Loading...
Minutes - 11/05/2002 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES November 5, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:34p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Members Member Village Trustee Director of Community Development Champ Davis Richard Ascher George Mueller Ayesha Zaheer Louis Aldini Manu Shah Alfred Savino Robert Kallien Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Ascher to waive the reading of the September 3, 2002 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as amended. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Ascher to waive the reading of the October 1, 2002 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Ill. YORK ROAD PROPERTIES — 2122 YORK ROAD — TEXT AMENDMENT and SPECIAL USE TO ALLOW NON - RESIDENTIAL POST BACCALAUREATE SCHOOLS IN THE 0-4 DISTRICTS Susan Hammersley, Vice President, represented The John Buck Company the owner of 2122 York Road stated the request would allow Lewis University to move its existing operations from 2625 Butterfield Road to 2122 York Road. She identified those that would be providing testimony as follows: Wayne Draudt, Executive Vice President, Lewis University, Linda McCabe who is from the Lewis University Oak Brook campus at 2625 Butterfield Road. Chairman Davis swore in all the parties. Ms. Hammersley said that 2122 York Road is approximately a 121,000 square foot, 3 -story office building located at the northwest corner of 22nd Street and York Road. The property was acquired in 1998 with Citigroup. Lewis University would occupy just over 9600 rentable square feet on the west side of the ground floor of the building or just under 8% of the total rentable square footage of the building. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -NOV November 5, 2002 Lewis University is a benevolent institution and provides professional education grounded in the interaction of knowledge and fidelity in search of truth. Lewis promotes the development of the complete person through the pursuit of wisdom and justice. Fundamental to its mission is the spirit of association, which develops community in all teaching learning and service. Lewis University has been an important part of the educational infrastructure in Oak Brook for over twenty years. It first started conducting classes at the Oak Brook Marriott in 1978 before locating to its current home at 2625 Butterfield Road in 1988. Lewis University in relocating to 2122 York Road would operate under substantially the same use as they have been during their time in Oak Brook as a university satellite campus with an emphasis on graduate programs and the adult learner. Secondary uses would include educational related corporate training, meetings and seminars, certificate programs, select undergraduate courses and administrative functions. A minimum of 75% of the classes would be conducted in the evenings and on Saturdays. Having Lewis University at this location would provide many benefits to the property, surrounding uses and the community as can be outlined as follows: • At the new location it would provide Lewis with greater access to highways, from two main arterial roadways (York Road and 22nd Street) and with most classes in the evening it would allow for efficient egress and ingress out of the property, as well as public transportation from York Road and 22"d Street. • Lewis University would also be an amenity to the property and would continue to remain an amenity for the surrounding area and the surrounding community. • At this location, Lewis would continue to support the economic development and educational opportunities in the Village of Oak Brook. • The proposed text amendment and special use would support the Comprehensive Plan's goals and objectives by enhancing education, services to the community, compatibility and efficiency of mixed uses and economic vitality of the area. Ms. Hammersley requested that an additional point be added to clarify the special use provision and the language is primarily from the staff report. "The primary educational focus will be graduate programs and emphasis on the adult learner. Secondary educational uses would include, corporate training, meetings, seminars, certificate programs, select undergraduate courses and administrative functions." The main reason for proposing this language is that it is not only in keeping with the existing special use, but would allow Lewis University to maintain some flexibility to meet the changing needs in the educational community and also the demands of the students and the future changes in the economy. The text amendment would include a definition of schools defined as: "Non residential, post - baccalaureate school provided that not more than twenty percent of the course offerings may be prerequisite to admission to the post - baccalaureate programs." The special use as requested is as follows: 1. The special use shall not exceed 15,000 square feet in floor area. 2. The activities are limited to classroom instructed, related educational programs, and administrative and support services. Non - academic activities are not permitted; and 3. That a minimum of 75% of the courses offered shall be taught in the evening and on weekends. The Zoning Amendment Factors A. The character of the neighborhood. Lewis University would continue to provide enhanced services for residential and business members within a new office park setting. The new location would provide greater access from all highways and the major arterial roads. Most classes are held after business hours providing efficiency of ingress and egress. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes November 5, 2002 2 ZBA- MTG.2002 -NOV L L! B. C. A E F. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions. The extent to which the removal of the existing limitations would depreciate the value of other property in the area. In response to both of these items, they feel that this use is already allowed in the ORA -1 zoning. The economic growth has continued in this area under the surrounding uses, which are mostly ORA -1. The suitability of the property for the zoned purposes. It is a compatible use with the existing zoning and is suitable for the zoned purposes. The existing uses and zoning of the nearby property. The surrounding properties are ORA -1, B -4, 0-4 and the golf course, which is CR. The length of time under the existing zoning that the property has remained unimproved considered in the context of land development. Not applicable. G. The relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed on the individual property owner. There will be a continual gain to have such an important educational facility in the Village of Oak Brook for the surrounding property owners and the community. They feel that there is no gain to the public in prohibiting the use, there is more of a gain in maintaining Lewis University in the Village. It could be argued that you could lose economic enhancement by disallowing this use which now benefits Oak Brook's fabric as well as the surrounding area. H. The extent to which the proposal promotes the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public. The university has some of these items in their mission statement. It is a benevolent university that has been a part of the community and has added value and enhanced the overall fabric of the community. The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan. It is a compatible with the existing zoning district and supports the goals and objectives of enhancing education, services to the community, compatibility and efficiency of mixed use and economic vitality of the area. J. The Community need for the proposed use by the property owner. The educational system is an important part of the service infrastructure, which supports the community and provides for economic vitality and stability. Chairman Davis questioned how Lewis University is structured as far as ownership is concerned and asked where the other campuses are located. Wayne Draudt responded that the university is a not - for - profit corporation in the state of Illinois. It was incorporated in 1932 so they are about 70 years old right now. They have satellite campuses in Tinley Park, Schaumburg and Hickory Hills. They also offer courses to several different hospitals and the Chicago Police Academy. There are about 20 different locations where courses are offered by Lewis University. Chairman Davis noted for the record that the Zoning Board of Appeals is in receipt of a letter from the Plan Commission dated October 29, 2002 showing the action taken and by a vote of 4 to 0 recommended approval of the proposition. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes November 5, 2002 3 ZBA- MTG.2002 -NOV ? . V` No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. None of the members had any further questions regarding the request. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Zaheer that the petitioner has met the standards that are necessary to recommend for approval of the Text Amendment as submitted. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Ascher, Mueller, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 2 - Aldini and Shah Motion Carried. The Special Use Standards 1. Is of the type described in subsection Al of this Section, is deemed necessary for the public convenience at that location. It would provide greater access at the intersection of York Road and 22"d Street. The proposed educational use is clearly effected with the public interest and would provide important public services and convenience at this location for the community. 2. Is so designed and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected. It is a benefit to the community and would not in any way create a conflict with the safety or welfare of the community or the surrounding uses. They believe it would be an added benefit. 3. Would not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located. Because the use is also used in the ORA -1 zoning and most of the property in the area is ORA -1 and has continued to grow economically, they do not believe it would be detriment to the property values, but rather would be an added amenity to the campus. Chairman Davis asked why 15,000 square feet is the number that was picked. Ms. Hammersley wanted the ability to grow a little over time. They plan to be here for a long period of time. Based on their experience they do not believe they would need more. Mr. Draudt said that at the current location on Butterfield Road they occupy approximately 8500 square feet. Ms. Hammersley noted that the current lease is for 10 years with 9600 square feet. There is space on the ground floor if they should want to expand. Mr. Draudt added that 10,000 square feet is ideal which would provide for 8 -9 classrooms, computer rooms, labs and administrative offices. Chairman Davis noted for the record that the Zoning Board of Appeals is in receipt of a letter from the Plan Commission dated October 29, 2002 showing the action taken and by a vote of 4 to 0 they recommended approval of the proposed special use. Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Mueller that the petitioner has met the standards that are necessary to recommend for approval of the Special Use as submitted. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4- Nays: 0 - Absent: 2- Motion Carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -NOV Ascher, Mueller, Zaheer and Davis Aldini and Shah 4 November 5, 2002 IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENT — TITLE 13 of the VILLAGE CODE — CHAPTER 3 GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS — SECTION 13 -3 -6 -B FENCES Director of Community Development Kallien said that various aspects of the ordinance have been reviewed over the last couple of years. The issue of fences was before the Zoning Board of Appeals once before, and specific recommendations were made. The Village Board tabled the matter for further study. As a result, the language was referred back to the Plan Commission and is now before this board Director of Community Development Kallien summarized that in Section 13 -3 -6 -B of the Zoning Ordinance the chart would be amended to add the following: "Chain link or wire fence shall be at least 9 -gauge wire, shall be constructed with a top member or brace with wire material (finished side) facing the neighboring property and shall be painted or coated in a dark color (e.g., black, brown, or dark green)." In addition, the section of the chart regarding fences adjacent to patios and swimming pools shall include the following: "See requirements for chain link or wire fences set forth in the preceding item." The Plan Commission spent several meetings on this issue. They looked at the issue in regards to what are the various design alternatives available for fencing. Chain link fencing is rather simple, which is made of a metal material and comes in varying strengths that area measured by gauge. The lower the number the greater the integrity or strength of the wire. The prevailing interest was to provide for high quality chain link fences with integrity. Also, to provide for a requirement that they not be in the traditional silver color. The Plan Commission recommended that the color be limited to green. Those specific recommendations area listed on 15 -a of the petition file. Specifically the Plan Commission voted that fences be constructed in either 8 or 9 gauge wire, the mesh wire be limited to 2" mesh PVC coated, limit the fence color to green, require a knuckle design on the top of the fence, require a top rail and prohibit the use of slats. There were additional discussions as to whether there should be additional language provided for fencing at the perimeter of the community allowing taller fencing, or solid wood fencing. The Plan Commission has asked that once this matter goes back to the Board that they get to look at that issue again at a future date. Knuckling is rounded while the other is spiky. The language would not prohibit anyone from installing wood or wrought iron fences. As they found in a previous survey there are many miles of chain link fences that exist in the community. Some is along Butterfield County Club, along roadways, some of the bigger subdivisions, but much of it is overgrown with landscaping. Chairman Davis asked if there is a significant difference in cost. Director of Community Development Kallien said that chain link companies do offer the fence in various colors. For example, one of the companies lists the price of $1854 for a silver fence, and a color coated chain link fence would be $2600, so there would be an additional cost. The greater aesthetic value is what is trying to be achieved. If someone were to put up a wrought iron fence, the cost would be much greater. Chairman Davis noted that the issue that is before this board is only to chain link fence and the conditions are those set forth in the Plan Commission letter dated October 29, 2002 where they have listed 6 conditions. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes November 5, 2002 5 ZBA- MTG.2002 -NOV �L Trustee Savino said that earlier on, other types of fences were talked about, but what the Plan Commission finally decided to do was to isolate chain link and deal with that, then in the future talk about what we might be able to do on the perimeter of the village if we want to do anything different. There was a discussion at the Plan Commission level about color. They preferred the dark green color. He would like to have a recommendation from the Zoning Board on what their thoughts are on this issue. Member Mueller said that he believes that green is the best color. In Hinsdale, even on the construction fences they have changed the color from orange to green and it blends in better. Director of Community Development Kallien said that last month the Sprieser case on Spring Road was before the Zoning Board of Appeals. He had a chain link fence around a great portion of the property.. He really wanted to repair it and replace a portion of it. That particular portion of the fence was black and he felt that black was a reasonable color to reinstall at that location. There was a discussion of green versus black. Member Ascher said that if green is made the color and someone wants black, then they would have to seek a variation. Director of Community Development Kallien agreed and said that there is no way they could meet the hardship, because there is none, it would be just the preference for a different color. Mr. Sprieser really wanted black because he said that it blended in with the surrounding woods. Chairman Davis agreed, saying that if trees were in the background there would not be much in the way of leaves. He wondered if the recommendation should be so specific to select one color. He would like to see a little more flexibility, especially since they could not meet the standards for a variation. Member Zaheer also agreed saying that it would be too restrictive to just allow dark green. If someone is repairing less than 50% of their fence, they can match what is existing, however if they are repairing more than 50% would they have to remove the existing fence and adhere to the new requirement? Director of Community Development Kallien responded that a magic number has not been chosen as to when this applies. It would be unreasonable if someone has hundreds of feet of fence and needs to replace only a portion of it and be required change the whole fence may be unreasonable and costly. Member Zaheer said that an all silver fence would still be better than a patchy different colored fence. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Butler National has green. Around Midwest Club there are a number of segments that are black. Chairman Davis asked what would be the status of a silver fence if the ordinance were changed. If it becomes nonconforming use, then it can be repaired but not replaced. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that when it goes to the board he could touch on it so that they have an understanding of this issue. Steve Young, resident questioned that the wire gauge is listed is 9 and said that the ASTM standards are 11 and asked why it was being recommended to be 9. Director of Community Development Kallien said that they chose 9 because it is a more durable fence. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to the request. Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Shah that the petitioner has met the standards that are necessary to recommend for approval of the Text Amendment subject to the material specifications as recommended by the Plan Commission with the exception of specifying the only color choice as "green." ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 4- Nays: 0 - Absent: 2- Motion Carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -NOV Ascher, Mueller, Zaheer and Davis Aldini and Shah 6 November 5, 2002 IV. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business discussed. V. ADJOURNMENT Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Zaheer to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 7 ZBA- MTG.2002 -NOV Director of Community veTopment Secretary o?- -` o`ZOD3 Date Approved November 5, 2002