Loading...
Minutes - 12/05/2000 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES December 5, 2000 L CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. Y. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Members Director of Community Development Champ Davis Paul Adrian Richard Ascher George Mueller Manu Shah Ayesha Zaheer Louis Aldini Robert Kallien Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Mueller, to waive the reading of the October 3, 2000, regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Ill. PRIME GROUP REALTY TRUST - 800 -810 JORIE BLVD. — TEXT AMENDMENT TO PERMIT HOTELS AS A SPECIAL USE IN THE ORA -1 DISTRICT AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN All those present to represent the petitioner in this matter were sworn in by Chairman Davis. Bob Pugliese, Lord, Bissel & Brook, attorney for petitioner, Prime Group Realty Trust and 800 Jorie Blvd., L.L.C., reviewed the background of the site. The approximate 15 -acre parcel was formerly known as the Chicago Bridge and Iron Company property. It is within the ORA -1 zoned area and surrounded by ORA -1 properties. There are two office buildings presently on the site known as 800- 810 Jorie Blvd. The maximum FAR (floor area ratio) is .45, although they understand that there has been discussion about the possibility of the Village moving forward on the recommendation of the Lohan Report to possibly increase the FAR to .6. The present .45 standard would allow 109,000 more square feet of additional office development on the site. They have reviewed the development potential and instead of proceeding with additional office development they are proposing a Marriott Residence Inn Extended Stay Hotel of 155 rooms. Within the plans submitted they have designated an area that would be utilized by the hotel and associated parking. The parking includes a portion of the NICOR gas corridor parcel that runs adjacent to the site and several other properties in that general area. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes December 5, 2000 I �Ik They believe there are several advantages to proceeding with a hotel development instead of building out the FAR with additional office, both from their standpoint as well as the Village's point of view. The hotel will require less parking. This particular hotel will need 170 parking spaces. An office development of 100,00 square feet would about double that requirement. With the reduced level of parking, they are able to utilize the adjacent NICOR property, which has no surface use available to it because of the high - pressure pipeline underneath. They can use it for surface parking and get the required parking required without having to build a parking structure. An office development on the site would require a parking structure. Less parking means less traffic as well, both the a.m. and p.m. hours will be less than half the amount of trips of an office development. The hotel also fills a need in the Village because currently an extended stay hotel does not exist within Oak Brook that is open to the general public. They believe this proposal meets the Oak Brook standards for quality. Whiteco Industries is the preferred operator and currently operates 59 of Marriott's facilities. The petitioner is seeking the following: a text amendment to add hotels as a special use in the ORA -1 District; a special use along with certain code allowances for the Residence Inn; and a text amendment to the off - street parking requirements. They are seeking the following allowances: 1. Request for relief from loading berth requirements due to the very limited food service and on- site laundry. Marriott's experience nationwide is that they do not need any loading berth facilities. They do not have substantial deliveries because they have on -site laundry and the food facilities are very limited. They only provide continental breakfast and evening cocktail type food and beverage for guests only; there is no restaurant in the hotel. Deliveries are made through the normal double access doors. The Plan Commission discussed this issue and was concerned that trucks are not parked in front of the hotel. They were asked to designate an area within the parking lot where loading would occur. In response they have designated an area by the rear access door. They are requesting relief to cut down on the amount of pavement and increase the amount of green space. 2. Grant an allowance from the required ten -foot setback from parking at the property line. It affects the area where they abut the NICOR property. Because the parking is extending the parking lot across the property line, the ten -foot requirement does not serve a purpose under this scenario. The ten -foot is there, but is moved out to the perimeter of the parking area. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that the Ace Hardware facility also utilizes the NICOR property for off -site parking. 3. Grant an allowance from the requirement that no more than six parking spaces be located in front of the building. Their front is Jorie Blvd. and anything they do will have more than six spaces in front of the building. The view along Jorie is not impacted by what they are proposing. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that the language in the Ordinance is vague and the parking they are talking about is technically in front of the building, between the other buildings. To be on the safe side, it was felt that it should be spelled out as part of the request because of the way the Ordinance reads. 4. Grant an allowance from the requirement for landscape screening of a parking lot as it relates to the common lot line between office /hotel property and the NICOR property where the parking lot extends across the lot line. They are seeking to move it along the perimeter of the property where it serves its intended function. 5. Seeking an allowance from the requirement that parking facilities permitted on a lot other than the lot on which the structure or use served is located be owned by the owner of the lot occupied by the structure. Also, grant an allowance from the requirement for a recorded ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes December 5, 2000 2 A& covenant prohibiting any other use of the additional parking lot area to allow for recording of an easement approved by the Village Attorney. They are proposing that it be on the NICOR adjacent parcel subject to a perpetual easement approved by the Village. This allows NICOR to make surface use of a property for which it cannot have no other permanent use given the high - pressure pipe line that is located within the pipe line corridor. 6. Seeking an allowance from the maximum Floor Area Ratio of .45 to .456. The Zoning Ordinance requires several factors to be considered in their request. These are addressed in detail in the submitted documents. A letter dated December 4, 2000 (page 12 of the petition file) from Mr. Gold, Area Vice President for Marriott International was submitted to the Board. Mr. Pugliese briefly reviewed the letter. Marriott has approximately 350 hotels open and operating. Residence Inn by Marriott has consistently been named the #1 extended stay hotel in the industry. The quality of construction is high end, the amenities are all first class, and as consequence to that have an average daily rate exceeding $100 with an 83 %+ occupancy. On a nationwide basis the average age of the guest is 41 years old with an average income over $76,000. More than 50% of the guests fall into the professional /managerial category. Most of the people staying at the hotel will be spending money in the Oak Brook restaurants and shopping in the retail centers. The average stay is 4.1 days compared to 2.6 at a standard hotel so people will be in the community longer. Bill Matthys, Vice President, Linden Group, project architect said that the site posed many challenges in terms of land planning. They believe an exciting product has been produced that fits in with Oak Brook. It is a quality building with solid design, utilizing brick and stone accents and outstanding metal roof accents to introduce a touch of color. Attention was given to the design of all four elevations. The main elevation is the exposure to 1 -88, which is why the building is faced in that direction, because the building needs to have a presence in the community. The rear elevation is similar to the front since guests arrive off of Jorie Blvd. The height of the building is five stories, which falls within the Code limits of seventy -five feet. The hotel is made up of 1 and 2 bedroom suites. There is an enclosed swimming pool /spa area, exercise room and sun patio, which is screened from the parking lot, and a small library/den /study area off the main lobby /reception area. There is a larger hearth room, which has a fireplace and full entertainment center, a breakfast bar and an outside tea garden. There are two meeting rooms for the use of the guests and in -house laundry facilities. The loading zone will be located outside the breakfast zone and there is a doorway leading to the tea garden. The placement of the building on the site was a challenge. It was placed to the north edge of the parking lot to utilize the parking areas that really go unused. The parking lot contains 639 parking spaces, which exceeds the parking requirements. The placement of the building also allows them to introduce landscaping around the foundation of the building which enhances the sea of asphalt and creates a row of landscaped islands to the south of the building which separates the office and hotel areas. There is a 15 -16 foot barrier around the building, which will be heavily landscaped. They wanted to create a plush landscape feel to bring the scale down to a more pedestrian level to excite the guests as they arrive. As they round the office building and come around toward the hotel, the focal point at the end of the drive will be enhanced with some impact landscaping to draw their attention to that end. The full length of the paver pattern drive will be landscaped with trees and other material to lead them to a path toward the focal point. There will be an additional landscape buffer to the north and will be developed with a variety of evergreen material and deciduous shrubbery to break up the texture and color in that area. They believe this plan is an excellent use of this property and that it greatly enhances the environment of what exists there now and creates a very pleasant view for the traffic as it begins to slow down as it approaches the toll- booth. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes December 5, 2000 3 VAJ-e Part of the adjacent NICOR property, approximately .66 acres of that parcel will be used for surface parking. The development of the proposed hotel requires 170 parking spaces, whereas an office building of comparable square footage would require approximately 340 parking spaces. They are able to accommodate all of the parking on the site by using the NICOR property rather than building structured parking. A parking structure would be required if they would proceed with an office development. Traffic with the proposed hotel will be less than half of an office use during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Bob Pugliese reviewed the Metro Transportation traffic study, which addressed the parking and traffic issues for the development. The permitted use is for an office building of approximately 100,000 square feet. From a parking standpoint, the Ordinance would require 1 space for every 300 square feet, or roughly 340 parking spaces. The Ordinance requires the proposed Residence Inn to provide 1 parking space per room for 155 spaces and 1 parking space for every 2 employees, or 15 spaces, totaling 170 spaces. This is about half of what an office building would require. The proposed site plan provides 170 spaces to satisfy the Ordinance requirements. A comparison was made of traffic from an office or hotel use standpoint; a copy of the report is in the file under Tab 4. To summarize, the hotel would generate during the morning peak hour, 40 inbound and 30 outbound trips. An office building which would generate 165 inbound and 20 outbound, which is approximately 2 '/2 times the amount of traffic the hotel would generate. The same is true during the afternoon peak hour. The hotel would generate 40 inbound trips and 35 outbound trips as opposed to an office building which would generate 30 inbound trips and 160 outbound trips, again about 2 % times the amount of traffic generated by the hotel. The majority of the traffic will use the existing signalized intersection to enter and exit the development. The current traffic conditions at that intersection and the way that it functions, the existing level of service both during the morning and afternoon is at a level of service B. With the addition of the hotel project, the level of service will remain at level B during both peak periods, so the impact is negligible. In conclusion, the hotel has less of an impact when compared to an office use and the access system that presently exists will be more than satisfactory to accommodate the impact. Bob Pugliese said information was presented in great detail in the file. In the interest of time, he would not review every item as detailed, but reviewed the highlights. The proposed text amendment to add hotels as a special use in the ORA -1 District in Oak Brook. In terms of the compatibility of hotel and office, they are complimentary. They support each other economically with complimentary traffic patterns and parking demands. As you go through the Village, wherever there is a hotel it is close to office. The Code allows both to exist in various districts, including 0-3, 0-4, ORA -2, B -4 and B -2, in some districts they are a permitted use along with office, and in others they are a special use. Clearly there is a pattern that the Village recognizes that these uses do coexist quite well. 2. In regards to the parking text amendment, which has been included in the application, is exactly what the Village is presenting in its own proposed text amendment presentation on the agenda this evening. The off -site parking is being restricted to within 300 feet of the principal use or structure. There are many situations where there is on -site parking that is more than 300 feet away when it is a large user. This is a reasonable restriction and the amendment has a lot of merit. 3. In the request for a Special Use, the Zoning Ordinance specifies two standards, which must be met. First, that the special use is designed located and proposed to be operated so that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected. They have shown that hotels and offices do go together well. The operation and layout is so designed so that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected. The second standard is that the special use will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located. Hotels help offices, they like to be near each other. The petitioner ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes December 5, 2000 4 VJf owns the closest offices to this proposed hotel. The traffic impact will be beneficial to all of the surrounding properties. They believe they have thoroughly addressed all of the various allowances being sought. In regards to the loading berth issue, he stated that they could put a loading berth in. However, they do not have a need for it and they do have adequate green space on the site where a berth could be added. The basis of the request is that in the operation of these hotels across the country have not seen a need for such a berth. It is not included in any of the suburban locations because it is not needed and they do not like to pave green areas just to pave them, which is why they are seeking Village approval. The FAR they are seeking is .456 or 6/1000 over the .45 allowed. It is a slight increase over what would be allowed for office, the impacts of hotel development are significantly less than the impacts of an office development in terms of the amount of parking required and the amount of traffic generation. It also has less of an impact because of building generation, because they do not need to go to structured parking. Even though they are slightly over the standard, the total impacts are less than if built as office. They are also utilizing the NICOR property. Maury Alscher said that Prime Group Realty owns the entire site, just over 15 acres. They will be conveying through a ground lease a portion of the parcel to Whiteco, approximately 77 thousand feet, not quite two acres. In addition, they will be conveying to Whiteco, the easement rights they acquire from NICOR for the parking. Whiteco will own and operate the improvements under a long -term franchise agreement with Marriott. This is a very common structure. Marriott and many other hotels do not operate their own facility, but they have franchisees that do. Marriott considers Whiteco to be the cream of the crop. Chairman Davis questioned the length of the franchise agreement. He responded that it is a twenty -year agreement. Chairman Davis confirmed with Bob Pugliese that compliance with the standards for the text amendment were addressed in detail in the petition file. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the proposal. Member Adrian moved, seconded by Member Mueller, that the Text Amendment to allow Hotels as a Special Use in ORA -1 Districts as requested is deemed necessary for the public convenience and will be operated so that the public health, safety and welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in which it is located. The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 - Adrian, Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer, and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Aldini Motion Carried. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Adrian that the Text Amendment to revise Section 13- 12 -4 -B to allow parking on an adjacent property within 300 feet of the principal use or structure as requested is deemed necessary for the public convenience and will be operated so that the public health, safety and welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in which it is located. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 - Adrian, Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer, and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Aldini Motion Carried. Member Zaheer moved, seconded by Member Shah, that the Special Use Permit to allow development of the Marriott Residence Inn Hotel in the ORA -1 District as requested is deemed ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes December 5, 2000 5 '.z necessary for the public convenience and will be operated so that the public health, safety and welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in which it is located. The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend approval, subject to the following: 1. Allowance to eliminate the required loading dock by designating a specific loading area on the plan. 2. Allowance from the required setback to permit parking at the common lot line. 3. Allowance to permit parking spaces in the front yard. 4. Allowance to eliminate the required parking lot landscaping along a lot line. 5. Allowance to permit required parking on an adjacent parcel not owned by the owner of the property containing the principal building. 6. Allowance to permit a floor area ratio (FAR) of .456 instead of the maximum .45 for the property. 7. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted. 8. The setback between all parking areas and the adjacent lot line is not less than ten feet. 9. Final Engineering approval. 10. Approval of an easement document which confirms the right to locate off - street parking on the adjacent NICOR property for the benefit of the hotel use. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 - Adrian, Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer, and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Aldini Motion Carried. IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK- ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 3 GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS AND CHAPTER 12 OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING Director of Community Development, Robert Kallien said that much of the Zoning Ordinance for the Village of Oak Brook dates back to 1966. It has served the community well, but as we move into the realm of redevelopment, it is time to review the Ordinance and update it. Over the next year, each section within the Zoning Ordinance will be analyzed by the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC) of which the Village Attorney is a member. The ZORC recommendations will then come to the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals where additional input will be obtained. The end product will result in a completely updated Zoning Ordinance. Since many of the principals contained in our current ordinance are good, it will be used as the basis for the update and reviewed chapter by chapter. The "General Zoning Provisions" section that will be reviewed first applies to the entire Zoning Ordinance, not just to specific chapters or properties. The Ordinance provisions are general in nature and apply to all properties. Throughout the review process, the text will include words that are changed, deleted or moved around so that it reads better. These are very common things that occur in an update of a Zoning Ordinance and by doing that, does not change the basic intent of the Code. When the Plan Commission reviewed it, they were able to reach consensus on a number of items. There were also a number of items that they felt ZORC needed to discuss further. The Director of Community Development Kallien recommended that that the Zoning Board of Appeals review the whole chapter together, after it has been fully scrutinized by the Plan Commission and then the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes December 5, 2000 6 Zoning Board would then endorse the entire chapter by agreeing or disagreeing with various proposals. The items to be reviewed are as follows: 13- 3- 1 -A -2. Add language to permit allowances, which may be requested in conjunction to a special use. Eliminates the need to process special uses, which also involve variances as two separate cases. Such an application of allowances was used with recent review of the special use amendment for the Village Hall expansion project, which involved a 65 -foot wide driveway for the new Fire Station. This item was continued by the Plan Commission. This specific section relates to allowances. In the Ordinance, it basically identifies special uses and also special uses with conditions. The Village Attorney has recommended that we formalize the allowance concept. It was used with the Village petition for the Municipal Building Project, by allowing a wider driveway for the fire station. In the last case heard by the Zoning Board (Prime Group Realty 800 -810 Jorie), the Board was able to include as an "allowance" the additional floor area ratio and other provisions that relate to off - street parking. The Village Attorney recommends that this is perfectly legal. If some of these things were required to go through the variance process, it would be very difficult to prove hardship. These allowances do not make it any easier for someone to get relief. These things are still scrutinized by each of the Boards and can be approved, denied or modified. The Plan Commission felt this was a new concept and they wanted the Village Attorney to attend to their next meeting, to give a little more legal basis for this allowance concept. Chairman Davis noted that "allowance" was the term used tonight, however the term "condition" is the old term that is in the existing special use ordinance, and that only relates to parking and loading. This sounds like a good change and as long a special use is being granted and subject to various controls it seems that it would not be necessary to also go through the variance procedure. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there are special uses that go to the Plan Commission where they provide their input and recommendation to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board of Appeals then holds the formal hearing. If that particular case would have a variation attached to it, instead of an allowance, the Plan Commission would have no discussion of the variation request. The allowance provision allows both bodies to weigh in on the overall proposal. 13- 3 -1 -B. Since this is an update of the original Zoning Ordinance, the original special uses in the Village need to be referenced against the date of the first Zoning Ordinance of the Village. The Plan Commission approved this item. When reference is made to special uses in the ordinance, the reference is to special uses and applies to the first Zoning Ordinance. If we were to say as to when it was amended then it would relate to when the amendment was adopted. We want to make sure that it references back to the 1966 ordinance, so that any special use approved back then remains legal. 13- 3 -3 -B. Include a reference that all new lots comply with the Subdivision Regulations of the Village. The Plan Commission approved this item. This change clarifies that all new lots created in the Village must comply with Subdivision Regulations. Currently the Ordinance is not clear on this point. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes December 5, 2000 7 10 1k 13 -3 -5. This section, which establishes specific setbacks along certain streets, contradicts some setbacks, which are listed in several of the zoning districts. Also, some of the assumptions, which were used to establish these original setbacks, may not be valid today. As an example, the current setback along York Road contemplates a five -lane cross section through Oak Brook. However, today's traffic patterns and volumes do not support this original assumption. Therefore, three alternatives are being offered for rour review and recommendation. Alternative 1 recommends that portion of York Road, south of 31' Street be reduced from 100 feet from the property line to 100 feet from the centerline. This portion of York Road is primarily residential with many homes having direct access to the roadway. This area of York Road is now proposed to have an ultimate cross - section of two thru -lanes with a center turn lane instead of four thru -lanes that exist north of 31St Street. Alternative 2 recommends that the minimum setback along a street be consistent to the setbacks contained in the underlying zoning district with the exception to maintain the 22nd Street setback at 100 feet from the property line. Alternative 3 recommends that the minimum setback along a street be consistent to the setbacks in the underlying zoning district without exception. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that in the Zoning Ordinance, some peculiarities exist in terms of establishing extraordinary setbacks along some of the major roadways of the community. The recollection is that 22nd Street, York Road, and Oak Brook Road were the major roadways in the community when Oak Brook was founded. Since they did not know what the ultimate cross - sections would be. The primary reason the extraordinary setback was established was to allow the opportunity to expand these major roadways over time. All of the roadways were originally two - lanes and many today are now four and six -lane roads. In each zoning district, there is a designated front yard. What also exists in the General Provisions section is a setback along York Road, 22nd Street and Oak Brook Road, that is much larger. 22nd Street used to be a two -lane road and is now a six -lane road with turning lanes. York Road used to be a two -lane road and now it's a four -lane road with turn lanes. Oak Brook Road has portions that have been improved, the rest will be improved over the next year or so. With the ultimate cross - sections of these roads known, we need to look at what the setbacks are and determine if they are still relevant for Oak Brook as it moves forward. The ZORC (Zoning Ordinance Review Committee) has had a number of issues with the extraordinary setback as it relates to York Road, the portion of York Road, primarily south of 31st Street/Oak Brook Road. Village Engineer Durfey has indicated that a portion of York Road will probably be no more than three lanes. It will be most likely one lane in each direction, plus a turn lane in the middle. The need to place structures back 100 -feet from the property line is probably no longer warranted with the traffic patterns that currently exist. There are a number of properties south of 31 st Street, that to improve their home, they would have to literally tear down the house and move it back. We have an opportunity here to review what we are really trying to accomplish with this additional setback. Director of Community Development Kallien said that when the number of people seeking a solution or requesting variances increases in a certain area there is a need to look at the issues impacting the property owners. This area south of 31St street on York Road could force many in that area to seek a variance in order to make any modification or improvement to their property. In Alternative 1, instead. of measuring the 100 feet from the property line, it would be measured from the centerline. In the case of 100 -foot right of way on York Road, it would reduce the front yard setback to about 50 feet for the average property. There are a number of homes today that do not meet the 50 -foot setback, and certainly do not meet the 100 -foot setback. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes December 5, 2000 8 OR41Y After a close review, the other two alternatives do not work. Alternative 2 would result in a hodgepodge of setbacks. If all the underlying is followed, R -2 next to R -1 to R -3 would change the setbacks from 40 feet to 30 feet to 50 feet. Emanuel Rousonelos, 3103 York Road, testified that their property abuts two streets that are affected by the extraordinary setback. The property is on southeast corner of 31 St and York Road. They have 110 -foot setback on Oak Brook Road and 100 -foot setback on York Road. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Mr. Rousonelos has come in with a survey of his property and after carving out all of the existing setbacks they were uncertain that even a mobile home would fit. It is a small parcel that was created many years ago. Irene Rousonelos, 3103 York Road testified that the house they are currently living in is very old and 100 percent non - compliant with the ordinance. If some relief were provided in the Ordinance they could build a new home that would be compliant, so they could then tear down the old structure and would improve the entire area. The roadway has already been expanded; it is four lanes plus the turn lane. Ray Scott, Member and Trustee for Christ Church testified that in 1985 the church put on a addition at York Road. It was sizable with a lot of classrooms. The architects designed the building and came to the conclusion that someone misunderstood the Code and were measuring it from the center of the road and not the property line. The church was not allowed to build the building the way it was designed. It required taking the building, angling it northwest, they cut off the corner of the fellowship room because it is at the 100 -foot setback. There are 100 children in the preschool every day and is expanding to 120. The church kitchen is at least 20 years old and is undersized now. There is no room to expand it. They will be filing a petition in the near future seeking a variation to the 100 -foot setback. Their preferred request would be to encroach 30 feet into that setback. The discussion this evening is proposing a 50 -foot setback and they would love to have that approved. They are in favor of measuring from the centerline, which is where the mistake began for the church in 1985. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there are several other properties south of 31s' Street that also has a setback problem. Residents have come in and would like to improve their properties. However, all of them would require a variance. The Plan Commission has requested a graphic to be prepared of the area south of 31St Street to see the properties impacted. The Village wants people to keep up their properties and it appears that there are opportunities in this area to allow people some relief to the extraordinary setback. Member Ascher questioned how wide the pavement is at 31St and York Road. Director of Community Development Kallien said that where York enters into 31St Street the right of way is at least one hundred feet and tapers back. In some areas the right of way has never been dedicated. The pavement just south of the intersection is about 60 feet and tapers down to two lanes. The Village Engineer said that within the 100 -foot right of way we could easily accommodate three traffic lanes without the need for additional right of way acquisitions. Member Ascher asked if this problem is anywhere else in Oak Brook. Director of Community Development Kallien said that this area has the most obvious setback problem. Just north of 31St Street, very few properties have direct access out onto the roadway. The few driveways east of York Rd on 31s have the homes are setback quite a way. On 22 "d Street, in order to keep a viable commercial corridor you want to keep the structures back to keep good site distance for the traffic. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes December 5, 2000 9 vi-Ir 13- 3 -6 -B. Recommend a deletion of "courts" in regard to permitted encroachments into yards. As defined, it is our opinion that the area within a court is a buildable area, which permits all encroachments by right. "Courts" in the Ordinance does not relate to something in the legal system or the end of a cul de sac. This provision says that certain encroachments could be made into the courtyard. The Village Attorney has indicated that if it is anywhere in the buildable area, you should be able to build. They could not come up with any viable reason to keep this provision in the Zoning Ordinance. 13- 3 -6 -B. Recommend a proposal to permit solid six -foot (6) fences where a residential district abuts a non - residential district or corporate limits of the Village. Our current standard now permits 42 -inch high fences that are 50 percent open. Oak Brook has some of the most restrictive rules of any community in the area. We allow 42 -inch high fences and 50% open if they are located at the property perimeter. Taller fences are allowed within the buildable area and most people use those to screen swimming pools. ZORC is proposing the concept of allowing six -foot tall solid fences with a caveat that they are for residential districts that abut nonresidential districts or the corporate limits of the Village. The Plan Commission thought this was reasonable, but the discussion went on as to whether or not to consider screening the backs of yards from major roadways. That was not the intention of the proposal. It would create a "fence tunnel" on both sides of the roadway. This would be contrary to what Oak Brook is about, however, this concept is appropriate where residential developments abut commercial areas to provide a little more screening. 13- 3 -7 -D. Clarify the timeframe habitable vehicles can be parked or stored on a property to three consecutive days. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the text of the Ordinance only addresses three days, it was believed that by adding "consecutive" gives it additional controls especially when enforcement is initiated. 13 -3 -8. The original section which pertained to sewerage and water systems is deleted from the Zoning Ordinance because it exists in the Village's Public Works Construction Standards. The Village has a Public Works Construction Standards Code and they want to try to keep the things that relate to that in that part of the Village Code. 13 -3 -9. The original section which pertains to types of permits associated with special uses is deleted as it is addressed in other sections of the Ordinance. There is some language that relates to zoning certificates and things that are to be issued for special uses. The Village Attorney could find no record where this was applicable. 13 -3 -8. Originally 13 -3 -10, recommend deleting specific exceptions to our height requirements including smokestacks, silos and storage hoppers. Such exceptions were deemed to be inappropriate for Oak Brook. Director of Community Development Kallien stated that these types of uses are really not appropriate in Oak Brook's development scheme and should be deleted. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes December 5, 2000 10 13 -3 -9. Originally 13 -3 -11, recommend including a reference to microcells and a clarification that distributing equipment does not include cellular telephone towers and ancillary equipment. Plan Commission continued this item after discussing what a "microcell" was and what it was not. At the southeast corner of 22nd Street and Route 83 there is a pole with a small 3 or 4 -foot whip antenna that the Village owns. It is used to enhance wireless communications in the area. As technology evolves instead of providing dishes, there may be a technology out there that uses these whip antennas and locates them on various facilities. This has nothing to do with the large dishes or towers. The Plan Commission asked ZORC to define what a "microcell" is, which would be appropriate. 13 -3 -11. Clarifies the screening requirements for rooftop mechanical equipment. These provisions will require that all mechanicals be completely screened in a manner that is consistent to the design and materials found in the principal building. The language currently says that rooftop mechanicals must be screened from any visual appearance or right of way, but it makes sense to have them screened entirely. This amendment strengthens the ordinance requirements. 13 -3 -14. Recommend a decrease in the minimum parcel size from two (2) acres to one (1) acre for driveway gates. Several inquiries have been made from residents concerning a desire to construct driveway gates on parcels that are at least one (1) acre in size. Director of Community Development Kallien explained that this issue is regarding driveway gates and said that it seems reasonable to include R -2 properties, which are large 1 -acre parcels. Several requests have been received to allow driveway gates on properties that have a minimum of one acre. It may be appropriate to extend it to properties one acre in size with certain caveats that it be located certain distances from the pavement. The current ordinance says that driveway gates must be located no closer than thirty feet from edge of pavement, which is fine on major roadways, but on a local residential street that may be too much. Resident, Herbert Stade, supports the change and suggested the following change to the text: "Gates shall be located a minimum distance of thirty feet (30') from the nearest edge of asphalt pavement on a four (4) or more lane road, or twenty feet (20') from the nearest edge of asphalt pavement on a two lane residential street to allow adequate room for vehicular access to the property. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Engineer Durfey has reviewed Mr. Stade's suggestion and has come up with a slightly different text as follows: "Gates Shall be on private property and located a minimum distance of 1) twenty feet (20') from the nearest edge of pavement on local residential streets and 2) thirty feet (30') from the nearest edge of pavement on all other streets, to allow adequate room for vehicular access to the property. Mr. Stade questioned what is determined to be edge of pavement, and said it should be to the edge of the asphalt not the edge of the curb. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes December 5, 2000 11 13 -3 -16. Recommend creating language to permit temporary buildings, structures and uses of land for a time period of up to six (6) months with conditions. Currently, these types of activities cannot be accommodated. As an example, if Costco wanted to have a temporary garden center as part of their development to sell trees and bushes during the summer months, there is no mechanism in our Zoning Ordinance to allow something to be done on property on a temporary basis. Other communities have these provisions, but our Ordinance is silent. The Plan Commission was unsure what ZORC was meaning to include under the term "temporary". After reviewing this with ZORC, perhaps the language could be eliminated and do this under a license agreement so that someone could come and discuss it directly with the Village Board to approve it on a temporary basis. The recommendation is that this language is not needed here, it will be handled through some other mechanism. 13 -3 -17. Recommend creating language to permit telecommunications towers on any Village owned property except property zoned CR Conservation /Recreation. Currently, new telecommunications towers are not permitted. Currently, we do not allow cellular towers in Oak Brook. There is no provision for them. Many businesses have called and would like to put in a tower, but there is no provision to allow it. Oak Brook is a large enough community that there are reception problems in certain areas because of this. The Village could benefit by allowing towers to be built on Village property. This would have to be negotiated between the applicant and the Village Board. There are Village properties that may be appropriate, such as the Village Hall site, and there may be sites that are not appropriate at all. The Plan Commission asked that a map be provided showing all Village owned property, and does any of this property have applicability toward such a use. Chairman Davis questioned that there is a federal law that provides that Villages cannot interfere in this area. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the federal law basically says that you cannot prohibit them. We do not have anything in our Code that states they are prohibited, our Ordinance is silent to it. Member Ascher questioned if the providers pushed it; they could put a tower anywhere they wanted. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if challenged, most likely the judge would order the Village to find a way to accommodate these types of facilities in the community. Member Zaheer said that she worked with a cell company for the past year. She recommended that the Village put together a section in the Zoning Ordinance that deals with the whole technology information and cell tower issue together, rather than deal with it piecemeal throughout the Code. The Village cannot legally say that the cell companies must cover Oak Brook service from outside of Oak Brook. The Village can restrict the providers to Village property only so that the Village could benefit from the rent. The communities with ordinances that are clear do not have to deal with cell phone companies seeking other remedies. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the technology is changing, and the types of facilities we are discussing may be outdated in the future. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes December 5, 2000 12 Val The next Plan Commission meeting they will be providing the graphic for the right of way along York Road, a map for the Village owned property and further review the issue of fencing. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Shah to continue the public hearing for the Zoning Ordinance Review Project to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting scheduled for January 8, 2000. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion Carried. 1V. ADJOURNMENT Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Zaheer to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ,-� L . 140�0� V Director of Community ev pment Secretary February 6, 2001 Date Approved ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes December 5, 2000 13