Loading...
Minutes - 06/05/2001 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES June 5, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. A APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Members Members Director of Community Development Champ Davis Paul Adrian Richard Ascher George Mueller Manu Shah Ayesha Zaheer Louis Aldini Robert Kallien Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Ascher, to waive the reading of the May 1, 2001 regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Chairman Davis announced that the agenda items will be taken out of order this evening. Ill. MAGGIANO'S /CORNER BAKERY. INC. — 240 OAKBROOK CENTER — AMENDED SPECIAL USE — OUTDOOR DINING ADJACENT TO A RESTAURANT Chairman Davis swore in the petitioners, Edwin Stockman, Facilities Manager and Patrick D'Andrea, General Manager for Maggiano's Little Italy. Edwin Stockman reviewed the petitioner's request to expand its outdoor cafe dining area and described the location. He said that the proposed amended special use would overall be under the same conditions as the existing special use. The new area they are proposing is located in front of the banquet facility. Chairman Davis noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals was in receipt of the Plan Commission's recommendation for approval of the special use. He confirmed with the petitioner that Maggiano's would accept all conditions from the previously approved special use request. Chairman Davis confirmed that they would maintain an ample walking area for the pedestrians outside the cafe. Mr. Stockman said that a minimum of six feet will be maintained at all times and that much of the area is larger than the required six feet. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes June 5, 2001 1 ZBA- MTG.2001 -JUNE �l� Mr. Stockman said that the expansion would not cause substantial injury to the value of other neighboring properties. He also said that to the best of their ability, the design, location and operation would protect the public's health, safety, and welfare. Patrick D'Andrea said that one of the reasons for the request is that Maggiano's enlarged the waiting area inside the restaurant for people waiting for tables. In doing that they lost 16 -18 tables. The addition of 34 seats to the outdoor dining area will allow them to recover approximately half of what they lost for at least some of the time during the year. Member Zaheer questioned the proximity of Maggiano's outdoor cafe to that of Mon Ami Gabi. Mr. Stockman said that the start of Mon Ami Gabi's is at the end of Maggiano's. No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal. Member Zaheer moved, seconded by Member Adrian that the petitioner has addressed the factors as required by ordinance to recommend for approval the petitioner's request to amend their existing special use to increase the outdoor dining area as proposed subject to the conditions stated by Plan Commission and that all other applicable conditions contained in Ordinances S -775 and S759 now in effect for the existing outdoor dining area shall continue. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 - Ascher, Adrian, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Aldini Motion Carried. IV. KOSOWSKI — 909 MERRY LANE —VARIATION TO FRONT YARD SETBACK Chairman Davis swore in Bill Styczynski, with Styczynski Walker & Associates. Mr. Styczynski, architect for the petitioner reviewed the proposed variation request. The home was built in the 1970's with a contemporary style without roof overhangs. At the time it was built there was an error made in caisson placement which placed the front of the home at the front setback line instead of further back on the lot as intended by the property owner. This error has created a hardship to make any minimal improvements to the front elevation without variation approval. An existing decorative masonry wall currently extends approximately 11 feet into the front yard setback. This wall would be removed as part of the renovation planned for this home. The proposed 1 foot projection of the second floor bedroom on the front fagade would allow an opportunity to break up the fagade with a gable end roof in order to update the fagade of the home. The proposed room projection is minimal, approximately 1 foot into the front setback and approximately 13'2" wide, which would increase the square footage by approximately 13 square feet on the second floor only. The home is currently 40 feet and .08 inches from the front lot line. The house was not set back far enough to allow for any overhangs. They are seeking a variation of approximately 2 feet to allow the bedroom overhang along with a 1 -foot overhang to project into the front yard setback. This small encroachment into the front yard will allow the contemporary style of this home to be updated to a traditional look. This cannot be accomplished without the addition of roof overhangs. Pictures of the existing structure and a concept drawing were submitted as part of the application (see pages H (concept drawing) and page I (existing structure) in the file). Member Shah, questioned where the two foot overhang was being measured from. Mr. Styczynski referred to page F of the file, which shows exactly where the variation is being requested. Everything is occurring on the second floor. There will be no extension into the front yard setback on the first ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2001 -JUNE 2 I?Vz June 5, 2001 floor. The darker area on the print will be cantilevered to create a gable end on the house. The dashed line is the location where the one -foot overhang will occur. Member Zaheer said that the new elevations are a definite improvement. However, one of the standards for variation approval is that the hardship should not be created by the original owner. In this case, the original owner built the house to the property line. Chairman Davis reviewed the standards and substandards necessary for approval of a variation. He also questioned whether