Loading...
Minutes - 04/04/2006 - Zoning Board of Appeals2 3. rd MINUTES OF THE APRIL 4, 2006 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON JUNE 28, 2006 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, 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 7, 2006 Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry, to approve the minutes of the March 7, 2006 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. 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 that would be providing testimony. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 11 April 4, 2006 CALL TO ORDER ROLL. CALL MINUTES UNHNISHED BUSINESS CHRIST CHURCH OI: OAK BROOK — 501 OAK BROOK RD — SU anti VAR -2 NEW RURO DRIVEWAYS Mr. Walter Morrissey, Attorney for Christ Church of Oak Brook advised the Board that they held a meeting with the neighbors on March 9, 2006 that approximately 22 people attended. Most of the discussion was about the residential lots owned by the church and the plans for those lots and there are no plans as was testified in their prior hearing. To remove the uncertainty about those lots, the Church has withdrawn that portion of their request. The neighbors were told they would be provided with a newsletter if they decide to do anything that would affect the neighbors. Prior to returning to the Village to proceed with any development process on the lots on York Road, they would first have an information meeting or meetings with the neighbors, well in advance, which seemed to quell the anxieties that the neighbors had about the development of those lots. Chairman Davis questioned whether any potential conditions for the special use were raised at that meeting. Mr. Morrissey responded that it was an open discussion without restriction on the dialogue. There were "what if s," and a question about the buffer at their southernmost residential lot; and the church responded that they would have their landscape architect review it and would meet with the neighbors before they do anything. No specific conditions resulted from the meeting. Chairman Davis asked if County approval would be required for any landscaping along 31St Street, Mr. Morrissey responded that if it is located outside the boundary line they would need County approval; and up to the right of way, they would need Village approval. Mr, Morrissey said that at the last meeting, members asked about providing pedestrian crosswalk by the driveway on 31" across from Lincoln, and the County rejected the request. The reason they provided was because there is already a pedestrian crosswalk west of the library that accesses people coming out of the forest preserve to cross the street to the library and sports core. A second crosswalk is at the intersection by 31St and York. They felt that the two existing crosswalks were adequate and that a third one would raise a safety hazard for pedestrians because of their close proximity to one another. Member Bulin said that he believes that 3 blocks apart is not close, but if the County believes that is adequate then so be it, until someone crossing at Lincoln would be struck by a car. Chairman Davis noted that other discussions with the County were submitted in the file relating to the County approvals for the new accesses. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of I I April 4, 2006 Mr. Morrissey added that additional correspondence, the application for the permit, as well as the remaining County requirements for approval had also been submitted. Approvals are required from the County as well as the Village. Mr. Morrissey noted that one of the issues discussed, which is not part of this application, was the annex building used by the church as an office. They discussed that with the neighbors, and told them that they were evaluating whether to remodel or repair it. Mr. Fylstra told the residents that when they figure out what to do, and have the funding, a newsletter would be sent and they would meet with the residents to share the plans and get their input. Chairman Davis asked the audience if they would like to comment or provide testimony relating to this matter. Mike Macken, 4 Robin Hood Ranch was sworn in and presented a handout to the Board. He said that his property is the closest to the church property. At the neighbor's meeting, the people from the church told them quite a few things. The thing that caught his attention the most was that the annex building at 3212 York Road was in a state of disrepair and they would consider taping the building down and replace it with an office building next to his home. Over 4 months and 6 meetings he has given this a lot of thought to the church's request and the handout he provided showed that the church site is about as big as the Robin Hood Ranch subdivision. They have about 17 -18 acres and Robin Hood Ranch is about 18 -19 acres. He could not appreciate the size of their enterprise until he looked at the map and they are very wary (he and the neighbors) about what could happen on the two southern lots. There is also an issue about the York Tavern wanting to expand into a larger restaurant and someone has pointed out that the 3 pieces of property directly north of there are developable. They are looking at the potential for commercial development to move north along York Road. They talked about a lot of different things that could be done near the church building and others away from the church building. He believes the driveway request at York Road would tie all of their property together and it would be difficult to deny them use for anything in between. He spent two hours on two different Sundays, on their two busiest services, and his conclusion was that they did not have any traffic problem coming in and out of York Road, because they have a traffic officer there, which works really well. The next time, he went further into their parking lot and all he could see was a little bit of congestion where people were dropped off