neighbors. One of his personal criteria that he was attempting to address was the aesthetics that exist on the island and to make use of it. The landscape depiction of the island would include a pedestrian footbridge, the addition of perennials and natural ground covers indigenous to the area, the placement of the folly, leaving the rest of the island in its entire natural state. Member Zaheer, questioned if the diameter of the columns were three -feet in diameter due to structural requirement. Jeff Kutkowski, W. T. Engineering, responded that it was dictated by the structural necessity of the folly itself. Chairman Davis questioned whether this could be an attractive nuisance that might attract children or others once the bridge is in place. Mr. Samatas responded that the only access to the island would be through his property. They would have to traverse across the channel to get to his property. Other than his two neighbors or anyone trespassing in the rear portion of any property, there is no accessibility. The island is completely engulfed by the main channel of Salt Creek. Member Mueller questioned how wide the bridge will be, and Mr. Samatas answered that it will be six feet wide. Member Adrian questioned whether any children trespass across the current bridge and Mr. Samatas responded that no one does. He added that the only thing he has ever seen, is that if there is someone going down the creek in a canoe, they will get on the existing bridge, portage over it and then continue down the creek. Chairman Davis asked if someone canoeing could go under the proposed bridge. Mr. Samatas said that the proposed bridge is on the wrong side of the sluice gate, which is a massive concrete structure and that is where they go over. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the requested variance. Chairman Davis reiterated the petitioner's request for granting of a Flood Plain Special Use for the bridge itself and the folly. The action of the Plan Commission was to unanimously recommend approval of the flood plain special use subject to certain conditions that the petitioner is willing to abide by. There are 11 criteria to be addressed, and the petitioner argument that the standards have been satisfied is set forth in Mr. Zeitler's letter on page L -5 and L -6 of the petition file. The other request is for recommendation for approval of a variation for the construction of the folly, and the standards are set forth in the DuPage County Countywide Stormwater and Flood Plain Ordinance and have also been addressed. The variation requested is to make the folly and appropriate Special Use that can then be granted by the Board. Mr. Samatas noted, that this morning he, as well as Village Engineer Durfey were before the DuPage County Stormwater Management Committee. They reviewed the variation requested and approved it. Village Engineer Durfey added that the Committee voted not to disapprove or "no comment" on this application because the Village of Oak Brook is a complete waiver municipality. The Committee has comment power or absolute veto power of the Village Ordinance, if the Village would do something really bad. Chairman Davis questioned that the County could have said "no ", and Village Engineer Durfey agreed. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Shah that the petitioner has testified to the criteria set forth to grant the request, and to recommend for approval the variation as requested. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7- Nays: 0 - Absent: 0- Motion Carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes Adrian, Aldini, Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis. 17L,�Z- April 4, 2000 3 Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Shah that the petitioner has satisfied the conditions set forth in the Ordinance and to recommend for approval of the Flood Plain Special Use to allow the construction of the bridge and folly as requested subject to the Plan Commission conditions as follows: 1. Completion of the project within 60 days from date of permit issue, subject to any issues outside of the petitioner's control. 2. A construction fence to be in place to control dust and protect neighbors from damage sustained during construction. 3. All landscape, including the sideyard and easement area, to be restored immediately upon completion of the construction. 4. The structures are to be built in substantial conformance with the Plans submitted (see Attachment "N" of the Petition file). 5. A cash bond may be required from petitioner. 6. Final Engineering approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 - Adrian, Aldini, Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis. Nays: 0- Absent: 0 - Motion Carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Adrian to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Director of Community Dev opme t Secretary July 6, 2000 Date Approved ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes April 4, 2000 4