a previous variation had been granted approving the wall. Mr. Styczynski said that the matter was reviewed with staff and no previous variations could be found. He said that the home was built around 1977 and at that time the homeowner did not foresee doing anything other than a contemporary home. The caisson location affected the location of the house and it was set back ten feet to close to the property line, because the brick wall was to be located behind the setback line. The intent of the owner was to have the house completely located behind the setback line. When the caissons were placed in the wrong location, they built on them. Chairman Davis noted that it is arguable that although the homeowner had the house built, the owner did not intentionally set it. Director of Community Development Kallien said that when the Village records were reviewed, a variation does not exist. The wall may have been interpreted as an architectural feature. A record does not exist as to why, but the applicant has stated as part of this request, he will be removing the wall. In meeting the standards required for approval of a variation, the petitioner stated the following: 1. The character of the traditional homes in the area will not be affected in a negative manner and modernizing the facade of the home will bring it into harmony with the other homes in the area and will actually enhance the character of the neighborhood. 2. The proposed variation will not affect adjacent properties with respect to light, air or safety issues, as the proposed variation is a minor encroachment on the front setback. 3. The proposed variation will not negatively impact adjacent property values, and will most likely enhance property values. 4. The desire of the proposed variation is not being made for resale value, but to enhance the character of the home for the homeowner. 5. Although the home was built for the property owner, the caissons were placed in error and not at the intended location of the owner. Due to the error being made, and the home was built in the style at that time without overhangs, the variation is needed not to expand the home, but to add the overhangs and provide a traditional facade to the home. No one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the request. Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Shah that the petitioner has met the standards necessary to recommend approval of the proposed variation as requested and the variation is to be developed in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted. The testimony given has shown that a hardship exists because the original home was built in error on the property line and the variation if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 6- Nays: 0 - Absent: 1 - Motion Carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2001 -JUNE Ascher, Adrian, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Aldini 3 l2L�f June 5, 2001 V. CHRIST CHURCH OF OAK BROOK- 501 OAK BROOK ROAD — AMENDED SPECIAL USE FOR EXPANSION OF CHURCH FACILITIES WITH ALLOWANCES TO THE 100 FOOT SETBACK ON YORK ROAD FOR AN ADDITION of A NEW PARKING LOT (PHASE B) Chairman Davis noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals continued this matter at its last meeting and the petitioner is seeking to amend its special use regarding the expansion of parking facilities and a new exit onto York Road. Chairman Davis swore in Joe Beczak, Director of Operations, Ray Scott, church trustee and David Angelakis of Metro Transportation. Ray Scott reviewed the Christ Church of Oak Brook's request for approval of an amendment to its existing special use. This parking area is for preschool children during the week and for the aged population of the church on Sunday morning. It is the only area on the property that is level with the entrance to the church. The property tends to drop towards Salt Creek and it is difficult for some to walk up the hill. This request first came forth in January and at that time the request was for a two - way parking lot. At the Plan Commission review, it was decided that the proposal was too dangerous because cars would be backing out and going in with parents crossing the lot with small children, so that plan was rejected. It was suggested by the Plan Commission, as an alternative, to make it a one -way parking lot with an additional exit onto York Road if approval could be received from DuPage County. In March, the DuPage County Department of Transportation approved the request to add a right -turn only exit onto York Road. The Plan Commission approved the request at its meeting on April 16, 2001. At the first meeting before the Zoning Board of Appeals, safety concerns were raised by a neighbor. Not having enough information to respond, the church spent the last month checking the preschool traffic and it was determined that there are 40 children coming Monday through Friday arriving at 9 a.m. and leaving at 11:30 a.m. On Monday through Thursday, they have 20 children arriving at 12:30 and leaving at 3 p.m. Of those, approximately one -third car pool and over fifty percent live south of the church (see Christ Church letter on page 41 for details). Several changes have been made to the plans. There will now be 10 parking spaces at the south end of the lot by York Road and in the new lot there will be 26 parking spaces allowing only a one - way exit onto York Road. As to the safety concerns, they went to Metro Transportation to study the traffic and safety issues. Mr. Angelakis of Metro Transportation reviewed the report (The full report is on page 45 of the petition file). They were hired to review the impact and safety of this one -way exiting access. The traffic volumes were studied over a weeklong period. Software called "Highway Capacity" was used to measure delays on the roadways. The methodology determines delays and gaps to allow exiting onto the existing roadways. It was recommended that some of the existing bushes be lowered to improve the sight line. The analysis showed that the surrounding