Loading...
Minutes - 06/04/2002 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES June 4, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDERThe regular meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Members MEMBERS ABSENT: Champ Davis Richard Ascher George Mueller Manu Shah Ayesha Zaheer Member Louis Aldini ALSO PRESENT: Village Trustee Village Trustee Village Trustee Village Trustee Director of Community Development Village Attorney Village Engineer A quorum was present. I/. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Alfred Savino Stelios Aktipis Susan Korin Elaine Miologos Robert Kallien Richard Martens Dale Durfey Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Zaheer, to waive the reading of the May 7, 2002 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. 111. WOLLENSAK — 3604 YORK ROAD — VARIATION — FRONT YARD SETBACK Chairman Davis swore in Daniel Wollensak, petitioner and owner of the property. Daniel Wollensak said that Village Engineer Durfey, visited the property on May 17, 2002, and a memo has been included in the file, which includes his assessment of the property. The Village Engineer agrees that the lot elevation falls significantly from south to north, approximately a seven -foot drop. At the time of his observation, standing water was observed near the northwest corner and along the rear of the property to the north. The items discussed would be that additional stormwater runoff would be created by a larger structure. To compensate for the increased runoff and to mitigate the existing drainage ponding, it was recommended that he consider running a storm sewer that would be doable from the northwest corner of the property going north one lot, which would be Mrs. Moffet's property (3600 York Road) to connect to an existing storm sewer that runs parallel between her property and another unit. It is about a 125 foot run. It would be possible to backfill the property, with the Village Engineer recommending a 4 to 1 for 5 to 1 slope to also compensate for the drainage. It would locate the pool or any other structure where it would be built on the elevated /backfilled area 24 -30 feet away from the lot line. It was also proposed that the proposed ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -JUN 1211-V June 4, 2002 pool should be somewhat below the top of the foundation of the house. He noted that it appears that the home and the pool could be moved somewhat to the west in order to diminish the proposed variation. Chairman Davis questioned whether he was prepared to do that. Mr. Wollensak said that he is prepared to discuss any option. Chairman Davis said that a specific proposal is needed. The only proposal before the Board is the site plan in the file. Mr. Wollensak said that he has reconsidered the dimensions of the home, pool and the location on the property. It appears that he could probably compromise on the pool dimensions and gain several feet by reconfiguring some of the extension of the house to the point, that instead of the 18 foot being requested, he could reconfigure things and get by with 12 -14 feet. Chairman Davis asked if this was a specific proposal to amend the site plan. Mr. Wollensak agreed. Chairman Davis asked the Village Attorney for his comments on the request. Village Attorney Martens responded that such a request could be approved and a revised site plan would be presented to the Village Board. Chairman Davis added that the site plan would also show the proposed storm sewer to the rear of the property. Mr. Wollensak responded that would require the permission of the neighbors to encroach upon their rear lot line to connect with the existing sewer, so part of the proposal would be to obtain that permission. There is a substantial area that is low, not only on his property, but on the surrounding properties that do have standing water problems. Chairman Davis stated for the record that Member Shah was not present at the last meeting, but he has reviewed the tapes and is prepared to consider this matter as permitted by the Rules of Procedure. Shirley Moffet, 3600 York Road, said that she lives north of the property. When Dan Wollensak approached her about building the house, the first thing she told him was that she was worried about the water condition. He told her that he did not intend to disturb the flow of the land. Now he wants to hook up to a sewer and she is not sure that she wants that put on the back of her property, because should she ever want to sell, a building cannot be put over a sewer. Chairman Davis said that he was not the person to answer that question, however, the sewer would be for the enhancement of the entire area along there. Mr. Wollensak would also need the permission of the neighbors. Mr. Wollensk said that the proposed sewer would start at the northwest corner of his property and run along Mrs. Moffet's rear property line to the north along to the next property which is the Dressler property (3524 York Road) about 100 feet where there is an existing sewer line that they would tap into. It would require trenching along the property line between the Moffet property and the property behind her to the west at the lot line. He asked the Village Engineer to further explain the process. Village Engineer Durfey said that typically, the sewer line would be constructed about five feet in from the rear lot line, and there would be about a 10 -foot easement or permission of property to build a sewer line. Chairman Davis asked if that would interfere with any subsequent construction on the Moffet property. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the zoning allows accessory structures to be located within five feet of the rear property line. There would never be a structure within five feet to begin with, so there would not be a taking in this case. Mrs. Moffet said that she has a big willow tree in the rear of her property. Joe Rush, former trustee, said that putting a ten -foot easement on Mrs. Moffet's property puts a burden on her property, and she gets no benefit for it. At this point, she chooses not to do so. The Village put part of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -JUN 2 OoLft June 4, 2002 this problem on her by allowing the property to the north to be filled twice. There were literally over 100 truckloads of dirt brought in to raise the property. He finally convinced the builder since he was raising that lot several feet, to also raise part of her property. Because of the elevation of the garage all of it could not be raised, so the rear portion they are referring to usually has water and is a result of all the filling because the water drains there. She is also concerned with the new building line and is concerned that the new building line would be closer to the street than her house. Mr. Wollensak responded that the proposed location for the new structure would fall approximately 28 -30 feet behind Mrs. Moffet's front line as proposed. With the compromise as discussed, it would be 40 -45 feet behind her. Mr. Rush said that all the properties to the south are potential teardowns. The zoning ordinance was set up with the idea, knowing that at the time the property was zoned not all of the properties would fit, but given time it could be corrected. At this time, Mrs. Moffet does not choose to give up the easement. Member Ascher asked the Village Engineer if it would be a benefit to Mrs. Moffet's property to have the sewer installed and would it solve some of the runoff on her property. The Village Engineer responded that it would. Member Ascher noted that she would benefit if the sewer were installed. The Village Engineer said that he believed it would. Member Shah asked it the sewer could be placed on the property line. The Village Engineer responded that it could, providing that both property owners give permission to do so. Chairman Davis said that at the last meeting the standards were given. Member Zaheer questioned whether the attached garage was for a two or four -car garage. Mr. Wollensak responded that the attached would more than likely be a two car garage with some shop area. The outside footprint of the structure is remaining the same, but some of it will be used as additional living area. It was drawn as a four -car, but the bay closest to the western end would be living area. Member Zaheer asked if the swimming pool as an accessory building, could be set outside of the building setback lines. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it could be located within five feet of the rear yard. Member Zaheer said that one of the standards is that of hardship. She has visited the site and has taken the Village Engineers comments into account. However, she does not believe that the condition has been met, and she does not feel that a hardship exists. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Wollensak what he felt was his plight as the owner of the property. Mr. Wollensak that as a practical location for the pool he would disagree that placing it far back into the corner would be as usable for a structure and would may be a potential safety hazard for clear line of site from the residence when the pool is in use. If the lot itself conformed to the minimum R -2 standards, which are being applied to it, all of the proposed improvements would be accommodated on a normal lot. The lot is so undersized, which is what is creating the difficulty. The structures would all fit without any difficulty on a minimum R -2 standard lot. Member Mueller asked if the proposed modification of 12 -14 feet would be based on not putting in the sewer line. He said that it was his understanding that putting in the sewer line would benefit several neighbors. He did not realize that it would be an unwanted addition. The corner of his lot has standing water that he could tolerate. The increase in runoff created with building on the lot, he thought would be a benefit to the surrounding neighbors to run the water off to a sewer line. He is surprised at the objection. Chairman Davis said that if the sewer line is to be built and an agreement made, it would be placed back in the portion of the property that is viewed to be unbuildable. Mr. Wollensak agreed. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 3 ZBA- MTG.2002 -JUN June 4, 2002 He also said that in the applicant's view the house and the pool could not be moved back in that area because of the elevation. Mr. Wollensak agreed. That in combination with the undersized lot and the extraordinary setback establishes the hardship. Village Trustee Savino said that the plan looks like a 4 -car garage and he does not see where the living area would be. Mr. Wollensak said that, although it is drawn as a 4 -car garage, the space allocated on the drawing for two bays is intended to be living space. Member Mueller asked if that would shorten the length of the house. Mr. Wollensak said no, that it would be used as living space. The outside footprint would not change. The interior space will be utilized as living space not garage space. Member Shah asked if more space was now needed for living than what was originally designed. Mr. Wollensak said that there are some needs that have not been met in the existing layout that could be improved upon. Mr. Shah said that his concern is that there is a reason for the front setback. In the future, if wider roads are needed, that is the purpose for the front setback. He is reluctant to sacrifice a front setback if there is a way of solving the problem by sacrificing a rear or a side