by the church, because a lot of people wanted to be dropped off. They did not have a police officer at that service and there was no problem getting in and out of the site. He questioned why they cut up the property with a driveway VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 11 April 4, 2006 without a purpose. Mr. Fylstra had mentioned at the meeting that if they needed more parking that would probably be where it would go. He thinks they are staking out their property a little more. The point is not so much about their traffic, because he is not worried about it, but they ought to prove some type of reason for the location of the driveway near Robin Hood Ranch. Chairman Davis noted that the Church had withdrawn its request to expand its special use area and if they wanted to develop the property any further, they would be required to come back to the Village to seek approval of any additional special use. Should that happen in the future, there would be another opportunity for the neighbors to address those issues when they come before the Plan Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Tom Doyle, 7 Robin Hood Ranch, was sworn in and then he thanked Mr. Morrissey and the church staff for listening to the neighbors at the meeting; and after hearing the concerns of the neighbors, they withdrew that part of their petition. He said that he has no real objection to the driveways being proposed, but he had a concern for safety with the double exit onto southbound York Road. He does not see it to be much of a problem with the exception of Sunday services, when the officer is directing traffic. If the driveway is screened too much it could create a traffic problem at those times. Mr. William Lindeman, 11 Pembroke Lane was sworn in and said that because there was no display of the proposal present at this meeting, he was at a disadvantage, because he was unable to attend the first hearing. He said that he wanted to express his concerns, although they might not be relevant, because of his ignorance of what the request actually is. He did spend some time looking at the layout of the parking lot and driveways and questioned if they had used qualified traffic control engineers. Looking at their parking lot it did not look like they used a signage expert that could alleviate some of the internal problems with the traffic flow. He strongly recommended that they involve professionals and address some of the problems that way. He did not understand why a single facility would need two right -in, right -out driveways. He added that the landscape along 31" Street was required previously to shield the view to the parking lot from the traffic on 31" Street, as well as the residential property on the north side of the street. The facility seems to keep growing and maybe they should reassess what their needs are. He was disappointed to hear that a crosswalk at Lincoln was turned down by County, and was not sure if the County had the authority to deny it, although he must assume they do. Mr. Morrissey responded that Christ Church has made a commitment that they VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 11 April 4, 2006 would follow the signage requirements of DuPage County and observe the required internal signage for traffic flow as well as requirements internal and external to the site. In addition, they are mindful of the comment from Mr. Allison, the president of the Robin Hood Ranch Homeowners Association, regarding the 67 plus signs that exist on York Road, which had been installed by the County. They would do whatever is reasonable and appropriate, and mindful that the neighbors do not want them to clutter it more They will abandon the existing driveway at 3202 York Road and it will be replaced by the right -in, right -out driveway, so there is not a net gain and the new drive will be located south of the existing driveway. In general, the right -in, right -out driveways have several common features. • They take the existing traffic volume and divide it between two access points rather than one. • They provide direct access to the rear of the south parking lot and to the rear of the west parking lot. • For safety, because the handicap parking and access is at the front by the church they will not come into conflict with that traffic or with pedestrian traffic of those that are exiting their vehicles and walking to the church. Rolf Killian, Metro Transportation Group, Hoffman Estates, Illinois, responded to some of the issues raised. + Visibility at the driveways. They recommend and the County requires that vegetation not be provided at those driveways, which would restrict sight distance for traffic entering or exiting either driveway. Vegetation that is planted would have to be low, so that it does not interfere with the sight lines of traffic. • Comments were made about traffic observations on Sunday. On Sunday there are officers directing traffic. The real problem occurs during evening hours when traffic on 31" and York Road is heavy, as opposed to Sunday, especially the ability to enter and exit, particularly when it gets dark. Those are the periods when there is difficulty primarily with exiting. The two driveways distribute traffic more evenly over four driveways rather than two. There is a problem with the driveway on 31St due to the 180- degree turn, which is very difficult to make the turn without encroaching on the outbound lane. The new driveway opposite Lincoln would allow traffic to enter the lot before it actually reaches the existing driveway and eliminates the need to make the u -turn. Both of the driveways will provide direct access to the main parking fields, instead of forcing traffic in front of the church where most of the pedestrian traffic takes place. They are taking traffic away from the church entrance and minimizing pedestrian vehicle conflicts, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 11 April 4, 2006 __L;;� which is the safety issue that