Loading...
Minutes - 08/01/2017 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 1, 2017 OAK B REGULAR MEETING OF THE a ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE flomw- VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON OCTOBER 3, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman, Champ Davis in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:02 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Jeffrey Bulin, Natalie Cappetta, Alfred Savino, Steven Young and Wayne Ziemer ABSENT: Member Baker Nimry IN ATTENDANCE: Trustee John Baar, Trustee Edward Tiesenga (Plan Commission liaison), Director Robert L. Kallien, Jr., Planner Rebecca Von Drasek, and Planning Technician Gail Polanek 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES MINUTES OF THE JUNE 6 2017 MEETING TUNE 6. 2017 Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Young to approve the minutes of the June 6, 2017 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. OAK BROOK PARK DISTRICT — 1300 -1500 FOREST GATE ROAD — OAK BROOK PARK DIST- 1300 -1500 SPECIAL USE — MASTER. PLAN AMEND ORDINANCE S -1335 FOREST GATE - AMEND ORD S -1335 Chairman Davis announced the public hearing. All witnesses providing testimony were sworn in. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK f Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page I of 34 �� August 1, 2017 Laure Kosey, Director, Oak Brook Park District reviewed the request for a special use to amend its Master Plan Ordinance S -1335. She was aware that Forest Gate had sent the Zoning Board numerous documents in regards to Ordinance S -1403, which is what they refer to as the light ordinance. The Park District has every intention to fully comply with that light ordinance and is in compliance at the present. The revised Master Plan request and the light ordinance were always going to be separate requests because of the sensitivity to the light ordinance. Being proactive they began working with the Village and Forest Gate residents on the light ordinance. The Village allowed the Park District to exchange the old HID (High Intensity Discharge) lights to LED (Light Emitting Diode) lighting as long as the Park District tnet all of the other requirements of S -1403. They will meet the requirements of S -14013 with the LED lights or they will not be able to turn on the lights. If the Park District in the future would want to amend Ordinance S -1403, they wholly understand the process and would be before the Village at that time. In response to their request to amend the Master Plan Ordinance S -1335, the Oak Brook Park District Commissioners invested in a community survey this past October of 2016, which was sent to every household in Oak Brook in regards to the revised Master Plan. Out of the 43 choices of what facilities the Park District should develop or expand, as well as areas to direct more of the current budget, only 8 items were of statistical significance as follows in order of support: 1 - Developing walking/biking trails; The Park District included a .34 mile walking grail around the ball field so that while the little leaguer is playing the parents can walk around the loop 3 times to get in a mile for exercise. 2- No change, current allocations are appropriate and take care of what you already have. They aerated the ball fields and are attempting to get as much play time for each field by reducing the ball fields from four to three. In the future, they may install synthetic turf on Field I to enhance multi - purpose use in flexibility including girls' softball, which they currently do not have in Oak Brook. If it rains it would be usable 20 minutes later and by using a 9 x 70 -yards soccer field also incorporated into Field 1, the youth will have more of a chance to use the great space. This size soccer field can only accommodate youth soccer and the Park District is getting many requests especially with the McDonald's fields on Kensington no longer being available. 3- Not included - Was renovating and improving existing pools and the Park District Board believes that it was doing so already with the budget. 4 — Create a community gathering place — The clubhouse focus with senior programming being the number 1 programming priority within the community VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 34 ID August 1, 2017 survey. 5 — Add family locker rooms to FRC — This is scheduled to begin on August 14. 6 — Staffing — was not included as the Park District is analyzing that on a case by Case basis. 7- Renovate /improve existing sport fields — This is part of the revised Master Plan as well as 8 — Develop additional ADA accessible play areas and facilities. Three of the ball fields and playground areas have not been updated in over 20 years. The Park District Board of Commissioners has been extremely diligent with the requests of the Oak Brook residents and put together a strong vision in place for the Oak Brook community. The Park District Commissioners also encouraged staff to apply for the state OSLAD Grant to help offset some of the costs of the Central Park improvements, which has been in its capital project plan since 2011. The Zoning Board received many attachments (included in the materials submitted by Forest Gate) for the OSLAD Grant and their compliance. These documents are among others that were FOIA'd (Freedom of Information request) from the District in July. Two key documents that were part of the request were not included with the materials to the Zoning Board and she distributed them to the ZBA. The first was a letter of support from President Lalmalani to the IDNR regarding the OSLAD Grant proposal dated June 9, 2014. The second document was approval from the 1DNR regarding the substitution of synthetic turf for LCD lights on Field 1, dated April 12, 2017. The substitution was requested as LED's are more efficient and reliable than the dated 1995 and 2005 HID coal lights on the ball field today, This year alone, since January of 2017, the Park District has spent over $7,000 of taxpayer's money on testing and adjusting ball field lights, mostly adjusting Field 1. The Park District was not aware of Tam Cygan's email or Trustee Tiesenga's email response and they did not find out until Friday as it was only sent to Village Trustees, staff and Forest Gate residents. The Park District would attempt in good faith to address all of the concerns at this Zoning Board meeting. She responded that Trustee Tiesenga was correct in that they were unaware as to how many Oak Brook residents were using the fields when asked at the Plan Commission meeting. They have a system in place for resident /non- resident rentals and wanted to make sure that they had correct information. Oak Brook resident teams make up 90 percent of the rentals. Oak Brook little league has b teams and Oak Brook Outlaws, a traveling baseball has 5 teams. The Oak Brook corporate residents and residents alike make VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of34-'Ip August 1, 2017 up another I2 of the 14 adult softball leagues that play on Field ? and 3. The 10 percent of the nonresident rentals are from youths from Downers Grove and Oakbrook Terrace. Both the Forest Gate residents and Trustee Tiesenga have referred to the ball fields as becoming a regional sports complex for high school post season tournament play with teams across the region, which is simply not true. The revised Master Plan has four fields going down to three and only one is suited for high school age participants. No one wants to play a regional tournament on only one pony league field. They had the photometric plan at the Plan Commission meeting., which is available; however the request at this meeting is not about the LED lights it is about Ordinance 5 -1335. She did not know what bid specs Trustee Tiesenga referred to because they have not as yet gone out to bid for this project or any of the features of the revised Master Plan including the LED lighting. The Park District is required by state statute to go out for bid and will do so when the plan is approved. Within the bid package they will have Ordinance 5 -1403 in order for the vendors to follow for the LED lighting. This only addresses some of the Forest Gate residents, of whom they have met on numerous occasions. Shawn Benson, Wight & Company, Darien, Illinois reviewed the proposed Master Plan on the overhead screen and described the existing fields and their uses. He noted that all of the fields face northeast, which is the preferred direction for baseball fields and for the drainage of the fields from infield to outfield. The entire Master Plan was not funded for construction at this time and so they looked at how to phase it in order to utilize the OSLAD Grant. There were engineering issues that were cost prohibitive to move the fields and to use the OSLAD Grant. He reviewed slides showing the existing park fields and key areas of the proposed redevelopment. Bob Ijams, Wight Company noted that this was a 10 -year plan that was not fully funded. Phase One is funded through the OSLAD Grant and Park District capital improvements. They focused on the vision for the site and how things would be improved. Based on the program of the District's needs and the condition and age of the amenities, the Park District was trying to reinvest in the site and address the needs of the residents of Oak Brook. Based on various scenarios, they looked at the engineering, phasing and strategic planning and estimate as to what was attainable. Keeping Field 1 in a similar location in the southwest corner would meet high school age standard fields along with the younger pony aged fields. Boy's baseball from 13- 19 year olds would be accommodated on the field. The overall vision would be that it would be synthetic turf. A multi - purpose field for various activities and use. The field would have LET) lighting to meet the lighting ordinance. Fields 2 and 3 VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 3 4_�� August 1, 2017 would be converted to a combination little league and soft ball fields for ages 5 -12. They would also accommodate girls' softball of all ages. The clubhouse and senior programming would be a small indoor facility that would provide prograiris for seniors and special needs, along with restrooms, concessions and storage for the site. Adjacent to the clubhouse would be a new universal playground. The playground would have ADA accessible surfacing and equipment, which would cater to all bids of all needs and all ages. To address parking needs they have located a new parking lot on the north end adjacent to the playground and clubhouse for convenience and access. Throughout the site additional trails were added with looping paths to access each of the amenities, along with outdoor fitness areas to provide exercise outdoors. Also, part of the OSLAD Grant archeries will be located to the northeast, which summed up the intent of the Master Plan. The Phase One strategy and the OSLAD Grant. The Master Plan is the key vision and the key graphic for the special use permit. They wanted to illustrate what the plan is moving forward with Phase One. The OSLAD Grant is a $400,000 matching grant. The overall budget is $1.2 million, which is funded. The elements presented in the plan are what are required for the OSLAD Grant. The focus would be getting Field 2 and 3 so that that they could accosrunodate softball and little league. Also, to provide ADA access to the spectator areas and dugouts. Shifting Ball Field 1 to the southwest. Based on the Phase One strategy the outfield fence would stay as is, that would accommodate 300 feet and 320 and also provide the more appropriate distance for the backstops for the pony and high school aged kids. Spectator seating and dugouts, the fitness station and playground, expand the parking lot to add 18 stalls. The LED lighting would meet the ordinance for Field 1 to replace the current HID lighting; and Field 2 and 3 lighting would stay as is for Phase One. He reviewed slides of playground equipment, fitness stations, archeries, etc. Mr. Benson reviewed the shift of Field 1, fence line, dugout, etc. There was a question as to how far back home plate would be moved and it will be 15 feet south and the relative field of play backstop would be moved approximately 32 feet. The new dugout is almost in the same location and the field of play will be almost the same. The lights will be shifted out of that area. The existing and proposed sidewalks are almost the same. The backstop is shifting approximately 50 feet to the west and home plate about 40 feet west, closer to the existing parking, lot and access drive, not closer to the residents. Chainnan Davis swore in those in the audience that provided testimony. VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 34 � August 1, 2017 Ernie Karras, 75 Forest Gate Circle, spoke in opposition and provided a statement from the Forest Gate Board clarifying their position on the Park District proposed Master Plan, as follows: The Park District revised its Master Plan and it was approved by the Plan Commission on June 19. It was submitted with the approved 400,004 OSLAD Grant from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. The revised plan includes the following changes which are applicable to Field 1, which is the closest in proximity to Forest Gate. The moving of Field 1, 36 feet to the south, closer to Forest Gate Road. The regrading of the property, the installation of synthetic turf, installation of Musco LED lighting to conform with Class of Play 3. They are efflarging Field I to accommodate play of high school age. The creation of 35 additional parking spaces and the revision of the current ordinance S- 1403. According to the Park District they are enlarging Field l to accommodate high school baseball, although Oak Brook has no high schools within its boundaries. The plan is to attract post seasonal tournament play from teams across the region. The Park District revised Master Plan strongly suggests that the enlargement of the field is being made to potentially accommodate a 90 x70 yard soccer field. As such the Forest Gate Homeowners Association is opposed to the Park District Master Plan for the following reasons. Both corporate and residents do not want more budget dollars directed to the renovation of sports fields. The Park District's own survey and community report were submitted to the case file. The use of LED lights will create greater glare and intensity and abuse of the issues for the Forest Gate community and will introduce health hazards with the use of blue light, as has been detennined by the American Medical Association, which was also included in the materials provided by Forest Gate. The relocation and enlargement of Field 1 will be 36 feet closer to Forest Gate and will move the lights closer to Forest Gate hornes, while tilting the lighting for the outfield will assuredly worsen the light and glare, issues that they had been fighting for the past several years. He asked the Board to look at a picture of a fixture that was included in the materials they submitted. The intended marketing of Field 1 for high school tournament play for different teams across the region will further compound the already existing parking, noise, traffic and safety issues being; experienced on Forest Gate Road. The revised Master Plan is not in conformance with the Plan submitted with the Park District's Grant application, nor is it in conformance with the fonnal agreement between the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the Park District. The differences are significant and could be cause for tenmination of the Grant. It was their concern that Ordinance S -1403 has been revised by the Park District that was withdrawn at the Plan Commission meeting; it will most likely be submitted to the Village when the LED lights do not meet the ,glare criteria contained in the ordinance or when Phase One is funded. The revisions sought by the Park District would negate the most important element of the existing compromise agreement forged by Trustee Manzo and Yusuf. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 34 August 1. 2017 Maps were included in the packets which illustrate the original IDNR approved plan, the Park District's revised plan and Phase One of the revised Master Plan and there are significant differences. The revised Master Plan submitted is not a goad plan. They hope that the information provided in their packet that the Zoning Board members would be in agreement with their concerns and vote against recommending; it. On a positive note the original plan approved by the IDNR for the OSLAD Grant is well thought out and could be supported by the Forest Gate Homeowners Association. In summary the Forest Gate Homeowners Association made two recommendations: 1. That the Park District relocates Field 1 to the most northerly location in Central Park as approved by the IDNR.. At that location the enlargement of the field, installation of synthetic turf, and confonning LED lighting could be implemented without incrementally affecting the comiriunity. 2. That Field 1 is left the way that it is. Do not expand, move or replace it and do not install LED lights. Ordinance S -1443 is working as intended, Ieave it be. Mr. Ijams responded that in 2014 the Park District hired a consultant to develop a preliminary Master Plan for the OSLAD Grant, which was done on a flat farm field site and he agreed that it was a good design, with a pinwheel scenario and provides space for spectators, but on the Park District site with the engineering it is not economically feasible for the Park District to develop that project. The grading has 24 feet of fail from the southwest to the northeast. With a pinwheel situation all the fields drain away from the center, but the actual site drains in one direction and severely. The amount of grading that it would take to develop that plan is not feasible with the budget, not even close. It was submitted by the Park District with the previous team. They confirmed with the IDNR that as long as they meet the program, which are the elements submitted in the grant, they are in acceptance and agree with them to move forward with the plan. He noted that he has done multiple OSLAD grants and it has changed along the way as long as the IDNR is in the loop and agree with and understand what is proposed, the Park District is okay with its agreement with IDNR. Member Cappetta questioned if the revised plan was submitted to the IDNR and whether there was anything in writing regarding the issues. Mr. Ijarns responded that the IDNR was called and they walked through it with them. Based on his experience, it is the way that projects have gone down. He appreciated the concern of not losing the Grant and based upon his experience and their conversations working through the design with the IDNR, they are confident that there will not be an issue with it. Chairman Davis questioned if they were waiting for a written response. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 3 August 1, 2017 Mr. ljarns said that they were not. but could get one if needed. It is not a priority for the IDNR on an updated Master Plan project like this. Member Savino questioned whether there was a deadline. Mr. Ijams responded that the deadline for the OSLAD Grant requires it be constructed by August of 2018. Once Village approval is obtained the Parr District would go ahead with construction documents to be completed by fall and submitted to the Village with construction beginning in the spring for Phase One. Member Bulin questioned how many mature trees would be removed. Mr. Ijams said that he did not have a number, but some would be removed by the new playground and parking lot. He noted that there were quite a few ash trees that were declining or dead. They do not anticipate removing trees on Forest Gate Drive. Member Young questioned where the EIS (Environmental impact Study) report was from the IDNR, which would address the trees, noise, light, etc. and questioned the height for the stadium seating. Mr. Ijams responded that it was submitted with the Grant in 2014. He noted that there was not any stadium seating. It is an 18 -inch high retaining wall that would help to retain the grade and also serve as a seat wall the height of a chair. Behind the backstop is an area for bleacher seating, which currently exists, but would be relocated. The field is getting a little larger to accommodate the same amount of baseball players on the field and is comparable in size as to what now exists. Member Young questioned whether a light impact study had been dune. Mr. Ijams responded that a photometric and glare impact study and comparisons for the glare with the new LED lighting was done. The glare impact studies represents the new LED lighting for all three fields and was for as far as the glare would go was on the property and beyond. As part of the lighting, the Part: District's approach required the lighting manufacturer to meet the lighting ordinance requirements. Member Young questioned how much of the $1.2 million project was funded by the Grant and the taxpayers as well as the overall Master Plan, Ms. Kosey responded that $400,000 was from the Grant and $800,000 is from the Park District's capital projects and is already in the budget without an increase to the taxpayers. The Master flan is over $7 million, so approximately $5.8 million is not VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 3 August 1, 2017 funded, They have no plans to go to referendum to increase tares, which is not the philosophy of the Park District Board. Bulin questioned the project timeline for the full phasing. Ms. Kosey responded that it is a 10 -year plan, and did not know if it would go quickly or if it would be extended up to 20 years. Chairman Davis questioned whether the $7 million plan was included in the revised Master Plan. Ms. Kosey responded it was. Member Savino asked several questions regarding the amount of the Park District reserves. Ms. Kosey responded approximately $3 million (but figure not confirmed). The Park District has a 3 to 6 -month reserve. Bob Aprati, 67 Forest Gate Circle stated that he was in apposition to the Master Plan. He noted that the field location and size of the fields have changed from what was initially submitted with the OSLAD Grant. He questioned that the EIS must be significantly different. He noted that if the Park District needed more time the deadline could probably be extended, all though he was not the expert. He questioned why it was being done and that a lot of money is being spent for what; and additional problems will be on Forest Gate. Any change results in a change on the lights. They spent a lot of time with Ordinance S -1403, but what if they cannot comply with the lights? They would be back before the Village seeking a change. The current ordinance works with the lighting. He questioned why it was all being done, because the proposed changes impacts Forest Gate. If they want lights they should move the field farther from Forest Gate. It seemed easier to him to move Field 1 back where Field 4 is located and they could have all of the lights that they want. As proposed, the light standard will be 30 -feet closer to Forest Gate and will shine into living rooms. There will not be a real benefit to Oak Brook residents or Oak Brook acids, He noted that Oak Brook does not have a high school and questioned who would be playing on the field, such as others and people that do not pay the taxes in Oak Brook. They should be told to go back to the drawing board and find a way to not negatively impact Forest Gate. Chairman Davis questioned if the lights were shining into the residents living now. Mr. Aprati responded no, but said the lights are tested every year in December and January when the foliage is off the trees to detemiine the extent of glare. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 3* August 1, 2017 Member Young questioned why the Meld was changed from the original plan. Mr. Ijams responded that the ball field grading occurs from the pitcher's mound to the northeast. Currently the site drains 24 feet to the northeast. In order to relocate the fields and turn their direction would cause significant grading and disruption to the entire site. The question regarding what was shown with the original Master Plan compared to what is being shown is less intrusive from an environmental standpoint. With the new Master Plan they are not regrading and are trying to keep things as sensitive as they can to the existing site to accommodate the programs with the budget allowed. Everything is outdated and beyond its useful life. Member Bulin questioned when the ball fields were originally constructed. Ms. Kosey responded between 1992 and 1995. The lights were put on fields 2 and 3 around 1995 and there was quite a bit of debate when Forest Gate established residency around 2000. In 2005, they were able to put lights on Ball Field 1 and Ball Field 4. Ms. Kosey noted that the soccer fields located north of Ginger Creek are McDonald's fields and are no longer being leased or used. This was one reason the synthetic soccer field was being included in the Master Plan, however it is not funded right now. Ms. Mosey noted that the dugouts are pretty much in place, they are moving the field back so there is not a lot of intrusiveness. They are keeping all of the trees. They submit quarterly to the IDNR how much has been spent, where they are in the process and provide a report so they are very aware. The Park District does not yet have a specific plan, but they are aware of the field placements, the universal playground, and are going for a grant for the permeable pavers for the parking lot. They are in constant contact with the IDNR and are working with there as much as possible. Chainnan Davis noted that the trees are dense along Forest Gate and asked if they helped to block the lighting. Mr. Aprati responded the evergreen trees do during the winter, but not when the leaves are off the trees. William Lindeman, 11 Pembroke Lane said that sympathized with Forest Gate residents. He noted the Tollway is considering widening their lanes and finding solutions to minimize the impact_ When the airport added new runways they made an effort to minimize the increased noise by providing sound barriers, etc. He thought the Master Plan included a dome over the soccer field. He asked the limitation of the $8 million the Park District would spend and what total improvements would occur. He considers this to be backward planning that by VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 34 7 August 1, 2017 gaining $400,000 a plan was necessary to do something. They commissioned a needs study after the fact. Many items in the study came back as not justified. The feedback from one candidate, as a commissioner, was that the residents favored more services for the residents rather than nonresidents. He thought there were issues involved in the EIS and was disappointed there was not a more recent study submitted to the ZBA. When there are larger crowds with more people and outsiders, the negatives increase would be the noise and traffic and various other things. He questioned the stadium seating_ He appreciated Trustee Tiesenga becoming involved and was disappointed with some of the other Trustees. He was concerned with the parking on Forest Gate Road, which he believes is a hazardous situation, When Ordinance S -1403 is not met and the lights get shut off, that will start a civil war between the Park District and the Village. The lighting should be left alone and move the field to the north as originally planned. Let the engineers provide a drainage system. Chairman Davis noted that the Standards were addressed in writing starting on page C in the case file. There were no questions by the Members in regards to the standards. Member Savino questioned whether the Park District could expand the parking lot and add play equipment without amending the special use. Director Kallien responded that a special use is in effect on the property and in his opinion the proposed improvements are not shown on the plan, so they would need to amend the plan to show the improvements. Member Savino questioned the community survey and noted that the number one concern was more walking and biking paths and nothing about ball fields. Ms. Kosey responded that the survey referenced the 483 responses and was just Oak Brook residents. The report also references corporate residents, so there are two separate items. She also noted that the survey did show that sports fields was the term used in the survey. The 2011 Master Plan also recommended reconfiguring the ball fields. She said that there were 43 options and only 8 of them were statistically significant. Those that were already being allocated by the Board were removed. Those pieces are being addressed in the Master flan. Member Savino referenced the response to the special use standard #3, which states, " ...that it would not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located." The Park District cites that '`...neighborhood parks can provide up to a 20 percent increase in the housing values for those homes facing the park. Benefits from a neighborhood park can extend to an approximately 600 feet with houses nearer to the park receiving a majority of the benefit." He VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page I 1 of 34 August 1, 2017 commented that the Park District is not a neighborhood park with the proposed Master flan. He thinks of a neighborhood park being in a subdivision. Ms, Kosey responded that Central Park is a commututy neighborhood park. She understood that the type of parks he referred to were satellite parks, which are similar to those in Saddle Brook, Forest Glen and other areas. Member Savino added "...community parks may provide benefits of up to 33 percent of the residential real estate. Homes within 1,004 feet of a large community park receive up to 9 percent of home value increase." He noted when they moved to Oak Brook in 1970 there were a number of community parks that the Park District supported. Over the years those parks disappeared. Adjacent to Butler School the Park District had playground equipment and ultimately the equipment wore out. The Park District pulled it out but did not replace it. Ms. Kosey responded that the Risk Management Insurance told them they could not take used equipment and move it to another part of town or anywhere is the U.S. He noted that the Park District was not doing anything to help or increase community parks. It seems like the Park District is concentrating on Central Park and cornments from the public suggests that the Park District is trying to become a regional park district overlooking a lot of the residents that pay the real estate taxes and support the district and they are not getting anything back. Ms. Kosey responded that was what they were trying to address in the Master Plan. Referring to the community survey to the residents, they were trying to address those pieces. The clubhouse to create a community gathering place and they are focusing on senior prograinining which was the number one item in the survey. She understood the challenge with the equipment at Butler school, but that is not their property. It was her understanding that at the time the Park District was having camps at Butler School and in an agreement signed over the ownership of the equipment to the school district, however they maintained it. When it was removed they attempted to work with the school district to move in equipment, but then found out they could not. There are a lot of pieces in play, but they do not have jurisdiction over the school district and they do not have land in Fork Woods. They do maintain the parks in Saddle Brook, Yorkshire Woods, the Dean Sanctuary and are in their capital projects plan. They take care of the playgrounds, tennis courts and walking paths. Member Savino said that community parks help to bring in young families. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 34 August 1, 2017 Chairman Davis questioned the term "I0 -year vision" Ms, .Mosey responded that their capital projects plan that is over a period of 14 years. They try to look at everything they would need for 10 years. There are times when a project is over several millions dollars that it might be pushed out further. The Park District Board has a I4 -year capital project plan that they try to finance throughout. Chairman Davis questioned if that would require further amendments to the Master Flan. Ms. Kosey responded that she did not know, but that this is the plan they have in place with regards to the Master Plan in 2411 and the community survey. They just completed their strategic plan, which is a 3 -5 years, but it is more operational than capital projects. Member Ziemer asked if that had looked at transposing the Field I with the other fields and whether it would have a different impact to address some of the concerns brought up or were any other alternatives looked at? Mr. ljams responded that during the initial design studies they looked at various scenarios in terms of trying to address the prograrn needs of the large field and the two smaller fields. With what exists today, what is feasible and the least intrusive in terms of improvements to the site and still accommodates their needs and the budget constraints. Member Ziemer confirmed that those were internal studies, that none went forward. Mr. Ijams agreed. Member Cappetta said that she understood the ordinance was being reworked and as far as the lighting, goes, she questioned how tight the current ordinance is to LED, Kelvin, and migration of light, Director Kallien responded that the lighting standards that apply to the Park District and the adjacent properties are far more restrictive than what is currently in the Code. As part of the zoning ordinance process moving forward there are going to be some opportunities to better quantify lighting and the impact of lighting, so there will be opportunities to address that. Member Cappetta asked if it addressed LED lighting. Director Kallien responded that Ordinance 5 -1443 has standards that address quantity of light as measured by foot larnberts. They would have to adhere to that VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 34" August 1, 2017 standard. Member Cappetta did not feel that would apply to LED lighting. Director Kallien responded that LED lights are often measured by the temperature based on color. However, their lighting expert has provided testimony that it was their intent and in his opinion they can meet that standard. Member Cappetta noted that there may not be a tight enough standard to loop at LED's and Park District stated they would comply with something but that it might need something different. She did not feel there was enough information from the Dark District and did not understand why they did not receive the photometric study. Ms. Kosey responded that they had the photometric for the LED; however the request is for the special use. When they install the LED lights, they know that they must be compliant with 5- 1403. She said it is like that today with the coal lights and if they are not compliant, they must become compliant. Director Kallien disagreed with Member Cappetta. He responded that the lighting standards in place for the Park District facilities are very restrictive. Testimony was given at the flan Commission meeting;, and it was raised there that the standards are very restrictive. Can the expansion of the field and the utilization of LED lights enable them to comply, which was his question. There are lots of opinions on what will happen and what is the impact, the one thing shown tonight is that with the movement of the field, which in essence will be bigger. The lighted urnbrella for the field will becorne larger. So there will be more light on the map than there is today. His question was whether they were going to be able to comply. He asked for a computer simulation and what was received was a letter frorn their lighting consultant confinning compliance. Chairman Davis noted that the Plan Commission included in its recommendation the following condition: ".The approval does not include any revisions to Ordinance 5 -1403, which is to remain in full force and effect, noting that all ball field lights are to remain in compliance with the approved ordinance." Member Cappetta noted that someone had said that the name of the field would change the times that the lights would be on. Ms. Kosey responded that at the very beginning; they separated the Special Use request from the light ordinance because of the sensitivity to it. They discussed it VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 34-b August 1, 2017 with the Village and with Forest Gate. They found out that they were just going to change the special use ordinance and change out the existing lights with LED lights, which will make it better. They do not have to change S-1403 to change out the lights because they are going to comply with the ordinance. If the Parr District would choose in the future to change S -1403, they would still have to go through the Zoning Board and the Village Board. They were not trying to be sneaky; they were trying to be proactive. They were separate because the Master Plan is time sensitive and they cannot change the date. There was a letter included that said the LED lighting could be changed, but the date was firm, They do not have the funding to do the complete Master Plan so they are not putting in the synthetic turf and name for Field 1 will not change. Right now they are only looking at the $1.2 million. Member Cappella said that she did not understand why the Park District would qualify for a waiver of fees. Director Kallien said that in the Village Code and historically, governmental entities have requested and received relief from fees. The Village Board will deal with the issue when it goes to them. Trustee Baar questioned how many feet the light standard would be relocated on Ball Field I from its present location. Mr. Ijams responded that the new light standard would be located approximately 85 feet from Forest Gate Road, which would be approximately 42.5 feet. The backstop was 32 feet. Trustee Baar noted that the standard was created with the present location not 42.5 feet further south. Mr. Ijams responded that the lighting ordinance is all about the foot lamberts and glare. Trustee Baar noted that some adjustment may need to be made in order to comply with the light ordinance. Mr. Ijams agreed. Member Young questioned whether there was a monitoring program in place to handle current lighting violations as well as who funds the testing. Director Kallien responded that there is an annual test once the Ieaves are off the trees, that there is no snow on the ground, and that the Park District, the Village and representative of Forest Gate are present. The testing is paid for by the Park District as well as all required modifications to the lights. Member Young questioned how many surveys were sent. Ms. Kosey responded approximately 3300 to residential households. They received approximately 500, but not everyone answered all of the same questions. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 15 of 34-f August 1, 2417 V Mr. Aprati, 67 Forest Gate Circle commented that he originally thought it was 32 feet, and now it is 42.5 feet at the first light standard. There is a second standard in right field, but does not know the proposed change there. He added that he gave false information and the Park District consultants knew it was inaccurate and never offered up a correction. The Plan Commission was not told about that. They were told that home plate was going to move 9 feet to the south with no mention of where the light standards would be. Chairman Davis noted that the information is contained in the case file. Mr. Aprati noted in a rebuttal that the proposed name change of Ball Field 1 to the turf field, which he believed to be a bit sneaky to rename Field I to a turf field, thereby eliminating the need to comply with S -1403 which specifically references Field 1. In regards to community parks increasing value, but they do not have 5 or 6 standards with LED lights. For as much as a community park will improve value, the lights will take it away. People do not like to have the intrusive light in their living area. They knew they were moving by a park district with baseball fields, but more lights moving closer to Forest Gate without a real mechanism to measure, they will be back talking about the ordinance. On the survey, the 'sports field facilities' was listed as nuunber 7 out of 8; and only 7 percent of respondents said to improve them. They never said to add more lights or to make it bigger or to make it pony league playable or to add another soccer field in Field 1. Ms. Kosey clarified that today there are 6 standards and if they put in LED lights there will be no change it will also be 6 standards. Mr. Karras clarified that before Ms. Kosey was at the Park District. in 2005 the lights were changed and the standards were raised from 50 to 70 feet, which resulted in significant glare and almost all of the fixtures had to be changed out to be shielded. They anticipate significant issues in the future. They attended a meeting with the lighting manufacturer and asked if there were shields for the lights so that the glare could be mitigated and the answer was no. In order to cover a greater area of the field, they must be raised, and when they are raised you are looking into the LED's. LED lights generate light from a current that generates a very bright blue light. There are many LED's in the fixtures. The), also create a light that is very high temperature; sometimes, 4,000- 5,000- degree Kelvin. The light manufacturer was asked specifically what the temperature was of the color and they were told about 4,000 degrees. There are numerous studies on LED lights by the AMA, which states that many studies have shown various health hazards associated and the blue light is very abusive because it is very bright. They do not recominend LED lights greater than 3,000 degrees Kelvin. There are many communities taping out LED lights and installing lower degree LED lights. This should be included in the impact VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD; Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page I6 of 34� August I, 2017 study as to what impact LED lights will have on the AMA health hazards on humans to blue light. He noted that there are significant traffic issues on Forest Gate Road and the police department agreed there was a lot of traffic. The concern is for the children getting out of the cars on Forest Gate. The only way the cars can get out of Forest Gate is to do a U -turn and they do not look. No U -turn signs were installed, but the traffic pattern was changed at the Park District causing drivers to go around the parking lot and no one will do that. There is a problem for safety and believe there should not be parking on Forest Gate Road. Chainnan Davis noted that the request was before the Plan Commission and by a vote of 6 to 0 they recommended approval of the request, subject to the adherence to the light ordinance S -1 403. The Park District agreed to the condition. Motion by Member Savino, seconded by Member Young to recommend denial of the requested amendment to the special use in that he did not feel that the request was necessary for the public convenience. The ball fields have existed and served the community for many years and there is a potential issue with moving the existing lights. ROLL CALL: Ayes: 4 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Savino and Young Nays: 2 — Member Ziemer and Chairman Davis Absent: 1 — Member Nimry. Motion Carried, Chairman Davis called for a break at 9:10 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 9:19 p.m. 5- B. CHICAGO LAND TRUST NO. 11-12497 - 3522 YORK ROAD - CLTNO. II -12497 - 3622 YORK ROAD - VARIATIONS — MINIMUM LOT AREA AND REDUCE THE PROPOSED LOT AREA AND NORTH SIDE SETBACK. REQUIREMENT NORTH SIDE SET- BACK FOR I.OT 2 Chairman Davis announced the public hearing and provided an overview of the request. All witnesses providing testimony were sworn in. Mark Daniel, Attorney for the petitioner who is the owner of the property, Chicago Land Trust 11 -1 2497 reviewed the request for variations that will result in a two lot subdivision. Chris Alexander prospective purchaser of proposed Lot 1 (westernmost lot) of the subdivision currently resides in the city of Chicago. Lifelong resident of Illinois and has just started a family and do not want to raise their family in Chicago. They have decided that they would like to raise their family in Oak Brook which has everything they want from a good reputation, good schools, community feel with space for land where kids can run plus the parks. After looking for a long time, by sheer chance VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning, Board of Appeals Minutes Page 17 of 34 1, 2017 they came across a very large vacant lot. They reached out to the landowner and finding that he was looking to divide the parcel really attracted them because they did not want such a large parcel of land. It is very difficult to find a piece of land to call your home for a very long time. Wennes is a great street to live on as it has enough homes to have the sense of community, ride your bike down the street and feel safe and walk next door to see your neighbors. Having a very large plot of land gives you the sense of being on an island. Having streets on three sides of this lot makes you feel distant. The one -acre parcel proposed for the middle affords the ability to close off the community, adds two homes and rounds out two great streets. York Road is very busy so you want to stay as far away as possible. Across the street to the east are more great neighborhoods of like sizes. They would like to be part of the community and be contributors to Oak Brook. Mark Daniel noted that they are proposing two lots and Lot 1 would have one acre and no variations are necessary. The east lot, Lot 2 has the variation request. Wennes Court is off -set to the north where it intersects to York, which has a long depth of about 390 feet, until you get to the land to the west of the subdivision. Situating two homes on the property is a benefit with bath front yards facing south on Wennes. There are no twisted rear yards and it is a benefit to the other neighbors as well as when you come down York Road (north or south), there is a residential feel to Wennes at York Road, rather than a severely underutilized lot that has been in that condition since around 1905 with the original homestead house. This is the first time the lots have been proposed to be subdivided. There is an element in the standards as to whether it is solely for profit, and yes someone will sell and make money, but there is also the important circumstance of having two homes fronting on Wennes that improves the residential appearance at York, which now the east 300 feet of Wennes is dominated by a loading dock for a tavern and the tavern use. This is what you see on York traveling south. Heading north, you see the tavern and the old homestead. If there is one home, it is isolated and would be placed as far west as it could be placed from York Road and leave a gap, making it look out of place down Fork and still leaving the tavern as the dominate frontage of the intersection of York and Wennes. There is also a shared intersection with the condominium on the east side of York Road. They are just shy of the required acreage for the east lot. They have a lot that is a peninsula and whether or not it is subdivided there are three streets, with three yards abutting a street. The forty -foot yard setback runs from the north side around to York to the south side of the lot. He was unable to find another lot in Oak Brook that has three streets surrounding a lot. This is a unique circumstance. Under the development of this party of the County was under Hinsdale's jurisdiction at least up to 31" Street. There were a lot of lots done under County jurisdiction along with Hinsdale in the planning recommendations up to around the late I940's. Reviewing the early Hinsdale ordinances, the planning up to 31 `t Street was supposed to be like 22 °d Street. This is an old historically platted lot. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 18 of 34--,," August 1, 2017 The original farmstead home is located about 30 feet off the east lot line, which is not a modern planning technique. In 1948 the land was subdivided. The Luthin Subdivision created a collection of lots some of which were an acre, most of which were not. They considered the seriousness of the second request for a variation. By permitting a 23 -foot variation on the north side, would pennit a swimming pool or other accessory structure to be located 17 feet closer to the north lot line. It can be done without the variance, but the practical difficulty is that Luthin is as wide as Jorie Blvd.; it is 100 feet wide. Looking at the yards on Luthin there is no similar depth that is seen from the right of way along Luthin Road. The Forest Preserve District provided a letter that said impervious surface should be discouraged as much as possible. Due to the 3 streets on Lot 2, there is no rear yard, which would be a limiting factor when it comes to impervious surface. The permitted uses allowed in the rear yard is much different than what is allowed in a front or side yard. Allowing 23 feet would align Luthin Road with the traditional appearance of subdivision streets in the Village to be 40 feet. 'Sometime in 1948, the County approved a plat with a 100 -foot right of way dedicated. At the bend of Luthin it goes up to 113 feet, which is a very large right of way. They can survive without the 23 -foot yard reduction. The neighborhood would look more similar to other neighborhoods, if the 23 -foot reduction is allowed on the north yard. In regards to the variation to lot area, the surrounding area and land uses were reviewed. North of Spring Road there is the Creep, and York Tavern is at the SW corner of York and Wennes. At the intersection on the east side is Old Mill Road (Hinsdale), which has a very busy traffic volume from the condominiums and office uses. Wennes and Luthin are very low volume streets with limited service. Standard trip generation for a single family subdivision is about 12 per day and would not cause a significant change to the area. The proposal is to have the one - acre lot abut the existing one -acre parcel. Next to the proposed one -acre lot would be .799 -acre parcel. There are a substantial number of lots less than one acre located north of this lot. Across the street is the R -3 District where the lots are smaller, although some have been consolidated. In the case file was a table of zoning compliance that lists the compliance /relief for each proposed lot. An analysis of York Road lot areas was included that shows the varying lot size of the lots based on the County's GIS and the Assessor's office information. South of Christ Church properties, the lots range on the west side the acreage drops off less than an acre, .57, .58, .48, .53, etc, and all are developed lots. The area on the southeast quadrant of 31" Street and York have a number of smaller, less than one -acre lots with new development around them, indicating that lots of less than one -acre does not discourage new development that conforms with the zoning ordinance. Luthin Road has homes that have thrived at acreages that average about what is being proposed. The substandard acreage west of Gateway Lane has VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 19 of 34 August 1, 2017 not discouraged development and ties into the question of would a less than one -acre lot affect development The intent to allow compliance with the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; it will not affect it. There are great homes along Luthin and Wennes Court and there are substandard lots of less than an acre abutting standard lets of an acre or more. The pond on Luthin is on a lot of greater than an acre, but the dry land area is small but it has not affected the development or the maintenance of other homes on Luthin. The lack of appearance of dry land on the parcel around Luthin that are in excess of an acre has not affected perceived values of the property. In the case file is a table of land area comparison lists the lots in the area, A key conclusion is that the smaller lot would not have an impact on the existing land area that would snake a difference to anyone in the area. The acreage averages before and after subdivision is very similar, it does not affect the trend of development. To address the suggestion of a profit motive, the building to land ratio comparison contained in the case file shows the trend of development. In the 1990's to the present of building to land ratio has significantly increased. He pointed out several lots along Luthin with the reduction of land area to building. The proposed lots allow for decent square footages that are consistent with modern development. John Romanelli is the beneficiary of the land trust for the subject property at 3622 York Road. He has been buying, selling, and developing property in Oak Brook for the last 38 years. They completed a number of projects along York Road, 3121 York Road; the Romanelli Schneider Subdivision was a 2 -acre subdivision, They were the sales consultants for the York Lake Subdivision, and developed the building at 3824 York Road, where his office is located. There were a number of variations, special uses and rezoning to develop the property, of which they are very proud. He commented that some have said that the only reason for the request is to maximize dollars and agreed that if you are in the real estate business and your idea is not to make money then you will not last in the business. However, if he wanted to maximize the value of the land he would be seeking an R -3 zoning, which is to the south and the east. The Gateway Subdivision was zoned R -1, and the zoning approved was for R -3, half-acre parcels. That was not his intention. Their team looked at the property to maintain the one -acre parcel next to Dr. Girgis and seek a variation for the lot (Lott) that would be along York Road. Chris Alexander would be the contract purchaser of Lot 1, subject to approval and does not have a problem with the abutting proposed Lot 2 being .8 acres. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 20 of 34 August 1, 2017 The property was owned by Rudy Litvay and tried to sell the property for approximately 4 years. Another realtor had it listed. Although when he looked at the property they gave a quick consideration to seeking R -3 zoning, but thought the appropriate thing to do was the plan that is before the Village. There are over 45 letters in the case file supporting the request. He read several of those the letters into the record from neighbors that are east of the property, as follows:. Linda Barbara, 1 Gateway Lane. 1 have been informed that the property at 3622 York Read, which borders her property to the west, has recently sold and it is I the intention of the new owner to subdivide the property into two lots. I think that it is a good idea and I am in favor of the subdivision and any variance needed. This property has been an eyesore for many years and does not tit in with the rest of the development of new construction up and down York load. I know that the sellers had tried to sell this property for many _years, but why would someone ant two acres when most of the properties around here are half acres or less than one acre: Thank you and please forward a copy of my letter to the Village Board. George Reveliotis, 2 Gateway Lane. I have recently been informed that the property directly across the street from my home at 3622 York Road, is being considered for subdivision into two lots. I also understand that one of the lots would be less than one acre and a variance will be required. Please be advised that I am in favor of the subdivision into two lots and the granting of any needed variance. We reside across the street and are zoned R -3 (half acre lots) and all the newly constructed homes to the north are less than one acre. He noted he also had a letter from the property owner to the south and to the potential property owner of proposed Lot I and would be located to the west of the lot seeking the variance. There is a property for sale to the north and spoke to the broker and his thoughts were those if someone was developing houses in the area; it would help their lot to sell. However, they did not receive a letter in support or in opposition to the request. He reviewed the time of sale statistics for different sized /valued inventory for properties for sale in Oak Brook and how long it would take to sell. A handout was provided that is in the case file. Houses in Oak Brook under $1 million would take 11.4 months to sell. Houses between $1 -2 million would take a little less than 2 years. $2 -3 million is a little over 2 years. Homes $3 million and above could take 19.5 years to sell the existing VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 21 of 34, D August 1, 2017 stock that exists today. Large properties have been for sale in Erittwood Creek. One developer went under and the current owner is offering a $1 million sign on fee if you build within 9 months. No units have been sold. People do not "rant that much land. Jon Green, Civil Engineer, Engineering Resource reviewed the topography of the property and storm water drainage. The property will be served by existing; utilities. They are committed to comply with all aspects of the County and Village Storm Water Ordinance. The property is exempt from storm water detention. The County and the Village adopted a best practices ordinance with respect to storrn water. They expect that each building application would comply with the current storm water management and treatment requirements that "could be a storm water benefit to treat both water volume and water quality. In regards to the right of way surrounding the property Luthin Road has a 100 -foot right of way. The Luthin Road pavement is shitted to the north within the right of way. The road is approximately 22 feet wide, which leaves a parkway area from the deeded platted lot line to the existing roadway of 50 feet. There is an inordinate amount of green space in the parkway area that is above and beyond what is in the traditional Village ordinance standard for right of ways, which is typically 60 feet with a 28 -foot pavement within that right of way, centered in the road would leave a traditional parkway of about 16 feet on either side. ('See Lot 2 Development Envelope in the case file). The uniqueness of this property with triple frontage is that there is ample additional green space. Adding up the almost 550 feet of frontage around the perimeter of Lot 2, there is easily another 5,000 feet of additional green space that you would not have in a platted new subdivision. There is additional uniqueness when the surrounding; existing conditions and topographic features are factored in. He reviewed what the footprint of a 6,000 square foot home would loop like on the property, where there is an ample room to all of the perimeter setbacks and allowances for accessory structures. He summarized the lot sized down York and along Luthin Road. He noted that Old Mill Road is the primary access point to multi- family zoning with 226 units. This is located at the intersection of the property. Given the higher densities of zoning both south and east of the property. The subdivision as proposed matches the existing one -acre trend within "Wenner Court to the west and the east half of the property, Lot 2 follows the trend up and down York Road and the higher more intense density to the east with the traffic and to the south. The existing topographical survey calls out the contour lines and the direction of existing drainage patterns. The Riparian Rights and The Pend exhibit is contained in the case file and shows the direction of the natural flow of water. They are required VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 22 of 34 August 1, 2017 by State, County and local ordinance to follow and adhere to existing drainage patterns. In the end they drain towards York Road. Joe Abel has been a planning, zoning and economic development consultant for about 50 years. As a young junior planner was on the design team that developed the plan for Oak Brook, going back with Paul Butler he was with the firm that designed the plan for 8 years. He was then the Director of Planning for DuPage County for 17 years. He worked very closely with the Village of Oak Brook, and all other municipalities of DuPage County. Paul Butler was his boss again as he became the Director of DuPage County Planning Commission, which he was responsible to and has been in this area since 1959. He was pleased to say that the plan today is close to the plan prepared in 1959 -60. This area was not part of the original plan laid out for Oak Brook, this area developed under the Hinsdale jurisdiction. The 1948 plat for the Luthin Subdivision was done by the County Board. There is a unique difference froth the plan for Paul Butler and this area. As a planner look as to where to make the line of transition. He found it interesting that the proposed property was shown in ? different colors. The reason the lot has sat for such a long time is that it is too big for one big home. There is a transition problem with conunercial development to the south. The tavern has been there for a long time and will not be going away for a while, so the opportunity does not exist to say it would be residential. So this is an obvious location where you would make a change from one lower density classification to another. What is important is that the character of the neighborhood begins with the westernmost lot and blends into the rest of the development on Wennes Court. Lot 2, which is seeking the slight variation from I acre to .8 acre, it can be seen how it blends into the development all along Luthin Road and more importantly is the character of what is happening along York Road, which ranges from approximately .5 to .9- acres. The transition is taking place all along York and the trend of development along Luthin. It is only along Wennes where there are slightly larger lots and Lot 1, will be l acre. The slide of the Riparian Rights and the Pond is a good exhibit to show that from a planning standpoint no one coming down York Road would have the feeling that Lot 2 is actually bigger than the I -acre lot, Lot 1, because of the fact of the 100 -foot right of way is really unique. In the last 30 -40 years he could not think of a subdivision with a 100 -foot entrance and then goes back to a 60 -foot right of way. He tried to imagine what the County Board was thinking when they did it and he could not imagine why. Since the properties are maintained out to the street right of ways, visually this lot will look much larger than 1 -acre lot. From the transition standpoint from the south with the tavern, R -3 zoning across the street, the impact of the traffic coming out of Old Mill Road for the condominium development does not work for VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 23 of 36 August 1, 2017 an almost 2 -acre estate, but as proposed, the trend of development, the character of the area all lends to the fact that there is no reason, from a planning standpoint that this one parcel cannot be divided into 2 parcels, with one being a full acre and the other that will visually look like 1 acre. In regards to reasonable return, the lot has remained undeveloped after 1948 and it is not the type of location where you would put one home on that size lot, when factoring all the problems with the traffic, the commercial use to the south, so that it is reasonable that the unique arrangement as to how the road goes not just around 3 sides, but the read also goes up the west side for a third of the property. It is very unique and this is a reasonable use of the property. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances has been addressed. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposal will not alter it, but it will enhance it. The 1 -acre lot will blend into the 1 acre lots to the west and the lot fronting on York would blend into the total character of York Road all the way to the north. The particular physical surrounding, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out. Also addressed, as it is completely surrounded by -3 roads. The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning classification. Staff indicated that there was not another lot that may have this situation and would not have an effect on another property. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. It would go a long way towards enhancing it and getting in developed in such a way that it would not have a negative impact on any of the surrounding properties. Mr. Daniel said that there had been some concern in the Village about the Luthin Pond owned by the property owners. The pond was originally planned as a grassy area. With the subdivision homes carne into play and grades changed and somehow it became a privately owned pond. Water flows downhill and Illinois law says that. The pond has raised the ire among some, but those with water going into the pond have rights and duties, which are called riparian rights in Illinois. What it means is that the developer of the subdivision cannot pollute or adversely impact the water to VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 24 of 3�� August 1, 2017 the downstream owner by increasing the rate unreasonably, or the volume or direction of the stonn water flow. The downstream owner also has the obligation to take the water. From this property the culvert would need to fill up on their side of Luthin, flow over Luthin into a culvert on that side and somehow flow to the north without soaking into the ground or evaporating; it would then flow back onto Luthin into the pond, which would be an extreme storm event with continuous days of heavy rain. The Village Engineer reviewed it and does not see a problem, In response to the lot area and the Forest Preserve District concern, he responded that a 12,000- 13,000 +square foot home could be constructed on the single parcel or a 5,000 - 6,000+ home on two locations. It's about the same for impervious surfaces, but the only difference is that on Lot 2 there is the protected area because there is no rear yard to create impervious surface. Market time data for Oak Brook, Hinsdale and other higher end comz-nunities and how long it takes properties to be sold. Cases have upheld findings of a particular hardship in light of existing stock and ability to sell houses of a certain size. Add to that the existing conditions on a peninsula or lot in a transitional area with a tavern across the street, multi - family to the east, and an additional basis for the hardship on the acreage. The request for the yard relief on the north is one primarily designed to allow the Village to say whether it would like the appearance of Luthin Road to look consistent with other streets in the area and allow the 23 -foot setback. They have a practical difficulty that they could live with, but to have the planning; opportunity that the zoning ordinance is snaking difficult to what is allowed elsewhere in the Village. Additional letters were submitted in support of the application without reading theirs all into the record. Chairman Davis swore in all that were providing testimony. Samuel Girgis, 506 Luthin noted that he has lots on both Wennes and on (321) Luthin. He said that the neighborhood is really not what is going; on along York Road, the Village or Hinsdale. The neighborhood is Wennes Court and every neighbor on Wennes is at this meeting. They moved in and invested a lot into this area based on the character of the neighborhood. Their lots were based on R -2, I acre lots or more, not .8 or .99, this is the law. Having previously served on one of the boards, he said that it always came down as to what was best for the Village. Mr. Butler designed Oak Brook to be one -third residential, one -third commercial, and one -third open land and that was the character. They bought the lot and subdivided and complied with the zoning. They knew that the property at 3622 could not be subdivided which was a reason they bought into the area. The request VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 25 of 34 August 1, 2017 will set a precedent and believed the zoning laws should be respected, instead of a for profit subdivision. Ali Nili, 511 Wennes, lived all over and lie chose to live on Wennes Court because it is paradise. He is very emotional about it because when he heard that a gentleman from Hinsdale bought the property after it was on the market for 4 years lie heard the fear that this would happen. He suggested that he had been harassed by his team members through his buss and colleagues over the past 10 days. Yesterday lie took off to spend his 45 "' anniversary with his wife and received phone calls, texts and emails coming to him in support of the plan. He is totally upset and against it and hopes that it will be kept as a paradise. Mary Anne Clark, 523 Wennes, said that she was the newest resident and noted that what she would say was subjective. She said that they moved there 5 years ago because it was different and she didn't want to live on a subdivision. She lived 9 years in both Elmhurst and Hinsdale, and chose to move to this area because they are both from Iowa and grew up with land and they wanted 1 -acre and loved the open land. They knew some day that land would be purchased, but they were told they would be 1 -acre lots and would be different than the surrounding area. The area is unique and the other side is trying to make it uniform with Oak. Brook and they didn't move to be there for it to be like everything else in Oak Brook or Hinsdale. Having 2 houses is not going to stop traffic going in or out from the tavern is not going to change. They would like it to remain in the standards and they want to be different. They would welcome a new neighbor. Mike Dralle, 522 Wennes, said that he echoed what the neighbors said and was also opposed to it. He is also from Iowa and when he saw the property that was an acre or more and there would be no more than 4 properties. He does not want to be let down by the community that he lives in and the village should be there for the neighbors. It is unique. When lie was in western Springs he had neighbors right by him and he did not want to live on a normal cul de sac. They fell in love with the area. He respects Mr. Romanelli and his ideas, but there isn't a need to put a 12,000 square foot house on 1.8 acres. It could be 6,000 and Iandscaped appropriately and make it look like the neighborhood as it was intended. His intentions when he moved it was R -2 and it is important to him and the neighborhood. It is clear that he is a developer and he never talked to them before he bought the property. The integrity he thought would stand the test of time. Frank Scarpiniti, 3719 Spring Road said that he was also speaking on behalf of three other families that cannot be at this meeting — the Rush's. Borris and Rooney families. He agreed with the last several speakers and that being an eyesore is not why a nonconforming lot should be allowed. He was in favor of a new single house VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 26 of 3� August I, 2017 on the lot or fix the one that exists, but not in favor of a nonconforming lot. He heard the story many times, but some of the details and facts are just a little different. He doesn't understand where it stops. He questioned why someone couldn't buy a lot in Midwest Club and want to subdivide it. When he moved here they wanted the extra open space. He urged the board to not repeat the mistakes of recommending the approval of a variance that has been in place for years. Kristen Hadden, 316 Luthin Road and bought their lot 2.5 years ago and she understood that the lot she lives on is not an acre, but that is the way it was a long time ago. She lives in a 4200 square foot home and would have bought that lot if she could have. She noted that not everyone wants to build a 12,000 square foot house on the lot. She was concerned with the drainage and would like to see more on that study if it moves forward. She was disappointed with a letter sent from the Rornanelli group to a work partner trying to request to not appose it when she did not feel the letter had all of the factual information in it. It was being passed around the neighborhood and felt it was unfair. She asked that the Zoning Board not vote for it. Gary Kronen, 418 Luthin agreed with all the other neighbors noting that he has lived there is 2004 and love the neighborhood and the character. Would love to have Cluis as a neighbor, but opposed the property to be subdivided into 2 bats. Alyce Wollensak, 3604 York Road said that when they bought it was a nonconforming lot. They also sought a variance 14 years ago in order to build closer to York Road so that they would have more of a backyard, but they did not get the variance. They made it work and were very happy the way that it turned out. She did not think a variance should be supported now because it impacts people that have been here and support the community for a much longer time than what people want today. They should live within the rules that they have all had to live with. Ed Cladek, 408 Luthin Road. has lived there over 30 years objected to the proposal and agrees with what was said. He stated that there are rules and they bought into the neighborhood with the idea that the character would remain as it has been. The character to the west of York Road is decidedly different than the east side and there is no comparison. You have the feel that you are in country, so the colors on the chart are meaningless to him. The idea of making exceptions is a Pandora's box. This time it is 1.8 acres, the next could be 1.85 acres with a lawyer and all kids of statistics and then the next is 1.6 acres, he asked where it would stop. Draw a line or change the zoning structure. There needs to be hardship and there is no hardship. The owner doesn't have a plight knowing full well what it was zoned. There is no responsibility on the part of the Zoning Board or the Village to ensure a developer a return on his investment, if he paid too much it is not the Village problem. The VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 27 of 3 August 1, 2017 Litvay had complicated family issues and the property was listed well above what it should have been. If the price would have been right it would have been developed as it should have been like the other properties. Natasha 'Scarpintii, 3719 Spring Road said that this was another example of a similar situation to the property by her house at 3715 Spring Road. These two properties are starting a precedent. She has lived in her house since 1975 and they all expected to have lots the way they were meant to be without variances. She agreed that profit was not a reason for a variance. It affects all of the residents of Fullersburg and they have been invested in the area for many years. Rita Girgis 506 Wennes Court said that they have lived on their property for 30 years. They took on extra property for her mother -in -law to be part of their community. She was opposed and sorry to hear that John Romanelli never spoke to them about this. They have known them for years and it happened and went into a direction they knew nothing about. They are very disappointed. She wanted the Board to take note that the entire community was at the hearing to speak against the proposal. Larry Herman, 413 Luthin Road said that about 23 years ago he moved to Fullersburg for the same reasons that his neighbors mentioned. He like the low density and the large lots and open space. The Romanelli's put on a very good presentation, but they believe it is misleading in many respects and understandably contorts some of the most relevant facts. The hardship was the most overriding theme and in the 14 -page narrative prepared the briefest discussion is on the hardship, which is one of the central issues. He did not see the hardship especially when a real estate developer opportunistically purchases a lot and then immediately seeks to subdivide it.to make a quick buck. The hardship is not the size of the parcel; the hardship was the size of the price. The parcels will sell at the market price. The litvay family also subdivided Luthin Road and was signed off by Rudolph Litvay. He platted all of the lots, some at a half acre and his own at almost 2 acres. The pond on Luthin Road has been a major issue for many years. It is privately owned by the Girgis's and himself, but is serves as a neighborhood storm water detention facility. There has been an increasing fluctuation between the pond levels and the increasing arnount of flow. The increasing amount of fluctuations has created an extensive amount of damage and shoreline damage. There is an enormous algae problean. They have had ongoing discussion with the Village for many years. Until the problems are resolved any increase in development is going to send any incremental amount of water and is going to exacerbate the problem. It is irrelevant if they think they will comply with the stone water regulations it is going to send more water into the pond. Counsel said hat Riparian law allows water to be sent to a downstream landowner is not an unfettered right to do that. Creating two VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 28 of 3 4 August 1, 2017 lets would further exacerbate the problem.. Water will find its way to the pond and there is no way for the water to leave the problem without seepage and evaporation. He also noted that the presentation claims that the subject property is larger than his and Mr. Girgis, because their properties are substantially wet. Member Savino asked if the pond grew. Mr. Herman responded that there has been shoreline erosion, from 3 -15 feet. There is more water in the pond over longer periods of time. Member Savino noted that the traffic down York Road in the evening backs all the way up to 31" Street. There are a number of developments along Yorks Read and the traffic along York Road is going to get worse which may have the County widening York Road. If that is done would there be a taking on this property. Mr. Daniels responded that what the County may try to do would be to do an even taking on both sides of the road. The yard abutting a street is the same front yard for all properties down York Road. So the impact would be the same on every parcel. They are in compliance with the {Comprehensive Plan by not placing any driveways onto York Road, so that does help. Mr. Daniels said that he does not make it a practice to cross examine neighbors. He noted there are neighbors that will say they bought property in reliance on the zoning. Many of them in this case own lots that do not have the acreage; as if they have the benefit you are asking for, but we got here first and you ought not to have it because it would hurt them. It's hard to hear that testimony, when they have .5 acre, but what you are seeking is not good enough. They have not ignored the west side of York but there are R -3 lots on the east that would have been a money grab if they had sought to change the zoning. On the west side it is glaringly obvious that all of the R -2 territory extending to Wennes Court north contains lots that are less than one acre. There is substantially more acreage of lots that are less than one acre than there are lots of more than one acre. When Dr. Girgis purchased his lot in 1986 it was less than an acre. .92. He did an assessment plat that is how it increased in size. There was a suggestion that they were misleading and they have done their best not to be. Mr. Daniels said that he could not find another lot like this in the Village with frontage on three streets. If you cannot locate another it is unique circumstances and they are circwnstances not created by the applicant. He noted that they have been reaching out to the n neighbors, but was not aware of anyone from his team that had reached out in an aggressive or rude fashion. They did provide information to some on lots less than an acre that if they were supportive to send a letter so that they would not need to have everyone appear at the hearing to take up additional tune. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 29 of 34il August 1, 2017 This property was proposing to be the same type of development. He noted that he had tallied to Dr. Girgis and previously there had been communications between Dr. Girgis and Mr. Romanelli and pertained to what the development was and there had been a time that if they had been able to acquire a portion of the right of way, approximately 17 feet that would have extended back to the northwest comer of the lot they would have had two 2 -acre parcels. The Village was not interested and so they are seeking the subdivision and zoning request. They knew that Dr. Girgis would not support the request. He noted that a suggestion that this request ties into another request and said that the village has a great municipal attorney and did not need to be reminded that each variation request is addressed on its own merits on a specific question as to how this variation would apply to this property and the uniqueness is the driving factor and is a deciding factor in this case is the three streets. He noted that unfortunately he had seen their issue come up at prior hearings on an issue unrelated to the subdivision proposals, which is not the case. If there is hardship and practical difficulty with the lot, constitutionally in Illinois you can zone unless there is a relief valve to relieve that hardship. It is not that one acre is one acre. It is one acre unless there are standards to apply in the granting of a variance and they believe those standards have been established. In response to the Wennes Court neighborhood, because of Dr. Girgis and the Assessment Plat, the subdivisions became merged and the lot is a through lot between Luthin and Wennes that did not previously exist. Through lots are discouraged in the Ordinance, but for whatever reason is there. In regards to the impact on the Luthin Pond, the lot to north and to the west of their lot, there is a circumstance of such minimal of pervious surface that the water cannot dissipate into the ground and go elsewhere. In this case, even with two additional homes there is plenty of room for the water to percolate down into the ground. Once the ground is saturated it has to pond up to get up over Luthin Road. There are situations with the Girgis and the mother's lot and the lot to the west end of the pond and there is nowhere for the water to percolate down, which is the cause of the pond issue. The new lots will have the best storm water practices applied these lots are different. When the Village Engineer does not indicate a problem with the subdivision and notes the requirement to comply with the DuPage County Stone Water Ordinance, which requires that the storm water will not be a burden on the neighbors, they will not create a stone water problem and will be complied with in the building pen-nit application or it would be denied. With respect to the circumstances with the Baroni property and the property was under contract and was not perpetually pursued by Mr. Romanelli. He could not get VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 30 of 34� August 1, 2017 a two -week extension in order to complete the due diligence because the witness that testified paid an additional $50,000 for that property. Market values are market values, you cannot disregard hardship that has been presented because someone said that if they would have dropped their price that a neighbor or what someone else would have been willing to pay, and the market drives what is going on. Along the west side of York there is a predominance of parcels that are less than one acre and what is proposed for Lot 2 along York Road, It will not cause a cascading circumstance. The homes that are lots smaller than an acre doing well. The Village has thrived with the circumstances along York Read with the exception of a couple properties, of which this is one. He did reach out the attorney for the other property, but did not hear back. There would be one lot between the Girgis property and the variance parcel. The surrounding owners say that the smaller lots worts for them. He thanked the Board for their time. Member Ziemer questioned the 100 -foot easement that exists on Luthin Road and whether it was ever anticipated to be expanded in any way. Director Kallien responded that when Mr. Romanelli had asked the Village Board if they would be interested in vacating the easement Public Works investigated and there was nothing that could be seen that would require the road to be widened or used for any other purpose. It is an anomaly that exists and does not elsewhere in town. Chairman Davis noted that the standards were fully addressed at the hearing and were included in writing in the case file. Member Bulin stated that prior to making a motion to deny he said that he did not believe that there was any hardship and the big issue is that it would be creating more nonconforming lots. There are many nonconforming lots in the area in the R -2 District, but that we do not try to create nonconforming lots. The lot is conforming and can be built on and is a unique instance because there are roads on three sides, but suggested that the oversize of the lot would allow a reasonably sized house to be located toward the rear area to avoid the three street frontages. There is no hardship because there are three roads. It was intended to be l.$ acres. There is no gain to the public to create less open space by putting more housing on the parcel than to leave it open. If the existing home is considered to be an eyesore, he would rather have it because it provides an open pastoral look as you go down Luthin Road. Luthin and Wennes along with Robin Hood Ranch were intended to be rural subdivisions. They are nonconforming lots, but they were not created to be nonconfon-ning, they were existing lots. This would create more nonconforming lots purely for profit. He suggested that a 4,000 square foot or smaller house could be built. It is an oversized R -2 lot and is appropriate for the three streets of frontage. It VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 31 of 3A August 1, 2017 allows the appropriate setbacks. There is no reason to reduce the frontage to get an alignment of houses to create the look of Elmhurst or Hinsdale. None of the houses in the neighborhood align and they like it. The big picture would be the creation of a nonconforming lot and there is no reason to do that. It can be built on and meet the setbacks. He didn't care if other lots were nonconforming or that his is .6 -acre, lie bought in knowing the neighborhood had acre and half -acre properties. The applicant is seeking a reduction of .799 -acre so it is intentionally less. Where is the line stopped? There are some lots that are over an acre that could subdivide and have .55 per lot and would still meet the fabric of the green areas. The Board has always taken each issue individually, although he has been noted to always vote against something creating nonconformity. Variances have been given for hardships; in this case there is not a hardship, except for the look for profit to subdivide to create two parcels. He did not believe that two parcels were needed. Chainnan Davis noted that it was important that in the variation standards as to whether the variation would alter the character of the neighborhood. He saw nothing presented at the hearing that would suggest the way the subdivision was being planned that would alter the character of the neighborhood, which is a very important consideration; and for that would be in favor of the request. Mr. Daniel said that the narrative presented had two components of the request. The hardship was the lot area, the other was meant to be more of a convenience to the Village. He understood the comments made by Member Bulin, but requested two separate motions be made. Member Cappetta noted that she respectfully disagreed with Chairman Davis because she believed it would change the character of the neighborhood. Although there are a lot of lots in that area that are not one acre, those lots were inherited and not created. To go forward and create more that are not what is wanted. If it had been purchased that was ii>lierited and was a bad size and needed assistance she would understand that. To ask for a lot that does not fit, does change the character. Chainnan Davis noted that the character did not run just one way frorn the property, it runs two ways. Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Cappetta to recommend denial of the variation requested to allow the reduction of the minimum lot area requirements for the property at 3622 York Road. ROLL CALL: Ayes: 5 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Savino, Young and Ziemer Nays: 1 — Chairman Davis Absent: 1 — Member Nimry. Motion Carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 32 of 34 August 1, 2017 Member Bulin noted that the request for the yard setback should be denied because there was an established street line and an established setback. Although it is unusual to have the 100 foot right of way, it was obviously intended for a reason and has been zoned to accept that. There is plenty of room on the parcel to allow for construction with the existing setback. Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Savino to recommend denial of the variation requested to allow the reduction of the north yard setback for proposed Lot 2 for the property at 3622 York Road. ROLL CALL: Ayes: 5 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Savino, Yount; and Zierner Nays: 1 — Chainnan Davis Absent: 1 — Member Nimry. Motion Carried. 5. C. OAKBROOK CENTER, LLC — TEXT AMENDMENT — ZONING oBC -TEXT AMEND - B -z ORDINANCE SECTION 13 -7B -1 AND 13 -713-2 — B -2 DISTRICT PERMnTED AND PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES SPECIAL USES Chairman Davis announced the public hearing and provided an overview of the request. All witnesses providing testimony were sworn in. Due to the late hour it was discussed to hold a special meeting. Danielle Cassel, Vedder Price, Attorney for the Petitioner noted that because of repurposing some critical soon to be vacant anchor space they were hoping to conclude the process at the September 12, 2017 Village Board meeting. The Board and the applicant will be polled by email to detennine a date for a special meeting. Motion by Member Savino, seconded by Member Young to continue the public hearing to a special meeting on a date to be determined. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 6. OTHER BUSINESS OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT PUBLIC COMMENT There were no additional comments from the public. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 33 of 34� August 1, 2017 8. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Ziemer to adjourn the meeting. at 11:44 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Isl Tony Budzikowski Tony Budzikowski, Development Services Director Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK .Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 34 of 34 August 1, 2017 ADJOURNMENT