Loading...
Minutes - 10/05/2004 - Zoning Board of AppealsMINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 5, 2004 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON DECEMBER 7, 2004. 1. CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Champ Davis in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Richard Ascher, Robert Sanford, Manu Shah and Steven Young ABSENT: Member George Mueller , IN ATTENDANCE: Director of Community Development, Robert Kallien, Jr. and Village Engineer, Dale Durfey. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 Motion by Member Ascher, seconded by Member Mueller, to approve the minutes of the September 7, 2004 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. BHARGAVA /GRAWAL — 722 FOREST GLEN LANE — VARIATION BHARGAVA/GRAW AL - 722 FOREST — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE - ZONING ORDINANCE GLEN LANE - SECTION 13- 6D -3F -3 — VARIATION TO THE REAR YARD VARIATION - REAR YARD SETBACK SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A ROOM ADDITION Chairman Davis swore in ,Pradeep Bhargava, the petitioner and owner of the property at 722 Forest Glen Lane. Mr. Bhargava said that the application was based on hardships. There property is one of the smallest in the subdivision. The house has a rear yard of thirty feet. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 17 October 5, 2004 He advised the Board that he had updated information that is not contained in the packets. Today at 5 p.m. he had a meeting with Harry Peters, President of the Forest Glen Homeowner Association and Frank Manus, his next door neighbor, who had some reservation about the addition, that he did not have before. They came to a compromise that the room addition would be reduced from 18 feet to 15 feet. The length would be extended from 21 feet to 25 feet, which would be an additional 4 feet to the west. They concluded at 6 p.m. tonight, so they have nothing in writing and did not have time to revise the plans. Based on those changes, Mr. Peters said the Homeowner's Association would probably endorse it. Chairman Davis noted that the application had been amended to include the deck. Mr. Bhargava said that the Homeowner association is meeting on Wednesday. Richard Olson, a member of the Forest Glen Homeowner Association, said that there has been conversation around the neighborhood, but the Board of Directors has not yet met to discuss this matter. They plan to do that at their meeting on October 13, 2004. The meeting with Mr. Peters and Mr. Manus was to get a better understanding of what was going on. Chairman Davis asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals votes for a recommendation, would that impact the decision of the homeowner association. Mr. Olson responded that the Board will vote its own opinion of the situation. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if the Homeowner's Association objects to it, The Community Development Department is not entirely bound by their ruling, but it does have a bearing on how the building permit is processed. Mr. Bhargava said that if one of the approval processes stops, it would become a vicious cycle for him. If this matters moves forward to the Village Board, it would allow everything to come together. If he does not get it moving, and it is approved in the end, then he would not be able to build until next year. Each body is independent and anyone can stop it. He needs approval from this board, the Village Board, the Homeowners Association and then approval of a building permit. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 17 October 5, 2004 Member Ascher addressed concerns that the plans have changed from 18 to 15 feet, the length of the structure has been changed from 21 to 25 feet, which was all changed at 6 p.m. this evening and the petitioner wants to move his matter to the Village Board next week. Chairman Davis reviewed the revisions to the plan. Mr. Bhargava said that he did not wish to change the plans. When the plans were originally done, Mr. Manus, his next door neighbor, was the first person he spoke to and he did not have a problem- with the plan then or for months. In the last week, he sent e -mails of concern to Mr. Kallien and Mr. Bhargava felt it necessary to address those concerns, because it was not fair to the neighbor, to him, to the Zoning Board or to the Homeowner Association. So he went back and talked to him and reached this compromise. It is not that he wanted to change the plans, but he is reducing the encroachment facing the neighbor, which is an easier thing to digest and understand. He is not trying to extend the addition and the area under the roof will be the same. He was forced to get into this situation because his neighbor changed his mind and that was his privilege. Member Sanford said that in the order of approvals, ideally the Homeowner Association should go first, then the Zoning Board, then to the Village Board. However, for expediency sake, he did not think this Board would be usurping its duty to reverse the order in this one instance. Mr. Young agreed. Member Shah said that the point has been made that this was a last minute change. The new dimensions have been explained and he feels very clear about the revisions. In the past this Board has acted on sketches. The weather is getting marginal. This Board should make the decision on the variation. Some Zoning Board members are not aware of what individual homeowners groups require. He believes the Zoning Board has sufficient information to act. Chairman Davis said that the response to the standards were testified to at the last meeting and are contained in the case file on pages F and F.1. The proposal with the new drawing is on page 18 of the case file. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Chairman Davis advised the petitioner that he should be prepared to address the issue of the homeowner's association at the Village Board meeting. Motion by Member Shah, seconded by Member Sanford to recommend approval of the variation for the construction of a room addition as verbally VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 17 October 5, 2004 modified to encroach approximately 15 feet into the rear yard setback and approximately 25 feet in length and the deck structure will also be reduced to encroach approximately 15 feet into the rear yard setback. The structures are to be built in substantial conformance to the plan submitted on page 18 of the case file. The standards have been addressed on Pages F and F 1 of the case file. The petitioner has testified that the situation is due to unique circumstances which include: the lot is undersized being 14,000 square feet and the R -4 zoning district minimum standards are 18,000 square feet; it is a corner lot; from an aesthetic standpoint it will not impact other homes in the neighborhood; and the plans are to be revised to indicate the approved changes and are to be submitted to the Village Board. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 — Members Sanford, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 1 — Member Ascher Absent: 1 — Member Mueller. Motion Carried 5. NEW BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS 5. A. YORK ROAD PROPERTIES LLC — 2001 YORK ROAD — SPECIAL FORK ROAD PROP. LLC - 2001 YORK USE — TITLE 13 ZONING ORDINANCE — SECTION 13 -10E -2 — 0-4 ROAD- SPECIAL DISTRICT — TO ALLOW A HELIPORT ON THE PROPERTY USE - HELIPORT Chairman Davis swore in Charles Henschel, Vice President of Airport Investment and Development and Fred Reynolds, Senior Vice President of Development, both with CenterPoint Properties who were representing the petitioner. Mr. Henschel reviewed the request. They reside at 1808 Swift Drive and have been in Oak Brook as a corporate resident for about 7 years. They are a real estate investment trust and specialize in large industrial developments. They are a publicly traded company and happy to be in Oak Brook. They are seeking a special use for a heliport at 2001 York Road which is owned by the John Buck Company. They chose the site based on the review and recommendation of the IDOT Department of Aeronautics who visited and looked at several locations. This site was recommended as the safest location and most logical location. The John Buck Company gave them an agreement that they could operate it. Chairman Davis asked for the details of the agreement. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 17 October 5, 2004 Mr. Henschel responded that it is a 7 acre parcel that adjoins a 5 story building and an elevated parking structure that joins the lot they will be operating on. It has been developed in such a manner that the John Buck Co. could develop another building there, but it would require additional elevated parking in order to accommodate the building. Mr. Buck does not see a need for it at the present time and the market has not demanded it. He told them that they could use the real estate as long as it was available; and with 90 days notice they have agreed to vacate the property if he chose to develop it for an office building or another use. Chairman Davis asked what was involved in constructing a heliport. Mr. Henschel said that there is an existing asphalt pad on the location. It would require some additional striping and additional landscaping and a small additional piece of asphalt pad to raise the area 3 or 4 inches to provide for reasonable runoff and to keep the area clear of ice or snow in the winter time. Beyond that, it requires the IDOT Department of Aeronautics subsequent review and approval, after they have made their preliminary review. Chairman Davis asked the petitioner to address the standards. Mr. Henschel said that the standards are first set forth first by IDOT Transportation and Aeronautics. They were presented with preliminary engineering, reviewed it and it was indicated that it met the state criteria and would meet the FAA criteria. They indicated before IDOT could grant their approval, the Village had to approve it. Mr. Henschel said that the FAA and IDOT have fairly stringent safety standards. There cannot be any obstructions in the surrounding area. It is required to provide a 5 to 1 slope for access and egress for both for the primary and secondary access points, that would provide ample safe access and egress of a helicopter in windy conditions. Since the request is for daylight use only, it would not require any addition of lighting or any other avionic equipment, like beacons or the like. They provided a response to the type of operation, safety, noise limitations set forth in the Village Code to the Plan Commission and they identified and responded to those requests. Chairman Davis said that one of the Village's standards is that the special use is so designed, proposed and operated so that the public health, safety and