Loading...
Minutes - 05/06/2003 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES May 6, 2003 L CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Members ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Director of Community Development Village Engineer Champ Davis Richard Ascher George Mueller Robert Sanford Manu Shah Steven Young Ayesha Zaheer Robert Kallien Dale Durfey Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Sanford to waive the reading of the November 5, 2002 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as amended. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Ill. FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT OF DuPAGE COUNTY - SPECIAL USE AMENDMENT - 1717 OAK BROOK ROAD - TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE - ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 13 -5 -3 to AMEND THE AREA OF SPECIAL USE ORDINANCE S -841 (Amended by S -1015) FROM 3.34 ACRES TO 46.42 ACRES AND TO ALLOW A PRODUCTION KITCHEN IN THE FORMER RETREAT WING Chairman Davis swore in all parties testifying. Paul Mitchell, attorney for the petitioner, provided information and history regarding the property. The property is southwest of 315` Street and Route of 83. The Forest Preserve District acquired the property in 1993 from the Franciscan Fathers. When it was acquired, the property was rezoned from residential to Conservation /Recreation District. That classification provides for a special use for historic facilities. In 1994, the District entered into a license agreement with the Mayslake Conservancy that was going to raise funds to restore the Peabody Mansion. In 1996, the Conservancy petitioned the Village for the Special Use permit. Since it only involved the mansion itself, the license only covered the Mansion and surrounding property totaling approximately 3.2 acres. Various extensions were granted because they were slow in obtaining an occupancy permit. Ultimately the Forest Preserve District took over the renovation project and in 2001, they started to bring the entire building up to building code and making it ADA compliant. At that time, they realized that the special use did not cover the entire 46 -acre site. They then needed to amend their special use when the bathrooms they were going to upgrade to make the building ADA compliant were actually across the boundary line of the original Special Use because they ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 1 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY May 6, 2003 were in the Retreat Wing, so that the historic value of the Peabody mansion would not be ruined. The District then requested that the Special Use be expanded slightly to cover the two bathrooms and breezeway. It appeared at that time that some Village representatives were getting frustrated that the District was coming in for minor changes. It was commented that the District come back with a site plan showing everything that was happening on the project. They are here this evening seeking an amendment to their special use permit. They area requesting what they always thought was the area of the special use. Some of the property has always been used for parking, the theater and other uses relating to the Peabody mansion. They are not making substantial changes, but they intend to do three things immediately. 1. Access Road - The access comes between two historic pillars /monuments, so it is very narrow, approximately 19 feet in width. It is not good for two -way traffic, as there is no curb and gutter. The plan is to move the access road to the west so that it is outside the two columns and would be widened to meet Village standards to accommodate two -way traffic, including curb and gutter. They are working with the County on 31St street to have a left -hand turn lane constructed for westbound 31St Street to turn into the site. As far as accessing onto 31St Street, there would be three lanes; one lane for turning in and two lanes for accessing out onto 31St Street. They have had preliminary meetings with the County to get approval for those improvements. The access - way and landscaping would comply with Village requirements. 2. Parking - Currently the parking lot is north and west of the existing facility, totaling about 80 parking spaces. The problem is that if there is an event at the mansion, people park on the grass. They are proposing to construct two parking lots; the north parking lot would accommodate 125 cars and the south lot would accommodate 62 cars, totaling 187 new parking spaces. It would comply with Village requirements. They had asked for an allowance for landscaping in parking lots, but they withdrew the request, and they will comply fully with Village parking lot requirements. When this is completed, they would meet the Village standards for parking requirements for this facility. 3. Detention Facility — Presently there is no detention facility on site. The water flows downhill over land, wherever it wants to go. They are proposing to construct a detention facility up to the northeast that would comply with Village and County Stormwater requirements. It would be adequate to provide required stormwater detention for all the uses on the site. They have had meetings with the Village regarding these improvements. They are also seeking an amendment to the special use for a production kitchen. Their events are catered, and the caterers have been complaining that when they come to the site they do not have any place to do final preparations or the ability to keep the food warm. The kitchen will be for the caterers to do final processing of the food brought and site and to keep it warm. In summary, they are seeking to amend the special use to include the 46- acres, to add a production kitchen and to approve the site plan to incorporate into its special use. Most of the things shown on the site plan are currently in operation. Chairman Davis questioned that although the stormwater management plan is not finalized, it is their view that the Zoning Board can proceed this evening. Mr. Mitchell responded that they would comply with the Village and County Stormwater requirements, with approval by the Village Engineer. Mr. Mitchell said that the Plan Commission unanimously recommended approval of their request, subject to several conditions. Stormwater would be designed so that it is not detrimental to the existing water features, in fact it would help some of the water features. The current water flow will be detained for some time in the detention facility. They will comply with all stormwater requirements. The production kitchen will be designed to limit emissions. All lighting and landscaping to be located in the new parking lot will comply with the Village Ordinance. All other previous ordinances will remain in effect except as amended. The 31St Street improvements are not part of the special use permit. Ross Hill, DuPage County Forest Preserve District, said that they plan to start construction by August and be substantially complete by the end of the year. Landscaping will be completed in the spring of 2004. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 2 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY May 6, 2003 They are canceling the second showing of the First Folio in anticipation of the parking lot being constructed. Chairman Davis asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor or in opposition to the request. Audrey Muschler, Yorkshire Woods, spoke in support of the petition. She commended the Forest Preserve District for their dedication, expertise and planning of this historic heritage. It is very exciting to see this plan come to fruition. They are dedicated and have the vision and are determined to preserve the historic nature of this and the open spaces and the quality programming that will benefit Oak Brook and the County. Merl Douglas, 5 Baybrook Lane said that 36%2 years ago he moved his family from Philadelphia to the Ginger Creek subdivision. They came to the area when Sears Roebuck Co. named him CEO of the companies' 4 billion - dollar profit sharing fund. He ran it for 15 years. His home is almost in the shadow of the Mayslake Peabody Estate. Just over a year ago, in anticipation that the Village would issue sufficient permits so that the public could start touring the building, the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County mounted a campaign to enlist volunteers to serve the public it expected. The response was phenomenal and within a very short time a full rank of potential tour guides, gardeners, research specialists were trained for these jobs. He was one of the first to go into training to lead the tours. After being a docent at the Brookfield Zoo for 14 years, he had a feel for how to react with the public to achieve a memorable and pleasurable experience. He has led more than 100 tours at this 39 -room magnificent mansion, wonder filled with beauty, memories and surprises. He reported that more than 1,000 people have come from Oak Brook, all of the western suburbs and farther. They go away from the experience of satisfaction and an eye opening experience that was pleasurable and memorable. The proposal being considered this evening will in his judgment, substantially increase the likelihood that the Oak Brook jewel will bring extended delights to