they are addressing. The major internal issue is immediately in front of the main entrance to the church. There is the handicapped parking, pedestrians crossing from the outer parking fields to get into the church, and all of the traffic, particularly from York Road, is forced in by the main entrance in order to feed the parking areas. It is very restricted in that area, which is why they have an officer directing traffic on Sunday morning. • The concern regarding the safety with the two right exits onto York Road are 250 feet apart, which is quite a distance. If an officer is directing traffic at the north exit, the people at the southern driveway will have to wait because their exit is controlled by a stop sign. They will also have to wait for a natural gap in traffic before they exit. It is no different from any other driveway or intersection along York Road, or any other road. Member Nimry questioned if any consideration was given to connect the two lots south of the pond, which would take traffic away from the church. Mr. Fylstra responded that they have looked at building a bridge across the pond, but it is very expensive. There is landfill and a pipe that allows water to flow through. it. There is an earthen bridge located there now, but it is only suitable for foot traffic. Member Bulin said that at the last meeting, he was under the impression that internal signage in the parking lot would direct people to exit south, only at the south exit. Mr. Killian responded that the north driveway has two exiting lanes, so you would not restrict traffic from turning right when the lane is there. The two driveways will also help in the event that there is a blockage at a driveway the extra driveways would allow emergency access equipment to enter the lot. Chairman Davis questioned that if there were any traffic safety concerns, could it be brought to the attention of the Village. Village Engineer Durfey responded that if there is a problem, the Church is going to be the first one to find out about it, and they will want to be the first one to fix it, because it is their clients. Chairman Davis asked if he thought that one way to fix the potential problem might be to direct traffic to the south exit. Village Engineer Durfey responded that it might be a solution. However, any particular problem that might surface probably would have some unique characteristics and those unique characteristics would have to be looked at accordingly. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of I I April 4, 2006 Member Young asked whether the extra driveways would put traffic out on the streets faster; or does it spread the traffic out. Using a funnel analogy, are more tubes being added to let traffic go out or just making a bigger funnel. Mr. Killian responded that in the 43 years he has practiced as a traffic engineer, he has preached one thing, and that is to provide flexibility in an access system that would serve the development. In this particular case, the extra driveways will do just that, but it is not just to create additional capacity to allow people to get in and out faster. One of the reasons is to load the parking fields from the rear rather than from the front and have the traffic pass by the front entrance to the church where there are significant conflicts between the handicapped, pedestrians and vehicles; which is one of the primary reasons why they want to add the access. The parking fields can be fed from the rear and avoid the locations and can enter on 31St Street without making a 180 degree turn into the opposing traffic lane of traffic exiting the site; so it is a safety issue on site and a safety issue the existing 31St Street access and it is a capacity issue. Special Use Standards Mr. Morrissey addressed the special use standards, which were provided in writing on page B of the case file. 1. Is the type described in subsection Al of this Section, is deemed necessary for the public convenience at that location. Response: They believe that the public convenience will be served, The right -in, right -out driveways will restrict traffic from turning into the free flow of traffic on 31St Street as well as York Road. 2. Is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected. Response: They believe there is adequate spacing between the York Road driveways and the 31St Street driveways. They believe the benefit to the public is both on site and to those off site. The access provides for better control by taking the traffic to the rear of the lots and spacing will occur naturally by the 31St signalization, which will control the free flow of traffic. On -site the safety of individuals will be improved because the design will encourage traffic to use the rear of the lots. 3. Would not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhoods in which it is located. Response: The improvement will not cause substantial injury to the value of other properties in the neighborhood in which it is located. On York Road, they will abandon the existing driveway on 3202 York Road and will replace it with a right - in, right -out driveway. The driveways will affect the church property and will benefit the external traffic. Based on the traffic study, they do not foresee an increase in traffic that will be generated from it. It will VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 11 April 4, 2006 1::iz_ improve the spacing of traffic. Variation Standards Mr. Morrissey addressed the standards for the variations, which were provided in writing on page E of the case file. They are seeking a variance for the right -in, right -out driveway on 31 Sc street to be 250 feet from the existing full access driveway. The second variance is on the width of the driveway. The county standards are 47 feet in width and the standard in the Village ordinance maximum is 45 feet. The right in, right -out driveway opposite Lincoln, the width is 72 feet and the maximum allowed by the Village is 45 feet. The reason for the difference is the proximity of the right of way to the boundary lines, which was explained in a letter dated January 20, 2006 that is part of the case file. The variation request was made in order to comply with the DuPage County standards because the separation between the right of way and the pavement, which has been submitted and approved by the County. He responded to the standards for the variations as follows: 1. a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if it is pennitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located. RESPONSE: The relief will provide for a better traffic pattern and for a better access point traffic patterns. 1. b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: The unique circumstances are that they will abandon a driveway on Fork Road and the new access will allow traffic to enter at the rear of the parking lots and will be divided between the two drives. The same applies with the unique situation on 31" Street because they will be steering traffic away from the 180- degree gooseneck turn and allow direct access into the rear of the lot away from the main facility. 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. The 315` Street location is opposite an existing full access drive, and the new access will move with traffic not against it. It is an effort to gain more even control on both streets. 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 1s VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 11 April 4, 2006 due to the necessity to comply with the requirements of the DuPage County ordinance. The site 1s adaptable to this type of use because they are accessing the parking lot from two places rather than just one. 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 is a unique parcel of land. It does not impact the zoning and there is not another parcel in Oak Brook that has these particular set of circumstances. 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 driveways do not have any type of economic impact and that it will provide for better traffic flow. They have restricted the application to the two driveways and there are no other development plans for the additional church property. The church has committed to maintain dialogue with the neighbors in regard to any development issues. 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 improvements do not impact light or air. They will landscape to make this an attractive site while complying with the requirements of the County and the Village.. 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 church allows for the public benefit, of the village, schools, and other organizations and will allow the church to provide safer access in its community outreach. 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, and the attendees that use the church throughout the week. They are trying to be a better neighbor. Chairman Davis said that the petitioner has sufficiently addressed the standards required for approval of the special use and variations in testimony and in writing on pages B and E of the case file. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of I I April 4, 2006 Special Use Motion by Member Krietsch, seconded by Member Nimry to recommend approval of the request to amend the existing special use for the property at 501 Oak Brook Road to allow the construction of the new right -in, right -out access points as proposed on Oak Brook Road and York Road subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the requested variations; 2. To be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted on page L of the case file; 3. Final County approval; 4 Final Engineering approval; 5. Approval is subject to adequately addressing the following concerns: a. Improvement of the appearance of landscaping adjacent to the right -in, right -out access on Oak Brook Road that is across Lincoln Road and adjacent to the right -in, right -out access adjacent to York Road; b. Safety concerns that were raised about the right -in, right -out access on York Road and the internal traffic flow on the property, which were addressed at this hearing. If any further safety concerns or problems arise they will be sufficiently addressed by the church and will communicate with village staff; c. Sufficiently addressing proper signage for both right -in, right -out accesses. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 1 — Member Ascher, Motion Carried. Variations Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Bulin to recommend approval of the variations as requested for the property at 501 Oak Brook Road to allow the construction of the new right -in, right -out access points as proposed on Oak Brook Road and York Road subject to the following conditions: 1. To be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted on page L of the case file; VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 11 April 4, 2006 2. Final County approval; and 3. Final Engineering approval; ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Bulln, Krietsch, Nimry, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 —None. Absent: 1 — Member Ascher, Motion Carried. 5. NEW BUSINESS Nrw BUSrNESS There was no new business to discuss. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: OTHER BUSINESS A. RESCHEDULE THE REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESCHEDULE JULY MEETING DATE OF JULY 4,2006 a, 2006 MEETING There was a general discussion regarding the need to reschedule the July 4, 2006 regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting due to the conflict with the Independence Day holiday. After the members were polled, it was agreed to reschedule the regular meeting from July 4, 2006 to Wednesday, June 28, 2006. 7. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Shah, seconded by Member Young to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kakl�i_ee o Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 11 April 4, 2006