setback. If everyone has 100 -foot and he has 80 feet, there is no way to widen the roads in the future on the community. It appears that all the structures could go into other places, and unless he is convinced that there is no other way, by sacrificing other setbacks, he is very reluctant to do so. Member Shah said that the sewer line does not reduce the setback requirement it just drains the area properly. He asked where the water would go from the proposed house. Mr. Wollensak answered that there are no storm sewers on the site and the water will go to the lowest spot on the lot. Member Shah asked if the water would just go down the downspouts onto the ground. Mr. Wollensak said yes. Member Shah asked if that was allowed and he was told yes. Chairman Davis said that the comment about the storm sewer was that it could be built on the lowest portion of the property as opposed to any structure. The hardship presented is that the topography of the land makes it not buildable in the rear portion and the pool to be located close to the house so that it could be viewed. Chairman Davis said that the standards are set forth on pages 10 -10a of the petition file. Member Ascher moved, seconded by Chairman Davis that the petitioner has met the standards that are necessary to recommend for approval the Variation as amended subject to the following conditions: A revised site plan reducing the requested encroachment between 12 to 14 feet Install the storm sewer if permission is obtained from affected neighbors. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 3 - Ascher, Mueller and Davis Nays: 2- Shah and Zaheer Absent: 1 - Aldini Motion Failed. Chairman Davis asked Village Attorney Martens to explain the procedure with a failed motion and a member absent. Village Attorney Martens said that since one member is absent, if he would choose to vote in favor of the application he would be the fourth vote and four affirmative votes are necessary to favorably recommend the relief sought. Pursuant to the recently adopted Rules of Procedure, Member Aldini has the opportunity to listen to the tape and participate at the next meeting, in revisiting the vote. The matter is then automatically continued to the next meeting. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -JUN June 4, 2002 IV. NAGUIB - 824 MERRY LANE -FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL USE -COMPENSATORY STORAGE TO BUILD THE DRIVEWAYACCESS TO THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE Chairman Davis swore in Mr. Jim Anthony, who represented Dr. and Mrs. Naguib. Jim Anthony said that the Plan Commission has reviewed and provided their recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The petitioners are seeking a flood plain special use permit so that they have adequate access to the site. The proposed site development plan enhances the safety for the neighbors. Mr. Anthony reviewed the plan. He noted that the floodplain elevation is at 659.6, which is at the entrance off Merry Lane. Just a portion of the property is in the flood plain. The proposed residence will be located out of the floodplain and all walls are outside of the flood plain, those issues will be taken care of during the building permit phase of the project. Chairman Davis asked what percentage of the proposed drive is within the flood plain and where the compensation is being provided? Mr. Anthony responded that it is a small portion, but fill is required and he is compensating for it at a ratio of 1.5 to 1. It is provided in the area noted as FES 656.60 and is provided into the existing storm sewer. It has been provided according to the Village requirements for compensatory storage. The standards for a flood plain special use were presented as follows: 1. The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. Given that the proposed grade has been regarded accordingly to compensate for a flooding situation and it enhances and safeguards life from being in danger. 2. The danger that material may be swept onto other lands, or cross - stream, upstream or downstream to the injury of others. Due to compensatory storage and regrading of the property, the proposed site development plan prevents any materials from being swept onto other lands upstream. 3. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions. The water supply and sanitation will not only be improved, but also will be enhanced for the benefit of the owners and neighbors since the water will be controlled and will continue to flow, but will not accumulate on the site. 4. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owners. The structure is not in a floodplain area. The proposed front building setback will be 123 feet, which will locate the house well outside the floodplain area. The proposed foundation height of 670.75 will ensure a more than adequate freeboard to prevent any danger of life and property due to flooding. 5. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. The community is residential and the undeveloped land could harbor dangerous pets, accumulate undesirable vegetation which could lead to increased risk of harboring dangerous insects. The existing uncontrolled unsanitary conditions will be completely reversed by the proposed site development plan. 6. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location. There is no waterfront issue in this case. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 5 ZBA- MTG.2002 -JUN June 4, 2002 7. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future. There is no existing development right now on the property the site is vacant. The future plan is not only compatible, but goes further to enhance the safety of the subdivision. 8. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program for the area. The proposed plan meets the requirements for compensatory storage according to the village ordinance. The proposed plan also addresses all concerns of the floodplain management program in the area. 9. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. The proposed driveway will ensure that safe access to the residence for ordinary and emergency vehicles will be maintained at all times during a 100 -year flood. 10. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters expected at the site. The height, velocity rate, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport will not be affected with the proposed site development plan. Chairman Davis asked if the Plan Commission addressed any concerns. Mr. Anthony responded that some concerns were addressed, but not in regards to the flood plain special use permit, but more or less to the aesthetics of the lot. He said that right now the lot is not aesthetically pleasing because there is water accumulation on the lot. As soon as the construction starts and the compensation starts there will not be any sitting water. These were the concerns heard and were addressed. No one spoke in support or against the development. Chairman Davis asked if anyone wished to speak in support or in opposition to the request. Marcia Hosler, 820 Merry Lane said that she lives on what will be the east of the proposed lot. She said that she is pleased to hear that the water situation will be completely eliminated. She understands that this is an ongoing process, but because of the extent of the water on the property, the village should consider a type of mosquito abatement program that would benefit everyone. Some of the eastern suburban areas are having some difficulties. She believes the village should take every precaution, because these insects could create a problem. Chairman Davis asked that she was satisfied that situation will address as construction progresses. No one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the request. Member Shah questioned that the lowest contour of the lot was 657. Mr. Anthony said that the contour was added in order to meet the compensatory storage of 1.5 to 1. All the regrading on the property was done to compensate for the floodplain. The plan was reviewed by the Village Engineer. Member Manu moved, seconded by Member Ascher, that the petitioner has addressed the standards to recommend approval of the flood plain special use request subject to final engineering approval. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 5- Nays: 0 - Absent: 1 - Motion Carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -JUN Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Aldini June 4, 2002 V. DuPAGE HOUSING AUTHORITY - 3400 ST. PASCHAL DRIVE - TEXT AMENDMENTS and SPECIAL USE IN THE CR DISTRICT TO CONVERT THE EXISTING FRIARY BUILDING INTO A SENIOR CITIZEN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY John E. Day, President of the DuPage Housing Authority introduced those that would be providing testimony. John Howlett, Attorney for the DuPage Housing Authority, Ellen Hoye, Consultant on Assisted Living matters, Terrence R. Russell, LZT /Filliung Partnership, Project Architect; and Arnold Germain, DuPage Housing Authority Director of Development. Chairman Davis swore in all. Chairman Davis noted that the petitioner has had 4 meetings with the Plan Commission and the file contains a large amount of information provided over the course of those meetings. Mr. Day said that the four previous meetings helped to address and resolve many issues. He reviewed the background and requests. The Forest Preserve District acquired the Mayslake Forest Preserve in 1993 after a referendum to acquire the space prevented it from being developed. In 1994 -1995, the Forest Preserve District worked with an organization called Atelier to use the building as a fine arts center. Unfortunately, they were not successful in that effort. In 1998, the Forest Preserve District went out for a request for proposals to find out what to do with the building. In order to tear down the structure it would cost the taxpayers of DuPage County over one million dollars. The building is built solid and he encouraged the members to tour the building if they have not done so. The building is made out of cinder block with cement poured in the cinder block. In response to the RFP, 13 proposals were received including theirs. The DuPage Housing Authority was for transforming the building into 93 units of assisted living for seniors and they were selected. They went through the process of negotiations with the Forest Preserve District. They have a current purchase contract with the District through the end of 2002. The main structure is a 110,000 square foot building. There is a parking garage that can hold 34 cars and there is a tunnel between the structures. The original agreement with the District was for approximately 4.5 acres, part of that was constrained by Bond laws. Since the property is acquired by bonds, only 5% of the property can be used for non bond items. The bond attorney for the Forest Preserve has taken a different interpretation, so the proposal was revised to 6.189 acres. This eliminates the need without a change to the Subdivision Regulations, which requires a minimum of five acres. The DuPage Housing Authority is a body politic "quasi- governmental ", they are not part of the county. They report to a seven - member board of commissioners that are appointed by the County Board Chairman, which are approved by the County Board. They are independent and make their money by running other programs for HUD and other entities. They do not have the ability to tax. They do not issue a property tax. They do have the ability to issue tax - exempt bonds, which is how they intend to finance the project. Bonds will be issued that will be backed by mortgage insurance. John Howlett, Attorney for the DuPage Housing Authority said that they are seeking the following: • Text Amendment to Section 13 -5 -3 to allow Senior Citizen Assisted Living facilities owned and operated by an Illinois municipal corporation, or an instrumentality of an Illinois municipal corporation, as Special Uses which may be permitted in the Village's Conservation /Recreation District. Text Amendment to Section 13 -5 -4 (c) to permit a maximum floor area ratio of .50 for Senior Citizen Assisted Living facilities permitted as a Special Use in Section 13 -5 -3 and located adjacent to open space of not less than 75 acres. • Text Amendment to Section 13 -5 -4 (E) (1) (b) to allow for a yard setback of twenty (20') feet from the right -of -way of any street for a Senior Citizen Assisted Living facility permitted as a Special Use in Section 13 -5 -3 and located adjacent to open space of not less than 75 acres. (This is the existing situation they are not looking to move closer to the road.) • A Special Use Permit to develop and operate an Assisted Living facility at 3400 St. Paschal Drive. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 7 ZBA- MTG.2002 -JUN June 4, 2002 During the process with the Plan Commission they provided a lot of information, including tax studies, marketing studies, traffic studies, reports on the impacts to the areas taxes and values, which was quite extensive. The Plan Commission voted 4 to 0 to recommend approval subject to certain conditions, which impacted the concerns of the Plan Commission. These included conformance with the plans and the revised grading plan for stormwater detention. The reason more land was needed is that the Village ordinance requires a stormwater detention facility. There was some confusion as to whether some of this property was to be used by the Trinity Lakes Subdivision to provide an area for silt from the proposed plan to dredge the lakes; this was taken care of. There will be 93 senior units and no more 19 units would be rented as affordable. They are in the business of providing affordable housing and that is a lot of affordable housing in DuPage County. The Plan Commission was also concerned with what happens if there is a failure with the project. The deed from the Forest Preserve will say that the property is to be used for senior assisted living with a segment of affordable housing to be operated by an Illinois municipal corporation or its instrumentality. In the event that the project fails, the property would revert to the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in addition to those conditions, there were also two others listed on page 39e of the petition file that were also incorporated by the Plan Commission. These were required to further confirm the commitment behind this project. There was a stipulation saying that the building permit is to be obtained within one year of the approved special use and a certificate of occupancy is to be obtained within three years of the approved special use. Chairman Davis asked for the definition of a "senior citizen ". Ellen Hoye responded that the definition that allows them occupancy for the facility is 62 and above, however, the market is based primarily on the population of 75 and above. Chairman Davis asked what is meant by "affordable units ". Mrs. Hoye answered that this project is classified as affordable housing. Affordable Housing for DuPage County equates to an income of about $42,000 for a single person household. A two- person household income is about $51,000. The affordable definition is based on a county provided statistic. The statistic will generally increase on an annual basis to allow for cost of living increases. John Howlett reviewed the Zoning Amendment Factors as follows: a. Character of the neighborhood. The Friary Residences at Mayslake is surrounded by the 90 -acre Mayslake Forest Preserve which is bordered on the east by Route 83, on the north by 31St Street, on the west by single family residential property zoned R -3 and on the south by 35th Street and single family residential property zoned R -3. b. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions. Presently and for the past decade, the St. Paschal Friary has been vacant which condition has the potential for decay, crime and loss of property values in surrounding neighborhoods. c. The extent to which the removal of existing limitations would depreciate the value of other property in the area. DuPage Housing Authority will renovate the vacant 46- year -old Friary into a vibrant assisted living retirement community for senior citizens to serve the growing senior population of DuPage County. The St. Paschal Friary has been a fixture in the Trinity Lakes neighborhood for close to fifty years. Property values were never diminished by the use of the Friary by the Franciscan Friars from 1956 until the early 1990's, and in like manner should not be adversely impacted by the passive use of the Friary for an assisted living facility for senior citizens. d. The suitability of the property for the zoning purposes: The St. Paschal Friary is presently a legal non - conforming structure within the village's Conservation /Recreation District. Presently, the District permits as Special Uses, educational ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 8 ZBA- MTG.2002 -JUN JPWWr June 4, 2002 facilities; government services facilities, including municipal civic centers, police and fire stations and similar uses; tennis and swimming clubs; and cultural facilities, including libraries, museums and cultural institutions. They are asking for a senior living facility operated by a governmental unit and surrounded by 75 acres of vacant property. e. The existing uses and zoning of nearby communities; The site is surrounded on the east by Route 83, on the north by 31St Street, on the west by single - family residential and on the south by 35th street and single - family residential properties zoned R- 3. f. Is not applicable to the project. g. The relative gain to the public as compare to the hardship imposed on the individual property owner. The DuPage Housing Authority has proposed this development to preserve the St. Paschal Friary for the people of Oak Brook and DuPage County, and at the same time providing assisted living for the County's growing senior citizen population, both of which intentions are a gain for the people of Oak Brook. h. The extent to which the proposal promotes the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public: It is their position there can be no question that a development which preserves a local landmark, provides much needed assisted living for senior citizens, allows the general public opportunities to enjoy the property and the surrounding Mayslake Forest Preserve, bring a shut -down structure to life, does substantially promote the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the public. i. The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan. The development is not inconsistent with the Oak Brook Comprehensive Plan and in fact compliments the surrounding uses in the area. j. The community need for the use proposed by the property owner. Residents of DuPage County who are over 62 years old will have preference for tenancy in the facility to serve the growing population of DuPage County. According to the marketing analysis, within a 14 -mile radius of the Friary there are over 35,000 seniors who would qualify to live in the facility. Ellen Hoye said that she is an independent and objective assisted living marketing consultant hired by the DuPage Housing Authority to analyze whether or not the project was worthwhile to pursue. She has been working with them for 9 months and one of the first things they did was to walk through the facility and identify whether or not the structure could be converted for a suitable living facility. The next step was to try to develop a concept for the project. She analyzed the site to determine its suitability and try to identify what the market would be for this specific facility in its location. A demographic analysis was done and some geographic analysis based on incomes as well as population growth to determine what the future need is. They wanted to insure that they were going to be successful out to the 5 -20 year range. A review of the competitive facilities in the market, as to whom is trying to serve the needed population. Based on the demographics they saw tremendous growth between 1990 -2001. This growth is expected to continue, if not increase, especially in the 65+ and the 75+ population. Between 1990 -2001 the Oak Brook 65+ population increased tremendously. The growth is only expected to continue through 2006. Based on industry experience, the actual population that generally resides in an assisted living facility will be those 75 and older. At that age, seniors generally will become less mobile and not make their own meals and may become widows /widowers and the social progression that takes place with that. One of the things that is going to pressure our society over the next 10 to 15 years will be just the number of caregivers able to provide care to any of those seniors. Often times people are able to find providers that will come in their home to provide those services. That will be an increasing pressure. Those caregivers have issues of trustworthiness of the caregiver and the continuity of the caregiver. The facility they plan is not going to be ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -JUN June 4, 2002 a nursing home. It will not provide that high medical component of care. It will be a residential facility where each of the seniors will have their own apartments, private bathrooms, but also some supportive services provided within the facility. Those supportive services that will be provided at the project will be concierge services to coordinate care all of the utilities except telephone and expanded cable service will be included. Basic cable will be included. It looks to be a full service apartment complex for seniors. Some of the individually controlled and emergency call systems will be available within the apartments as well. Additional services provided will be three meals per day, plus snacks in the evening. Weekly housekeeping provided as part of the monthly service fee. Outdoor parking will be available. Van transportation will be provided that will take seniors on a rotating schedule out to markets and establishments. A potential limousine service for individual appointments or smaller groups. Laundry facilities will be provided on each floor. Seniors will be allowed and encouraged to do their own laundry. One of the major pushes behind this facility is to keep the seniors as independent and active and vital for as long as possible and to provide additional services as needed when they begin to fail in physical ability. Complimentary washer and dryers will be available on each floor as well. There will be a health clinic available in the annex building on the lower level. The facility will have three different elevators for seniors. Seniors can easily move throughout the facility. Mrs. Hoye said that some of the Plan Commission members were concerned with the decrease in the value in surrounding property areas. Based on her experience (500 communities throughout the country), from a standpoint for those facilities that met any resistance, after the fact, generally the population around them said they were wonderful neighbors. Incomes of $42,000- 50,000 are where many of the seniors in this community fall. The demand in this market area will increase drastically over the next five years and the demand for this is here in Oak Brook. Terrence Russell, LZT /Filliung Partnership, Project Architect, said that they have done many projects in the county. They did the restoration on the Frederick Graue house on York Road. The site has two main structures, the Friary and a garage structure. The buildings were started in the early 1950's and completed in the mid- 1960's. The last addition has a keystone of 1964 on it. The building is really an eclectic mix of styles. It was based on a Norman castle and every elevation is completely different. The building is nonsymmetrical. Everywhere you look, there is tremendous detail. He spent three months at the facility measuring every room. It takes approximately 1 -%2 hours just to walk the building as it currently exists. He reviewed the elevations of the structure as seen on page 12 of the petition file. The building will be brought up to all current codes and standards. All mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems will be replaced in the building. One change they will propose to the exterior is a two -story woodworking shop that will have a half story added so that they can continue with a third floor. There will be a rooftop terrace with a coffeehouse and small snack bar. There really is no reason for the residents to leave the facility for basic everyday services. Member Ascher questioned the proposed garage location. Mr. Russell said that they are proposing an expansion of the existing parking area. On the southern portion of the lot they have an area reserved to build the three garages, totally 18 indoor spaces. It is designed so that they would not lose any parking spaces when they are built. Member Ascher asked how they would be marketed. Mrs. Hoye said that from a market standpoint would be an additional $75 per month. Member Ascher said that the ordinance requires that a building cannot be located within 100 feet of the center line of the street without a variance. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that one of the text amendments they are seeking is to reduce the setback to 20 feet along one of the roads that abuts the property. Mr. Russell said that it is very heavily screened and cannot be seen from the street. Arnold Germain referred to the photos included in the file (page 20) which depicts all the evergreen trees. Member Ascher responded that he appreciates the fact that the trees are there, but that does not mean the trees will be there ten years from now. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 90 ZBA- MTG.2002 -JUN June 4, 2002 Member Ascher said that many things the residents were led to believe when the property was acquired have changed dramatically since then. Mr. Day responded that they would have someone from the Forest Preserve District at the next meeting to answer his questions. Member Ascher said that his concern is that they keep asking for things piece meal and it keeps getting bigger and bigger and by the end it turns out to be nothing like the residents thought it would be. Chairman Davis asked who the primary uses are of St. Paschal Drive. Mr. Germain said that in the traffic study on page 14 of the file. The users mostly pass through going between 35th Street and 31St street. A stoplight was just installed, which is why they have the study. The proposal is less than 4/100 of 1 percent. South of the Friary is an industrial, and the people coming from that area, come down St. Paschal to access 31St Street. He has never seen anyone from Trinity Lakes. Ron Collum, Trinity Lakes, was sworn in and said that it is virtually impossible to see the Friary from St. Paschal's Drive. Member Zaheer questioned whether they felt it was necessary to market the project by offering parking garages. Mrs. Hoye said that many of the residents coming into the facility might feel that initially their car is important to them. The reality is within six months to two years that resident no longer owns the car. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Howlett to address the factors for the Special Use. 1. Is the development of the type described in Subsection A -1 of Section 13 -4 -9, and is it deemed necessary for the public convenience at that location? The DuPage Housing Authority is a Illinois municipal corporation and body politic. The proposed development involves the rehabilitation of the St. Paschal Friary that is nestled among the oak groves, wild flowers, and shimmering lakes as the elegance of a Norman castle, with its stone trim and stain glassed windows. For the past decade the only residents of the property have been the geese and the ducks, red tailed hawks and other random bird life that frequent the 90 acres of lakes and wetlands. The DuPage Housing Authority will bring new life into the 46 -year old Friary with its plans to renovate the structure into a vibrant assisting living facility for senior citizens, appropriately called the Friary Residences at Mayslake. The DuPage Housing Authority is the entity behind the restoration and renovation. The DuPage Housing Authority will equip the Friary with the latest technology while maintaining the integrity of a small community housed in a gothic -like structure. The goal of the Housing Authority is to provide a comfortable and safe living environment for seniors in an ideal setting. 2. Is the development so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected? The DuPage Housing Authority has proposed this development to preserve the St. Paschal Friary for the people of Oak Brook and DuPage County and at the same time providing assisted living for the growing senior population, both of which intentions they contend are for the people of Oak Brook. They can be no question that a development that preserves a local landmark, provides much needed assisted living for senior citizens, allow the general public opportunities to enjoy the property in the surrounding Mayslake Forest Preserve and brings a shut -down structure to life does substantially promote the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the public 3. Whether or not the development would cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located? They have filed with the Village the studies that they have had independently done on property values, its impact on the character of the community. They contend that the passive use of the Friary by the Franciscans did not impact negatively the value of surrounding areas, and the passive use of the Friary as an assisted living facility would not do so either. Currently, the CR district allows: educational facilities, government service facilities, including municipal civic centers, police and fire stations and similar uses; tennis and swimming clubs; and cultural facilities, such as ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 11 ZBA- MTG.2002 -JUN June 4, 2002 libraries, museums and cultural institutions. While senior citizen assisted living facilities are not presently listed in the districts special use category, such a facility housed in a structure that has graced the surrounding neighborhood for almost 50 years operated by a unit of local government which would maintain its natural beauty, would hardly depreciate the other property in the area. Member Ascher asked if Mr. Day was an elected official of the DuPage Housing Authority. He said that none of the board are elected. He reports to a seven member board who are all appointed by the County Board Chairman approved by the County Board. They hired him. Member Ascher asked what experience the DuPage Housing Authority has had in running a location similar to this in the past. Mr. Day responded that they never have, but they are bringing in the people who know how to run it, to make sure it is run properly. Mrs. Hoye said that they have identified four different management companies in the Chicago metro area that are extremely experienced both locally and nationally operating senior housing facilities. The DuPage Housing Authority will go through an interview process with the management companies to identify, which would be the appropriate one both from a mission standpoint as well as from their operating experience. They are Providence, Parkside Senior Services, United Methodists and Lexington. Mr. Day said that there are three different operations in an assisted living facility. There is the food service, support services and the real estate. He knows about real estate, but he is going on the outside to get the professional help from the outside to do it. They have had a property management company that they have had for nearly twenty years and managed several hundred units outside the county. They will be incorporated into the operation. Overall, they want to use consultants help with the experience to make something like this run successfully. Member Ascher questioned the usable square footage of area being used in the facility. Mr. Germain responded that the total square footage of the building will be 126,884 square feet, of that 100,000 square feet will be spread evenly between common area and apartments. Member Ascher asked what the residential population is expected to be. Mrs. Hoye said that they are looking at a single person per apartment residence. However, in general no more than 10 -15% would be couples. The maximum residents on the property could be 110. Member Ascher asked when the Forest Preserve District put this out for RFP, and the DuPage Housing Authority was one of the organizations that bid on it, was the RFP just for not - for - profit organizations? Mr. Day responded that seven of the responses were from for - profit organizations. This was one the problems because it would have necessitated a change in state law and there was concern with it jeopardizing the bonds. Member Ascher asked if the 6.189 acres could have been sold. Mr. Howlett said it could not be sold to a for - profit. Member Ascher asked if the DuPage Housing Authority would pay any state sales tax for any of the construction items purchased to renovate the building. Mr. Arnold Germain responded that they would not pay any sales tax on the construction of the building. Mr. Howlett said the facility will not pay sales tax, however, they will pay real estate tax on things that are proprietary in nature, such as the market priced units. Member Ascher requested that the members have an opportunity to view the property and see the layout before making a recommendation on the proposals. Chairman Davis said that he has viewed the facilities, and asked if the other members would like to tour the property. Member Mueller and Shah agreed. It was the consensus of the board to tour the property and to continue this matter to the next meeting. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Shah to continue the public hearing to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 92 ZBA- MTG.2002 -JUN June 4, 2002 V. OTHER BUSINESS Due to the holiday, it was agreed by the members to reschedule the next Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting from its regular date on July 2, 2002 to Thursday, July 11, 2002. There was no other business. Vl. ADJOURNMENT Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Mueller to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 93 ZBA- MTG.2002 -J U N Director of Comm evelopment Secretary July 11, 2002 Date Approved June 4, 2002