welfare would be protected. He questioned that this is a similar safety VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 17 October 5, 2004 standard as required by IDOT and the FAA Mr. Henschel responded that it is; and IDOT and the FAA have it as their primary concern for the safety of the surrounding residences and office tenants. Chairman Davis asked that he address the second standard for a special use which is that the proposed use would not cause substantial injury to other property in the neighborhood. Mr. Henschel responded that they specifically chose this location because it was surrounded by office buildings and felt that it would add an asset to the community much more than it would be a detriment. Chairman Davis noted the location was surrounded by office buildings and two tollways and asked what was discussed by the Plan Commission. Mr. Henschel said that the consensus of Plan Commission was that the design would be in accordance with the Village and IDOT; that the hours of operation would be between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. during the week and only on Sunday with advance notice; no refueling, maintenance or storage; it would only be there for picking up passengers leaving and bringing back the passengers and lift off. Mr. Henschel said that the helicopter is not owned; it is leased for approximately 20 hours per month. It is not used for convenience; it is used as a mainstay to their business which is large industrial developments. It is likely that the use would be six times per month and in no way would it exceed ten times per month. If they every felt it they would require more than that the Village would need to be contacted for that. Jim Slinkman, Associate General Counsel for Advocate Health Care was sworn in by Chairman Davis. He said that Advocate is in a one -story building located at 2025 Windsor Drive. They have some concerns regarding the heliport. The flight path is immediately over their building and they have invested a substantial amount of money in the property over the last two years to build a parking garage. They have a grave concern that a flight path that goes over the top of their building would severely damage their property in terms of the future value of their property. It is an old one -story warehouse. If they would decide in the future to build another building, they would be severely impacted by the flight path going right over it, so there would be damage to their property. The parking lot VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 17 October 55 2004 is about 60 yards from their building, which they think is too close for their employees as well as people visiting their building. Advocate is familiar with aircraft and operates helicopters for patient safety to various hospitals, not for corporate convenience, and they are a dangerous business in terms of crashing. They believe that the way Windsor Drive curves around to the north of their property people do not follow the posted traffic limits, and their fear is that with helicopters it can only increase traffic safety as well as helicopters crashing. Chairman Davis asked the applicant to address the concerns. Mr. Reynolds said that they did receive some notification back from Advocate Health and some others in the file and they did try to responsibly address those concerns and clean up any misconceptions. They did respond to the President and CEO of Advocate and personally hand delivered a letter to the office of the President and CEO of Advocate. Mr. Slinkman said that he did not see the letter because the President is out of the country. Mr. Reynolds summarized what was in the letter. He said that they do rely on the safety as required by the IDOT Dept. of Aeronautics as well as the FAA. The helicopter uses pretty much a vertical ascent and descent. The flight paths shown are in the event a helicopter has to land in high winds that they do come in a horizontal approach. The normal practice will be vertical and the primary approach is over York Road and the approach over Advocate would be the secondary approach. He cannot see where there would be property damage in a typical operation. This,is not an illusion of "executive convenience" as it was referred to. Quite to the contrary, they have over 46,000,000 outstanding shares of common traded stock at CenterPoint and they do tour from time all the analysts and stockholders that want to see their properties. They also have clientele that want to see properties. These are scheduled tours as needed on the request of their customers as well as the ownership to tour properties. They have 39,000,000 square feet of industrial property in the greater Chicagoland area which is very difficult to get to by car. These are very large acreage properties ranging from 100 to 2200 acres and they have 3200 acres of vacant land that is entitled for development that they tour from time to time. They also take out public officials to see how certain developments fit into their community. It is a multi - purpose use which is quite contrary to executive convenience. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 17 October 5, 2004 Mr. Henschel commented that a private heliport and special 'use permit does not take away any property rights. If Advocate decides to build a 6- story building, then they have to find alternate means to come and go. It is not a fixed wing public airport. Chairman Davis asked if it is normal that the helicopter travels vertically and that the flight paths shown on the plans signify when the helicopter is not flying vertically. Mr. Henschel agreed and said that in general unless winds prevent otherwise the helicopter will not be approaching or departing over Advocates property. They will ascent to 1,000 feet. A helicopter does not hover for any length of time. Mr. Young said that if Advocate raises the height of the building, the FAA would appropriately adjust whatever flight restrictions they have over that building. Mr. Slinkman said that they have had terrible experiences with the FAA in terms of building heights as it relates to the area surrounding O'Hare airport. They understand that there may be a difference between a heliport and a fixed wing airport. Chairman Davis noted that Advocate has an absolute right to construct a building up to 5 stories without the need of a public hearing. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Advocate would only need to apply for a building permit to construct a 5 -story building. He asked how the FAA would be notified. Mr. Henschel said that the operator is required and bound by the operator agreement to get in touch with IDOT and have its Flight Safety Inspector come out to inspect the site. This is the inspector who comes out and inspects the site on a bi- annual basis. Member Young questioned whether the petitioner has checked any vibration issues that may impact the buildings. Mr. Heschel responded that they reviewed the vibration criteria set forth in the Village Code and they were told by the helicopter operator that it fell well within the Code and will not be any problem to comply with. Member Young questioned what type of helicopter would be used. Mr. Henschel said that it was a Euro - copter AS 355 multi - engine capable of carrying 5 passengers. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 17 October 5, 2004 Member Young questioned the Village's ability to respond to an aircraft accident appropriately. Director of Community Development Kallien said that ultimately that is a question only the public safety personnel could answer. However, they handle any call that comes. Currently, the Village is within the flight paths of O'Hare airport. There is a fully functioning heliport at McDonald's right now and helicopters do land there. There have been a number of these special uses approved over the years. Currently, there is one at OAG that is not operative right now. Given the prior approvals he would say that the Village is comfortable with that type of feature in the community. There are conditions in terms of fueling on site, and then the Fire Dept would be involved. There are helicopters that come into the Village now to bring in air conditioning units for the office buildings and the shopping center. Member Young questioned if public safety assistance would be provided when they land. Director of Community Development Kallien said that they do not currently provide that with the McDonald's special use. There are special provisions in place for McDonald's. They do adhere to the requirements that the Village has set forth for heliports. When the Plan Commission reviewed this matter they had not heard from Advocate or .the Homeowner Association. They did forward their best information to the Zoning Board and then this Board also gets the benefit of the public hearing notice. Chairman Davis asked them what their plans were from a timing standpoint. Mr. Henschel said that it will take about 60 -90 days to fulfill the requirements by IDOT and at the same time they intend to apply to the Village for an asphalt permit. Hopefully, they would be able to get the asphalt in this fall. Chairman Davis said that Mr. Slinkman has not had a chance to review his letter with his client. The Zoning Board just received a letter from the Forest Glen Homeowners Association and he believes their concerns should be addressed. One of the concerns is that the helicopter would be hovering overhead in the morning or evening. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 17 October 5, 2004 Mr. Henschel responded that they also have just seen the letter and do not have any intention of hovering at all. Mr. Reynolds responded that in response to the additional traffic theory, he said that any additional traffic is negligible. The total operation of a tour is that it is booked from days to 4 hours in advance. Typically it would be after 9 a.m. and would be a 2 to 3 hour tour. They would meet at the heliport by car, so no real stress of additional traffic. They are up and on their way, there is no hovering like a traffic helicopter would do over the highway like they do for news radio. The whole operation from car to helicopter to takeoff is approximately under five minutes. The same thing happens in reverse when they land. They are not on York or 22nd Street. The noise relating from hovering is not then intent or a likely practice. Chairman Davis said that there is a buffer of trees between the site and the Forest Glen Homeowner Association. Mr. Reynolds said that it is approximately one -half mile from the site. Chairman Davis asked what the noise standards were. Director of Community Development Kallien said that they are required to follow the Village's Performance standards and they have responded to those on page H of the case file. The basic standard is 72 