increased numbers of Oak Brook residents and other visitors, without requiring one dollar of Oak Brook revenue. He strongly believes that it is in the best interest of the people of Oak Brook he has made a substantial investment of his time and money in the restoration of the Peabody Mayslake estate. He invited everyone to come take one of the Saturday tours. Mr. Mitchell provided a review of the special use standards as follows: A. Is of the type described in subsection Al of this Section, is deemed necessary for the public convenience at that location. Response. The Forest Preserve District of DuPage County is a public agency as required by Al of Section 13 -4 -9 and believes it is deemed necessary for the public convenience to upgrade the existing public facility, which is a historic site. B. Is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected. Response. The expanded Special Use area will allow the district to design and construct site improvements to allow the better public access to the facilities and will be designed, located an proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected C. Would not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located. Response. The improvements to the Special Use are will not reduce the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located. There is an existing use. Everything is going to be upgraded and landscaped. Member Young asked if they had plans to install and underground storage tank to hold waste oil. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes May 6, 2003 3 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY Michael Palazzetti, Program Services Director for the Forest Preserve District, said that at this point they do not know when the production kitchen is going to be built. When it is, they will comply with all Health Department standards and have a waste storage tank. If the village would like it underground, as opposed to within a wall off dumpster location, then they can work with Oak Brook staff to ensure that takes place. Member Young asked what the plan was for dust abatement during the construction. Mr. Hill responded that they would do the usual procedures. The first stage of construction will be the detention basin. The specifications include watering, seeding and restoring the site. Director of Community Development Kallien said that this is a County owned facility. As such, the County facility is subject to Oak Brook's zoning regulations, however, they must conform to the building codes of DuPage County. Member Ascher questioned the proposed left -turn lane and the budgeting. Mr. Hill said that the County is not building the left -hand turn lane, they are. They have met with the County at a pre - application meeting, but they are essentially issuing the permit to the Forest Preserve District. Member Ascher said that when the parking lot is done there will be 187 additional spaces. He asked what events they will have that would use that many parking spaces. Chrissie Howorth, Supervisor of Mayslake responded that the First Folio is a local Shakespeare festival and throughout the summer have it five nights a week. Currently the people are parking on the turf. They also have weddings throughout the summer, and their plan is that it will allow them to have a hard surface to park on. They have approximately four major events each year, plus the tours. Member Ascher asked about the production kitchen. He asked if there would ever be a facility provided where a meal will be started and completed on site. Mr. Palazzetti said that it is a caterer issue. The caterers have been bringing their food in warming trays and plugging them in, for several hours. Not only for quality, but also for the safety aspect of the food, to ensure that the temperatures are appropriate to meet health department codes, to provide them the facility to produce that. They will bring the food to the facility in the raw form and actually put the meals together on site. It will allow them to meet health department standards. Member Ascher said that to an extent they would be in competition with the Village as far as the use of the Bath and Tennis. His point was that there will be some value to the Village of Oak Brook diminished by having this facility there and the District will be in competition with the Village property. Mr. Palazzetti said that they are doing these activities now. They are not looking to increase the volume of people coming onto the site. They are keeping the catering capacity to 300 people for their events. Member Ascher asked why they need the entire 40+ -acre area covered under the special use. Mr. Palazzetti said that they are currently utilizing the entire site. When it was determined that they were outside of the actual boundary of the special use permit, which is why it was brought back to the Village, so that every time they want to do one little thing, they have to come in and tweak it a little further. From their standpoint the entire forest preserve could be included, because it is a public use. However, for this particular type of activity, they only intend to utilize that particular area. . Member Ascher questioned that the Retreat Wing is only partially used for restrooms, and he asked what else they were going to do. Mr. Palazzetti said that the information was all included in the documents provided and that the original use that the Mayslake Conservancy brought forth, they were going to do all of their activities within the Mayslake Hall. When they got into the original plans for this site, those types of support activities would be a detriment to the jewel they have. The Forest Preserve looks at the Retreat Wing as the support building. They would have the use of the large chapel, another events area, staff offices would be located there, Member Ascher asked if their intent was to occupy the entire 45,000 square feet of the Retreat Wing. Mr. Palazzetti said not initially, the potential is that they could use the entire site, but they envision, the majority of the upper floor would be storage area. Member Ascher asked if the Forest Preserve District was part of the suit with the Friary and the DuPage Housing Authority. Mr. Palazzetti responded they were indirectly. The DuPage Housing Authority petitioned Oak Brook for the use of the Friary for the Assisted Living; however, because the Forest Preserve District owns the property they are in partner with the suit. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 4 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY May 6, 2003 Member Ascher said that at that time, he voted in favor of the Friary, and the Trustees turned it down. Within a short period of time the DuPage Housing Authority came back and sued the Village. At this point the Village has set aside approximately $250,000, but he believes it would cost much more. He said if they decide not to do this, he questioned what was the Village's fate? Mr. Mitchell said that has nothing to do with this issue. Member Ascher said at this point, if it is not approved, the Village would be sued. If it is turned down, they will sue the Village anyway. Mr. Mitchell said that this matter has nothing to do with the Friary. The Forest Preserve District is bending over backgrounds to comply with all Village requirements; they have come in good faith. They are not here to bargain; they are saying that they should be approved. Mr. Ascher said that he believes that several years from now, the 45,000 square feet is going to be filled with office space, and the facility will then increase the traffic and there will be nothing the Village could do about it. Mr. Mitchell said that he went through the structure, and he said that the space will never be used adequately, but you cannot just tear down the top two floors and use the first floor. Mr. Palazzetti said that there are people on both sides of that argument and it would be nicer not to have it, but they have the facility there and it makes more sense to put the support people into the building because it is in fact there. The reason they are only seeking a production kitchen in the Retreat Wing is because the other uses they would intend to have within that wing are already included in the existing special use, which is the office space for those groups that would support the activities on the site. To what extent they will have office space, they do not know at this point. In the same sense, they have the parking facility sized to allow for all onsite parking, even if some limited office space is in the facility. The volume of people coming in would be more than a subdivision coming in and out, however, the former uses of the facility had volumes in and about the same amount that they are having at this time. Mr. Ascher asked why they need the other 35 acres to be included in the special use. Mr. Palazzetti responded that it is the entire site, without contouring a boundary line, they crossed over two points and it was nice and clean for the legal description. They have restrictions and some of the uses would be outside of these areas anyway. It made a nice clean boundary as far as use and buffer area around the other separate uses of the forest preserve. They also have to bring in detention areas, they have issues with the design of the detention as some sewer brings the water