Loading...
Minutes - 06/19/2017 - Plan CommissionOkVILLAGE OF MINUTES OF THE JUNE 19, 2017 K B R , K , REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON JULY 17, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Tropinski in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:01 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Marcia Tropinski, Members Thomas Doyle, Rahma Hasan, Raju Iyer, Raj Lal, and Simon Sheers ABSENT: Member Kenneth Wilczak IN ATTENDANCE: Trustee Edward Tiesenga, Development Services Director Robert Kallien, Planner Rebecca Von Drasek and Planning Technician Gail Polanek 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF MAY 15. 2017 MAY 15, 2017 Motion by Member Lal, seconded by Member Iyer to waive the reading of the minutes and to approve the minutes of the May 15, 2017 Regular Plan Commission meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. 4. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. WASHINGTON SPRINGS — 3715 SPRING — FINAL PLAT — TWO LOT WASHINGTON SPRINGS - 3715 SUBDIVISION SPRING ROAD - FINAL PLAT Director Robert Kallien, Jr. provided an overview of the request. He noted that traditionally items go through the Plan Commission first, prior to the Zoning Board however; in this case, the applicant is seeking a variation in order to create the two lots. The Zoning Board made its recommendation and now the Plan Commission will review the issue of the final plat. At the conclusion, both items will go to the Village Board to make a final decision. Frederick Cappetta, Attorney for the Petitioner reviewed the request for the Final Plat of Subdivision for the property located at 3715 Spring Road. The property was originally a 54,155 square foot parcel; however, the property abuts Spring Road and VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 19 June 19, 2017 oorle- Washington Street, which were not dedicated roads. He noted that this does not happen often, but it does occasionally in the Village. He said that he could have tried to treat the parcels as two separate parcels as an Assessment Plat and argue the definition with the Village, but it did not seem to be the prudent way to approach it. It would have required the Village to condemn property and would have entitled the owner to just compensation for the property (ROW). Their approach was to apply for the variation and then in the plat of subdivision the owner would dedicate the property for the roads, at no cost to the Village. The property will remain the same as it appears. When you take the two roads out of the 54,000 square foot parcel there is 39,000 square feet, which is less than the required 25,000 square feet required per lot. This was the reason they went before the Zoning Board of Appeals, so that they could decide whether or not to grant the variation. They then decided to go forward with the Plat of Subdivision. The Subdivision Regulations in the Village state that the petitioner applies for a plat on all contiguous land he owns. In the final paragraph of the petition before the Plan Commission is a statement that the plat contains the entire contiguous undeveloped land area in which the owner has any interest. The beneficial owner is Mike Sahli and the property is in a land trust. He signed the affidavit stating that this was the contiguous land that he owns in its entirety. The property will remain as it is, there will be no physical changes to the road or the amount of development. Under the Oak Brook ordinances, the setbacks as determined will not change and because of the variance, the setbacks will remain the same as they were. The Zoning Board of Appeals was very specific that the setbacks would not change because of the variation to the lot area. Chairman Davis commented that the setbacks lines were to remain the same and they have. The engineer also said that the plat meets all of the requirements of the Act (Subdivision Regulations). Mr. Sahli qualifies, he signed the petition and they are before the Plan Commission for approval. They did go for the variation to the lot area and did obtain a recommendation for approval. Member Sheers asked why this development should be allowed to have lots less than 25,000 square feet and why in this case did it not go first to the Plan Commission and then to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Cappetta responded that the Zoning Board of Appeals made that the decision, but the reason he believed they did was that the law requires that you cannot have a law that is not variable and the public must have a right to come in and discuss it. There was a famous case, LaSalle, where the court decided that there should be certain standards and up to a fact - finding body, which in Oak Brook is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Their hearing is done under oath and they take witnesses and create a permanent record, which complies with the legal requirements. It is not possible to just say this is the law and it cannot be changed. The Supreme Court has said that you may not change it and if you choose to, there are factors that must be taken into consideration when arriving at that conclusion. You cannot have a black letter law and leave it undisturbed; it is required to take in the facts. The Zoning Board of Appeals conducted two hearings on the matter, took all of the factors into account, and arrived at a decision they felt was just. The decision to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals before the Plan Commission was the choice made by the Village. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 19 June 19, 2017 Director Kallien responded that matters like these must go to the Zoning Board and Plan Commission. In this case, it was his recommendation, and that it was more germane to go to the Zoning Board to decide whether this parcel should qualify to be divided; and if the answer was yes, then the next logical step was to process the subdivision. If the Zoning Board would have recommended no, then the petitioner could have still decided to go ahead with the subdivision request or they could have withdrawn the request. Subdivisions are more of an administrative act, in that to create lots that are consistent with the requested variation. Member Lal noted that there was a letter from the President of the Fullersburg Woods Area Association and asked if this property was under that code. Mr. Cappetta responded that the property was located within the area commonly defined as Fullersburg, but that there was no separate code. Member Lal questioned the capacity of Natalie Cappetta as a member of the law firm or as a Zoning Board member. Mr. Cappetta responded that Ms. Cappetta had recused herself from the Zoning Board meetings regarding this matter, which is the proper conduct. She did not participate or vote in the matter. She is his daughter and the lead lawyer in his law firm. When he is involved in a matter before the Village, she does recuse herself. Member Lal said there was a letter from Mr. Fichter in the case file. He noted an excerpt from the letter regarding his opposition to the subdivision. Mr. Cappetta said that he read the letter but that he was an advocate to the other side and disagreed with him, although he added that Mr. Fichter was entitled to his opinion. He added that nothing on the property was changing. The road remains the same as well as the setbacks. The change is that the village becomes the owner of the land under the road and the landowner gives up the land without consideration. The property will be treated as two lots. He felt that the subdivision could have been created through assessment plats, and could have done the same thing without the variance and without the dedication. It would have been unfair to the Village when they had the opportunity to take land and bring it into the village to have the road properly treated. He felt it unfortunate that as far as the Village has come, but there are properties like this, and there are many other pieces that the Village does not have a dedication of the underlying property. It is not a big deal, but it is something that should be straightened out. Member Lal noted that when the owner bought the property he knew what the lot was and should have checked it and he willingly bought the land. He is looking at it open- minded, but there are three letters that are against the proposal. Mr. Cappetta responded that they are before the Commission and the plat is a statutory procedure under the Village ordinance. The have complied with everything in the Village ordinance in regards to the subdivision. The variation is VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 19 June 19, 2017 :0Af- not before the Plan Commission, it was before the Zoning Board of Appeals, they made a judicial determination, and it was their job to do so. He noted that Member Lal felt contrary to their position and he is free to feel that, but that is not really the issue at this meeting. At this meeting, it is to see if they comply with the ordinance that provides for the division of the property. He submitted that they have done exactly what the Village Ordinance requires and did it in good faith. It was done to benefit the village, but he as well as many other people feel that it has been done to harm them, but from the Village point of view it has gained 15,000 square feet that it should have had a long time ago that it now will and the Village did not pay for it. He believed that his client was properly advised by his attorney and the advice is proper, which was to give the land to the Village and do it the right way. The Plat of Subdivision under Village Ordinance meets the required criteria. Since it meets the Village criteria, he believed it was the duty of the Plan Commission to follow the law. The law is varied and the Zoning Board deliberated and made a decision. The Plan Commission is to comply with the terms of the Subdivision Ordinance. Chairwoman Tropinski noted that if the land did not go into the street it could easily be subdivided without any changes. She said that a point was made that the existing setback lines will not be changed. Even if subdivided that setback lines still remain originally the same so that it is not encroaching on the buildable land. Mr. Cappetta noted that the setbacks would not be changed. Mr. Cappetta agreed there would not be an encroachment. Chairwoman Tropinski noted that a Certificate of Appropriateness would be required to develop the land so that in the future after it is subdivided others will be reviewing it to make sure that it would be appropriate. Mr. Cappetta noted that unlike other properties in Fullersburg this property is also in the Historic Graue Mill Gateway Area and a few lots, and will have a third hurdle to also obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness and they are not sure what that means, which is uncommon, but they will do what they are supposed to. Member Doyle said that the Plan Commission has an obligation to make sure that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and asked what those were. Director Kallien responded that the requirements for a subdivision are fairly similar between communities. There are basically a set of regulations that state if you are going to subdivide land what are the requirements to do that, such as what is to be shown on the plat, all the engineering notations and certifications, and those things required to get a plat recorded. The key elements are does this parcel meet the setbacks and the petitioner has indicated that they do. They do need relief to the minimum lot size, which will be reconciled by the Village Board. In terms of does this parcel qualify to be subdivided, when looking at the subdivision requirements, he did not see anything that says it does not. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 19 June 19, 2017 Member Doyle noted that it was very unusual to subdivide a conforming lot into two nonconforming lots. Direction Kallien responded that it is not allowed by the Village Code, but as the petitioner stated, there is a due process that allows them to seek relief, which is what they have done. They are not just subdividing the property they are also seeking through the judicial process they have met the required standards for a variation. Member Doyle said that if the Plan Commission disagreed that they met all of the requirements for a variance; it does not have an effect on the Commissions position. Director Kallien said that was something in their mind they could use, but at the end of the day, both the Plan Commission and the Zoning Board have items that need to compare the request against. The Zoning Board had the LaSalle factors to review for the variation and reviewed the request against those. The Plan Commission has to look at it in terms of how it addresses the requirements for a subdivision. At the end of the day, the Plan Commission is not required to agree