decibels, which is similar to a lot of other noise ordinances. Member Young said that 72 decibels would be comparable to a loud car stereo, maybe a little louder. Most standard machinery in an industrial plant operates around 50 -60 decibels. Mr. Henschel said that their operator indicated that they could meet the local zoning requirements with respect to noise. He also said that the substantial amount of noise is within the direct proximity below the landing and takeoff area. It does not migrate to a large amount; it migrates vertically, but not horizontally. It's there and it is gone. Mr. Reynolds added that the Performance Standards as required by Ordinance would be met. He added that another comment in the letter is that there are other heliports in the area. They have not had any luck accessing McDonald's heliport. O'Hare airport, Joliet as well as a construction site in McCook, which has been deemed to be a legal spot to land is typically where they have gone. These sites tend to be intermittent and the need is such that they need to have something to rely on at least for the short haul. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 17 October 5, 2004 Chairman Davis said that he hoped that Mr. Slinkman's concerns have been addressed. In view of the fact that the Zoning Board of Appeals makes a recommendation and the Village Board has to pass and approve this request, they will have a further chance to review their letter with the CEO and if there are still concerns, Advocate would be able to present them to the Board of Trustees, which is a safety factor and the Village Board would consider their concerns very seriously. Mr. Reynolds said that as a good neighbor they would be happy to sit down with them and discuss any issues with them. Member Young said that he does not think that noise is going to be the issue from a public safety standpoint. The greater risk is going to come from traffic, people watching the aircraft coming in and out, so there will be the probability of accidents happening in and along the streets. Vibration is still going to happen. The noise is a temporary issue. Chairman Davis said that it appears that the standards have been met in writing and in testimony by the petitioner for the grant of a special use. The matter has been before the Plan Commission and they have recommended approval unanimously, subject to conditions set forth in the recommendation letter from Chairwoman Payovich on pages 14 and 14.a of the case file. Motion by Chairman Davis, seconded by Member Shah that the petitioner has addressed the special use standards on page F of the case file and the Performance standards have been met as required on page H of the case file to recommend approval of the special use request for the heliport as proposed to be located at 2001 York Road. 1. It is to be operated as detailed on page G and G -1 of the case file. 2. The proposed special use is deemed reasonable and does not appear to jeopardize the public health, safety or general welfare of any party. 3. The use is to be limit to no more than 10 times per month, 7 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. It may not be used on Sunday unless the Village of Oak Brook is notified and has approved the use in advance. 4. Operation of the proposed heliport will be constructed and operated in accordance to the Village of Oak Brook and IDOT standards. 5. Operation of the proposed heliport is predicated on receiving IDOT approval. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 17 October 55 2004 ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 — Members Ascher, Sanford, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — Absent: 2 — Member Mueller. Motion Carried. Chairman Davis suggested that the petitioner get in touch with Mr. Slinkman from Advocate Health. Director of Community Development suggested that the Petitioner also get in touch with the Forest Glen Homeowner Association prior to the Village Board Meeting. 5. B. BUTLER NATIONAL GOLF CLUB — 2616 YORK ROAD — VARIATION — TITLE 9 — STORMWATER, FLOODPLAIN and SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL REGULATIONS — SECTION 9 -6 -3.V — TO ALLOW THE RELOCATION OF BUNKERS AND TEE BOXES WITHIN THE FLOODWAY OF SALT CREEK Chairman Davis swore in the petitioner's Patrick Kelsey, Environmental Resources Manager and Darren Olson, Water Resources Engineer, both with Christopher B. Burke, Engineering. Mr. Kelsey said that they need a variance from the Oak Brook Ordinance, which mirrors the DuPage Countywide Stormwater Ordinance for a variance in the floodplain in that recreational use of a golf course in the floodway is specifically excluded as a use within the floodway. Butler Golf Course is unique in that 55 acres, which is approximately 32% of the golf course, is in the floodway not the floodplain. The floodway is that portion of the area that floods during a 100 -year flood that has flowing water in it. It is unique not only in the Village, but throughout the county there are a number of places that have golf courses in the floodplain; but the floodway is very constricted. In the case of Butler it occupies a third of the course. The request for this variance, which is supported by the DuPage County Stormwater Committee, is to allow the bunkers and tees to be realigned to take them out of the floodplain storage and to raise the tees up out of the floodway. The reason to do this is to improve the play of the course and to protect the tees during a 100 -year flood event. No one expects that the tees or greens would be playable during an event or immediately after, but the course wants the ability to return to its use as soon as possible after a flood event. This will allow them to return the course to use more quickly. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 17 October 5, 2004 Chairman Davis commented that it 1987 it look a while to clear the water off the course. Mt. Kelsey responded that for those that recall those days, and recall the implementation of the County Stormwater Ordinance that was an issue. Subsequently, the interpretation by the County has been a standing condition where in golf course uses and changes at other courses on Salt Creek were allowed without variances. DuPage County did not see fit in this case to support that viewpoint and asked them to obtain a variance through the Village. It is an allowable use under the state rules which the county has been delegated by the State of Illinois; the County has a more restrictive standard. Chairman Davis said that it is his understanding that no structures are being built it is simply relocating and rebuilding bunkers and tees. Mr. Kelsey said that there are no bridges or building structures, it is simply re- grading within the floodway. Chairman Davis asked that they respond to the standards required for approval of the variation. Mr. Kelsey said that the standards that need to meet are as follows. 1. Subsection K of 9 -12 -1, that a variance in the floodway would not be less restrictive than the state or federal regulations. In this case those regulations would be the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Water Resources Federal Emergency Management Agency. They are not outside the standards imposed. 2. They need to meet the requirements that there will not be additional expenses outside of Butler National Golf Course. All of the expenses for these impacts in terms of flood protection will be incurred on Butler National Golf property alone. However, the relocation has allowed the Club an opportunity to provide some environmental enhancements with some of the water features on the course and to eliminate some existing minor erosion problems, so it will be an environmental improvement. Additionally, there will be significant new landscape plants to enhance the play of the course. 3. The flood elevations will not be changed off site, either upstream or downstream as a result of this project. This is the key provision to everyone when you look at whether or not any impacts should be VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 17 October 5, 2004 granted in the floodway is whether there will be any impacts upstream or downstream from the site. They will all be incurred within the site. DuPage County rules and Village rules require that they do compensation within the same hydraulic cross - section of the Creek. They have been able to accommodate that condition; the hydraulic impacts are truly minor. 4. In every way they are in compliance with Title 9. 5. They have gone through a technical review with the Village's consultant, Earth Tech and have satisfied their concerns as well as the Village Engineer's concerns. Chairman Davis noted that they have addressed the standards in Book C, Tab 6 on pages 4 or 5. No one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the request. Mr. Kelsey said that this matter has been approved by the Stormwater Committee at the County. Member Ascher said that after the 100 year flood there was remediation effort through the County and to store the water somewhere and it seems that we do not have as much of problem with flooding. Does this effect what we might see in the future as to the 100 -year flood as to how high it might get. Mr. Kelsey responded that the 100 -year one hundred year flood plain has been amended as the result of a number of reservoir projects, Wooddale, Elmhurst, Itasca, Chicago, Stone, a number of online reservoirs, the West Wood Creek Reservoir and the West Busse Wood Reservoir is being modified. after 15 years of discussion. That lowers the peak of the major flood event, but it prolongs the time that there is flooding within the flood plain area at lower elevations to below the 10 year event. What we see are lower peaks, but more prolonged flood events. The damage comes to many environmental conditions and particularly turf when it is submerged for long periods of time. So moving tees out of the 100 year floodway allows them to remain in better shape during the flood event. Those projects have had a significant impact. One of the intended consequences to reduce flood damage is to have a flood that lasts for a longer period of time; smaller floods are more prolonged as detention basins release at a slower rate. Mr. Kelsey addressed the comments in Village Engineer Durfey's memorandum. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 17 October 5, 2004 Chairman Davis said that it appears that the standards have been met in writing and in testimony by the petitioner for the grant of the variation. Member Sanford motioned, seconded by Member Young to recommend approval of the variation to Title 9 as requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted in Books labeled C and D as part of the case file. 2. Address all comments set forth in Village Engineer Durfey's memorandums. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 — Members Ascher, Sanford, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — Absent: 1 — Member Mueller. Motion Carried. 5. C. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TEXT AMENDMENT TITLE 13 — ZONING ORDINANCE — CHAPTER 14 — ADMIINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT — AN AMENDMENT TO THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Director of Community Development Kallien said that on September 20, 2004 the Plan Commission recommended to concur with the staff report recommendation to enhance our public notification requirements. At the present time our notification procedures are completely within the guidelines of the state statutes. A public notice is placed in a newspaper of general circulation within the community summarizing the request and the date, time and location of the public hearing within 15 days of the hearing. Not everyone reads the newspaper so all property owners within 250 feet of the subject property receive a letter summarizing the request and the date, time and location of the public hearing. The names are obtained directly from the Assessor's office. There are times that people have taken exception that they have received one. We felt that there was a need to take a final step to ensure public awareness of public hearings. Most communities in the region employ the standard of requiring that a temporary sign be placed on the property stating that it is the subject of a public hearing. If someone does not read it in the newspaper, or receive a notice, and they live in the area, they will probably drive past it. The sign is meant to get your attention and basically get the public to call the Village. If someone is not reached by one of those mechanisms at least the Village has done its best in its notification efforts. As a courtesy, we also VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 15 of 17 October 5, 2004 send a letter to all the active homeowner associations that are recognized by the Village so that they can inform those in their subdivisions. Language has been proposed that require the signs be placed to identify the location of placement on the property, when it should be put up and taken down. The Plan Commission did ask staff to explore the option of the Village making the sign and charge a small fee from the applicant so that there was a uniformity of what the sign said. He checked with the Director of Public Works and was told that they could be made. They could have a white face measuring 2'x 3' with a red border around it to draw people's attention, to notify that a public hearing was being planned for the property and to call the Village. The Village would place the sign and pick it up when the public hearing was over. Chairman Davis said that personally he believes it is a good idea. Director of Community Development Kallien said that properties with multiple frontages would be required to place a sign on each street. It is a logical step and addresses issues brought to the hearing bodies that they did not know about a hearing. Member Ascher said that he has seen this done in many locations and he thinks that it has a good purpose. He asked who would incur the costs. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if we kept an inventory of 6 to 8 signs, Public Works Director Meranda said that they would cost approximately $30 each. It would take a few minutes to put them up and take them down. We charge a fee that is part of our Code for all public hearing applications. It could be amended slightly so that the applicants would subsidize the creation and maintenance of the signs, which is more than fair. Member Young said that in some communities he has seen signs that are as big as billboards and we may want to limit the size. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he has proposed the signs to be 2' x 3', which is compatible with the acceptable signs allowed in the Village. Billboards are not allowed in the Village. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Chairman Davis said that the Zoning Board of Appeals is in receipt of the Plan Commission Chairwoman's letter of recommendation. The vote was VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 16 of 17 October 5, 2004 for unanimous approval with several conditions. The proposed text amendment would promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public and would not diminish property values. Motion by Member Shah, seconded by Member Young to recommend for approval the application of the Village of Oak Brook to revise the text of the Zoning Ordinance as proposed, subject to the following: 1. The Village should manufacture, place, remove and maintain the public hearing signs. 2. The Village should amend its fee schedule to pass on the costs to the applicants. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 — Members Ascher, Sanford, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — Absent: 1 — Member Mueller. Motion Carried. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: There was no other business to discuss. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Shah, seconded by Member Ascher to adjourn the meeting at 9:17 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert L. Kallien, Jr. Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 17 of 17 October 5, 2004 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT