Loading...
Minutes - 08/05/2003 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES August 5, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDERThe regular meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Members MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman ALSO PRESENT: Trustee Director of Community Development Village Engineer A quorum was present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES George Mueller Richard Ascher Robert Sanford Manu Shah Steven Young Champ Davis Ayesha Zaheer Stelios Aktipis Robert Kallien Dale Durfey Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Shah to waive the reading of the July 1, 2003 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Ill. HAWKS SOCCER CLUB — SPECIAL USE — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 1OA -2 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES — TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1315 -1425 KENSINGTON (THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KENSINGTON ROAD AND JORIE BLVD) TO BE USED FOR SOCCER FIELDS. Director of Community Development Kallien said the Hawks Soccer Club is a not - for - profit group petitioning for a special use at the Autumn Oaks property to utilize it for soccer facilities. The current owner of the property is McDonald's Corporation, and they have a license agreement that is contained in the case file, which details all of the particulars between the two parties. Acting Chairman Mueller swore in all parties testifying. Richard Marcheschi, Hawks Board Member spoke on behalf of the Hawks Soccer Club and provided the background of the organization. He said that the Hawks purpose is to seek a special use to utilize 34 acres of undeveloped land owned by the McDonald's Corporation. The property is located adjacent to the Oak Brook Park District and is on Jorie Blvd and Kensington. The proposed use of the land is to develop soccer fields for use by the Hawks Soccer Club which is an Illinois not - for - profit organization 501(c) 3, and is primarily a girls soccer organization. They have added two boys' teams. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -AUG 1 QL,tli August 5, 2003 The club's purpose is to encourage and support the expansion of competitive soccer opportunities for the children in the Hinsdale, Clarendon Hills, Oak Brook and several other surrounding communities in the area. There are as many as 14 surrounding suburbs. The vast majority of children are from the Hinsdale, Oak Brook and Clarendon Hills area. Over the last five years, they have experienced incredible growth. They started with one team of 14 girls, the second year grew to four teams and now they have a total of 18 girl's teams and 2 boys teams. Philosophically, their focus is on the individual child's development as well as well as the development of the development of that child both as a good soccer as well as a good team player. They compete in a very strong soccer league, the Illinois Women's Soccer League that is part of the Illinois Youth Soccer Association. Although they strive to win, they want to create a positive lifelong attitude and value for the children to take with them. At the coaching level, the parent volunteers almost exclusively support the team. The girls do receive professional training once a week from a staff of professional trainers they have hired. The development of the fields and property as soccer fields for use by children from age 8 to 16 years of age. Currently, they practice and play home games at six different fields in three different communities. They are really spread out. A lot of for profit organizations have the ability with financial resources to both purchase property and development their own fields, they do not have that luxury. Through the generosity of McDonald's the opportunity to do that with a two -year initial agreement. It is a temporary use license agreement with McDonald's allowing the development of six fields and an international field that will be developed at a later time. They are requesting that the Village of Oak Brook permit a special use to Chapter 10, of the Office - Research- Assembly District, Section 10A -2 and to consider the special use factors as provided in the petition. As part of the special use they area requesting allowances to the parking standards, in particular, hard surface parking lots, parking lot stall dimensions, landscaping and screening, curbing of access drives and parking lot striping. They are also asking that the soft parking in the form of crushed limestone in unmarked parking spaces, in keeping with the easily removable and temporary nature of the proposed changes to the property as required by McDonald's. Acting Chairman Mueller asked that the special use factors be addressed. Mr. Marcheschi reviewed the factors as follows: Is of the type described in subsection Al of this Section, is deemed necessary for the public convenience at that location. Response: The intended special use for the property as described in this application is recreational or specifically described, the development and use of soccer fields for the Hawks Soccer Club, a not for profit organization incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, and a 501 (c) 3 charitable organization as defined by the Internal Revenue Service Code serving over 300 of the areas children. The club intends to develop seven non - permanent soccer fields for the practice and games. Given the scarcity of playing fields in the western suburbs of Chicago, the proposed location provides relief from the overuse of park district facilities while providing and improved green space in the area adjacent to the Oak Brook Park District. The Park district may also gain additional revenue by renting current park district fields at a greater rate than the current not for profit rate currently paid by Hawks Soccer. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -AUG 2 _0_L1/ August 5, 2003 2. Is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected. Response: Hawk Soccer will provide landscaping services in great excess of the current situation, provide sufficient sanitation services, and provide for garbage disposal. Sanitation and trash containers will be obscured from the general public view. Barriers are assembled to prevent the interference with traffic. Parking is designed so that there is sufficient off street parking during the week and that there will be an off - street drop off area for the children participating in activities on the property. 3. Would not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located. Response: The facility is designed so that there are no permanent structures. All field construction is intended to be movable and removable. All other structures and facilities are easily disassembled. Changes to the landscaping would be a substantial improvement to the current conditions and would enhance the value of the surrounding properties by improving the appearance of the area. The development of the property would also give the appearance of a great park district facility due to its location adjacent to the Oak Brook Park District facilities. Marie Kokenis, 10 York Lake Court, said that she is an Oak Brook Park District Commissioner and also has a child in the Hawk Soccer Club. She is the Oak Brook Park District Soccer liaison and is familiar with the overuse, not only of the Oak Brook Park District soccer fields, but all the soccer fields in the adjacent communities. In Hinsdale several parks have closed a number of its fields for reseeding and are not available. The Park District is reseeding its smaller fields, so they are also unavailable right now. This proposal has allowed the Park District to free up its property to service AYSO, which is also a non - profit organization, which is in dire need of fields. They will probably use the Park District fields now. There is a domino effect. Soccer has exploded in the western suburbs as well as the entire state. They are in very short supply of soccer fields and this allows families to drop off their children at one location, versus running around to different soccer fields. Susan Fitch, representative of CarAmerica, which owns properties at 1420 and 1520 Kensington. She had concerns and questions that she wanted to address. She asked about the location and service of the port-a- potties at the facility. Mr. Marcheschi responded by showing her the location of the facilities on the southwest corner of the lot. It will be serviced weekly as well as the trash. Ms. Fitch expressed her concerns for congestion and safety for the children and her clients as they leave work in the evening on Kensington Road. Mr. Marcheschi said that the parking lot is designed to have a circular drop off area for the children for safety, with parking. There is a 25 -foot setback at the drive. There will also be removable aluminum barriers to keep the children from going onto Kensington. Joann Cascio, she is a soccer mother and coach and thinks it will be a fantastic plan. Some of the current fields can be dangerous. As far as congestion, many of the children carpool . Member Ascher asked what is different about this soccer league than the league playing by the polo field. Mr. Marcheschi said that it is a different club. The other club is the Hurricane Soccer Club, both are traveling programs, but they are a for profit organization and Hawks is a not for profit organization. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -AUG YYY3 August 5, 2003 Member Ascher said that McDonald's had previously moved a lot of dirt on that property and it appears that there are mounds on the site that may need to be moved. Mr. Marcheschi responded that they are fortunate in that the current layout the mounds will not be disturbed at all. No back filling will be required to accommodate the initial development. There are mounds and berms, but they are lucky in the sense that it will provide added protection for the children from Jorie Blvd., but will not interfere with the layout of the fields as proposed. Member Ascher noted that the license agreement with McDonald's is for two years. It has been indicated during the presentation that there has been an "explosion" in the growth of the Hawks Soccer Club. At the end of two years, where will they go, if the agreement is not continued. Mr. Marcheschi, said that they will have to deal with it when the time comes. As far as the growth over the last five years, they have managed the growth and they are as big as they can get. People have gravitated toward the club because of its philosophies and the focus and development of the children and both the highly competitive level as well as the children who do not want that same amount of practice. They will probably add two teams next year, simply because the children in the program area getting older. They will reach a point where the kids will graduate high school and that will be the upper age limit, so the growth will manage itself. Member Ascher noted, that the Village boards have gone through a great deal of trouble to change the zoning for the property some time ago. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the most significant change was at the Campus Facility next door. The Autumns Oaks property had extensive discussion in terms of traffic study and site plans that showed what could be built on the site. However, the zoning did remain ORA -1. Joe Endress, McDonald's Corporation said that ORA -1 is still the zoning for that property and their intentions for that property is still the same. It is an expansion space for the corporation. While they are not growing at the rate they were growing earlier, the property is sitting vacant and they thought this would be a great use for the Hawks Soccer Club. Member Ascher added that his experience with McDonald's is that they are a great corporate resident and lauded them for that but did not want to lose site of that and let the Hawks believe it was the end all for them. Mr. Endress responded that is why it is a two -year agreement. At this point it is not McDonald's intention is not to develop the property because of the current growth, however, they did specify with the Hawks Club that it was a two year agreement and at the end of the two years, they formally get together and renegotiate the contract so that there is a tentative nature to the arrangement that it is not a permanent arrangement. In the event, they expand the corporation they may have to take the property away, then there would not be a lot of screaming children and parents. Mr. Endress mentioned to CarAmerica that there is specific mention in the license agreement about clean up of that space. They will be policing it more than anyone else will be. Mr. Marcheschi said that they entered the agreement with McDonald's fully aware of the two year limitation, which is why everything in the plan is movable and removable from the premises. Acting Chairman Mueller said that the Zoning Board of Appeals is in receipt of the report from the Plan Commission and that they unanimously recommended approval of the request subject to several conditions. The petitioner has addressed the standards and they are set forth in the file. Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Shah to recommend approval of the request from the Hawks Soccer Club for a special use including several allowances to the Zoning Ordinance for soccer fields and related site improvements as depicted on pages 11 and 15, and G -1 through G -4 of the case file on the property known as Autumn Oaks located at 1315 and 1425 Kensington Road. In making this recommendation, the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the applicant has satisfied the applicable standards required for a special use including: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 4 ZBA- MTG.2003 -AUG � August 5, 2003 1. The proposed use is consistent with the recently adopted special use for "parks and open field recreational activities" in the ORA -1 District. 2. The McDonald's Corporation as owners of the property have approved the project through a license agreement between them and the Hawk's Soccer Club. 3. The use of the Autumn Oaks property for recreational purposes is consistent with the surrounding land uses including being located adjacent to existing recreational uses operated by the Oak Brook District. 4. The proposal to construct soccer fields and related improvements will provide for the public benefit and convenience of the community and its residents, 5. The proposal to provide on -site parking, trash /sanitation facilities, installation of temporary barriers and limiting the hours of operation will protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community and those utilizing the facilities. 6. The temporary nature of the improvements will not negatively impact the value of adjacent property. 7. No lighting or amplification is allowed. 8. Final Engineering approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4- Ascher, Sanford, Shah, and Mueller Nays: 0- Abstain: 1 - Young Absent: 2- Zaheer and Davis Motion Carried. W. TRILLA — 3 HAMPTON DRIVE— VARIATION— FRONT YARD SETBACK Acting Chairman Mueller swore in all parties testifying. Christine Potts, J. B. Architecture Group reviewed the background of the proposal. Originally, the project started out as a remodel of the residence. They are investing so much into the project that they have decided it would be much more worth their while to demolish the existing home and replace it with a new structure. The existing home is a legal nonconforming structure that is extremely outdated, located in a gorgeous neighborhood and they enjoy living there. Rather than doing a remodel that would hamper the integrity of the aesthetics to the architecture, they have decided to put up a new residence that would fit in better with the subdivision and in doing so they are requesting a variation. Ms. Potts said that as the schematics submitted indicate, the need for a reduction in the sideyard requirements is requested based upon the response to the standards, which are on page F of the case file and as follows: 1 -a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located. Designing the proposed residence to current zoning regulations will greatly detract form the resale value due to the current home location, which limits the front fagade width. 1 -b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes August 5, 2003 5 ZBA- MTG.2003 -AUG � It is not a typical condition that an existing residence has an existing exterior sideyard encroachment. Nor is it typical that the existing home's overhangs are nonconforming with the current code compliance's. Therefore, since these unique circumstances are existing, the owners feel they have a special circumstance with which they are trying to work within. 1 -c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed variance will not alter the character, but will preserve the character. The variance will keep the placements of the new foundation wall in the existing format; thus not conforming to the established setback which is not currently established. Also the new design will be updated to current subdivision aesthetics rather than the dated residence which currently occupies the lot. 2 -a. The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out. The owner has resided in the home for years now. They have invested time and funds in landscaping. They have enjoyed the current placement of the home and have gained an accustomed appreciation for the lot. The variance, if granted, would merely allow the owner to keep current building placement rather than to relocate a new home back from the corner further in toward the lot. If anything a variance would keep the surroundings, shape and topographical conditions closer to what they are now. The new residence would blend onto the lot much easier. 2 -b. The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning classification. This variance is truly a unique circumstance. First, it is a corner lot and has a marked private drive denoting the sideyard a corner sideyard. Also, the reason to rebuild rather than remodel the existing home (which would not force back the wall in question) would greatly enhance the neighborhood value. The present home is severely outdated in style and in need of major remodeling. 2 -c. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. Absolutely no change to the community is what they perceive in asking for the variance. They would like to keep the new residence precisely where the current residence is, thus unaffecting any surroundings. 2 -d. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property of substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Since they propose to keep the current house placement, no endangerment will arise. If anything, since they are proposing to hold the new foundation wall where the existing one is and the new overhangs are two feet, six inches less than on the present home, they are adding to the adequacy of the light supply. 2 -e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon the desire to make more money out of the property. The purpose of the variance is to be allowed to construct a home with a more proportionately aesthetic front facade, not to increase the size of the home. 2 -f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The applicant, who is currently residing at the address, is rebuilding their dream home solely for the purpose that they would like to stay in the neighborhood they have grown to love. They simply would like to keep current zoning conditions but improve on the aesthetic quality of their home, not to sell, but to enjoy what they currently have even more. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -AUG 6 1�114- August 5, 2003 She said that it was her personal opinion that the scale and proportion of the residence necessitates the client's request for the additional building width; anything less would be in conflict with the desired aesthetic value of the residence. As the residence is currently located on the lot, there is a current nonconforming sideyard. Not only is the current foundation wall encroaching the sideyard setbacks, but the current four -foot overhang encroaches into the existing sideyard. They are proposing to keep the existing foundation wall location, with the new foundation wall, so the building will stay in the same place, yet they are going to update the look of the home and in doing so will no longer have a four foot overhang, there will be an 18" overhang, which will minimize the current sideyard encroachment. With those elements as well the much needed remodeling to the front fagade, overall granting the variance would definitely be in great favor to the community, neighbors as well as the client. George Kluetsch, Vice President and Architectural Chairman of the Ginger Creek Homeowners Association, said that he has reviewed all the proposed plans for the new residence, and they have no objection to the variance. In fact, they believe the new home will enhance the neighborhood and are totally, in favor of what they have proposed. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to the request. Member Ascher asked if they were aware that the present building was nonconforming. Ms. Potts said that when they started the project, the current setback situation was not an issue, because they had intended to do an extensive remodel. The remodel became so extensive that it was more efficient and cost effective for the Trilla's to scrap the idea of a remodel and to actually tear down the house, because they had planned to put that much money back into the home. At that point, they reviewed what would be better for the client as far as where they would get the most for their money. When you are putting that much money into a remodel, it is sometimes better to relook the project and determined if it is better to put up a new residence. In this particular situation the Trilla's have gone out of their way to hide the garage doors in such a way that there was going to be a porte- cochere area, which you have to drive under to get to the back garages. In doing so it really decreases the size of the home you could have because it takes up so much space on the lot to do something like that. They would have been harming themselves by doing something so wonderful. The Trilla's thought that since they have this current condition and the proposed structure would not cause any further encroachment than it does right now, they have not moved into working drawings because they want to see that this is more doable and want the Village's blessings before they proceed into working drawings. At this point there are a lot of schematics and design work, and have not started working drawings because they would like to proceed in an organized fashion. Member Young questioned whether any work had been started on the property. Ms. Potts responded that nothing has been done and added that the house is in great condition, but it is very outdated. It is probably the most outdated home in the area. In doing this remodel, they will go in the opposite direction and will have one of the nicest front and side elevations in the subdivision. The porte- cochere area can only excite the neighbors because there is nothing worse than having the front doors glaring as they are right now. It will look good not only from the front but also the side since it is a corner lot. Director of Community Development Kallien said that recently the house at 3 Hampton had improvements made prior to approval by the Village. This is not the case with this request. The petitioners are being upfront and have not made any alterations to the structure. The existing house was built many years ago and encroaches in both the west setback as well as the setback along Oak Brook Hills Road. The proposal this evening is really to come closer into compliance than what the existing home is and that should be given some merit. Member Sanford said that it should be noted to the Village Board that the proposal has the support of the homeowners association. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -AUG 7 �Y August 5, 2003 Acting Chairman Mueller said that the standards have been addressed and are set forth in the file Member Sanford moved, seconded by Member Young, that the petitioner has satisfied the standards required by Ordinance to recommend approval of the variation as requested. As part of the testimony, the petitioner testified that the circumstances are unique, the hardship was not of their making, will enhance surrounding property values and the encroachment created by the existing house, will be less of an encroachment and will add to the adequacy of light supply. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5- Ascher, Sanford, Shah, Young and Mueller Nays: 0- Absent: 2 - Zaheer and Davis Motion Carried. V. WARNER — 26 BAYBROOK LANE VILLAGE CODE — CHAPTER 13 -3 -6B — ACCESSORY USES — CHAIN -LINK FENCE REGULATIONS Acting Chairman Mueller swore in all parties testifying. Scott Wehrs, represented the petitioner, Ty Warner to request a variance to Section 13 -3-4 to install driveway gates on private property with less than one acre of land. The property is located on 26 Baybrook Lane. The gates that they would like to install would provide physical security to the property as well as a measure of safety for the property owner. The design of the gates is to be as unobtrusive as possible. Mr. Wehrs addressed the standards, which are on page F of the case file. 1 -b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. There are unique circumstances affecting this owner. The owner is frequently out of town on extended business trips for lengthy periods of time. The owner is single, and no one occupies the residence during these extended trips. There are maintenance and cleaning people at the residence only on an infrequent basis. This owner is also a person of celebrity status. There are articles and websites dedicated to him personally, as well as his company. Collectors seek his signature on his product because his signature can substantially increase an items value. Also, his well -known support of various charities has given him celebrity status. He therefore has good reason to have security and safety concerns. There have been a number of occasions in the past where trespassers have gained access to this property and have attempted to look in the windows. The residence has a security system with both motion sensors and window break sensors, both of which have been triggered in the past by trespassers, causing alarms to be registered with the monitoring company and the police department, The security system does not monitor any activity in the driveway or exterior premises. Therefore, the installation of gates would help limit the frequency of such alarms and offer the owner added security. 1 -c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The installation of the driveway gates will not impact the essential character of the neighborhood, inasmuch as the gates will be barely visible from the street and adjacent properties. The gates and associated controllers will be installed to be shielded as much as possible from view by existing and new landscaping. In addition, the gates are painted a dark green to further blend into the landscaping. The framework of the gates is as minimalistic as possible. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -AUG August 5, 2003 2 -a. The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out. The physical surroundings, shape and topographical condition of the property do not currently prevent trespassers from accessing the property and threatening the owner's safety. Also a denial of the variance will cause more than a "mere inconvenience" to the owner, as the denial of the variance could jeopardize the owner's safety and security. 2 -b. The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning classification. The petition for variation is based upon the unique needs and situation of this owner, and is not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. As previously stated, the owner's celebrity status and frequent media attention causes him to be subject to uninvited trespassers invading his privacy as well as creating a potential threat to his property and person. Installing the subject gates are the only way to control access to the driveway. The front of the residence is completely screened with large white pines. However, this does not keep individuals from entering the driveway by vehicle or walking. The security system located in the residence cannot stop this from happening. It is unlikely that these circumstances apply to other property located in the same zoning classification. Consequently, the petition for variation would not be applicable to the other property within the same zoning classification. 2 -c. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. The gate installation will not affect nor be detrimental to the public welfare or other properties. The color of the gates as well as the landscaping allows the gates to blend in very well with the surroundings. The gates area also equipped to allow access to the property by the fire department and police department in the event of an emergency. 2 -d. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property of substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Please refer to the previous response to section 2 -c. 2 -e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon the desire to make more money out of the property. The property is a private residence and is not used to generate revenue nor gain property value. The installation of the gates will not affect the property value. 2 -f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person, but is strictly associated with the safety and physical security of the property. The owner of the property is Mr. Warner and he enjoys where he lives and his property. Mr. Wehrs has had several meetings with the President of the Ginger Creek Homeowner Association and believes there are individuals who would speak on his behalf. It is his understanding that they do have the approval of the Ginger Creek Homeowners Association and would appreciate a favorable ruling on this request for private gates for the residence. Member Ascher asked to make a motion to table this issue, because they have spent a great deal of time at the last meeting discussing driveway gates in general. A proposed text amendment was referred back to the Plan Commission to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals with some outline as to what they thought would be appropriate to establish the principles of allowing gates. We have not heard from the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -AUG 9 1�a� August 5, 2003 Plan Commission. We do not know if it is under consideration. He has driven by this property and he understands the need of Mr. Warner. He does not think that the Zoning Board of Appeals should be rushed into a decision until all of the aspects are considered and we come to the conclusion what standards have to be meet for gates to be installed. He may have perfectly valid reasons at this point, but before it is reviewed, it should go through the proper process and the Zoning Board understands what it is approving, not only for this specific property, but for all of Oak Brook residents. He believes that should be considered in view of an overall change of the Village view as to how we would approach the gate situation. We have not done that. He poses that the matter be tabled until we have received a report from the Plan Commission on their views as to what the gate situation should be in Oak Brook. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that when this issue went back to the Plan Commission, the primary purpose for that was that there were a number of issues brought forth, by staff and by representatives of Ginger Creek. They have found that the way the ordinance was proposed is that it would have a significant impact on a number of properties in Ginger Creek. Not all the properties in Ginger Creek are the same. There are different lot sizes, widths, and other factors. From the testimony given at the last meeting, there is not an interest, at least expressed from Ginger Creek, which would be one of the primary recipients of any change to the Ordinance. They were very vocal as to their displeasure to extend this to all properties. It was sent to the Plan Commission and in their opinion, there is a significant undertaking to analyze what the impact is. There are a number of properties and subdivisions that are R -2. For example Robin Hood Ranch is R -2 and there is a great limitation as to what people can do with their property. Staff would like to analyze what should be the long -term view for gates. At this point, since there are some staff limitations, (we are not an overstaffed) he does not believe it is necessary to wait until the study is done. There is not a clamoring for driveway gates. Over the last three years there have been 3 people seeking some relief for driveway gates. Mr. Stade is the one who motivated the ordinance change and there have been only two individuals (one being Mr. Warner) seeking relief. All of the other requests are for parcels that really warrant driveway gates such as large parcels that front out onto Oak Brook Road, Meyers Road, York Road, which are large thoroughfares. It would be fair to make a decision on this request. It either fits or does not fit into the bigger scheme. At the same time, we can continue to do this analysis to see where we will go with gates in the long term. Member Ascher asked what if it does not fit. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Zoning Board would have to evaluate that based on the information received. It would be his suggestion, that if there is a run of people coming before the Zoning Board it would be his suggestion to not consider any substantial number of these requests until the study has been complete. There are no other gate requests that he is aware of that would require a variation. Member Ascher asked for an estimate of time that would take staff to come up with the answers as to whether an ordinance is appropriate? Director of Community Development Kallien said that there are a number of other issues, it could be six months. Member Ascher said that he sees the issue as important enough that we should have those types of answers before we go forward. There may not be a lot of people clamoring for driveway gates, but if we approve this, will we have a lot of people clamoring for gates. Trustee Aktipis said that it is true that the first priority for staff is to develop some criteria in conjunction with the boards in regards to residential structure heights. They have been working on this and it is not a simple task. Certainly other issues such as gates should receive attention, however, his concern is the same as staff as far as acting on this issue tonight. We cannot let applications linger for a long period of time because we are not prepared to act on them in a universal or global way. We have an applicant with a particular issue and it would be unreasonable to ask him to wait for months until we could respond to his request. It would be appropriate for the Zoning Board to deal with the subject and approve or disapprove based on the Zoning Board of Appeals judgment. He doubts that the Village Board would want to wait until a definite set of guidelines has been established village wide. Member Ascher said that in respect to the Trustees opinion there were enough people from Ginger Creek at the last meeting that expressed some serious concerns over gates in general, specific to their area. It is ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 10 ZBA- MTG.2003 -AUG August 5, 2003 a large area and they voiced some serious concerns about gates in general. For that reason, it could be a global decision that we could take into consideration. Mr. Warner is everything that has been testified, not only in this community but in other communities as well. However, he is always not present here, which is one of the reasons he is seeking the gates. He does not know why we would have to speed through the decision for this specific individual given that specific situation. There is time to consider this in a global way. Member Ascher moved to table the matter until such time as a determination has been made by the Plan Commission in regards to driveway gates. There was no second to the motion. Motion died for lack of a second. Wally O'Brien, Attorney for the Ginger Creek Homeowner Association, said that this seems perhaps a lot to do about nothing. This original request changed the entire zoning ordinance in the entire village to allow gates in R -2 zoned districts, impacts the village unnecessarily to give Mr. Warner what he wishes. He is in a unique circumstance in that his property is bounded on two out of three sides by community property owned by Ginger Creek Homeowner Association. He has been made a proposal that would have to go past their board that would allow him to potentially acquire some of the property subject to easement and riparian rights to bring his property into compliance with the one acre. In which case the Zoning Board would not have to struggle with the impact on the balance of the Village. They would like to request time to continue with those negotiations with Mr. Warner and his representative to see if they can both be relieved of a very negative impact on the entire village by granting these variations, which would be stretched at best. By impacting the entire village by saying that everyone in the R -2 district can install a gate is not the answer, but there is an answer and it is fairly simple. It has been presented to Mr. Warner and he is not sure that they have received a response yet. Mr. Wehrs said that in a meeting he had with Mr. Peter Huizenga at the Ty offices in Westmont, Mr. Huizenga stated to him that he was going to support Mr. Warner's request for the proposed driveway gates after he had reviewed the plans and had the Vice president of the Ginger Creek architectural design also review the plans, he received a phone call back from Mr. Huizenga stating that they had reviewed the plans, everything appeared to be in order and that they (the Ginger Creek Homeowners Association would be supportive of Mr. Warner's request for the variation. Mr. O'Brien said that Mr. Huizenga is out of town, but he did give him a copy of a letter that lays out multiple potential solutions to this problem. One is that if there is no other way to create a one acre lot for Mr. Warner to potentially get involved in the variation issue rather than impact the Village with the zoning change. He is going by Mr. Huizenga's August 1 letter to Mr. Wehrs. He added that perhaps it has not arrived at Mr. Wehrs doorstep yet, but there is a pretty good list of things that should be considered, and he does not believe they have come to any resolution because they have not had a response from Mr. Warner to this letter. Mr. Wehrs responded that he has yet to receive this letter to which Mr. O'Brien refers. Mr. O'Brien gave me Wehrs a copy of the letter. Mr. Wehrs asked that the letter be made part of the file. Member Young asked if there was any fencing between the area of the proposed gates. Mr. Wehrs responded there was not. Member Young said that if there was just foliage in that area that someone could just walk through the foliage at any time and circumvent the purpose of the gates. Mr. Wehrs said that some of that property is not owned by Mr. Warner it is owned by Ginger Creek. Member Young said that someone could drive a vehicle through the foliage at anytime and circumvent the purpose of the gates. Mr. Wehrs replied that they could. Member Young asked if there was an intrusion detection devices anywhere along the parameter of the building, or sensors, audible devices, physical guards outside the building. Mr. Wehrs responded there was not. Member Young said that it appears the reason for gates is just aesthetics if someone cannot be prevented from entering the property. Mr. Wehrs said that the nature of Mr. Warner's landscaping would somewhat detour someone from trying to drive their vehicle into the yard. Member Young asked if they have done a security study, or if the FBI has done a national security survey? Mr. Wehrs responded no. Member Young said that prior to his voting on this matter he would suggest that a security /engineering survey of the entire building prior to making a ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 11 ZBA- MTG.2003 -AUG August 5, 2003 suggestion of putting the gates up. From a logical perspective, these gates offer no protection by themselves for Mr. Warner. Member Sanford commented that the change in the text amendment was initiated by Mr. Warner's gates. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there was a request by Mr. Warner as well as several others have asked if there were a way to open the opportunity for driveway gates. At that point the easiest way was to look at a global solution. They came up with what they thought was a logical solution and there was not a lot of support for it. They have taken a step back to see if there is another way to handle it, or should there be a way to handle it. Mr. Sanford said that he has heard if it is not a dead issue, it is a back burner issue. It appears that Mr. Warner would get his gates either through a variation or the acquisition of additional property, then he would not need a variance. In all likelihood, he will end up with his gates, because he has other avenues. The only thing that really has not been explored is the new letter that has come to light, and it appears that all the avenues have not been approached. Mr. Young said that he disagreed, because if Mr. Warner is truly concerned about his life safety, the gates are not going to do it for him. Putting up two gates on his driveway are not going to protect his life. Mr. Wehrs responded that Mr. Warner's reason for putting up the gates is to keep people from driving up the driveway to his house. Mr. Young said that if someone really wants to get into his home, they will go through the gates, or they will park in front of Baybrook and walk through the foliage. Mr. Wehrs acknowledged that, but he said that the main reason is to keep people from driving through the driveway, snapping pictures and driving out the other side. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he has heard the conversation this evening about bringing the property up to an acre in size and he asked how that would be accomplished. Also, if that could be accomplished, there would have to be a plat of subdivision to make it a legal lot. Mr. O'Brien said that he knows there is room to add a quarter of an acre onto the Warner property. Once there is an acre of property it would comply with the standards in the ordinance and a variation would not need to apply for a variance, he could then install the gates. Mr. Wehrs said that the request is more from a trespass standpoint. Understandably, people can walk through the yards. Mr. Warner does not want to post guards at the perimeter of his property. It is to provide physical security to the property as well as a measure of safety for the property owner. Member Young moved, seconded by Member Shah to continue the matter until such time as a comprehensive engineering survey including a list of suggestions regarding perimeter protection that would not intrude upon the Zoning Ordinance, has been completed and submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals for review. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 2- Shah and Young Nays: 3- Ascher, Sanford and Mueller Absent: 2- Zaheer and Davis Motion Failed Member Shah said that, if the matter is continued to the next meeting, there will be enough time for Mr. Warner and the Ginger Creek Homeowner Association to negotiate an arrangement and the whole issue could become moot. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if they work out a solution, the request for a variation could be withdrawn. Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Young to continue this matter to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on September 2, 2003. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 12 ZBA- MTG.2003 -AUG -Olt- August 5, 2003 ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4- Nays: 1 - Absent: 2- Motion Carried. V11. OTHER BUSINESS Mueller, Sanford, Shah and Young, Ascher Zaheer and Davis There was no other business discussed. Vlll. ADJOURNMENT Member Sanford moved, seconded by Member Young to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 13 ZBA- MTG.2003 -AUG t. Director of Community e ent Secretary September 2, 2003 Date Approved August 5, 2003