with the Zoning Board and the Zoning Board does not need to agree with the Plan Commission. The Village Board will take what the Plan Commission recommends on the subdivision and what the Zoning Board recommends on the variation and they will make the final decision. There are two separate actions, which are somewhat related, but are not completely related. Member Doyle said that even if the Commission disagreed with the opinion of the Zoning Board that they complied with all of the requirements for the variance, it has no effect in the Plan Commission hearing. Director Kallien said that from a legal perspective, the Plan Commission would look at it from the perspective of does it meet the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and the ZBA looked at it through the Zoning Regulations. The Plan Commission is not part of the variation process. At the end of the day, the Plan Commission needs to make a recommendation based on what they are comfortable. Member Iyer questioned who would issue the Certificate of Appropriateness. Director Kallien responded that the Plan Commission does and it will come up when the applicant seeks a permit to build a new home, which will require a Certificate of Appropriateness, which has standards in the Zoning Regulations that will be used to judge that permit request. Trustee Tiesenga asked what Chapter the Plan Commission should be using. Mr. Cappetta responded Sections 14 -3 and 24 -4, the preliminary and final plat procedures. Director Kallien said that it was not uncommon for small 2 lot subdivisions to go VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 19 June 19, 2017 mat through the final plat process. Most of the requirements are engineering in nature, in regards to the legal description properly drawn, are all the statements for the sanitary, school district, etc., and the goal was to get a plat that could meet all of those requirements and be recordable at the County. Trustee Tiesenga said that the Plan Commission dealt with Dr. Jafari's miniaturization of lots by Christ Church and he believed that they voted against it. It was to turn one lot into three lots, create flag lots, and there was no compunction to agree with it due to engineering standards and he asked if that was the same question at this meeting, that can one lot be turned into two lots when it is too small to be two lots, according to the size rules. Director Kallien agreed to the size rule, but noted that the applicant has the right to request the necessary relief to move forward and that is where the variation request came in. They are seeking the ability to create two lots of a certain size, which requires a variation. Trustee Tiesenga questioned that by receiving a 4 to 2 decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals, then is it that the Plan Commission has its hands tied and has no choice but to agree to have two lots that are too small because of the variation recommendation. Director Kallien responded that the Plan Commission would need to decide either that they meet the required plat requirements or they do not. If they vote no, at the end of the day the Village Board will vote. Trustee Tiesenga asked whether the Plan Commission would review the Preliminary or the Final Plat procedures. Director Kallien responded, both. Mr. Cappetta responded to the case with Dr. Jafari's lots and noted that he was the opponent in that case as he represented the landowners who were opposed to the request and they succeeded. In that case, it was not proper, but you cannot equate that case with this case, as they are far different circumstances. The Jafari case was not about the number of acres involved, it was the use of the land, which was completely different. As stated earlier they felt they could have gone through the Assessment Plat process to create a separate lot, but have gone this route. The variation process is determined by law and by those important cases that say, you cannot set an absolute standard against which no one can stand. You must by law set out a group of standards and must have a fact - finding body (ZBA) that listens to those standards and takes testimony under oath, with due process, which is not what happens before the Plan Commission, but it does before the ZBA. The legal process at the ZBA is that they vote on those issues and they did, which was the proper procedure. It is not appropriate for a non judicial body to withhold your consent for what you statutorily are to provide in the Plat Act. In the Subdivision Act it says that you are to review the sections in the Subdivision Regulation requirements and those requirements are met by the petitions presented. As noted by Mr. Kallien, they VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes 6 of 19 June 19, 2017 are all engineering standards. The petition in the Village sets out what is required to be done. Those requirements were met and the applicant is entitled to a plat of subdivision. Trustee Tiesenga asked if the doctor on Luthin Road would like to make his lot two buildable lots the Plan Commission would have its hands tied. Mr. Cappetta knew nothing of the matter questioned. He stated that he represented the opposition in the matter of Jafari and succeeded and represented Mr. Sahli before the Zoning Board and succeeded. Member Lal called to a point of order, stating he only asked for the opinion of Trustee Tiesenga, not for the back and forth discussion going on. Director Kallien said that when looking at a subdivision plat there are two entities often involved, it could be a licensed surveyor in the State of Illinois and a licensed engineer. Both are required to stamp the plat and in doing so put their licenses on the line that all of the requirements of the Code have been met. As professionals, they agree that it complies, and then the Village Engineer signs and stamps it agreeing that they also believe professionally that the plat meets the Villages code and ordinances. It is not something that is taken lightly, but an exercise in ensuring that the documents are complete and meets the codes and ordinances. One of those is not that whether or not the Zoning Board did or did not recommend a required variation. At some point, the Village Board would reconcile that. Member Iyer asked if a precedent was being set. Director Kallien said that the only other time that he could recall there was a similar variation was at the southwest corner of 31St Street at Hunt Club Lane that had