back in also. It provides them the buildout area and if and when the outdoor theater would be constructed, they would have to bring in the detention basin too. Mr. Ascher said that the Forest Preserve District originally purchased the property and there was never any conversation about the use of the Peabody Mansion. There may have been people in the Village that were prepared to make that proposal three years later, but originally it was supposed to be open space. The property has been turned from open space adding parking lots for 260+ cars and a beautiful home with tours and weddings on a property that was to be open space back in 1993, when the contention of some of the population of Oak Brook, voted to buy the property for 17.3 million dollars. Mr. Mitchell noted that it was a countywide referendum that the forest preserve should acquire the property. Some of the information submitted to the public specifically referred to historic facilities. The facilities were already there in 1993 and have not changed substantially, and no one talked about coming in and tearing everything down. The entire county voted it for. Mr. Ascher noted that the county has taken over and it has been turned into a site, that you might as well have put a large complex on the space. Mr. Mitchell said that the continuing problem with the forest preserve for 25 years has been the people in the eastern section of this county have complained that they have less forest preserve projects in their area because the District went and acquired vacant farms in Wayne and the northwest part of the county. The Commissioners in the east part of the county have continually lobbied to acquire property and that is why this was acquired, because it is difficult to acquire property in the eastern part of the county. Member Ascher said that the first piece of property acquired by the forest preserve is in Oak Brook in the early 1900's. When they argued for property to be purchased in the east, it was not with the idea that it would be turned into a commercial complex, which is what this has turned into. Mr. Mitchell said that it is still a historic facility with related uses. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 5 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY May 6, 2003 Chairman Davis said that the points have been raised before and are properly voiced concerns, but what the Forest Preserve District is seeking tonight does not change the use of the Retreat Wing for offices, etc. Those uses exist now and nothing done at this meeting will change those uses such as the Shakespeare festival, which has gone on for years. The expansion of the special use to 46 acres does not give the Forest Preserve District any greater uses other than what has been specifically asked for this evening. If other uses were desired, the District would have to come back before the Village and seek them. Mr. Mitchell said that they have asked for approval of the site plan, which means that any additions, would require them to come back before the Village to seek an amendment. They have tried to be all- inclusive so that they do not have to come back on a piecemeal basis. Chairman Davis noted that was at the Village's previous request so that it would not be on a piecemeal basis. The site being expanded to 46 acres does not give the District any greater uses than they already have. The uses tonight are simply the access road, expand the parking facility, and construct, a detention basin and production kitchen. Mr. Mitchell said the exhibit shows some future uses like a garden that have always been on the plans that have not yet been constructed and they are shown there so they would not have to come back for approval. There is a possibility of a theater that was referred too earlier. There are already productions going on, but a new theater could be constructed. The new location is shown on the site plan for approval. Chairman Davis noted that those items may be noted on the site plan, but they can place many things on plans that may get by the hearing process. Mr. Mitchell said that it is also noted in their written information. Mr. Palazzetti said that one of the things on the exhibit is a prairie which was started by one of the Friars, in theory, as far as the soils go, it is a woodland type forest and cleared back when the settlers came in. The Friars decided it was a nice location to start a prairie and with the help of volunteers has expanded the unique prairie garden, and it is an exhibit prairie. Even with the expansion of the detention basin, it is going to be more of a natural wetland community, to enhance the open space and have some ecosystem value to the entire site, which expands off into the forest preserves. From a programming standpoint, they will all be interpretive. They are bringing in master gardeners with the Illinois Extension Service in order to have them out there in the future. The gardens were never built because Mr. Peabody passed away so it was never build out, but they are looking to interpret those as part of the historic value. They currently have a temporary theater and money being everything; they may have the temporary theater for many years. The goal is that if they ever have the ability to put in a new theater, it would be at a different location. They had meetings with the Trinity Lakes Subdivision and one of the things they asked was that if it were built in the future, to do it in a way to provide the least amount of impact to the neighborhood. That is why they faced the theater the way they did and will provide a berm around it. Right now, the stage sits out in the open and they can sometimes hear the productions going on. They are going to turn the stage around in order to send the production sound out in the other direction. They will also have sound walls to deaden the sound so the impact of the proposed site as opposed to the existing site would actually be an enhancement for that activity both from a theater production standpoint and from neighbor relations' issues. The things they are trying to do now with landscaping, lighting, etc., is all trying to lessen the impact on the neighbors. With the entryways, they are trying to get people in and out of the site without having them back up onto 31St Street. They basically challenge each other coming in through a single entrance. Working with the Village, they were asked to put in an emergency access for the Fire Department, and they complied with that request. It is another feature to bring the health and safety up and provide for a better facility for the public on site. As far as other uses, there is a tearoom, which is actually a gazebo and a small outdoor restroom facility and box office that would go along with the theater if it were ever built. At this point they only have a million dollars and they already have an existing use that requires a certain amount of parking. People are currently parking on the turf and weather conditions as they are at times, are not the best for being dressed and in heels. They are trying to provide hardened surfaces to meet the needs of the people that are coming in. Member Zaheer asked that by approving the site plan then the additional structures could be built within those uses without needing to return to the Village. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the only things that can be built are those items that are shown on the site plan. They do not know what the timing would be, but at some point in the future it would be constructed. If they want to ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 6 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY _...- .._ May 6, 2003 build something else or relocate something as presented on the site plan, they would have to return to the Village for approval of a revised plan. Member Zaheer said that by expanding the use to 46 acres is what is shown on the site plan. Chairman Davis said that there was no mention in the Plan Commission minutes of the gazebo or the theater and he is troubled by that omission. He said that there is no discussion by the Plan Commission of the theater or the gazebo. He further stated that it may be shown on the site plan, but when the Forest Gate plan was approved, the retaining wall was on that and it escaped everyone. Mr. Mitchell said that they provided a plan that showed everything that existed now and everything they are planning. There was no deceit intended. There already is a theater on the site, what they proposed is an upgraded outdoor theater that is clearly not there now. There is shown a formal garden, a terraced garden, and a gazebo to the south along with a box office and bathrooms. The entryway circle was going to be rerouted as part of the parking lot changes. Those are the only things that are not there now. Chairman Davis said that there was no discussion of an outdoor theater and he thought that might be something that was a thought down the road that they would need to return to the Village for approval. What the District is saying is that if the site plan is approved, so is the structure. Mr. Palazzetti said that the information is in the material provided and they provided two exhibits to show what was existing and what is proposed for the future. Specifically, they were talking about what they are doing right now. Although there was no intention, the conversations with the Plan Commission focused their questions on the specifics of what they are doing now. No one raised any questions or concerns about the other amenities, so they did not need to go through a full discussion. They answered any questions and none were brought up about those items. Chairman Davis said that should have been part of their presentation as to what the District planned to do and it should have been mentioned. Mr. Mitchell said that it was all contained in their submittal as Exhibit D; they were not trying to mislead anyone. Chairman Davis asked if there are any other structures that are shown on the site plan that the District plans to develop in the future that has not been discussed. Mr. Mitchell said there is nothing else. Member Mueller asked how they felt about having the site plan approved, minus the structures, and return to the Village for approval, if and when they need them. Mr. Mitchell responded that they were instructed by the Village earlier not to come in piecemeal, but rather when they had a site plan. They are trying to show everything now that may not be built for some time. They tried to discuss the things they are planning to do immediately and showed the other items on their wish list on the site plan. Mr. Palazzetti said that they have mentioned things they would be doing; it is a concept drawing. As pointed out by Director Kallien, the District follows the County code for building, though they have to meet Oak Brook's Fire Dept. standards. They had a choice to go with the County or the Village for storm water and chose the Village, because they would rather work here on site to ensure that the Village standards are met for stormwater. It is always their intention to ensure that as the sites are built to diligently work with staff as they have throughout the rest of the projects. Staff has been extremely helpful to ensure that they are in compliance with the Oak Brook Codes on various items, including stormwater, lighting, parking, etc. They will always work with Oak Brook staff to ensure that it meets Village standards. They really do not have a timeline, it could be twenty years and they could find a benefactor that would allow them to build it in a short amount of time, but they do not see that happening, so it will be a long -range plan. They will use what they have. Currently the staff offices are in temporary office trailers on site. Member Shah stated that although it is on the site plan the Village does not know what it will look like when constructed. His concern is that just because it is shown on the site plan and mentioned, it should not be automatically approved, because the District itself does not know what it would look like, so how can they approve something that is an unknown. Just because something is on a site plan does not mean it is automatically approved, it needs to be specifically mentioned. Mr. Mitchell said that is fine, but when they go to build a 10x10 foot gazebo, they are right back to coming back before the Village. This hearing process is a very expensive process; it was like coming back for the ADA compliance bathrooms. They are requesting approval so that they do not have to come back for every minor improvement. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 7 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY May 6, 2003 Member Shah said that aesthetics are part of the approval process. Member Ascher said that the Retreat Wing was not covered in the original special use, so by approving this the site plan, the use of the Wing will also be included. Mr. Mitchell agreed. Chairman Davis said that if the site plan is approved, what does that allow them to do in the Retreat Wing that they could not do otherwise. Mr. Mitchell said that it has always been used for ancillary uses. Mr. Palazzetti said that it would be used for the other items that are already included in the special use permit, which is for support facilities for the mansion. It would allow them to move the support staff out of the trailers into the building and all the things that were included in the original special use, which they are currently allowed to do in the mansion. They do not have an occupancy permit for the building. The building is not occupied at present. They have removed all the asbestos as part of the ADA compliance and supplemental heat and fire protection has been added. It is a shell of a building, waiting for approval to put those types of approved activities into use. Member Davis asked if the Plan Commission had reviewed the use of the Retreat Wing and said that there appears to be information missing and would like to suggest that this matter go back to the Plan Commission and make them aware of what all they are doing. The Zoning Board of Appeals relies on what the Plan Commission does, but there is nothing indicating that they have taken all of these items in consideration, so there is information missing that they rely on. Mr. Palazzetti said that they were under the impression that it was understood and the questions directed to them were general in concepts they were working on. It was their understanding that the only issues were ensuring that the lights were addressed. They would have answered the same questions the same way. Chairman Davis recommended that the matter be sent back to the Plan Commission and that the Forest Preserve District make a further presentation and make it clear what the other structures are so that their input is provided to the Zoning Board. He apologized to the applicant for any inconvenience. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Young to send the matter back to the Plan Commission for further review and continue this matter to the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for June 3, 2003. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried IV, OAK BROOK PARK DISTRICT - 9450 FOREST GATE - SPECIAL USE - TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE - ZONING ORDINANCE - CHAPTER 13 -12 -4 (G) to AMEND ORDINANCE S -971 to ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,00 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE FAMILY RECREATION CENTER Chairman Davis swore in all parties testifying. Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed the background of the Oak Brook Park District request. In 1999, the Park District received approval of a special use by Ordinance S -791 to create the Family Recreation and Aquatic Center. What they are seeking is an expansion to better meet the needs of their clientele. Tom Suhs, Director of Parks and Recreation of the Oak Brook Park District introduced, Tom Truedson, and John O'Brien, Commissioners and Howard Trier, President of the Park Board. Chairman Davis swore in all witnesses. Mr. Suhs said that the Park District is seeking to expand the building by approximately 8700 square feet. The north side of the facility houses some classrooms as well as the fitness club. They are seeking to expand the fitness club and classrooms, because of the topography of the property they would also like to add an additional first floor space that is currently being planned for storage and ancillary classroom areas. The north side of the building is approximately 7000 square feet. The other portion of the building they are seeking to expand is the administrative office, which are located on the south side of the facility and the expansion being proposed there is 440 square feet. They will be squaring off two front corners of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 8 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY �Z May 6, 2003 the current structure. The original special use was received in 1995 -1996. The aquatic center was added in 1999. Mr. Suhs said that two members of the Plan Commission questioned the funding of the project. The funding is going to be conducted through non - referendum bonds that the Park District had already acquired in 2002. There was some concern addressed by one member about the fact that the bond issue could impact taxes. He said that he responded that it would. There was general discussion about the park district board acquiring the bonds for the project and there was a question on resident input. He said that the Plan Commission did approve the special use amendment, however, they asked that additional details be provided that better justify the need and projected cost of the project and that the information be provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Davis asked for the reason for the request to expand the facility. Mr. Suhs responded that they are currently at 2440 square feet of space for the fitness club. They have approximately 1600 members and within the fitness club, they have 60 actual exercise stations and very distinct peak periods, from 5:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and then from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and then from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m. where they are experiencing that the facility is very crowded and they are experiencing the fact that people have to wait in line to use specific pieces of equipment. It is a concern, to have people going there to work out which is a known stress reliever, and then having people waiting in line behind someone to utilize a piece of equipment pretty much negates that whole aspect. Their concern is that they are going to be achieving a point of diminishing return which is that people are going to get frustrated because they are not getting the positive experience that they are looking for and the fact that they have to wait in line. They are going to see a negative drop off in the usage and members. The fitness club has been a revenue producing facility for them and they want to maintain that and if they don't start being more proactive in that regard they will see it start to drop -off then they will start to experience revenue and expenses problems and remaining a viable facility, which is their main intent. Chairman Davis asked if there was concern with competition between the Park District classrooms and some of the meeting rooms of the Library. Mr. Suhs said they do rent the rooms to any type of organization. They also provide all their meeting rooms to the Homeowners Associations free of charge. The question was why they needed to build additional classrooms when the Library has already added one or two meeting rooms. He said that he is not aware of the policies and procedures e of the or the for and . how they operate. He said that in the month of March they had approximately They feel that there is a real need for that. Within their own programming they are also landlocked, and there are no additional facilities they can use for other programming, they are not only looking to expand the facility but their programming as well. Chairman Davis said that he has been to the Park District for several events and found it difficult to find a parking space and asked if this would exacerbate the problem. Mr. Suhs said that in the winter between November through March on the weekends, they run a very large basketball program that runs from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. and they are stretched a little for parking. This enhancement will not exacerbate that problem. Mr. Suhs reviewed the special use standards as follows: A. For the proposed uses operated by a public agency or proposed uses traditionally affected with the public interest, the proposed biding or use at the particular location requested is necessary or desirable to provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of the public convenience. Response. The use of the facility will remain the same since it's opening in 1996. It serves as a community center with class and meeting rooms for scheduled programs and rentals by community and area organizations. It also houses an indoor aquatic center and a fitness club. The improvement will include expanding the fitness club and additional 80 %, creation of three class /meeting rooms to meet the existing and increasing usage. The facility is heavily utilized for recreational purposes by approximately 75% resident and corporate resident and 25% non- residents. May 6, 2003 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 9 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY _L B. The proposed building or use will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located. Response. They do not feel that the corporate property owners to the east and north of the site would be adversely affected; in fact they feel it would be to their benefit in that their employees currently use an would utilize the increased facilities that are being proposed. The developer of the homeowners association to the south states in their sales literature that their properties are located within waling distance of park district facilities. Speculation would be that in that they are listing their proximity to a park as a selling point, the assumption would be they would not consider themselves adversely affected. C. The proposed building or use will be so designed, located and operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected. Response. The facility was designed and has been used to provide community- oriented and recreational services to the community. It serves as a meeting place for a large portion of Oak Brook homeowner associations, numerous programs and classes are offered that strive to enhance the quality of life in the community. All of these activities are designed and monitored either by internal staff controls or through professional or governmental agencies. Member Zaheer questioned that normally when there is a change to the structure, elevations are provided. There is nothing in the case file that would depict how the proposed structure would tie into the existing structure to ensure that it maintains the integrity of the building. Mr. Suhs said that it is there intent that you would not know an addition had been added. Member Zaheer said that the Zoning.Board of Appeals recommendation would include that the structure be built in conformance with the plans as submitted, without seeing any plans that is not possible. Chairman Davis asked what the timeframe is for construction. Mr. Suhs responded that they are planning to go out to bid by the end of this month. Depending upon the contractor they are hoping to start by this summer. Frank Trombetta, Woodside Estate, asked what the cost for the project would be. Mr. Suhs responded 1.3 million dollars. Member Sanford said that the testimony provided said that the facility is getting full and is in need of additional space seems to be contrary to the fact that Park district taxes went up 17 %, but if the membership is expanding and is becoming more self sustaining he has a problem, but it has nothing to do with the zoning. Mr. Suhs said that the taxes are not going to go down, however, the Park District has an excellent record with dealing with bonds. The first time was when the Park District built the racket club in 1974 and completed in 1979. The bonds that were sold were all paid off six years early. The other bond issue was in 1989 when they purchased property from the McDonald's Corporation and the ten -year bond was paid off in ten years. Given the history, and in that the facility is doing so well, he would think that is what would happen, but he cannot guarantee it. Member Ascher asked that both the net revenues as well as what the taxpayers paid, paid off the bonds. Mr. Suhs said that racket club was paid off totally by user fees. It is an enterprise fund, which means that it is not supported by any tax dollars. The 1989 bond issue was paid off utilizing tax dollars. Member Ascher asked how many taxpayers of the Oak Brook Park District actually utilize the facility. Mr. Suhs responded that as of March 31, 2003 they had 1625 members of the fitness club. They number of resident memberships is 990 and the number of corporate member ships is 250 for a total of 1240, The number of nonresident memberships is 395. The resident and corporate resident is 76% of the membership and nonresident is 24 %. Based on the population of Oak Brook 8700, they have 11 % of all residents as members of the fitness club. They have not marketed the facility because they knew they ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 90 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY - -..� May 6, 2003 were tight. They are interested in promoting the individuals that are 60 and up to utilize the facilities. According to the 2000 census there are 2552 individuals in that age level in Oak Brook and they currently have 182. The numbers are out there to substantiate and support the facility. Mr. Suhs said that the Board is not looking necessarily as the facility to be a profit center, but they are more concerned that it provides the types of service to improve their health. Mr. Young asked if the current constituency was surveyed regarding the impact of the building from a service standpoint. Mr. Suhs responded that they had done a survey last summer and they asked that the building be expanded. Member Zaheer moved, seconded by Member Sanford to continue the matter to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on June 3, 2003 in order to review building elevations that the applicant will provide. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried V. ATHLETICO LTD, - 625 ENTERPRISE DRIVE - VARIATION - TITLE 9 of the VILLAGE CODE - STORM WATER, FLOODPLAIN, AND SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL REGULATIONS- SECTION 9 -5 -4 and 9 -5 -5 FEE IN LIEU OF ON -SITE STORMWA TER DETENTION Chairman Davis swore in all those providing testimony at this hearing. Mr. Larry Swibel, attorney for Athletico, Ltd. reviewed the background of their case. Athletico purchased the property on Enterprise Drive in December 2002, which was about the same time as the Village revised its stormwater ordinance. Athletico is relocating from LaGrange Park to Oak Brook. It is the fastest growing sports rehabilitation facility in the region, with over 20 locations. It services teams like the Chicago Bears, the Black Hawks, performing arts such as the Geoffrey Ballet, Chicago Fire and a number of high profile and high visibility customers. It is a high -class organization and they want to be good neighbors. They look forward to a long and harmonious relationship with the Village. They hope to grow with Oak Brook and make Oak Brook their home for a long time. They purchased the building in December. When the new ordinance was enacted, it caught them by surprise. The ordinance applies to parcels that are greater than one acre in size so the project they propose, and they believe to be relatively small triggers the ordinance, not because of the size of the project, but because of the size of the parcel. They are looking to add about 1500 square feet to the building. They will be refurbishing it and dressing it up a little. Athletico bought it from a company called AutoLine, which was in bankruptcy and the building was deteriorated somewhat. Athletico is going to put quite a bit of money into making the building better, expanding it a little bit and adding approximately 50 parking spaces. When they learned about the ordinance, they reviewed the standards for a variance and brought in a team of engineers to advise them as to what the various options were to comply with the ordinance in order to satisfy the ordinance or that they may be entitled to the variance. They learned that estimates ran approximately $750,000 to fully comply with the ordinance. The ordinance requires projects of their type, even as small as this project, because the parcel is large, they would have to provide for water detention on the parcel of 100 %. They could allow no water runoff the parcel as the result of a new project. There are six criteria in the ordinance for granting the variance. They feel that they satisfy all six of the criteria. They were caught by surprise when late last week they found out that DuPage County wanted to review the project. It was the first time they had heard that the DuPage County Stormwater Management District wanted to look at the project as well. This morning, at 7:30 a.m., DuPage County had their hearing. Not only did they not have time to prepare for what the County would ask them, the County did not ask them ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 11 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY May 6, 2003 anything. There was no communication between the County and any representative of Athletico. In fact the petitioner thought that it was going to be a working session to discuss why they thought they were entitled to the variance, and what options they had looked at. The petitioner was told that they were not entitled to make a presentation to the County, that they had their own staff recommendation; and that the staff recommendation inferred that they satisfied 5 out of 6 of the criteria. The one criteria that they expressed concern about was that they had not demonstrated that a complete variance was the minimum relief that was necessary to accomplish their purposes. That was the only criterion cited in the County's letter, as to why the matter was tabled. The County did not deny the variance, but it was tabled and it was suggested that Athletico talk to Oak Brook further about various options. It is their view, because time is so much of the essence to them, every day that goes by is costing them a lot of money; and, whereas they believe that they can make a very strong case for the granting of the variance. They are prepared in the alternative, if it were turned down, to present an alternative proposal that they think satisfies the one criterion that the County thought that they were lacking on, and that is they have not shown that a complete variance is the minimum relief that they need. There is a cost for the complete variance, which would be a fee that is calculated on the size of the parcel, which amounts to approximately $82,000 for the right to do their project. If that is not going to meet with the Board's approval, then they have to try as hard as they can to not let another 30 days slip by. If the Board is not going to favorably act on the request for the variance, they asked for the Board's indulgence to allow their engineers to present another proposal, which is somewhat of a compromise position that does provide for some detention on the parcel. It is something that can be attained at a cost under $750,000, they would be willing to forgo the request for the variance if allowed to give that presentation. Chairman Davis noted that this is an unusual proceeding. This is the first request this Board has had for a variance where a fee would be paid in lieu of detention. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the standards for this type of variation to the Storm water Ordinance are somewhat different than that of a variance to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Swibel said that they believe they are the case of first impression since the ordinance is new. They are not sure how the criterion has been applied, because there is no precedent. Chairman Davis noted that Athletico had requested an easement from the Forest Preserve District but were turned down. Mr. Roy Harnish, Project Manager with WT Engineering, said that they did make a formal request in writing to the Forest Preserve District and they responded that a private entity could not apply for the easement, but that the municipality could. (See page G of the case file) Chairman Davis asked Mr. Swibel to respond to the standards as required by Ordinance. Mr. Swibel responded. 1. Granting the variation shall not alter the essential character of the area involved, including existing stream uses. Approval of the variation will not alter the essential character of the area or impact any streams. 2. Carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this title would create an undue or particular hardship or difficulty on a specific developer or owner. Cost to provide detention as required by Ordinance would be approximately $750,000 (high end), relative to the project the amount is disproportionate. 3. The relief requested is the minimum necessary and there are no practicable means other than the requested variation by which the alleged hardship can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit the reasonable continuation of the development; and ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 12 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY May 6, 2003 Without forest preserve district approval there are no practicable means. The prohibitive cost would also require relocation of utilities underground and other associated costs. 4. The applicant's circumstances are unique and do not represent a general condition or problem; and The circumstances are unique because of the physical characteristics of the property and the inability to provide an outlet for the stormwater into Salt Creek. 5. The subject development is exceptional as compared to other developments subject to the same provision; and Same as #4 6. A development proposed for a special management area could not be constructed if it were limited to areas outside the special management area. It could not be constructed and they are prepared to cover the fee in the amount of $82,000 as allowed by Ordinance. Chairman Davis asked who collects the fee. Village Engineer Durfey said the payment goes to the Village and the Village can use it for stormwater matters through out the Village within a ten -year period. If the money is not used after ten years, it is returned to the applicant. Chairman Davis questioned that based upon the letter received, that this matter would end with the County's review. Mr. Swibel responded that the County said it does not end with them they just make a recommendation to Oak Brook. He said that the petitioner would comply with all legal requirements. Chairman Davis asked if the requested fee payment is due to the easement issue with the Forest Preserve District. Member Ascher wanted to make it clear that it is ultimately up to the Board to make the decision, based on everything he had heard this evening. Even if the County said no, Oak Brook could approve it. Village Engineer Durfey clarified that Oak Brook is a full waiver community. We enforce the County Ordinance as a minimum standard. Oak Brook has gone above some of their codes and has a higher standard on some issues. If Oak Brook starts to have a history of what the County feels is inappropriate actions, they would take Oak Brook to task, and if in their judgment felt that we were inappropriately administering the County minimum standards, they could pull the Village's full waiver status and then they would be the governing body of stormwater permits in the Village. If we disagree with the County on something, but can show a reason why we do it a certain way, they have if the past stated that they do not necessarily have to agree if the Village can document why it was done. Member Ascher asked what would happen if the County denied this project. Village Engineer Durfey responded that hopefully the record would indicate that the applicant presented its case, showed alternatives, discussed why they cannot do it, the cost of the project, pictures, charts and graphs and additional meetings. The County did suggest this morning to have a meeting with County representatives, himself and the applicant. They hope to do that in the next week or so. Perhaps they could further discuss a pipe situation through the Forest Preserve District. The better the record, the better the case for the Village. Mr. Swibel noted that he believes it is relevant that the County tabled the matter. They did not deny it and they knew the petitioner was coming before the Village at this meeting to seek approval. If the concern is that somehow the Village is going to cross the County, he believes that the County would have made it clearer by providing some direction to the Village or state in their recommendation if they felt strongly about it. The County told them that they were free to go before the Village and ask for approval, and if the Village approved it, to come back and tell the County and talk to them about it. They will comply with all of the legal requirements. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 13 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY May 6, 2003 Member Ascher said that it seems that it would be in their best interest for the Village to examine the issue thoroughly, rather than having the County come back at a later date. Mr. Swibel responded that time is a very big problem for them. There are reasons why, that if they were entitled to this, they would want to obtain approval tonight. They will go back to the County, and show them what they are doing. He believes that it is relevant that the County did not deny it and they knew of this hearing. If it were going to be a major problem, they would have made it clear to deny it or recommend that the Village deny it. Member Ascher asked why the petitioner did not look at the County Code. Village Engineer Durfey said that the Village became a full waiver community in 1992. Ordinances were adopted that established the County Codes as the minimum stormwater standards, which the Village did by several ordinances over time. Since the 1970's, property that has been developed complies with the stormwater ordinances. Mr. Swibel said that he did not know when the building was built. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the building preceded that date, which is why most of the properties on Enterprise do not have detention. Redevelopment is always more difficult. Member Ascher asked if that was something, the Village could fall back on in the argument with the county on the issue that the building was built in 1965 before the code existed. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the next question would be that if they are redeveloping, why they cannot comply or how much can they comply. The County is apparently not convinced that the applicant has shown to say they cannot do anything at all. Mr. Swibel interjected that the County never asked them anything or had a single discussion with them. Village Engineer Durfey noted that it was a very unusual situation to not hear from the County until this morning, in a written form. Mr. Swibel said that they felt railroaded and they will let the County know how that process took place. If the effect of that was to simply cause the Village to feel skittish about granting something they believe they are entitled to, then they have suffered some damage by their actions. They are hoping to not be damaged by that process. Member Zaheer asked the applicant to discuss some of the things they considered, why the alternatives are not feasible and why the fee is being requested in lieu of the detention. Member Mueller noted that they said they stated earlier that they had a proposal so that they would not need a full waiver. Mr. Swibel responded that they do not have the right to demand it, but are asking as strenuously as they can for an answer of some sort tonight because of the logistics that they have of needing to move out of other premises and having a facility that is built and ready, by certain dates. He said that they do have a compromise to show, if the board were to deny a complete variance. It would cost them more money, but they could provide for some detention, and they would be willing to do it. They do not feel that they are obligated to do it, because they believe they area entitled to a complete variance. They are desperate to get a favorable answer of some sort this evening because of their time crunch. Mr. Harnish passed out several different plans that a few of the members reviewed. Member Zaheer asked about the alternate proposal and whether it could be achieved on the property. Mr. Roy said that it could but that it was very expensive and involved the underground piping at cost of $700,000. The pipes are probably about 1 -%2 feet in size. Member Zaheer asked if the Village Engineer had seen these plans, and if not, why they were not given to him. Mr. Harnish said that they put these options together when they found out that they had to meet with ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 14 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY May 6, 2003 the county to demonstrate the hardship. Mr. Swibel added that it is physically possible to satisfy the ordinance, but it is so expensive that it makes the whole project, infeasible. Chairman Davis asked what the approximate cost of the addition would be. Wes Rehwoldt, Barofsky Associates, said that the redevelopment costs, including the parking lot, and redevelopment of the interior of the building, tenant build -outs and additional 1500 square feet, of two saddlebags comprised of two emergency staircases and an elevator, would run about one million dollars. Chairman Davis stated that what makes the detention necessary is not the redevelopment of the building, but the building addition and parking lot. Mr. Swibel said that the costs of the detention requirements would meet or exceed the cost of the building and parking lot enhancements. Mr. Rehwoldt said that existing parking does not conform to current building standards. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there are several buildings on Enterprise Drive that are deficient in a number of ways. They were built in a different era. Mr. Harnish said that Option 2, provides 25% of the required detention in the parking lot, the remainder moves to a discharge point out to the forest preserve. Chairman Davis said that with the second option there is still the forest preserve issue. Member Ascher asked if the cost would be 25% less and was told yes. Chairman Davis said that if the Board sees the Forest Preserve District approval as an impediment, then it is an impediment to both options. Cost is a separate issue. Mr. Swibel said that the feasibility of getting the easement, still impacts the feasibility of anything they do outside of the providing 100% detention on site. Chairman Davis asked what the County responded to in regards to that situation. Mr. Swibel responded that the County has not given them an opportunity to say anything. Chairman Davis said based on that there are no feasible options. Mr. Swibel said that the materials presented were a demonstration as to what they have looked at, and what the problems are. Mr. Zaheer confirmed that the options presented are contingent upon the easement from the Forest Preserve District. Mr. Swibel said that the most expensive option, which would require full compliance with the Ordinance, would still require the easement from the Forest Preserve District. Member Shah asked if it was possible to discharge at a controlled rate into an existing sewer. Mr. Rehwoldt said that they do not know of an existing sewer. Village Engineer Durfey said that there is no sewer contiguous to this property. The front of the property is Enterprise Drive; the rear is Salt Creek, which is owned by the Forest Preserve District. Mr. Rehwoldt said that Enterprise Drive drains to two manholes that drain into a pipe, which runs into Salt Creek. Member Shah asked where the water currently runs off the property. Mr. Rehwoldt responded that it sheets off onto the Forest Preserve District property, which is acceptable right now for all the buildings in that area. Village Engineer Durfey added that it is an existing condition. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 95 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY May 6, 2003 Village Engineer Durfey said that the existing condition is that the street is about 664 and the rear part of the property is about 661 (feet above sea level). Salt Creek is much lower than that so this property drains from the street toward the back at about a three -foot drop from front to back. They have no place to put detention other than putting a pit in the ground and pumping it back up or somehow getting permission from the Forest Preserve District to have a gravity sewer. The other option would be to raise the property, putting something underground and discharging at the 661 in the back. Member Shah said that he is sees it is possible to detain the water, but after it has been detained, what do you do with it. Somehow it has to be pumped out, but there is no sewer. Village Engineer Durfey said that it can be done, but it is very expensive. The meeting next week is to review another option that the County might have come up with and review the various cost factors. Cost feasibility is part of the mixture for hardship. Member Shah said that there are no defined criteria, at what point do you consider it a hardship. Mr. Swibel said that had the County asked these questions they would have answered them. They are very skeptical that the County could come up with something that they have not already explored. They have been working on this because it is in their best interest to get it done as quickly as possible and they are willing to pay if there was a feasible solution. The County has not talked to them or suggested anything to date, or even asked the applicant what they have looked at. Member Zaheer questioned that in the normal course of a variation cost is not considered, but in this case, can cost can be considered a hardship? Director of Community Development Kallien responded that there are two different sets of standards, one for the Zoning Ordinance and another for the Stormwater Regulations. Chairman Davis said that the petitioner has addressed the standards for the variation, and the request is for payment of a fee to the Village in lieu of detention. There appears to be no feasible relief due to the fact that the Forest Preserve District permission would be required in the case of any of the options presented to the Board. The hardship appears that the cost of the detention would be close if not exceed the cost of the project, which would be a hardship. Member Shah asked how the amount of the fee was calculated. Village Engineer Durfey responded that it was in the Ordinance, and is based on $133,000 per acre -foot of stormwater detention varied and they are varying the full amount of .611 acre -feet. Member Shah asked that by paying the fee how does the problem disappear. Village Engineer responded that practically speaking, one property would have a negligible effect on the Salt Creek Flood Plain whether there is detention there or not. The ordinance assumes cumulative issues, multiple properties, the whole County and watersheds. It would not be noticed by one particular property. There have been studies done in the past that have identified, that if you are right next to a stream and detain the water and then meter it out, the water may be let out when the peak is coming downstream and making it worse, than if you had let it go in the first hour rather than 24 hours later. Chairman Davis added that the theory is that the proceeds from the fee would be used for other detention matters that may be beneficial in the long run. Chairman Davis moved, seconded by Member Shah that the petitioner has satisfied the standards required to recommend a variation as requested. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 7- Nays: 0 - Absent: 0- Motion Carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY Ascher, Mueller, Sanford, Shah, Young, Zaheer and Davis 16 May 6, 2003 A TEXT AMENDMENT - TITLE 13 of the VILLAGE CODE - CHAPTER 13 -3 -6B - ACCESSORY USES - CHAIN -LINK FENCE REGULATIONS Director of Community Development Kallien said that the issue of chain link fences has been analyzed numerous times. The goal was to improve the aesthetics of chain link fences. As a result, a number or recommendations have been forwarded to the Village Board. Some have been accepted while in some other instances they have chosen not to take final action. The issue is a ratcheting back of chain link fences. Under this proposal many places that would currently allow chain link fences would no longer qualify. On page 10 of the file is the Recommendation Letter from Plan Commission Chairwoman Lexi Payovich, which summarizes the Plan Commission findings relative to this case. There is a chart that list the current and proposed areas would chain link fences would be allowed or prohibited as follows: Location Existing Proposed Buildable area Yes No In any front/side yard Yes No In any rear yard Yes No /Yes' Surrounding Subdivisions Yes Yes 2 Swimming Pools Yes No 3 Sports Courts /Fields Yes Yes Construction Sites Yes Yes 4 Road ROW Yes Yes 5 Dog Runs /Kennels Yes Yes 6 1. 6 -ft. high chain -link fences permitted if lot abuts the Village's boundary with another municipality. 2. 42" high chain -link fences if landscaped on both sides with year -round plantings. 3. Must utilize 6 -ft. high, non -chain link fences. Must provide same level of security as chain -link. 4. Temporary arrangement. 5. Located along county, state and federal highways only. 6. Permitted in buildable area only. Non -chain link fence material is required if located in any required yard. They have tried to seek out the opinions of the citizenry of Oak Brook and tonight there is a resident in the audience that would like to speak. Frank Trombetta, 36 Meadowood Drive, said that they have a chain -link fence on both sides of their yard, in the rear yard is the neighbors fence that is old and falling down. When the fence does come down, he wants to install a chain link to match the rest of their fencing, if this is approved, they will not be able to square it off and make it the same. What they are proposing will not allow him to do that, and that does not make sense to him. In addition, he would like to know what is wrong with chain -link fencing and would like someone to explain that to him. Director of Community Development Kallien said that despite an exhaustive search, no empirical studies could be found find that support or go against the notion that chain -link fences have a negative effect on adjacent property. During their ZORC review, the Village Attorney said that we should find something that supports that it detracts from property values or something, because it seems the basis for the change is aesthetics, which is somewhat subjective. As an example, there are people that think that the wall at Forest Gate is the ugliest thing in the world and there are probably some people that think it is wonderful. It is a judgment call. The bottom line received from the Village Board is that it appears there is a negative aesthetic value to chain -link fences. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 17 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY May 6, 2003 Director of Community Development Kallien said that some of the subdivisions presently do not allow chain -link fences or any other type of fence. Lynn Trombetta, 36 Meadowood Drive, said that it seems to her that it is like a homeowners association run -a -muck, where a few people are going to decide what is pleasing aesthetically to them. She invited all to come look at her home from the front and you cannot see a fence, when you go in the back yard it is green enameled covered chain -link. The neighbor next door put in a million - dollar house and matched their fencing. It is beautiful back there. What she has to contend with is the existing neighbor who made his fence out of 4 x 4's, chicken wire and a 2 x 4 propping up a gate. She is living next door to hillbillies and yet she is told that when his fence falls down, and it will, she will not be able to match her existing fence or she can get a variance for $750.00. This is insane. She is looking for a grandfather for her property. She has a problem waiting to happen and she is looking for some respite. Three /fourths of her yard has chain -link fence. Director of Community Development Kallien said that ZORC (Zoning Ordinance Review Committee) consists of, Trustee Savino (who is no longer a Trustee), Village Attorney Martens, and himself. When they submitted their review to the Village Board, this is what the Village Board wanted. A majority of the Board felt that this type of proposal was worthwhile. Chairman Davis said that is what was previously wanted, but now there is a new Board and Mr. Savino is no longer on ZORC. Member Mueller said if this is what they wanted, why didn't they over rule the recommendation from the Zoning Board and vote this changed language, if this is what they wanted. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the alternative language would still have to go through the hearing process. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if someone ends up in the no category, they would have to use an alternate material or could apply for a variation. The difficulty becomes how the variation standards can be satisfied. Member Zaheer said that the problem of the residents here this evening, is that although an existing chain -link fence can be grandfathered and maintained, but if one does not exist, it cannot be expanded. Common sense would tell you to allow them to fill it in, which was the intent with the original fence. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the way the language is structured, they would have to apply for a variation or language would have to be created to address that situation. There may be many situations like this in the community, which is why it is very difficult to come up with language that applies to all situations, because there are so many different situations that can be found. Chairman Davis said that they would like Attorney Martens to come to the next meeting, because he has some concerns with the language and the legality of it. Chairman Davis said that they would continue this matter and consider it at the next meeting. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Young to continue this hearing to the June 3, 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Vll. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business discussed. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 18 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY May 6, 2003 Vill. ADJOURNMENT Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Zaheer to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 19 ZBA- MTG.2003 -MAY Director of Commun�3r'Dev'06pm6nt Secretary June 3, 2003 Date Approved May 6, 2003