roadways could handle the volume of traffic from the church. On Sunday, the volume of surrounding traffic is half of what is on York Road during the week. Based on the analysis, the proposed access can accommodate the existing traffic and future growth and there is no problem with the safety. Proper signing and the design of the outbound right -only access will encourage the majority of users to turn right. There was a general discussion between the members and Mr. Angelakis regarding the report. Mr. Angelakis said that his firm, as well as the DuPage County engineers, uses the same manual to determine whether the geometric design for the proposed access is safe or not. Chairman Davis clarified that the DuPage County Department of Transportation's approval takes safety into account and Metro Transportation's subsequent study, is a study that took safety into ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2001 -JUNE 4 Z� June 5, 2001 account to address the concerns raised at the last meeting. One of the standards required to be satisfied is that there is no adverse effect to the public health and safety. The other side of that is to ensure that safety is enhanced. Mr. Scott said that the Plan Commission felt that the two -way traffic in the first plan had safety problems. The new lot makes traffic go in one direction, parking is on an angle, backing out is on an angle so that you are not squared out into traffic. This is a much safer design. William Lindeman, 11 Pembroke Lane, said that he views this plan as the lesser of two evils. He believes the Village is gullible to accept testimony from traffic experts. The Church's Master Plan should have addressed future development and recognized its limitations on the site. Sometimes the Village needs to say enough is enough. Perhaps the decision should be delayed so a qualified firm on behalf of the Village could do an impartial safety study rather than accepting the testimony by someone hired by the applicant. He is requesting that the Village Boards work to develop a system to encourage long -range projections of plans and foresee well in advance what situations and concessions might be needed. Susan Sims, 24 Sheffield Lane said that she is an Elder at the church and a 35 -year resident of the Village. She now has 2 small children of her own. She is very active in the church and feels it is imperative that the Board approves this request. This plan addresses the concerns of families of the church. It is a necessity in order to make it safer to bring the children into the church for preschool and to allow the older congregation a level surface to enter the church on Sunday. The church is an institution that is a blessing to so many and especially to families and this helps to provide a way to help to ensure their safety Mark Fleishman, 3109 York Road, lives across from the church. He wrote a letter that was given to the board members. He is a member of the church and said that the he agrees and supports the plea of the previous resident. However, in spite of what was reported in the traffic study, he lives there and the report lacks the human element. If standards and guidelines that were referred to and used were safe, theoretically there would be no more accidents, but that is not the case because of the human element. It may be the best that the industry has to go by and it is with good intent that they are applied. The church is dear to him, but he believes that not enough time or effort has been spent to find other alternatives to this design. He believes a good design can handle problems of both an in and out exit. If the topography on the lot is a problem perhaps part of the parking lot could be elevated to allow easier access into the church. If an accident occurs there, many may think that this should have been given further review. Bob Fleishman, 3109 York Road said that he walks across the street V the church every morning. When traffic is stopped on York Road there is a left -hand turn from 315 Street and crossing can be difficult. He has no objection, but wanted to provide input from his every day observation. Mr. Angelakis said that from the gap study, the testimony just given supports that it is not difficult to cross the street where he does. He must find it simple to cross there most of the time or he would not cross on foot, or it would be necessary for him to cross at the light. Member Shah noted that it is a busy intersection and if a better solution could be found it should be looked into. It seems that if there is a better solution available they should look into it. Sometimes output depends upon the input. He is not sure that it is as safe as it sounds. It seems that if there is an alternate solution, it should be explored. Member Zaheer agreed and said that she is not sure she feels secure regarding the right turn only exit being so close to the intersection. Perhaps this is not the best solution, and perhaps they should find a way to satisfy the safety concern including the churches concern for its internal safety and parking as well. Chairman Davis said that although the church commissioned the study, the Board has relied on reports like these for many years. Obviously, the report presented is supportive of the group that presents it, but these are professional people that are testifying and there is no reason to believe that ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 5 ZBA- MTG.2001 -JUNE June 5, 2009 they would appear before the Village and put their professional reputations at stake and give bad testimony. The comment about the study not being impartial can be ignored. The DuPage County Department of Transportation study takes safety into account and should be viewed as an impartial study. He is willing to rely upon the experts, including DuPage County that there is not a safety hazard when they made the determination. It would be impractical to order another study. The request is for a special use and conditions can be imposed as part of its approval. A limited approval could be revisited from time to time. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he has conferred with the Village Attorney and Village Engineer. The Village Attorney said that the options available include that a condition could be attached that measures the safety against a quantifiable traffic count item (i.e., number of accidents, etc.) However, the appropriate standard would be very difficult to determine. The other suggestion would be to establish a timeframe allowing the access to be good for a specific period of time and then renewed. The problem with that is depending upon the political nature of the community at that time, the Board may be hard pressed to approve it, if certain things have occurred. The church could be left with an asphalt area that cannot be used. Director of Community Development Kallien stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has seen this case as it came from the Plan Commission with a new proposal for a right -out access onto York Road. The original proposal was for an expansion to the existing asphalt whereby people would come in, drop off and exit out of the existing access way. Maybe there is another alternative out there where there is an expansion of the parking facility that utilizes that existing access way. Mr. Scott said that since November and December of last year they have been exploring numerous options. They have discarded 10 different options. This plan is the most effective method. With this recent study, they are confident that this is also the safest plan. If there is ever a problem, there is no way they would want to continue to use it. So, it would not require a Village restriction to stop using it. The letter provided by him was written prior to the study being completed from Metro Transportation. In that letter they stated that if the study from Metro was determined to not be favorable they would have rejected the plan and withdrawn their request. The church will not put people in jeopardy. They are confident that it is safe and would not put their members or others into jeopardy. Member Adrian said that he walked the property and wanted to get a sense of what was going on. He noted that the church had said that if any situation existed they would have the police present if needed. Mr. Scott said that the police are there are Sunday on York Road and 31St Street where 1000 or more cars are being unloaded onto the street. There is tremendous amount of traffic there on Sunday when the church lets out on Sunday. The preschool results in 15 cars in approximately fifteen minutes. He feels confident that they are not going to put people into jeopardy. Chairman Davis said that on occasion he commutes to the Hinsdale train station and has the opportunity to travel by the church during the week and has noted that most of the traffic is traveling north, not south on York Road. He said that he supports the new proposal. The Plan Commission rejected the first plan due to internal safety concerns and the church saw fit to start over and came up with a plan to enhance the safety at the church. There is ample expert testimony from DuPage County Department of Transportation as well as the study from Metro Transportation that supports there will not be a safety problem. He appreciates Mr. Fleishman's remarks, but accidents happen at stoplights. People run stoplights, etc. and accidents can happen anywhere. The testimony provided shows that there will not be a safety problem and cars would be able to exist south on York Road and there are not a large number of cars that will be exiting between 8:45 and 9:15 in the morning to create a safety problem. A condition could be added that if the church is informed that safety problems have occurred and they will use their best efforts to correct them. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2001 -JUNE June 5, 2001 Mr. Rousenolos, 3103 York Road questioned that because an average of two cars per year end up in his driveway due to an accident, would this exit compound the problem? Mr. Angelakis responded that it is designed to make people go south, it would not compound the problem. However, you cannot account for carelessness of some drivers. John Towers, 31 -year resident said that he is a civil engineer and said that someone suggested that the Church develop a long -range plan. They have one, and they are always revising it as needs occur and is continually being worked on. This plan presented is not the first one submitted and has been given a lot of thought. The DuPage County Department of Transportation and a professional transportation firm that supports the project have reviewed it. He hopes that some of the testimony given will allay some of the fears and he is in favor of the project. Chairman Davis noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals is in receipt of the Plan Commission recommendation. Chairman Davis moved, seconded by Member Adrian that the petitioner has addressed the standards as required by Ordinance to recommend approval of the petitioner's request to amend their existing special use to include the parking plan (Phase B) as proposed and is to be so designed and located and operated to protect the public health and welfare, will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood subject to the following conditions: 1. The conditions as recommended by the Plan Commission 2. Address the items contained in Village Engineer Durfey's memorandums dated May 31, 2001 and April 12, 2001. 3. If safety problems appear to develop, the church will use its best efforts to resolve them. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 - Ascher, Adrian, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Aldini Motion Carried. Vl. ADJOURNMENT Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Ascher to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Director of Community Develop nt Secretary August 7 2001 Date Approved ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes June 5, 2001 7 ZBA- MTG.2001 -JUNE