existed prior to the widening of 31St Street. After the widening, they wanted to be able to subdivide the property into two parcels, but found that there was a deficiency in the amount of lot area to do so. They went through the process and were then able to receive the variation and were able to subdivide the property into two lots. There have been lots that have come in seeking a variation to setbacks in order to have a house permit. He noted that another case would be going through the same process as this case. It has similarities but is not the same. Member Sheers asked about the suitability of the lot that is close to the Graue Mill. Director Kallien responded that the suitability is one of the standards that the ZBA considers. As part of the LaSalle Factors, they are to look at the suitability and impact of the request on the neighboring properties. They review whether there would be creating any detrimental circumstance; whether there is any hardship on the applicant or neighbors, which are all part of their deliberations. As part of the zoning code update, we have bifurcated process with the Plan Commission and Zoning Board handling separate matters that if there were a planning and zoning VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 19 June 19, 2017 commission one body could handle both matters, so that one would not have to ask why the other did what they did. Dr. David Hayden said that he was asked by the people in the neighborhood to give his opinion and write a note, which he did and now is in the middle. He simply stated what the regulations are. He referred to a piece of property that should not have been built on and is kind of an eyesore, so it gave them a little bit of an intuition of what their opinion should be. Personally, he is still neutral and believes that it should be up to the final board to make a decision. Jim Boros, 3710 Spring Road said that he lives directly across from the subject property. He said that back in the 1960's Paul Butler made suggestion and ideas on how to zone the Village. He had said that no person should acquire property in Oak Brook with the sheer intention of gaining financially. Mr. Sahli tried to turn a large profit in a year and when he could not he decided to make it two properties. There are certain rules that the Village put together, which is the size of the property. It has been stated that the property would not change, but instead of one house, there would be two. The requirement is 25,000 square feet for a house. This property is 39,000 square feet for two houses, it does not add up, and the space is not large enough for two houses. The house is in disrepair, but the last owner took good care of it. Since Mr. Sahli has owned it, the only thing he has done was cut the lawn and this year he did not do it until mid -May. It says something about how he feels about the neighborhood. The lot is not big enough for two houses. Allison Rush, 3721 Spring said that she was opposed to the variation. She noted there were other cases that were turned down that were opposed by the residents. She said that he parents moved in and she has lived with them for a very long time. They are not going anywhere and would like to keep it as it is as wide -open spaces. When two houses are crammed on a lot, it changes the neighborhood and the neighbors will look at it on a day -to -day basis. Mr. Sahli will sell it and leave. This will set precedence and then Oak Brook will be like Elmhurst where you can open your window and shake your neighbor's hand. The Village has laws that it should stick to. She asked that the letter be read from the Fullersburg Woods Area Association. Chairwoman Tropinski read the letter dated June 7, 2017 (the complete letter is contained in the case file). Ms. Rush said that she did not recall any discussion at the ZBA meeting how it would affect the area around the Graue Mill. She did recall that they felt sorry for Mr. Sahli and the hardship caused the owner of the property and that he was told wrong information from a Village official. She asked them to consider how they would feel if the property were located next to them. Natasha Scarpiniti, 3719 Spring Road and has lived there since 1978 and noted that the other neighbors at the meeting are longtime residents. She thought many things were wrong with the request and was concerned that it would be precedent setting. She suggested that the neighbors could all apply for a variance to subdivide the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 19 June 19, 2017 1`de property. All the neighbors had horses and it was like the country. They were told it was not to be subdivided for a profit. They bought the property and are going to sell it to make a profit. They have a long family commitment to this area and it is a hardship to all the neighbors in the area. They were told if it was not subdivided, there were would be Section 8 housing and she didn't care if that happened. Patrick Rooney said that he lives just south of the property and suggested that he and the other neighbors will all seek to subdivide their properties to build two houses. He met with the Sahli's and he is fine with building one house as big as it can be, but it is not suitable for two houses. Trustee Tiesenga questioned the Subdivision Regulations relating to the subdivision design where it states that the proposed subdivision layout shall be in substantial accord with the Official Plan as amended from time to time. He questioned what the Oak Brook Official Plan says about this area with reference to any lot area. Director Kallien responded that the Comprehensive Plan shows the entire area for residential development. There are a number of lots in the area with a variety of zoning within close proximity where some of the lots meet the zoning and some do not meet the zoning, so the underlying zoning does not necessarily comply with the existing lot configurations as many of the lots were created 100 years or more ago. The Official Plan basically shows the area to be residential development. Trustee Tiesenga questioned the lot area requirement for R -3, which was 25,000 square feet. So if the residents hired Mr. Cappetta and went to the Zoning Board first then the Plan Commission there could be a domino effect of a contradiction to the Oak Brook Plan, which says R3 should be 25,000 square feet minimum Mr. Kallien responded that he was of the opinion that it did not violate the Plan, but what each of the actions would require, would be for the Zoning Board to find that the circumstances of each of the requests met the requirements of the LaSalle Factors. Trustee Tiesenga challenged that looking at Section C.1 of the Subdivision Regulations said that it shall be in substantial accord with the Official Plan; the standard in the Code does not say it shall be blessed by the Zoning Board. It says that the Plan Commission shall take an independent look at it that says does this result in the substantial accord with the Official Plan, which is R3 — 25,000 square feet per lot. It seems the Plan Commission can evaluate the standard in the Code has been met by the applicant, represented by counsel to say should the Plan Commission sign off to the change to the Official Plan, to start knocking out the 25,000 square feet and one by one change the Plan. Director Kallien said that if that were the feeling of the Plan Commission that should then be the recommendation. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 19 June 19, 2017 --o4 Trustee Tiesenga said that the Plan Commission has some discretion and a function and does not just need to say that the Zoning Board tied their hands. Director Kallien noted that the Plan Commission and Zoning Board are both recommending bodies and that the elected bodies, the Trustees will need to reconcile it. Trustee Tiesenga responded that as a Trustee he would like to know that the Plan Commission used their independent and best judgment. Allison Rush asked were the lots that do not meet the 25,000 square foot minimum subdivided by the Village or annexed into the Village, which would make sense why they do not meet the minimum requirement. Ed Cladek, 408 Luthin Road said that he objected to the proposal and to get past the technicalities and it was always assumed there would be streets by houses and it would be dedicated. There is no hardship; there is an opportunity for a speculative investment to work and manipulate it to make a buck. The neighbors are right; the lot is for one house not two. Jeff Bulin, 320 Luthin Road, said that he was on the Zoning Board and was one of the two no votes. At the Zoning Board the focus was basically on the hardship that the applicant had by losing 15,000 square feet of the lot to the dedication of the roads. Even by losing the square footage of the lot to the dedication, it would have still been a conforming lot in the R3 District. The argument here is that there are many nonconforming lots in the area and this would just be another one; but none of the other nonconforming lots were voted on to be nonconforming. That is just not right because it would ruin the fabric of the neighborhood. In his opinion, the standards of the LaSalle Factors were not met because of the one condition that it is being done purely for profit. By subdividing the lot, you are doing it for profit. Although he could not speak for the other ZBA members, but one other member believed as he did that it was in violation of the LaSalle factors. Chairwoman Tropinski questioned the LaSalle factor that relates to the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Bulin responded that they really didn't discuss the character of the neighborhood and everything was going to the hardship of the applicant losing square footage of the lot to the Village and the woe is me to lose it because he did not do his due diligence to realize that the lot could not be subdivided, justifying that he could get two lots because he had 54,000 square feet. The due diligence would have proven that to be wrong, which is what he believed. Sam Girgis, 506 Wennes Court, said that he wanted to remind everyone of Paul Butler and his vision for the Village, which was to provide one -third commercial, one -third open land and one -third residential and to have a community with low- VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page of 19 June 19, 2017 density housing. Turning a conforming lot into nonconforming lots is a dangerous precedent and it will not stop, there will be more meetings and the residents will be upset. He respectfully requested that the Plan Commission respect and conform to the current zoning laws. Changes to the zoning laws represent a material in the character of their wonderful Village. Frank Scarpiniti, 3719 Spring Road and he absolutely objected to the request. He noted that several years ago his wife convinced him to buy her parents property to have the open space otherwise he would not have purchased the property. Chairwoman Tropinski suggested that those in the audience sign a petition to the Village Board so that it indicates the names, addresses, and opinion of those who object and it could be very helpful. Mr. Cappetta noted that he was not wearing a black hat and was also a resident of the community for 40 years and lives in Fullersburg Woods area having raised his family here. He was the attorney that objected to the Callaghan development referred to by the Trustee. He also led the charge to oppose the lots on 31St Street to be converted. This request is not like those cases. It is not about changing anything or changing the zoning laws. It is about a 54,000 square foot parcel that you cut in half into two 27,000 square foot lots, which complies with the Code. It is not the same thing that Mr. Girgis is afraid of on Wennes Court or the other things being imagined. The property can be cut in half to make two 25,000 square foot lots under the zoning code. But for the fact that the Village would prefer that the property be given to them, which the applicant is doing; and in doing that the square footage is lost in the computation, but not in the size of the lots or the setbacks. The mentality that they are trying to change things is untrue and uncertain. They have always abdicated for what was right for the Oak Brook community. What is right for this community is that there is approximately 55,000 square feet of land to be cut in half. They could do it by assessment or by subdividing and this is the right way to do it. They went before the Zoning Board stating the reasons, which was the proper way to proceed, and there is nothing underhanded or slick about the conduct of this particular petition. It was done properly, legally, above board and appropriately. Director Kallien noted that in the Subdivision Regulations under the Preliminary Plat, Section 14 -3 -2E that says as follows: "... if the Plan Commission does approve the plat it shall so indicate on the plat, and if it disapproves such plat it shall furnish the village board and the applicant a written statement setting forth the reason for disapproval and specifying with particularity the aspects in which the proposed plat fails to conform to these regulations and official plan..." If the Plan Commission chooses to approve it can do so with conditions or the rationale, but if the vote is to deny, the Commission must provide the rationale for it. Chairwoman Tropinski polled the Plan Commission for comments. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 19 June 19, 2017 lZt Member Sheers said that although he was not an expert it seemed to him that the two lots would not conform to the R -3 zoning requirements. Member Hasan said that she agreed with Member Sheers for the same reason. Chairwoman Tropinski said that she was concerned about the LaSalle factor for the character of the neighborhood. Legally many of the conditions have been met, but looking at the LaSalle factors, the character of the neighborhood is really important. Having two homes in such an open area, will not contribute to the character of the neighborhood. Member Iyer said that he had a couple of concerns. First, the Fullersburg Woods code requires 25,000 square feet for a single family home. The proposed plat identifies one lot at being 20,145 square feet and the other 19,000 so it clearly does not meet the required standard. He believes that this will set a precedent and then what would prevent others from coming to seek to subdivide a lot. The intention of the subdivision is for profit. It appears that the applicant does not want to live here, but wants to sell it and move on. In the past, they have rejected the situation that came up with Mr. Callahan. Member Lal said that he raised concerns earlier and did not want to be redundant. Although hardship was brought up, the hardship would be the neighbors left holding the bag. Member Doyle said that if it were a proposal he would vote no, but would not vote no for the reasons that he heard, because they were all factors related to the Zoning Board of Appeals reasons and does not justify a negative by the Plan Commission. The only reason to vote negatively, if the Commission chooses, is that the property with this kind of change would affect the character based on the point that Trustee Tiesenga made regarding a particular point that gives the Commission a value judgment about making the change. That is the only reason the Commission has to vote no, because it must be reasons by the Subdivision Code. Chairwoman Tropinski noted that based upon the poll the Commission is not in favor of approving the request based on it not being appropriate to subdivide the property in the R -3 District to something less than 25,000 square feet whether or not it has the right of way of the roads included in its lot area. As well as the character of the neighborhood. Motion by Chairwoman Tropinski, seconded by Member Iyer to recommend denial of the proposed final plat of subdivision as presented. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Doyle, Hasan, Iyer, Lal, Sheers and Chairwoman Tropinski Nays: 0 — Absent: 1 — Member Wilczak. Motion Carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 19 June 19, 2017 4. B. OAK_BROOK PARK DISTRICT — 1300 -1500 FOREST GATE ROAD — Os PARK DIST - SPECIAL USE — MASTER PLAN AMEND ORDINANCE S -1335 1ORES oo FOREST GATE - MASTER PLAN - AMEND S -1335 The applicant, the Oak Brook Park District, has submitted a petition seeking approval of an amendment to Special Use Ordinance S -1335. The amendment is necessary to revise the park facilities in the southeast ball field area of Central Park as depicted within the Park District's Overall Master Plan. The proposed site revisions include a combination baseball field / multi -use synthetic turf, LED sports lighting, a new archery activity area, an all- inclusive playground, fitness stations, a new Clubhouse building and expanded parking. The Park District was awarded an Open Space Lands Acquisition and Development grant (OSLAD) by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to complete some of these proposed revisions. Bob Johnson from the Oak Brook Park District introduced Bob Ijams and Shawn Benson from Wight & Company. Mr. Benson made a brief presentation outlining the proposal to enact the Park District's Master Plan. The presentation highlighted the improvements near the southeast corner of Central Park. Mr. Benson explained that the original approved master plan did not consider some of the topographic conditions on the property. Mr. Johnson explained that the revisions to Field #1 would allow the Park District to offer high school level baseball. Bob Ijams presented the improvements that are proposed as part of the master plan, including the expansion of Field #1, a clubhouse, expanded parking lots, and a new accessible playground. He noted that Field #1 would also have a soccer field as well. Member Lal reminded the applicants that Oak Brook does not have a high school. He asked what communities needed a high school aged field, Mr. Ijams noted it would be available for high school aged students in the park district's baseball program rather than any specific school. Member Lal confirmed that the applicant had received a copy of the Forest Gate Homeowner Association correspondence, which objects to the amendment to the Special Use. Member Doyle inquired as to the budget. Mr. Ijams responded that Phase 1 of the project was budgeted at $1.2 million project and the total master plan at $7 million. Member Doyle asked who makes up the baseball teams. Mr. Johnson responded that 10 -12 affiliate travel teams and little league rent the fields from the park district. Member Doyle asked the applicant how many residents utilize the district facilities or what percentage of the teams included Village residents. Mr. Johnson responded that he would need to do some research to provide a percentage. Member Doyle noted that the Plan Commission had reviewed the lighting issues with the Christ Church project and he observed that the amount of glare could be objectionable. Mr. Johnson responded that the Park District had retained Musco VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 19 June 19, 2017 Lighting to provide the necessary guidance in providing the necessary level of play without creating a glare on neighboring properties. Member Iyer asked how late the Field #1 lights are left on. Laurie Kosey, Executive Director of the Park District, responded that Field #1 lights were allowed until 9:00 p.m. April 1St through October 31 st, and the other fields are lit until November 15th. Tom Cygan, a resident of Forest Gate, stated that he was opposed to the amendment to the Special Use. He argued that Field #1 would be moving 12 feet to the west and south toward Forest Gate Road. He noted that there is an extensive 10 -year discussion regarding the lights at Central Park. He suggested that Ordinance 5 -1403 should not be revisited. He asserted the LED lights would result in greater intensity and the glare would be disruptive. He distributed photographs of similar lighting from a South Elgin baseball field. He asked the Commission to deny the amendment because the Field #1 would be expanded and not moved north as was originally agreed to. In addition, he argued the expansion would not be sufficient for the proposed high school use. Member Lal asked when Forest Gate was established. Mr. Cygan responded that the subdivision was built in 2000. Mr. Cygan stated that in 2000 there were no lights on the baseball fields. Member Lal emphasized that the Commission is responsible for looking out for what is the best for the entire Village and suggested that sometimes - individual desires cannot prevent the greater good. Mr. Cygan suggested that Central Park is becoming a regional sports complex rather than a community park. Ms. Kosey explained that she too supported moving Field #1 north, however, the expense and stormwater /grading issues led to the Park District's need to revise the plan. Ms. Kosey confirmed that the Special Use Ordinance could be amended and without revising the Variation approved by 5 -1403. Mr. Kallien agreed that the Park District can choose to attempt to comply with 5 -1403. Member Lal confirmed that the Forest Gate Homeowners Association has been involved with the review of the proposed LED lighting. Ms. Kosey explained that the Park District recently met with the HOA Directors. Mr. Kallien stated that the Park District should not build the LED lights without assurances that the lights will comply with 5 -1403. He noted that building the lights would be an expensive investment if only to find out that they cannot comply and therefore force the Park District to request a change to the regulations. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 19 June 19, 2017 The Commission briefly discussed "level of play" and how the fields lighting requirements for safety play a role in how the lighting equipment is installed. Member Doyle asked if the Park District had an independent lighting consultant other than the equipment contractor. Ms. Kosey stated that Peter Hue of Hue Lighting would also review the Musco proposal. Member Sheers asserted that LED's could be dimmed. Ms. Kosey agreed. Mr. Cygan asserted that the revision to a synthetic field was to allow the district to expand the time and dates for use. He also observed that if the class of play is reduced within the ordinance, the Park District may be planning to use the fields year round. Member Iyer asked if the Park District wanted to use the areas year round. Ms. Kosey affirmed that the goal would be to allow for year -round play once the entire $7 million project is completed. She noted that the current funding is inadequate for the synthetic turf. She also suggested that when the Park District wants to use the fields year round the district would need to apply for a revision to the variation ordinance. Director Kallien opined that the transition to LED lighting causes staff concern that there might be an unexpected outcome because LED technology is different. He explained that the Oak Brook Club residents had a negative reaction when the Oakbrook Center changed their parking structure lights. Ernie Karras, 75 Forest Gate Circle agreed that the lighting had been discussed for many years. He also noted that previously light contractors for the Park District had to provide additional shielding. Mr. Karras reported from the previous meeting with the Musco officials, that they indicated their fixtures could not be shielded. In addition, he expressed concern that the light fixtures will not be capable of eliminating glare. Mr. Karras completely agreed with all of Mr. Cygan's comments, he suggested that the park was to be for the youth of Oak Brook not outsiders. Member Lal challenged Mr. Karras suggesting that the lighting would only be for a short time that the games are being played, unlike the Oak Brook Club issue where the lights were on all night. Mr. Karras argued that when the trees do not have leaves, the lights are more in view by the Forest Gate community, which is why the dates of use were limited. Member Lal suggested that it was the fiduciary responsibility of the Park District to maximize their facilities. Mr. Karras noted that the Park District should be fiscally responsible but not at the expense of the Forest Gate homeowners. He asked that the status quo be maintained. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 19 June 19, 2017 Jack Pine a resident of Forest Gate, pointed out that the further back the lights are placed as the field grows in size, the lights will need to be angled in a fashion further exposing the light source. He submitted a review of the proposed changes to the fields as had been discussed by the board of Forest Gate Homeowners Association. The Commission briefly discussed if the issue required additional information about the LED's prior to acting on the Special Use request. Mr. Kallien wanted additional information regarding the effects of the lighting. Ms. Kosey responded that Musco had begun a study to consider if the fixtures would comply with the level of play and the restriction of foot - lamberts within S -1403. She emphasized that the lights had been separated so the district can complete the grant requirements. Andrea Cygan, a resident of Forest Gate, asked home much Field #1 would move. Mr. Benson responded that from home plate would move 9.5 feet south and 21 feet to the west. Trustee Tiesenga confirmed that the lit area would move south 36 feet closer to Forest Gate Road, as the lights will cover to the backstops. Member Hasan noted that the Park District's desire to utilize the grant funds. The Commission discussed if the Park District had provided enough information to make a recommendation regarding the Special Use. Ms. Kosey emphasized that the Park District will continue to comply with the Ordinance S -1403. The members observed the balance of the neighbors concern against the Park District's timeline. Member Iyer asked for the timeframe for having an outside consultant review the plan. Mr. Johnson, Park District staff, asked for clarification on what the Commissioner's would like to know about the lighting. Member Lal responded assurances that the neighbor's concerns would not be realized. Ms. Kosey asked if the Commission felt that compliance with the current ordinance would alleviate the concerns of the neighbors. Member Doyle suggested that the amendment to the Special Use be recommended for approval noting that the lights would need to comply with the governing ordinance. He stated that the receiving additional information would not change the outcome that the lights only go on if they comply. Bill Lindeman, resident of Oak Brook suggested that the $400,000 grant should not drive a $7 million plan. He expressed concerns about parking along Forest Gate Road. He objected to the Commission recommending approval and suggested that they wait for more information. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 19 June 19, 2017 11c24 Motion by Member Hasan, seconded by Member Doyle to recommend approval of the proposed special use to amend the Park District Master Plan, subject to the following conditions: Comply with all other applicable rules and ordinances of the Village of Oak Brook. The approval does not include any revisions to Ordinance S -1403, which is to remain in full force and effect, noting that all ball field lighting is to remain in compliance with the approved ordinance. 2. Add the provision "Notwithstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all Village Ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically varied or waived." ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 6 — Members Doyle, Hasan, Iyer, Lal, Sheers and Chairwoman Tropinski Nays: 0 — Absent: 1 — Member Wilczak. Motion Carried. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. ZONING CONSULTANTS. TESKA ASSOCIATES — COMPREHENSIVE TESKA - ZONING REVIEW OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING ORDINANCE RwIEwT ZONING ORDINANCE In 2015, the Village of Oak Brook initiated an update to the Zoning Ordinance. Director of Development Services Kallien provided a brief status update of the process. He suggested that the Plan Commission allow staff to begin the distribution of the draft Zoning Ordinance and begin to take in feedback from the community. He opined that the discussion to date has been without public input. He suggested that the Plan Commission now give it to the homeowners associations, business community, the village and other stakeholders showing that the items that they requested would be addressed. Kon Savoy, Teska Associates, explained that as part of the contract for drafting the ordinance update Teska would put out the draft document on the web site for public comment and create a brochure about the update. Director Kallien suggested after receiving the comments then the Village Attorney will need to review all of the comments and the draft ordinance for legality. Trustee Tiesenga asked if condominiums had been added to the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Savoy stated that there were no revisions to the Zoning Map, which would allow greater density in additional areas of the Village. The Commission briefly discussed digital signage and automatic changeable copy within the draft Ordinance (13.11.8). Mr. Savoy noted that digital elements would VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 19 June 19, 2017 only be allowed within the business districts as monument signage and would not be allowed to flash or utilize attention - getting measures. Member Hasan asked if the school district would be permitted to have digital signage, staff responded that as currently written signage within the residential could not have changeable copy. Trustee Tiesenga inquired about the size of the combined Planning and Zoning Committee. Staff agreed to review the previous minutes and confirm that the recommendation was for nine members during the October 17, 2016 meeting. Trustee Tiesenga noted his objections to banner signs. Director Kallien assured him that temporary signage limits the location and timeframe these signs can be in place on a property. Trustee Tiesenga appreciated the Plan Commission's ongoing effort to maintain the quality of signage. Director Kallien detailed that staff would work to coordinate with Teska Associates to begin the outreach in advance of a public hearing on the issue. Motion by Member Iyer, seconded by Member Sheers to approve and forward the comprehensive review of the Village zoning ordinance to the Zoning Board of Appeals for public hearing. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 6 — Members Doyle, Hasan, Iyer, Lal, Sheers and Chairwoman Tropinski Nays: 0 — Absent: 1 — Member Wilczak. Motion Carried. Director Kallien noted that he did not know when it would be going to the Zoning Board because the material must be properly compiled, have the brochure put together and strategize as to how to get it out to the homeowner associations and commercial residents. It may not be until Fall. The Plan Commission will be informed when it will be going so that they could attend, if possible. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Director Kallien announced his retirement from the Village. He thanked and appreciated the Commission for the opportunity to work them and commended the Commission for their efforts. Member Iyer thanked Director Kallien for his service and said that he helped them through the process and he will be missed. Member Lal told Director Kallien that there are some people that are replaceable and some that are not and that falls into a very valuable category and very hard to find these days. He has always valued his judgment and opinion. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 18 of 19 June 19, 2017 OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. 8. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Iyer, seconded by Member Doyle to adjourn the meeting at 10:34 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: /s/ Robert L. Kallien Jr. Robert Kallien, Development Services Director Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 19 of 19 June 19, 2017 PUBLIC COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT