Minutes - 01/02/2001 - Plan Commission December 28,2000
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
1200 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook, Illinois 60523
NOTICE
JANUARY 2001
TUESDAY, REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING 7:30 P.M.
JANUARY 2 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
MEETING RESCHEDULED TO JANUARY 8*
THURSDAY, HOTEL, CONVENTION 1 1 f�S �VIMITTEE 5:00 P.M.
JANUARY 4 Village Commons-Upper re o U
MEETING CANCELL LLLLLL.
MONDAY, REGULAR ZONING BOARD �A� MEETING 7:30 P.M.
JANUARY 8 Village Commons-Samuel E wo r L
MEETING CANCELLE
TUESDAY, REGULAR BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING 7:30 P.M.
JANUARY 9 Village Commons-Samuel E.Dean Board Room
WEDNESDAY, OAK BROOK SAFETY PATHWAY COMMITTEE 7:30 P.M.
JANUARY 10 Village Commons—Samuel E. Dean Board Room
THURSDAY, OAK BROOK 2001 AUTUMN FESTIVAL COMMITTEE 7:00 P.M.
JANUARY 11 Oak Brook Bath and Tennis Club-800 Oak Brook Road
MONDAY, REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 P.M.
JANUARY 15 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
3. DuPage County Mayors and Managers Conference— 1220 Oak Brook Road—Text
Amendment and Amended Special Use
4. Village of Oak Brook—Zoning Ordinance Review Project—Text Amendment—Title 13 of the
Village Code-Revisions to Chapter 3 General Zoning Provisions and Chapter 12 Off-Street
Parking and Loading
5. Christ Church of Oak Brook—501 Oak Brook Road—Amended Special Use and Variation
to the Setback on York Road from 100 feet to 70 Feet.
6. Village of Oak Brook-Flood Plain Special Use for the 2001 Roadway Paving Project in
Timber Trails Subdivision—Flood Plain Special Use
7. Other Business
TUESDAY, LIBRARY COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 P.M.
JANUARY 16 Village Commons-Upper Level Conference Room
MONDAY, COMMITTEE-OF-THE-WHOLE MEETING 7:30 P.M.
JANUARY 22 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
TUESDAY, REGULAR BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING 7:30 P.M.
JANUARY 23 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
'Meeting Rescheduled to due Holiday.
**Note: Meeting cancelled due to lack of agenda items.
In accordance with the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act,any individual who is in need of a reasonable accommodation in order to
participate in or benefit from attendance at a public meeting of the Village of Oak Brook should contact Michael Crotty,the Village's ADA Coordinator,
at 630-990-5738,as soon as possible before the meeting date.
NOTE: Changes to this schedule will be noticed separately.
MT.G-NOT-2001 JAN
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
January 15, 2001
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Stelios Aktipis
Members Barbara Payovich
David Pequet
Anthony Tappin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephen Allen
Samuel Girgis
Surendra Goel
ALSO PRESENT: Trustee Alfred Savino
Director of Community Development Robert Kallien
Village Attorney Richard Martens
Village Engineer Dale Durfey
• A quorum was present.
ll. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Payovich moved, seconded by Member Pequet, to waive the reading of the November 20,
2000, Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as amended.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed.
111. DuPAGE MAYORS AND MANAGERS CONFERENCE — 1220 OAK BROOK BROOK
— TEXT AMENDMENT and SPECIAL USE
Steven Rhodes, Dommermuth, Brestal, Cobine and West, 123 Water Street, Naperville, attorney
for the petitioner, reviewed the request and background of the property. The site is approximately
.918 acres and zoned R-3. DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference have occupied the property
since 1992, under a 15-year lease with the Village of Oak Brook. They are now seeking to
purchase the property and to set more clearly the zoning for the property. They are seeking a
recommendation for approval of a text amendment which is a special use in R-3 District, to clarify
the special use to include "conference of municipal governments and related uses." The request is
made so that they will be able to continue carrying on the use that they have been doing in that
building. As part of their application, they are also requesting that the Village approve a special use
for the property in accordance with the revised text amendment. They currently have
approximately 2900 square feet under roof and they are proposing to expand the facility by 2700
• square feet and approximately 13 parking spaces. This is an expansion of the facility due to the
nature of the business they carry on.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
1
�L�
Tim Fluck, Policy Analyst with DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference said that the Conference
has been in existence since 1962 and have been located at its current address (1220 Oak Brook
Road) since 1992. They are an organization of 36 DuPage Municipalities, including the Village of
Oak Brook. They promote excellence in local government and carry on a wide range of the
activities. They have a very active legislative program, which make their members aware of
developments in Springfield and Washington D.C. They carry out intergovernmental relations and
efforts to improve communication between municipalities and DuPage County. They carry out
special programs in planning and regulatory issues to make the members aware of recent
development in those areas. They also have a number of direct services such as their auction of
surplus motor vehicles, which the Village has participated. They currently have a staff of eight full-
time employees and have been evaluating both their personnel and staffing needs. Their goal is to
increase their staff by about five.
Mr. Rhodes reviewed the site plan. They are looking to expand the facility and the parking lot.
They are proposing a slight modification to the site plan presented. To satisfy Village staff
concerns, they will omit two parking spaces on the northwestern edge of the property and include
additional landscaping. This change will allow them to meet all of the ordinances of the Village.
Member Tappin asked if it is spelled out the exclusive and restrictive use of the property, generally
it is known what it has been used for and raised concerns that the language in the text amendment
allows only what they can do there in the future. Director of Community Development Kallien said
that under the current zoning, they have every right to continue the use that is there today.
Through the text amendment, they are trying to clarify what their utilization of the property is now
and in the future. The property can now be used for any permitted use in the R-3 zoning category.
The Village Board had originally approved a special use for the Mayors and Managers facility. It
was clear in that special use as to what was going on at the facility. If anyone wants to do anything
• that is to the contrary of the approved special use, they would have to come back to the Village to
amend the special use.
Mr. Rhodes said that part of the business that the Conference does occasionally are studies run
out of their facility such as transportation, development and things of the nature. Those types of
activities that are sponsored by the Conference will be part of what they do. They have been doing
them since 1992 and they want to be as clear as possible within the Zoning Ordinance to make
sure they cover those issues. Some of the phrasing in the Ordinance itself talks about civic centers
and municipal offices, so they are trying to be as specific as possible. Sometimes a traffic study
firm comes in, uses and pays for some of their space while they are there performing studies on
traffic issues and things like that at the behest of the Conference. He wanted to make sure that it
was understood that type of activity is still allowed. This is why the word 'organizations" was
included in the proposed language. They would not be bringing in someone that has no connection
to the business that they do.
Attorney Martens suggested that the language "(such as organizations performing studies,
conducting surveys, or providing consultation to units of local government)" could be changed to
read "(such as organizations providing services to units of local government including, conducting
surveys or performing studies)" This will help to make it clear that it all has to be for the purpose of
providing information of units of local government.
Tim Fluck mentioned that the primary concern of the Conference is that the DuPage Mayors and
Managers Conference is one of seven municipal councils of government in the metropolitan area.
They are somewhat different from five of the others, in that they just exist as a Conference. There
• is one other organizational form that the Conference uses and that is the CATS (Chicago Area
Transportation Study) Council of Mayors, and they provide services operating as CATS Council of
Mayors for DuPage County. At least five of the other municipal councils of government operate
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
2
many other entities under the umbrella of their municipal conference. They have never really
embarked on that, but in the last few years, they have recognized that there may be a need from
• time to time to maybe do that. For example, they are currently doing a comprehensive transit plan
for DuPage County and one of the things that has come up is the whole promise of intelligent
transportation systems and the use of computers to aid people in making trips from place to place.
There is a facility called a traffic management center a "TMC" which really is just a bunch of
computers that link to a bunch of different traffic signals and detectors in the county that would
really gather information and send it out to local governments and let them know where there is
traffic congestion. It would be much better for that to be in an independent organization for getting
grants and things like that. The Conference is best suited to operate this kind of entity, so they
would like to be able to have a room perhaps in their building that would be filled with computers
that would be doing that and they would then operate the traffic management center under their
operation. In terms of additional staffing, it probably would not require any, but it would be
something the Conference would do.
Dale Durfey noted that comments contained in his memo dated January 11, 2001 related to minor
changes to the site plan. They are going to resubmit a revised site plan later. Mr. Rhodes said that
the issues would be resolved to staffs' satisfaction.
No one in the audience spoke in support of the proposal.
Dan Callaghan, Developer of the Forest Gate Subdivision that is directly north and west of the
subject property, said that Mayors and Managers are good neighbors. He believes they are an
excellent buffer between the development and the busy intersection of 31St and Jorie Blvd. The
request is also for approval of a site plan for the property allowing expansion of the existing building
and parking lot. He realizes they are doing so with the land that Forest Gate donated to the Village
• and on a whole has no problem with that. That property was deeded allowing construction vehicles
to enter and exit the existing driveway off on 31St during the time of construction of all of the Forest
Gate units, which will probably last another 3 to 3 %years based upon the pace of sales.
During the plan submittal for Forest Gate, they did not realize the difficulty emergency vehicles
would have to use the Managers and Mayors driveway, and then to turn left and go west onto the
loop road of Forest Gate. He had made a commitment that if the driveway were damaged, they
would agree to resurface it. After work began in the development, he carried through with the offer
and completely resurfaced and rebuilt the driveway. He is concerned that the access driveway will
not be decreased from what currently exists. He does not want to have problems with drainage or
standing water. In addition, all of the municipal emergency vehicles can turn left and go west on
the loop road, with the exception of the ladder truck. However, that truck using a three-point turn
can accomplish the turn. He submitted a proposed revision marked "A" (page 14 of the petition
file). The darkened line denotes the existing driveway on Lot 82. A proposal marked "B" (Page 13
of the petition file) does show adequate landscaping between the parking lot and 31" Street. He
believes the same consideration needs to be given from the increased parking lot and the homes to
the west and north of the lot. The Mayors and Managers proposed redesign eliminates two parking
spaces and on Callaghan's proposal, it would eliminate three spaces. In addition, he would like to
see 11 additional 10-12 foot spruce trees. He would like permission to install four of the pine trees
requested directly west of the driveway at his own expense. He does not want deciduous trees;
they would like screening year round, and pine trees will do that.
The next issue is the parking lot lighting. The original parking lot lighting is the medium sized street
lighting square can that shines down. He would request that type of lighting be removed. There is
. mushroom lighting along the walkways and around the building, that has more of a residential
character. They would also like to have a restriction to prohibit parking lot lighting after 10:00 p.m.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
3
110L';�
The character of the neighborhood would not be changed with the exception of the increase of the
parking area. Without the additional landscape buffer between the proposed expansion and homes
priced $800,000 and up, their plan as shown is inadequate. The present plan does diminish
property values, but if additional steps were taken to buffer the Forest Gate Subdivision with solid
landscaping, they would have no objection. He stated that he was not telling the Board what to do,
but he asked if they were the people buying those lots, what concerns would they have if the
parking lot were expanded into their backyard. He believes the requests are minimal and would
appreciate the Board considering them.
Suzanne Gordon, 317 Trinity Lane, a 15-year resident of Oak Brook greatly admires the work of
the Plan Commission, Zoning Board and Board of Trustees which have made the town one of the
best places to live in the western suburbs. Their future home is Lot 20 that is under construction in
Forest Gate. The property is in excellent condition and the existing landscaping shelters it well.
She supports the purchaser's right to expand the building and parking lot, and trusts that the Plan
Commission will accept an aesthetic and well designed expansion. Her only concerns are the
lighting because the rear of the yard will face the lot. She would prefer 8 p.m., but would accept 10
p.m. as a proposed time to shut the lighting off. She also supports the increased landscaping
discussed.
Chairman Aktipis and the Commissioners discussed the issues raised.
Member Tappin said that he supports the lights out at 10 p.m. if not sooner, and the lower
mushroom type lighting fixtures that are adequate for safety. He supports the landscaping offered
by the Forest Gate developer and believes it would enhance the whole project.
Member Payovich questioned the time that current meetings end. Tim Fluck responded that they
• sometimes have task force meetings that have to meet after hours. They customarily go until 9
p.m., but it would be unusual to go past 10 p.m.
Steven Rhodes said that they are willing to consider the landscaping that was offered, however the
parking lot has been designed to Village Code to ensure that it meets those Codes. They believe
that it is proper as designed. However, they are going to lose two of the parking spaces up toward
the ring road and there will be some modification to the landscaping in that area. They would be
interested if the developer would like to install four trees near the emergency access road as long
as it will fit within the confines of that space. In terms of lighting, they would also agree to the lights
out at 10:00 p.m., however, there will probably be some required security lighting at the building.
They are willing to work with staff to limit the time the lights are on.
Chairman Aktipis questioned the Village requirements. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the
Village Code is not specific, each site is looked at on an individual basis.
Steven Rhodes said that they would be willing to work with staff to choose an appropriate fixture for
the residential neighborhood. Cost is a concern, but they are willing to consider a lower light fixture
as long as it is within their budget. As far as the landscaping, their concern would be the site lines
onto the ring road. Twelve-foot evergreens may interfere with site lines coming out of the parking
lot. They are willing to look at the landscaping on the side of the emergency access road.
Chairman Aktipis said that his concern is that when a commercial area is mixed with a residential
area there is a real need to provide sufficient buffer, so that the people who spend quite a bit of
money to get a nice private home, protect it. He believes that sufficient landscaping should provide
• an adequate buffer. Mr. Rhodes responded that they would modify their site plan as well as the
landscape plan pursuant to comments received by staff. They do understand the Plan
Commission's concerns of that matter. Their concern is that a twelve-foot evergreen tree is not an
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
4
e0-f
inexpensive thing to purchase. They are willing to work with the neighborhood and staff to try to
develop an adequate treatment that will be beneficial to both sides.
• Member Pequet commented that the section to the north is an important aspect of the border
situation. Although he understood the site line issue, the reality may come down to eliminating a
couple of parking spaces. He felt strongly that the bordering issues are far more compelling than
the parking spaces. The northern border is a more important issue for the Lot 20 and 21, than the
trees to the west.
Member Pequet said that he was concerned whether they had a real commitment from the
petitioner regarding the landscaping issues. He would hate to approve the plan with certain
conditions, and have them drop off down the way. He would rather see a revised plan come back
that is acceptable to both sides.
Member Tappin said that the Board of Trustees and Zoning Board of Appeals know what the Plan
Commission wants included. Trustee Savino noted that allowances could be included in the
recommendation for the special use.
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Pequet that the proposed Text Amendment is
deemed necessary for the public convenience and will be operated so that the public health, safety
and welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in which it is
located. The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend approval subject to the
proposed text amendment to read as follows:
"Public Utility. Transportation and Government Facilities: Public utility, transportation and
• governmental service facilities, including municipal offices and civic centers, public libraries, police
and fire stations, public works facilities, a conference of municipal governments and ancillary uses
including organizations which provide consultation services solely to units of local government."
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Tappin that the Special Use as amended is deemed
necessary for the public convenience and will be operated so that the public health, safety and
welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in which it is located.
The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Increased landscaping must provided along the west and north perimeter of the property to
buffer the residential homes.
2. The parking lot light fixtures be changed to a lower landscape type lighting fixture.
3. Implement a timer system to turn off the parking lot lights at 10:00 p.m. each evening.
4. Provisions to be included that the landscaping is maintained.
• 5. Modify the site plan to incorporate the recommended conditions, including an allowance to
reduce the number of parking spaces to allow the increased landscaping.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
5
6. Subject to Village Engineer's letter dated January 11, 2001 and final Engineering approval.
• ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK- ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TITLE 13
OF THE VILLAGE CODE — REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 3 GENERAL ZONING
PROVISIONS AND CHAPTER 12 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
The petitioner in this case is the Village of Oak Brook. Director of Community Development, Robert
Kallien said that this discussion will pertain to a number of proposed changes to Chapter 3, as part
of the comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance. The Plan Commission reached a
consensus on the items listed in his December 14, 2000 memorandum. However, there were eight
other items that the Plan Commission referred back to staff for further discussion and analysis as
well as some desire to seek the input of the Village Attorney.
13-3-1-A-2. Add language to permit allowances, which may be requested in conjunction to a
special use. Eliminates the need to process special uses, which also involve variances as two
separate cases. Such an application of allowances was used with recent review of the special use
amendment for the Village Hall expansion project, which involved a 65-foot wide driveway for the
new Fire Station.
• They are proposing to formalize the concept of permitting allowances as part of special use
requests. Over the past few months, staff has presented cases more specifically the Village Hall
expansion, that contained an allowance for a fire department driveway as well as for the allowances
requested as part of the Residence Inn that was recently approved by the Village Board. These
were presented to the Plan Commission in an allowance format instead of a variation concept.
The Village Attorney said rather than making people go through the variance process, to handle
these as allowances as part of the special use. It is an easier standard to meet when made part of
a special use request. In many cases, they are not really items that test well against the standards
for a variance.
Attorney Martens stated that the concept is not really new. Reviewing the existing the Special Use
Ordinance, The Village may impose certain conditions and restrictions pursuant to the existing
ordinance. Section 13-14-9F (Special Uses) states as follows:
"Conditions: The Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals may recommend, and the
Village Board may provide, such conditions and restrictions upon the construction, location
and operation of a special use, including, but not limited to, provisions for off-street parking
and loading as may be deemed necessary to promote the general objectives of this Title
and to minimize the injury to the value of the property in the neighborhood."
This is similar to what the Plan Commission did with respect to the Mayors and Managers request,
where some allowance were recommended in off-street parking. In another installment of the
Zoning Code, Section 14, Administration, they are going to dovetail the language before the Plan
Commission tonight with the language in the Administration section so that it will further clarify that
• allowances can be part of a Special Use request. The language in large measure comes from the
State Zoning Enabling Act. That is the genesis of the notion.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
6
"�Y
Chairman Aktipis questioned whether this recommended change is a trend in which other villages
have engaged in. Attorney Martens said that it is fairly common in communities around the state to
• see these allowances as part of special uses. The Forest Gate project had a number of allowances
involved in that development. Oak Brook has done it on a number of occasions, and wanted to
bring it before the boards and call it by name.
Chairman Aktipis said that the change would somewhat simplify procedures. Village Attorney
Martens, said that any allowance that would be recommended would have to be reasonable, could
not be arbitrary and certainly be in the public interest. These are all judgments made by the
Commissions in making a recommendation.
Chairman Aktipis also said that in the past, some of these issues would go directly to the Zoning
Board of Appeals and the Plan Commission would not hear them. Village Attorney Martens said
that Special Uses go through the double hearing process and Variations do not. Typically, the
large special uses there are a variety of issues that come into play and the Village needs to step
back since we are becoming more and more built out as a village, and see what benefits are
gained by the special use and balance that by any possible accommodation or allowance that
would be accorded to the developer.
Chairman Aktipis said that an absent Commission member was concerned that the approval
process would be less stringent if the Village would adopt this change. Village Attorney Martens
said that there is a greater measure of discretion, more balancing than would otherwise be the
case. As Oak Brook is fully built out, there become questions of redevelopment and most
communities in this situation find that for redevelopment frequently these things need to balanced if
you are going to attract new development to the community. Very often, there may need to be
some allowances made.
• Director of Community Development Kallien said that the request is to formalize the concept of
allowances by including the changes in Chapter 14.
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Tappin to recommend approval of the revised text
as presented.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
13-3-5. This section, which establishes specific setbacks along certain streets, contradicts
some setbacks, which are listed in several of the zoning districts. Also, some of the assumptions,
which were used to establish these original setbacks, may not be valid today. As an example, the
current setback along York Road contemplates a five-lane cross section through Oak Brook.
However, today's traffic patterns and volumes do not support this original assumption. Therefore,
three alternatives are being offered for your review and recommendation. Alternative 1
recommends that portion of York Road, south of 31st Street be reduced from 100 feet from the
property line to 100 feet from the centerline. This portion of York Road is primarily residential with
many homes having direct access to the roadway. This area of York Road is now proposed to
have an ultimate cross-section of two thru-lanes with a center turn lane instead of four thru-lanes
that exist north of 31st Street. Alternative 2 recommends that the minimum setback along a street
be consistent to the setbacks contained in the underlying zoning district with the exception to
• maintain the 22nd Street setback at 100 feet from the property line. Alternative 3 recommends that
the minimum setback along a street be consistent to the setbacks in the underlying zoning district
without exception.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
7
In regard to Alternative 1, Director of Community Development Kallien noted that the Zoning
. Ordinance provides for a 100-foot setback as measured from the property line although the
underlying zoning in many cases would require only forty feet. A number of structures have been
developed many years ago that really are in noncompliance with that setback. Page 15 and 15a of
the petition file are maps that show the impact of the 100-foot setback as measured from the
property line versus the 100-foot setback as measured from the center line of York Road. One of
the reasons this area of York Road was targeted is not only due to the number of structures that
are in noncompliance, there is also a roadway that does not have a need for the ultimate cross-
section that may exist north of 31St Street. According to Village Engineer Durfey, York Road will
probably only have two through lanes with a turning lane based upon the current and anticipated
traffic patterns. Also, most of these properties have direct access to York. The proposal is that we
redefine how we measure the front yard setback in this area of York Road. Three alternatives were
offered, however Alternative 2 and 3 were for discussion purposes. Alternative 1 offers the
greatest opportunity and consideration.
Member Pequet said that looking at the maps provided, there are 18 nonconforming structures due
to property line setbacks and only 10 if the center line measurement is used. Director of
Community Development Kallien said that although those ten may still have a portion of their
property be nonconforming, it still offers them greater opportunities for redevelopment. Previously
most would have had to come in for a variation to build any building addition.
Emanuel and Irene Rousonelos, 3103 York Road, reside in the house on the corner of York Rd and
31s' Street. He said that their house is totaling nonconforming and they are planning on building a
new house on the property. Alternative 1 does provide some relief, but Alternative 2 and 3 they feel
would eliminate the hardships placed on this lot because of the current setbacks and exceptions to
• the yards facing Oak Brook Road and York Road. They asked that the Plan Commission consider
approving Alternate 2 or 3.
Member Pequet questioned the difference between the Alternatives. Director of Community
Development Kallien explained that it would provide more relief, however, it would produce a
checkerboard effect down York Road because there are several different zoning districts with
different setback requirements. They would like uniformity. Alternative 1 gives them some
opportunities that currently are not available to them now.
Chairman Aktipis noted that those properties that do not conform to the requirements would have
the opportunity to come and ask for specific relief for the particular circumstance. Director of
Community Development Kallien said they would need to seek a variance.
Member Pequet responded that it is staff's recommendation for Alternative 1, which is visualized on
page 15 and 15a of the file. That relief will eliminate almost half of the problems. Director of
Community Development Kallien said that all of the properties that are currently nonconforming
would benefit by this change. Member Tappin added that they should have 100% assurance that
they can appeal and get reasonable hearing on these issues.
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Payovich to recommend approval of the revised text
as presented in Alternative 1.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent:
-
Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
8
'�IY
13-3-6-B. Recommend a proposal to permit solid six-foot (6) fences where a residential district
abuts a non-residential district or corporate limits of the Village. Our current standard now permits
• 42-inch high fences that are 50 percent open.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that currently we allow 42-inch high fences that
are 50% open in Oak Brook. ZORC (Zoning Ordinance Review Committee) has proposed that we
expand those provisions slightly to allow solid six-foot high fences along residential district that abut
up to nonresidential districts or back up to the Village corporate limits.
There was a question from the Commission that for properties backing up to major roadways,
should this be considered in those areas. The issue was brought back to ZORC and the intent was
not to create a "walled effect" along the major roadways. They are seeking to open the fence
provisions up slightly so that maximum screening can be provided between adjacent residential and
nonresidential uses, or at the perimeter of the Village. There are communities that are nearby that
do allow solid fences along their major roadways, but it creates a "wall effect." This is not
something that is really desired in Oak Brook. When Oak Brook was created, one of the basic
principals found in the beginning documents is that the openness be maintained throughout the
community.
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich to recommend approval of the revised text
as presented.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
• 13-3-7-B. Clarify the timeframe habitable vehicles can be parked or stored on a property to
three consecutive days.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the text of the Ordinance says that habitable
vehicles cannot be there for more than three days. ZORC has proposed to add "consecutive" days,
so that there is some timeframe to at least try to measure a duration for the vehicle. Three days
alone, is difficult to interpret and difficult to enforce.
It was also raised by the Chairman, as to whether we are in need of some regulation, and could this
be modified to regulate the number of vehicles that are actually parked on driveways. ZORC
reviewed this issue and there is a matter that each residential parcel has to provide a minimum
number of required parking stalls that are not in a required yard. Most people are able to
accomplish this by building a garage that is located outside the front yard setback. However, there
are people that have more than two vehicles and they do park them on their driveway. Some go to
further extremes than others. Some try to maximize the number of vehicles.
Chairman Aktipis asked whether the courts would not support the notion that that the Village has
any right to regulate the number of vehicles parked in front of a house. Village Attorney Martens
responded that part of the problem is that there are a great many residents park vehicles in front of
their house. If such a regulation would be created, there could be great ramifications across the
community.
Member Tappin added that they have had problems with derelict type cars that are left out.
Director of Community Development Kallien answered that there is a provision in the current Codes
that all vehicles have a current license. Over the past year and a half, Community Development
staff has worked with the Police Department to remedy some of those situations. Member Tappin
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
9
��7
said some of the homeowner associations have these regulations built into their regulations. There
should be some relief provided.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Village does not have the staff to run a
"Gestapo." Many times when a call is received, the vehicle may have already been there for
several days. When we make a site visit, we then confirm that it is there, and then wait another 72
hours for a field study to verify that it is actually in violation.
Member Tappin suggested that perhaps it should be put in the regulations that a homeowner has to
call the Village for permission, then it is a positive thing rather than catching them doing it later. It
would also support what they are doing in the homeowners associations.
Chairman Aktipis added that he knows of instances where homeowner associations have had
concerns about this problem, and when they have called the Village, they were simply told that
there is nothing that can be done. It seems that if an issue becomes such that the association calls
the Village, there should be some way by which the Village could take action. If there are more
cars than people, that should not be a difficult issue for the Village to support in court.
Village Attorney Martens responded that there are a significant number of situations in Oak Brook
where people have more cars than they have occupants of the dwelling. These are policy
decisions that the Boards need to work through; it is always tough to legislate when some people
will push everything to the limits. When you do legislate, it will effect everyone in the town and is
apt to have greater ramifications sometimes than you might expect.
Member Payovich questioned how many complaints are received regarding cars, not recreational
vehicles. Director of Community Development Kallien responded approximately 1 or 2 per year.
Member Payovich questioned how many complaints are received regarding RV's. Director of
Community Development Kallien said that the Community Development staff may see one parked
and will stop by and indicated what the regulations are and usually the problem is taken care of.
He said since the Zoning Ordinance was being updated, this was an opportunity to maybe help
future enforcement to identify three consecutive days versus just three days.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that staff could continue to work on the issue of
cars, and if some potential language that could help is developed, it could be brought back later.
Chairman Aktipis questioned that someone could move the vehicle after three days and move it
back a couple of hours later.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that will always be a problem with this type of
enforcement, it puts the Village in a very difficult situation to document that a situation may be in
noncompliance, and if it moves to an enforcement before a judge, documentation has to be able to
support that there was a violation.
Village Attorney Martens responded that whenever there is a durational requirement, that possibility
will always exist, where someone will work around it.
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Pequet to recommend approval of the revised text
as presented.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
• Nays: 0 -
Absent:
-Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
10
-VL t
13-3-9. Originally 13-3-11, recommend including a reference to microcells and a clarification
that distributing equipment does not include cellular telephone towers and ancillary equipment.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that an example of a microcell would be a
telephone pole on 22nd Street or Route 83, small antennas are microcells designed to enhance
wireless communications. The suggestion is to allow the reference to microcells be added, but
does not include cell towers, which are quite tall.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that they were trying to come up with a definition
of microcell and Village Attorney Martens said that it was found on the Internet:
"Microcell — A wireless communication facility consisting of an antenna that is either a: four
(4) feet in height and with an area of not more than five hundred eighty (580) square inches. Or b:
If a tubular antenna no more than four inches (4) in diameter and no more than six (6) feet in length
in the associated equipment cabinet that is six (6) feet or less in height and no more than forty-
eight (48) square feet in floor area."
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich to recommend approval of the revised text
as presented.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
13-3-14. Recommend a decrease in the minimum parcel size from two (2) acres to one (1)
acre for driveway gates. Several inquiries have been made from residents concerning a desire to
construct driveway gates on parcels that are at least one (1) acre in size.
Director of Community Development Kallien explained that this issue is regarding driveway gates
and said that it seems reasonable to include R-2 properties, which are minimum 1-acre parcels. At
least one requests has been made over the past year for a driveway gate on a 1-acre parcel. A
resident had proposed some language and Village Engineer Durfey suggested the wording on
page 13 of the petition file. There is a need to define what is a local street and what is not.
Village Engineer Durfey said that first of all there would probably need to have a list of all the
classifications that we want to use, then assign values to a street with those in mind. Chairman
Aktipis asked whether this was needed to be done at this point. Member Pequet asked if existing
gate systems would be grandfathered. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the
distance requirements are so that people can turn off the road, park a vehicle in that location, get
out and open the gate. It is not as critical in a local neighborhood where the traffic flow is at a
much slower rate. If there is something protruding on a roadway that carries a heavy volume of
traffic, there could be some problems.
Member Payovich moved, seconded by Member Pequet to recommend approval of the revised text
on page 13 of the petition file subject to the Village Engineer developing a list of local and nonlocal
streets.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
11
• 13-3-16. Recommend creating language to permit temporary buildings, structures and uses of
land for a time period of up to six (6) months with conditions. Currently, these types of activities
cannot be accommodated.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that ZORC has discussed this further and
believes that this issue can be handled without being included in the zoning ordinance.
13-3-17. Recommend creating language to permit telecommunications towers on any Village
owned property except property zoned CR Conservation /Recreation. Currently, new
telecommunications towers are not permitted.
The members agreed that this was a good idea on existing towers to generate additional revenue
for the Village, but were concerned over building any new towers and where they would be located.
As requested by the Plan Commission, a chart was presented by Director of Community
Development Kallien showing all village-owned property.
Member Pequet said that additional clarification needs to be made as far as to what type of
microcell should be placed on what type of building. A microcell on top of a one story well house
would be okay; however, to put a one hundred-foot tower on that building is unacceptable in a
residential area. It makes a lot of sense to have the option for the Village to put antennas on
certain structures if it is in keeping with the structure or the area. The community has areas where
reception is very difficult for cell phones, and there is a great need for locations, but it comes down
to what type of antenna in what location.
• Director of Community Development Kallien said that most of the cellular service is provided by the
placement of equipment on top of a taller building, or on towers that are in adjacent communities.
In reviewing other communities' telecommunication ordinances, many times they will qualify a site
by requiring certain setbacks or limit the size of the tower based upon the parcels size or certain
use group.
Village Attorney Martens said to bear in mind that the Village Board would have the final authority
no matter what. Any tower provider would need to have some sort of agreement with the Village in
any event, so ultimately the Village would have total control over the matter.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that their intention was to provide a vehicle by
which someone could request the Village Board the ability to locate a telecommunications tower on
one of the sites. The actual approval or construction would be something that would have to
be worked out through an agreement with the Village Board.
Member Tappin said that they could recommend that caution should be given in residential areas.
Chairman Aktipis looked at potential sites, it was agreed by the Members that they should not be
located in areas that are zoned residential or CR. They agreed the following sites could be
acceptable sites for the Village to use:
1. Village Commons
2. Fire Station II — 22nd and Enterprise
3. Well House #2 - Windsor Drive and 188 —
4. Water Storage Tank - Tower Drive
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
12
�L7
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Pequet to recommend approval of the revised text
• as presented with the above stated conditions taken into consideration.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent:
-Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
A ten-minute intermission was called.
V. CHRIST CHURCH OF OAK BROOK- 501 OAK BROOK ROAD — AMENDED
SPECIAL USE FOR EXPANSION OF CHURCH FACILITIES WITH ALLOWANCES
TO THE 100 FOOT SETBACK ON YORK ROAD FOR AN ADDITION TO THE
BUILDING AND A NEW PARKING LOT
Joe Beczak, represented Christ Church of Oak Brook and reviewed the proposed request. They
are seeking the addition of two nurture and care rooms adjacent to the Sanctuary; the creation of
an audio/visual center above the bridge; an allowance from the 100-foot setback to allow for the
expansion of the existing kitchen, including a new preschool atrium entrance. They are also
seeking an allowance to the 100-foot setback to allow for a 30-car parking area for preschool drop-
off and pick-up. This would also be used on Sunday's for visitors who are physically challenged
and need easier access into the church. They will ensure to provide adequate screening with
evergreens to protect the aesthetic presentation of the area. They have talked to the surrounding
neighbors soliciting comments and making sure that they new what the Church was trying to
accomplish and to make sure that it did not interfere with anything that they thought would be
displeasing.
Member Tappin questioned why a special use was needed to add care rooms to the church.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that there is an existing special use on the site
and the existing special use had a site plan and building elevations. In this case, they are adding
onto the building elevations. They are also seeking allowance for kitchen expansion and atrium and
the parking lot to encroach into the 100-foot setback.
In the case of the kitchen expansion, the requested 30-foot encroachment is within the proposed
change to the York Road setback as measured from the center line, and would no longer be an
encroachment into a required yard. However, a significant portion of the parking lot mostly the
portion that lies closest to York Road, would still encroach into that new setback. It appears to
encroach about 85 feet into the required 100-foot setback.
Member Tappin asked how the parking lot would be used including lighting. Mr. Beczak responded
that they would recommend using lower lights so as not to disturb the neighbors. They would make
sure the lights are turned off by 10:00 p.m.
Chairman Aktipis questioned if someone were in need of additional relief that was not allowed they
would need to seek a variation, so in order to approve the request they would have to meet those
standards. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that under the allowance
concept, you have to consider the impact of the request against the requirements for a special use.
Village Attorney Martens said that under the Special Use standards, you would have to look at the
effect this proposal would have on adjacent properties. The standard as to whether or not this
proposal is in the best interest in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare is also
relevant.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
13
Joe Beczak that they have addressed those standards in their submittal. The parking lot will allow
the seniors on Sundays to have special access to the building. It is difficult coming up to the
building due to the grade. They have to walk up hill to get to the sanctuary.
Village Attorney Martens said that the general standard in all zoning decisions is that it must be
reasonable and not arbitrary. The applicant has to present evidence to satisfy those standards and
the Commission has to be satisfied that it is a reasonable request and not making an arbitrary
decision.
Member Tappin questioned the bike path issue. Village Engineer Durfey responded that part of the
petitioner's revised application states that they will have 8'6" of area between the bike path and the
easement, which would be sufficient.
Chairman Aktipis had a question regarding the new parking along York Road. Can parking be
added in another area. Does it need to be added at this location?
Sam Darby, Architect from Larson and Darby, said that as stated in the submittal there are over
100 mothers and fathers that drop off their children daily to the nursery area. The site, which has
grown over the years, there is one access to the site from York Road and one access from 31St
Street. As the building has grown, at this location of the building for the nursery, is where the
mothers and fathers have to drop off their children. Presently there is a turning circle that is a
service area where vehicles service the kitchen and it is also possible for a mother or father to drive
into that circle and exchange their children. The closest place mothers and fathers can park to
drop off the children is far from the entrance. There is additional property where they could park,
which would be south of the access to York Road, but then it is hundreds of feet away from the
entrance. With the increase in the activity of the preschool and nursery, the attempt is to get a
drop-off point that is safe and secure where mothers and fathers can park and bring their children
at grade level into the building. Another advantage is that for special members and friends that
have some difficulty climbing the slopes, it would be assignable parking for them on Sunday.
Sam Darby passed out a cross-section of the parking area that showed approximate grading that
would be available. In the section with a six-foot high hedge, automobiles parked in that lot would
not be seen from York Road. The plan illustrates the parking, turning circle, planting strip, bike
path, existing parkway and York Road. 30 parking spaces have been deemed necessary by the
church to accommodate a need for 120 visits by parents twice a day to exchange their children.
There was an alternate scheme developed that had parking only within a changed setback of 50
feet and at most they can get is 20 cars, but they would have to extend the lot another 65 feet to
the north. That scheme physically disturbs the view of the sanctuary, which is a substantial
presentation of a religious structure from the corner of 31St and York. It would put parking farther
north on the property and therefore, there would be greenery and hedge material that would be
projecting out beyond what is presently there and it would be an impairment to the view and
architecture to the existing building. In this case, recognizing the same problem mentioned earlier
and both York and 31 St street, they thought it would reasonable to request these parking spaces be
placed in a parklike environment on the east side of the property.
Member Pequet said that it has some merit to consider the 30-space parking lot configuration so as
not to obstruct the presentation of the structure and the corner.
Member Payovich agreed with that point, but she was concerned with what kind of a precedent
would they be setting since the church owns the rest of the property going south along York Road.
. Would they be dealing with this type of situation in the future and how would that affect the Village's
dealings with the commercial residents.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
14
Member Pequet questioned since it is a special use, would that make any difference? Village
Attorney Martens responded that there are other special uses that could perhaps come back.
Chairman Aktipis said he would not have a problem, if there were a real demonstrated need for the
parking, such as the couple that cannot build without relief being granted. However, if there are
alternative solutions to a situation that can be done with the existing parcel, then he is hesitant to
provide the relief to the extent that it has been requested.
Member Pequet said that the issue here is that the intent of this facility is to make the access safer
and more convenient than putting parking 300-400 feet away. What they appear to be trying to do,
is to make the traffic flow and safer situation for the dropping off of the children. The point of the
petition is not the need for more parking, but for the convenience with the children. Sam Darby
responded that there is ample parking, the safety and the convenience of the parents bringing the
children into the facility is the issue.
Chairman Aktipis suggested perhaps there could be driving lanes so that there would be temporary
parking where a child can be dropped off. Sam Darby responded that it is difficult because they
are limited to one access on each street. It is a narrow strip of land and a dead end corridor where
you cannot successfully bring traffic in and turn it around and get it out as can be seen by the
service circle that is presently there. Chairman Aktipis asked if there is another access into the
nursery. Sam Darby responded that there are interior corridors throughout the building, but nursery
control and layout in the existing building all begins at this point. This would require traversing
through a labyrinth of corridors to get their children to nursery school.
Member Pequet said there is a preschool near his office that is almost a production line, with a
short window of time when there is an awful lot of traffic coming through. Joe Beczak said that the
people trying to come in off 31" Street would end up coming across the lane of traffic where they
are currently parking now. They are trying to avoid this flow of traffic as parents are trying to come
up to the building itself. By putting the parking lot off to the side, they are able to control the flow of
traffic and allow them access to sidewalk, which would allow them easy access into the building.
Sam Darby said that the attempt of the church is to get the mothers closer to the building. They
looked at another alternative if parking were only allowed on one side, they would get 20 spaces,
that is where the view starts to interfere with the sanctuary with the hedge material and parking lot
screening. It is an alternative but it is second best by far.
Chairman Aktipis questioned if there was a drive there with temporary parking rather than a parking
lot with an access onto York Road. Village Engineer Durfey said that it would require a DuPage
County permit and it might be deemed to be too close to the intersection and they might deny it.
Member Payovich suggested a right in entrance from York Road with an exit through the current
entrance. Trustee Savino said that one thing that makes Oak Brook look like Oak Brook is the
large setbacks. The corner at Christ Church looks very nice right now and that would be lost. They
are seeking a tremendous variation.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that it almost seems that with the distance
between the main entrance to the Church facility on York back into that far end of the new parking
lot, it almost appears that we are creating a parking cul de sac. You have to travel quite a distance
to do what you need to do and then come back out. There will be competing interests of people
trying to get in and out of spots, along with parents and kids walking across the drive aisles. There
will be a lot of activity in a really constrained area. The ability to move the traffic in and out of there
• safely would be the question. Sam Darby said that he cannot disagree, safety is a factor and if
there could be allowed to have an entrance only off York Road that might solve the problem.
Chairman Aktipis suggested they might want to investigate that possibility.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
15
14-r-
Sam Darby said that they would like to separate the issues so that the parking issue can be dealt
with separately.
• Irene Rousonelos, 3103 York Road, testified that they live directly across from Christ Church and
would be affected visually and see no problem with the plan. She said that both their children went
to Christ Church preschool, and personally, it was very difficult to bring in the children. There were
fifty cars trying to go through this circle drive.
Emanuel Rousonelos, 3103 York Road, testified that he believes the preschool has a positive effect
on the children, which will hopefully be good future citizens of the Oak Brook area. They do not
have a personal affiliation with the Church.
Trustee Savino suggested that the Park District has a system with their preschool program, the
parents drive adjacent to the facility, and they come out and assist the parents and children. So
they stand and never park.
Jill Fleischman, 3109 York Road, testified that she lives directly across the street of the proposal.
She said that she is in favor of all of the requests and she will be in favor of the parking request
when it comes forward.
Member Payovich moved, seconded by Member Tappin with the agreement of the applicant, Christ
Church of Oak Brook to table the portion of the hearing relating to the allowance to the 100 foot
setback on York Road for a new parking lot.
Voice Vote: All in favor. Motion passed.
. Member Payovich moved, seconded by Member Tappin that the Special Use as amended as
follows is deemed necessary for the public convenience and will be operated so that the public
health, safety and welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in
which it is located. The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend approval for
the following:
a. The addition of two nurture and care rooms adjacent to the Sanctuary;
b. The creation of an Audio/Visual Center above the Bridge;
C. An allowance from the 100-foot setback to allow for the expansion of the existing
kitchen, including a new preschool atrium entrance;
d. To be built in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted;
e. Final Engineering approval.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
Vl. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL USE FOR THE 2001
ROADWAY PAVING PROJECT in TIMBER TRAILS SUBDIVISION
• Village Engineer Durfey reviewed the proposed project. He reviewed a typical section in the
Timber Trails Subdivision as shown on page D of the petition file. He explained that they are
adding two-foot wide concrete shoulders on each side like they did previously in Ginger Creek,
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
16
_V_L�
Yorkshire Woods and Woodside Estates. There is some minor filling in the flood plain. They are
compensating the proposed grades and regrading of swales as well as an outlet pipe in a lot just
• south of Merry Lane to discharge the water to Salt Creek.
The consultant engineers have designed it match the 1:5 to 1 compensatory storage requirement.
He reviewed the flood plain map and noted that Forest Trail is the main north/south street. The
areas in the flood plain are the areas in question. The existing road varies anywhere from 18 to 21
feet; the proposal is to make their roadways a uniform 19 feet wide as to edge of asphalt, plus the
two feet concrete shoulders. The roadside swales will probably be in a minimum range depth of 6
inches and perhaps as deep as 2 to 2.5 feet. There will be some tree loss for constructing new
roadside swales along the roadside rights of way. During construction, they will try to mitigate and
fine tune as much as possible to limit tree loss and damage to existing landscaping.
Village Engineer Durfey advised that the stream dredging the State did after the 1987 flood and the
Quarry should lower the water levels 1 to 1.5 feet, but those calculations from those agencies have
not been done yet.
The 11 factors as required by Ordinance are on page 7 of the petition files.
Chairman Aktipis asked which streets will be narrowed and which will be widened. Village Engineer
Durfey responded some of both, because the streets meander throughout and are not uniform.
Member Pequet questioned whether there was a procedure or process when trees are removed,
that the Village replace it with another tree. Village Engineer Durfey responded not specifically.
The Public Works Department has a tree program and they will begin to start planting selectively in
those areas. There has not been anything in Yorkshire Woods yet, but he expects that they will
begin to do that. They will probably do the same thing in this subdivision.
Member Payovich added that the Yorkshire Woods project turned out very nice and they mitigated
• the removal of the trees, removing as few as possible. Chairman Aktipis said that they then have a
program for replanting. Village Engineer Durfey responded that it is a long-term program. The
Public Works Department handles it and it is a matter of dollars, which are very tight.
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Pequet that the Flood Plain Special Use as
requested is deemed necessary for the public convenience and will be operated so that the public
health, safety and welfare are protected and there will be no substantial injury to other property in
which it is located. The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to recommend approval.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3 - Allen, Girgis, and Goel
Motion Carried.
V/l. ADJOURNMENT
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Pequet to adjourn.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
L_
Director of Community Development
Secretary
• February 19, 2001
Date Approved
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 15, 2001
17
vE OF 0.44,
�9
� o
o
® �A
O tq
G 0
• 9C�COUN7I
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
1200 OAK BROOK ROAD
OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60523 - 2255
PHONE: 630 990 -3000
FAX : 630 990-0876
NOTICE OF MEETING CHANGE W E B S I T E: www.oak-brook.org
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the agenda of the regular Plan Commission Meeting of
Monday, February 19, 2001 is hereby CHANGED as follows:
Monday, REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 p.m.
February 19 Village Commons - Samuel E. Dean Board Room
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
• 2. Approval of Minutes
3. Village of Oak Brook-Zoning Ordinance Review Project-
Title 13 of the Village Code-Revisions to Chapter 12 Off-Street
Parking and Loading
4. Christ Church of Oak Brook-501 Oak Brook Road-Amended Special Use
for Expansion of Church Facilities with Allowances to the 100 Foot Setback
on York Road for a New Parking Lot'
5. Yorkshire Glen of Oak Brook-4 Yorkshire Drive-Final Plat of
Subdivision- 7-Lot Subdivision"
6. Oak Brook Hines Development L.L.C.- 700-800 Commerce Drive- Text
Amendment- Title 13 of the Village Code-Revision to Chapter 10A-3-A
to Increase the Maximum F.A.R. in ORA-1 Districts from.45 to.6
7. Other Business
'Item 4 of the Plan Commission Agenda- The petitioner has requested a continuance to the March 19, 2001 Plan
Commission Meeting.
"Item 5 of the Plan Commission Agenda- The petitioner has requested a continuance to the March 19, 2001 Plan
Commission Meeting.
If you have any questions regarding the changes on this Notice, contact the Community
Development Department at 630-990-3045.
In accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, any individual who is in need of a
• reasonable accommodation in order to participate in or benefit from attendance at a public meeting of the
Village of Oak Brook should contact Michael Crotty, the Village's ADA Coordinator at 630-990-5738 as soon
as possible before the meeting date.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
February 19, 2001
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Stephen Allen
Members Samuel Girgis
Barbara Payovich
David Pequet
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Stelios Aktipis
Members Surendra Goel
Anthony Tappin
ALSO PRESENT: Director of Community Development Robert Kallien
A quorum was present.
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich to appoint Member Allen as Acting
• Chairman.
VOICE VOTE: All in Favor. Motion carried.
Il. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Payovich moved, seconded by Member Pequet, to waive the reading of the January 15,
2001, Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as amended.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed.
Acting Chairman Allen said that the agenda items will be taken out of order.
Ill. OAK BROOK HINES DEVELOPMENT L.L.C. —700-800 COMMERCE — TEXT
AMENDMENT TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE— REVISION TO CHAPTER 10A-3-
A TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM F.A.R. IN ORA-1 DISTRICTS FROM.45 TO .60
Richard Klawiter, Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe, attorney for the petitioner, reviewed the
proposed text amendment and the subject site that will benefit from the request. The site is at 700-
800 Commerce Drive, which is a pair of office buildings and the owner of each is Oak Brook Hines
Development L.L.C., headquartered in Chicago. The subject site is approximately 15 acres located
north of 1-88 and south of Harger Road, currently zoned ORA-1. The request is for a text
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to change the maximum permitted F.A.R. from the current .45
F.A.R. to .6 in the ORA-1 District.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 19, 2001
1
�L�
The short-term specific request is to develop approximately 14,290 square feet in the basement of
the existing 700 Commerce Drive office building in order to accommodate a series of tenant
• requests for additional space. The effect of this increase would be to increase the F.A.R. for the
site from .45 to .47. Their request to change the F.A.R. from .45 to .6 is to solve a longer-term
problem. This is driven by their concern that in order to be competitive in the market and for the
Village to remain competitive in attracting perspective tenants in existing buildings and potential
developable buildings, that the actual F.A.R. allowable be increased to a degree higher than .47.
This change is consistent with proposals that have been before the Village for some time known as
the Lohan Report. The report contemplates in certain office and commercial areas an actual
F.A.R. of 1.2, which is not inconsistent with sound long-range planning objectives. This request is
much more conservative request than contemplated. There is an inconsequential impact on the
subject property, since all use, bulk and density requirements would continue to be adhered to.
The parking count is more than the Zoning Ordinance minimum requirements — 1 per 300 square
feet. The site overall will essentially remain unchanged. There will not be an increase in lot
coverage because the current proposal is to increase the floor area ratio by recharacterizing a
portion of the footprint from being a non-leasable area to a leasable area. Although the specific
request is to increase the F.A.R. to allow the proposed development, they have a longer-term
concern, which is what is behind the request to increase it to .60. In order to attract and retain
existing tenants and to be able to have the flexibility down the road to be able to build to .6 F.A.R.
on an overall site basis. The current request would not have an impact on increasing or decreasing
side yard setbacks. They are taking space that is now allocated to parking and converting it to
leasable space for office use.
The proposed text amendment meets the qualifications of the Zoning Ordinance, as follows:
The proposed increase in F.A.R. will increase the value of surrounding commercial properties by
• promoting commercial development and expansion, while having little or no impact on nearby
neighborhoods.
The proposed increased F.A.R. will allow the property and others to be used to their full potential
and the increase in density will make the density of development for commercial properties
consistent with that in nearby municipalities. This was all set forth in the Lohan Report. Many
nearby communities, including those, which Oak Brook is most competitive with in the attraction
and retention of existing tenants, have a F.A.R. somewhat in excess of .45. In Schaumburg, their
office business district allows for a maximum F.A.R. of .8. In Itasca, their office district closely
associated with the ORA-1 District in Oak Brook, allows for a maximum F.A.R. of .6. What they are
seeking is more conservative than contemplated by the Lohan report and no more liberal than
allowed in neighboring municipalities which are most like Oak Brook.
Roger Heerema, Project Architect, Wright Architects, described the essential components of the
site plan. McDonald's occupies the entire 800 Commerce building. There are 1112 parking spaces,
of those, 55 are located within the lower level concourse of the 700 Commerce building. They are
proposing to eliminate the use of a portion of those within the lower level only. The site plan from a
parking perspective will remain unchanged. There is a one level deck and access to the concourse
level parking through a ramp that proceeds down on the north side of the building adjacent to the
two berth loading dock. They are proposing to add windows on the southwestern section of the
building, at grade. The overall character of the building will be maintained. The site will be
maintained as it currently exists, even with the elimination of 30 cars in the concourse, they will still
be in excess of the required parking spaces.
Greg Van Schaack, Vice-President and Partner with Hines Development said that the genesis for
this request is that they have been very successful in leasing the space in this building. 700
Commerce is 100% leased and occupied. They were able to attract the tenant Premier from
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 19, 2001
2
neighboring Westchester and they occupy about 60% of the building. They have also attracted
Regis Business Centers and they occupy the entire 5th floor. McDonald's occupies 100% of 800
Commerce. They purchased the property from McDonald's and McDonald's has leased the space
back from Hines. They have had requests from McDonald's, Premier and other tenants for
expansion space and this proposal is the best solution they can come up with on a short-term
basis, to build out the concourse level. This will accomplish short-term goals, but does not as
F.A.R. as long-term goals. It was built in 1967 and looks that way. In order to retain McDonald's
and accommodate their long-term growth, the .6 F.A.R. will give Hines the flexibility to plan ahead
and determine whether to add a floor or two to the building, or tear it down and start over with in the
same footprint; or do something long-term to keep this very important tenant base that they have
established and allow them to grow within the site.
Member Girgis questioned where the Village Board stands on the Lohan Report.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the report was done several years ago.
Since then, there have been a few presentations have been made and a joint workshop was held.
There has been some consensus made on what the maximum F.A.R. should be in each of the
districts. The Lohan Report originally anticipated a much higher F.A.R. across the board, but by
doing so, the traffic improvements that would be required would be very extensive. In some places,
it was recommended that the F.A.R. be ratcheted down. It was envisioned that an amendment
would have been made to the Master Plan that incorporated the F.A.R.'s as well as the
transportation element including required infrastructure improvements. The Village hopes to
accomplish this in the near future. It was felt that Hines could pursue the increased F.A.R. to
accommodate what they need to have done. This was the reason for the suggestion in the staff
report, to either recommend the .6 or a number that accommodates what they need to do and gives
the Village the flexibility to do an analysis for recommendation to the Comprehensive Plan.
• Acting Chairman Allen said that at this point the Lohan Report is still under review in terms of what
was reviewed at the Joint meeting with the Village Board. Director of Community Development
Kallien said that there is an understanding as to what the Village wants to achieve, but it has not
been formally adopted or incorporated into the Village's Comprehensive Plan document.
No one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the request.
Member Girgis questioned whether the lower level of the building as proposed would be in harmony
with the existing fagade. Roger Heerema said that they reviewed several possibilities, and
although the proposed opening contrasts with the treatment above, the lower level is a separate
element. Greg Van Schaack said that they are pleased with the design as proposed because it
gives the building a top, middle and bottom with a design that is timeless.
Acting Chairman Allen questioned that to make this particular project work, a .47 F.A.R, is what is
currently needed and that .6 is needed for the future. Greg Van Schaack agreed, and added that
they expect to be in discussions with McDonald's in the near future about expansion at the 800
Commerce building. They are hoping that the Village will try to help them solve that problem.
Member Pequet questioned if everyone could comply with the parking requirements, how much
would the increased .6 F.A.R. impact the district. It could be a much larger impact than this
property alone and could possibly add another million square feet to that district.
Greg Van Schaack said that many of the office building lots are too small to accommodate the
parking that would be required by the increased F.A.R. of .6.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 19, 2001
3
�Lz
Acting Chairman Allen questioned when they envisioned addressing the need for McDonald's?
Greg Van Schaack said probably not for 2 or 3 years, but the planning would require McDonald's to
• know well in advance for them to decide whether or not to stay. Due to the lack of space in Oak
Brook, they have had to move to space in Downers Grove and Warrenville. They do desire to stay
as close to the headquarters as they can.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that one of the considerations to .6 is that it will
not apply to just this particular building. If you would look at all of the ORA-1 parcels in the
community, many are built very close to the maximum under the current .45 regulations. Increased
F.A.R. would require redevelopment of the parcel, demolition of the existing structure and rebuilt.
They would also have to build parking structures. If someone were to assemble a number of
parcels, it could have a significant impact on traffic in a particular area. There is a consensus from
the Village Board that the Lohan Report offered opportunities, with a F.A.R. that we could work
towards. He suggested that if the petitioner has a future plan, the Village would like to see that
specific plan.
Member Pequet asked if they increase the F.A.R. by 33%, how is the entire district impacted?
Member Pequet said that if the F.A.R. was raised from .45 to .6, in the area proposed where it is
underbuilt right now, would double the square footage allowed with the proposed change. In District
2 West alone, would allow additional cars, probably many thousands.
Acting Chairman Allen said that at the Joint meeting when the Lohan Report was discussed, the
concern was whether the infrastructure would be able to support increased F.A.R.'s. The overall
impact on the District might have some demands that could require infrastructure improvements.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that a companion text amendment would be
• necessary to the Building Regulations of the Village Code. It requires that any utilization of
additional floor area ratio, a traffic study must be done. If there were a requirement that off-site
improvements be necessary, then the developer would be required to enter into an agreement to
make those improvements.
Greg Van Schaack said that for McDonald's at the corner of Spring Road and Commerce Drive, the
Plaza 2 site has been upgraded to a .8 F.A.R. and they are allowed to go to a 1.2 if they perform
certain improvements. He asked if there was a possibility to increase the F.A.R. on a case by case
basis. Many buildings are full and occupied with long-term leases.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that without the text amendment, he does not see
a mechanism outside of granting a variation to this property to allow the .6. The proposed text
amendment to the Code would allow the .6 for all properties in the ORA-1 District.
Rich Klawiter said that even though the .6 would be potentially eligible to be taken advantage of by
the properties in the ORA-1 District, in order to pull a building permit they would have to
demonstrate from a traffic impact standpoint, that the impact on the proposed development on the
neighboring street system is accommodated by the traffic generation expected to be given off by
the increase size of the development with the number of cars generated for the given development.
The Village Board would have the right to approve or not, for any given development proposal
whether or not to allow the increase in the F.A.R. They felt that their objectives and the Villages'
were in harmony and this proposal was a win/win situation from the standpoint of the Village
wanting to ensure that the existing and prospective tenants consider Oak Brook to be a the top of
the list in terms of the place to locate by virtue of location and amenities. The Village in terms of its
• long-term objectives is becoming less competitive vis a vis other municipalities. It would represent
good long-term sound planning for the Village to adopt a text amendment of this sort. If that were
not the case, they would be willing to process the request as a variation.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 19, 2001
4
12
Acting Chairman Allen responded that the one problem the Village does not want to create, that
Schaumburg has and Oak Brook does to some extent, is gridlock. You cannot move when
• accessing or exiting some of these areas during the a.m./p.m. rush hour. The plan as presented
appears to be well thought out, but his suggestion is to take the matter slowly. Additional text
amendment's can always be made, if they are presented.
Member Pequet further added that the Commission may not necessarily be in disagreement with
the .6 F.A.R., but there are F.A.R. reaching ramifications that they do not want to set a precedent.
The change could have significant impacts to the surrounding area, and they do not know what all
they truly could be. They would be more attuned to accommodate the petitioner's specific situation.
Seeking direction, Rich Klawiter said the feeling he is receiving from the Commission is that should
a plan be submitted down the road and justify an increase on a site specific basis in F.A.R. .45 to
.6, and if the Commission is persuaded based upon the information provided, could recommend
approval for this particular site. Their concern is that in terms of the long-range planning with the
expiring leases, particularly in the McDonald's building, they cannot reassure McDonald's that the
request can be granted. They are seeking to marry their long-range purposes with the Village's
long range purposes and planning, and come up with a solution that would be responsive to both.
If the Commission is not comfortable with the F.A.R.-reaching potential consequences of the .6
increase; they asked that the Commission recommend an increase to at least allow them to do the
immediate development. They also asked for direction in terms of whether or not the Commission
would be amenable to a request so that they can go back to McDonald's with all the flexibility they
need in order to accommodate them as a tenant. They will not want to wait until six months before
their lease expires to renew their lease. There is a degree of long-range planning that needs to be
made, in order to be successful.
• Rich Klawiter said that they approached the request using the most conservative estimates in the
Lohan Report.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that if the Village Board ultimately adopts .48 that
means all parcels in Oak Brook zoned ORA-1 would also have the ability to build to .48. They
would still need to meet the setbacks and parking requirements, and would have to comply with the
building codes. Approving the .48 shows a willingness to work with the developer to deal with a
current day situation. It also shows that there may be more work that staff and the Plan
Commission need to do in terms of analysis and what this all means. If someone asked what the
net impact would be to go from .45 to .6, you could quantify it and say another million or so square
feet would be added. However, when you look at the individual buildings, literally you would say for
that to happen, each one would have to be torn down and rebuilt, and so on. There is a need to
look down to the various parcels that are zoned ORA-1. In the petitioner's case, there may be a
way to add on to the 800 building with some modest structured parking to meet their needs.
However, with other buildings in the ORA-1 District they would most likely have to literally start
over.
Member Girgis questioned the difference from the petitioner's standpoint to seek a variance rather
than the text amendment. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the variation
process would require the applicant meeting all of the factors for a variation, including hardship,
unique circumstance, and that the request is worthy of the additional relief. Oak Brook seems to
have a history that makes the variation process difficult. In this case, hardship is not a physical one,
but wanting to do more with the property that what is allowed. If the Lohan study had never been
done, a variation would have been the only avenue the applicant would have been able to use.
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich the proposed Text Amendment to
increase the F.A.R. from .45 to .48 is deemed necessary for the public convenience and will be
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 19, 2001
5
1__�
operated so that the public health, safety and welfare are protected and there will be no substantial
injury to other property in which it is located. The petitioner has met the requirements necessary to
• recommend subject to the proposed text amendment to read as follows:
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Allen, Girgis, Payovich, and Pequet
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3 - Aktipis, Goel and Tappin
Motion Carried.
IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK- ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TITLE 13
OF THE VILLAGE CODE — REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 3 GENERAL ZONING
PROVISIONS AND CHAPTER 12 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
The petitioner in this case is the Village of Oak Brook. Director of Community Development, Robert
Kallien said that the review of Chapter 3 was concluded at the last meeting. Tonight the discussion
will pertain to a number of proposed changes to Chapter 12. Chairman Aktipis and Village Board
Trustee Liaison Savino are both very interested in this chapter. As such, instead of reviewing the
document and revisiting the issues again at the next meeting, he proposes to review several items
that he wanted to bring to their attention prior to the next meeting.
Section 13-12-4-J of page 9-d in the staff report, recommends language for landscaping,
screening, and design of new parking decks. The concept would be to enhance the appearance of
these new structures. Additional language relating to architecture and design has been proposed
which should provide visual consistency between the parking structure and the principal building.
This case is very appropriate in light of their previous discussion with Hines. To get to a .6 F.A.R.,
• there will have to be a significant amount of redevelopment, which will include the construction of
numerous parking decks to accommodate the many thousands of new cars. Now there is an
opportunity, and Oak Brook has been very careful over the years to ensure that the architecture of
the principal building is reflective of the goals of the community and there are very visual pleasing
buildings for the most part. However, with parking structures, there are some that look nice and
others that look very average. The goal should be that when you end up with a nice looking
building, the characteristics of the building need to be drawn into the design and architecture of the
parking deck. There is an opportunity here to make a statement with the buildings. Around the
country, there are some structures from the outside that you would not realize you were looking at
a parking deck. On the outside, they are hidden by retail uses or living units with the parking deck
behind.
Member Girgis said that concept was brought up in the Lohan Report. Director of Community
Development Kallien said that a good traffic/parking study could anticipate how uses would feed off
one another. When the Marriott was proposing an expansion, we talked about a shared parking
arrangement that would not conflict with the adjacent office uses. There may be an opportunity to
see additional retail added to the buildings to service the people that actually use the building. This
would then create different trip generations. At the next meeting, if anyone is aware of any parking
structures that are truly unique advise us of the location.
Section 13-12-5, The required off-street parking standard for each of the land uses has been
reviewed and updated where appropriate. Please review the zoning ordinance to see what uses
exist and the parking ratios that have been established. Throughout the region, communities have
a wide variation of what they require for parking. The size of the building does not necessarily
reflect on the demands of the parking and utilization. We need to review what our parking ratios
• are and make sure they are relevant to where the Village is going.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 19, 2001
6
Member Girgis questioned if there is any type of guideline that can be used. Director of Community
Development Kallien said that ITT (International Traffic Trip Generation manual) is a manual that
traffic engineers have surveyed all of the various land uses to find out what the parking
requirements are. The problem is that in the book they will say that the average office space has a
utilization of .9 to 10. They come up with a mid-range number, which results in the 3.3 or 4, or 4.5.
We need to look to see if there are situations in Oak Brook that has a parking issue, and therefore
we must come up with parking standards.
Acting Chairman Allen said that there might also be a need for uses that are changing. If there is a
plan for a daycare center that has traffic coming and going, and then down the road the use for the
building changes, and the requirement that worked for one use may not work for another.
Especially the way businesses come and go today, Member Pequet said that with data processing
needs are, hundreds of people can be packed into a smaller area, so the industry can have a big
impact.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that they are also now businesses that have
people work from home part of the time. Member Pequet said that it almost seems it is the ratio
per employee versus the square footage.
Acting Chairman Allen said that the Village wants to have an orderly growth and control it, but you
do not want to scare the growth further west.
Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Pequet, to continue this hearing to the next regular
Plan Commission meeting date set for March 19, 2001.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Allen, Girgis, Payovich, and Pequet
Nays: 0 -
Absent:
-Absent: 3 - Aktipis, Goel and Tappin
Motion Carried.
V. CHRIST CHURCH OF OAK BROOK- 501 OAK BROOK ROAD — AMENDED
SPECIAL USE FOR EXPANSION OF CHURCH FACILITIES WITH ALLOWANCES
TO THE 100 FOOT SETBACK ON YORK ROAD FOR AN ADDITION of A NEW
PARKING LOT(PHASE B)
The petitioner requested that the hearing be continued to the next Plan Commission meeting set
for March 19, 2001.
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed.
VI. YORKSHIRE GLEN OF OAK BROOK L.L.C. — 4 YORKSHIRE DRIVE— FINAL PLAT
OF SUBDIVISION— 7-LOT SUBDIVISION
The petitioner requested that the hearing be continued to the next Plan Commission meeting set
for March 19, 2001.
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich
• VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 19, 2001
7
-0L�(
Vll. ADJOURNMENT
• Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Payovich to adjourn.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. k
-A`.
/';b
Director of Communityvv
lopment
Secretary
March 19. 2001
Date Approved
•
•
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes February 19, 2001
8
February 23, 2001
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
1200 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook, Illinois 60523
NOTICE
MARCH 2001
THURSDAY, HOTEL, CONVENTION & VISITORS COMMITTEE 5:00 P.M.
MARCH 1 MEETING RESCHEDULED SEE BELOW
TUESDAY, REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING 7:30 P.M.
MARCH 6 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Oak Brook Hines Development L.L.C.— 700-800 Commerce—Text Amendment—Title 13 of the
Village Code-Revision to Chapter 1OA-3-A to Increase the Maximum F.A.R. in ORA-1 Districts
from.45 to.60**
4. Village of Oak Brook—Zoning Ordinance Review Project—Text Amendment—Title 13 of the
Village Code-Revisions to Chapter 12 Off-Street Parking and Loading*
5. Other Business
THURSDAY, HOTEL, CONVENTION & VISITORS COMMITTEE 5:00 P.M.
MARCH 8 Village Commons—Upper Level Conference Room
THURSDAY, OAK BROOK 2001 AUTUMN FESTIVAL COMMITTEE 7:00 P.M.
MARCH 8 Oak Brook Golf Club-2606 York Road
TUESDAY, REGULAR BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING 7:30 P.M.
MARCH 13 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
WEDNESDAY, OAK BROOK SAFETY PATHWAY COMMITTEE 7:30 P.M.
MARCH 14 Village Commons—Upper Level Conference Room
MONDAY, REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 P.M.
MARCH 19 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Christ Church of Oak Brook—501 Oak Brook Road—Amended Special Use for Expansion
of Church Facilities with Allowances to the 100 Foot Setback on York Road for an Addition to
the Building and a New Parking Lot(Phase B)
4. Yorkshire Glen of Oak Brook—4 Yorkshire Drive-Final Plat of Subdivision— 7 Lot Subdivision
5. Mon Ami Gabi—260 Oakbrook Center—Special Use Outdoor Dining Area Adjacent to a Restaurant
6. Village of Oak Brook—Zoning Ordinance Review Project—Text Amendment—Title 13 of the
Village Code-Revisions to Chapter 12 Off-Street Parking and Loading
7. Other Business
MONDAY, COMMITTEE-OF-THE-WHOLE MEETING 7:30 P.M.
MARCH 26 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
MTG-NOT-01-MAR
February 23, 2001
TUESDAY, REGULAR BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING 7:30 P.M.
MARCH 27 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
'Item 3 on the Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda-Legal Notice for public hearing was published in the Daily Herald on November 8, 2000
"Item 4 on the Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda-Legal Notice for public hearing was published in the Daily Herald on February 8, 2001
In accordance with the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act, any individual who is in need of a reasonable
accommodation in order to participate in or benefit from attendance at a public meeting of the Village of Oak Brook should
contact Michael Crotty, the Village's ADA Coordinator, at 630-990-5738, as soon as possible before the meeting date.
NOTE: Changes to this schedule will be noticed separately.
MTG-NOT-01-MAR
r
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
March 19, 2001
L CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Stelios Aktipis
Members Stephen Allen
Samuel Girgis
Barbara Payovich
MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Surendra Goel
David Pequet
Anthony Tappin
ALSO PRESENT: Director of Community Development Robert Kallien
Village Engineer Dale Durfey
A quorum was present.
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Allen, to waive the reading of the February 19, 2001,
Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as amended.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed.
Ill. CHRIST CHURCH OF OAK BROOK- 501 OAK BROOK ROAD — AMENDED
SPECIAL USE FOR EXPANSION OF CHURCH FACILITIES WITH ALLOWANCES
TO THE 100 FOOT SETBACK ON YORK ROAD FOR AN ADDITION of A NEW
PARKING LOT(PHASE B)
The petitioner requested that the hearing be continued to the next Plan Commission meeting set
for April 16, 2001.
Member Payovich moved, seconded by Member Allen to continue the hearing to April 16, 2001.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed.
•
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes March 19, 2001
1
2L
IV. YORKSHIRE GLEN OF OAK BROOK L.L.C. — 4 YORKSHIRE DRIVE— FINAL PLAT
OF SUBDIVISION— 7-LOT SUBDIVISION
Ed Resner, Eddy Resner Engineering, represented the petitioner in the request for a final plat of
subdivision. They have revised the engineering drawings and details to comply with Village
standards.
Member Girgis said that during the preliminary review a neighbor was concerned with headlights
coming into the home and asked if the matter was settled. Mr. Resner responded that the
headlights would go more towards the garage doors than the living room. If the road were moved,
as they were willing to do, the car lights would then be forced into the dining room/living room area
of the neighbor.
Chairman Aktipis asked Village Engineer Durfey whether the petitioner has provided all the
necessary information that satisfies the engineering requirements. Village Engineer Durfey
responded that the final plat is in substantial conformance with the preliminary plat that was
previously approved. Conceptually, he does not have a problem, things can be handled, it just
takes time to get all the details and meet the Village standards.
Chairman Aktipis asked Village Engineer Durfey about waiving the streetlight requirement. Village
Engineer Durfey said to look at the character of the area. There are no streetlights now in
Yorkshire Woods, Timber Trails or Woodside Estates. This area does not have streetlights. In
some of the other smaller subdivisions to south on York Road, streetlights were required. The
character of the neighborhood has to be weighed versus what the streetlight might bring.
Member Payovich said that it is dark on that street corner. With all the cars coming in and out of
the entrance, perhaps some discreet lighting might be beneficial. Village Engineer Durfey said that
• a streetlight does enhance safety at an intersection. Member Payovich would be in favor of some
sort of street lighting there. Mr. Resner said that it is a private street, and the types of homes that
will be built will invest in significant funds in private lighting and security. It will not go without lights,
the street is private with only six driveway curb cuts on the street. Member Payovich said that she
drives that street every evening and with cars coming out and kids with bikes and it is dark through
that area. There must be some sort of soft lighting that can accentuate that there is an entrance so
people will pay attention. Mr. Resner said that he could suggest an ornamental lighting fixture that
does not add glare or direct lighting into other people's homes and is a reasonable planning
feature.
Village Engineer Durfey noted that if a streetlight were required, the typical Village standard would
be a 20-foot high, box-type structure with 150-watt high-pressured sodium bulb, which lights the
intersection and street. A shield can be placed on it to keep the light from going into the home of
the one homeowner. If the Village would like to go to something different it would need to be
reviewed. He is not familiar with ornamental lights, there are many different kinds and most of
them have a bulb that spills out light, whereas the box light goes down to the pavement and not into
windows. However, there may be an ornamental light that may do both.
Mr. Resner suggested that if it is kept as a private light, the homeowners association can maintain
it and then it will not be effected by Village standards. It will be a light to meet the intent of what
has been discussed this evening. Staff can review it and compare it to other locations. Member
Allen said that in Brook Forest there are no streetlights. Village Engineer Durfey said that the final
decision would be left up to the Village Board, because it is a subdivision requirement unless it is
waived or amended by the Board. As of now, they have to put a street light system in, not just one
light. Typically, the Village Board waives them, except at intersections. The current standard is
• that if one is put in at the intersection, it must be a Village standard light. The private subdivisions
like Midwest Club, have there own ornamental lighting because they are private streets.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes March 19, 2001
2
ZA�_
Chairman Aktipis suggested that the Plan Commission not provide for a waiver of street lighting
and to let the Village Board decide.
No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal.
Member Payovich moved, seconded by Member Allen to recommend for approval of the Final Plat
for the Yorkshire Glen of Oak Brook Subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1. Each of the items identified by Village Engineer Durfey in his letter dated March 13, 2001.
2. A better representation of the wall rendering before it goes to the Village Board.
3. Streetlight requirements will not be waived.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Allen, Girgis, Payovich and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3 - Goel, Pequet and Tappin
Motion Carried.
V. MON AMI GABI — 260 OAKBROOK CENTER — SPECIAL USE — OUTDOOR DINING
ADJACENT TO A RESTAURANT
Jay Stieber, Vice President — Finance, General Counsel, Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc.,
Chicago, Illinois reviewed the petitioner's request for the outdoor dining area. This proposal for
outdoor dining is similar to those previously approved for Maggiano's and Papagus.
Christopher Meers, Divisional Supervisor, Mon Ami Gabi, reviewed the materials to be used. The
fencing will be wrought iron going around the outside of the patio. It will fit into sleeves that go into
• the cemented patio. The tables are black granite with a wrought iron base and an interwoven
lattice-backed chair, similar to those in the bar area. There are ten-foot umbrellas. The French
doors will open into the patio area. Planters will be on the outside and they are working with
Oakbrook Center on landscape materials. There will be 40 seats in the outdoor dining area. The
design and operation will be such that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected.
Member Girgis questioned pedestrian traffic and was advised that it is a dead-end area to
pedestrian traffic.
No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal.
Member Allen moved, seconded by Member Girgis that the petitioner has met the requirements
necessary to recommend approval of the proposed special use and that the public health, safety
and welfare will be protected subject to the following conditions:
1. The outdoor dining area including the perimeter planter/barrier will be constructed in
substantial conformance with the plans as submitted on page H of the petition file
2. The dining area will be operated in accordance with the rules of operations submitted as
follows:
a. The dining area may be set up between April 1 and April 15, and will be removed on or
before October 15 of each year.
b. The outdoor dining area will be maintained and cleaned and shall comply with all
applicable requirements of the DuPage County Health Department.
c. The area will be power washed at the end of the season.
• d. No more than 40 seats will be provided, as is reflected on the seating plans.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes March 19, 2001
3
e. The barrier system will be of metal and iron planter boxes that will be similar in design to
the interior metal work and railings. They will meet or exceed the barricade standards
. as approved by the Village.
f. The emergency egress gate will open out only and be three feet wide.
g. No signage or banners will be placed in the outdoor dining area.
h. On or before October 15, all equipment, including the railings will be removed and the
sidewalk area will be restored to its original condition including patching or plugging
holes, if necessary.
i. A minimum of a six-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the outdoor dining area will be
maintained at all times.
j. There will be no live music, dancing or other entertainment in the outdoor area.
k. A waiter station, similar in design to the barrier planter boxes, will be installed with self -
contained water and electricity to facilitate service to the outdoor tables. This station will
be covered and locked during non-use.
I. The up lights in the sidewalk will be deactivated for the season and covered with metal
plates in place of the glass lenses. No additional lighting, except for table candles, will
be provided.
m. The planters will be water tight with internal drainage to allow for live greenery and
seasonal flowers as approved by Oakbrook Center.
n. Access to the outdoor dining area shall be through the restaurant only.
• ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Allen, Girgis, Payovich and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 3 - Goel, Pequet and Tappin
Motion Carried.
Vl. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT
AMENDMENT TITLE 13 of the VILLAGE CODE — REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 12
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
The petitioner in this case is the Village of Oak Brook. Director of Community Development,
Robert Kallien reviewed Chapter 12 of the Off-Street Parking and Loading on page 9c-9d of the
petition file. Throughout the text of Chapter 12 (Page 3-3o) there is a general update of the text to
include clarification of vague terminology and add or delete certain language to improve readability.
Section 13-12-1-a (page 9c) Scope of Regulations, recommends decreasing the maximum
timeframe from six months to ninety (90) days to begin construction of required parking for permits
issued. This is consistent with language found in other portions of the Village code that regulates
the timeframe for building permits. Building permits are good for 90 days from date of issuance,
the time can be extended, but this proposed change would make the timeframe consistent for the
permits issued.
Section 12-1-D. The new language establishes the responsibilities of the Village Engineer within
the context of this chapter. Previously, part of this chapter was given to the Village Engineer and
the rest was given to the Director of Community Development Kallien. It is the recommendation of
. the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC) that all of the administrative responsibilities be
given to the Community Development Department. Any new structure or parking activity that would
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes March 19, 2001
4
1�L <
require engineering permits, the Village Engineer would have the full authority to review and
• approve those plans. This helps to clarify the administration.
Section 13-12-3. Damage or Destruction of Uses. They recommend this section be moved to the
end of Chapter 12. Attorney Martens has stated that once the entire Ordinance update is
completed, we will ask that this section be deleted. It really applies to issues of nonconformance
and noncompliance, and those issues are handled in other chapters of the Ordinance.
Section 13-12-3-B. Location. This language permits required off-street parking on an adjacent
parcel. The new Residence Inn Hotel was approved with this ordinance language being part of its
special use. Their proposal was a little ahead of their proposed update. They are confirming the
right to allow required parking to be located on an adjacent parcel if it is within 300 feet. This
provision will probably only apply as part of a redevelopment proposal.
Section 13-12-3-C. Size and Aisles. Clarifies the parking space width for both office and hotel
uses as eight-foot-six. In the original code, office uses had the ability to construct eight-foot six-
inch wide spaces, while all other uses were required to be nine feet. In Oak Brook, office and
hotels are complimentary to each other. The types of hotels are full service where people do not
come and go all day long. The parking demand and utilization are quite similar as those required
for office.
Section 13-12-3-D. Timing of Construction. This recommended language would permit a portion
of the required parking to be landbanked or set aside for future construction when it is determined
by the Village to be warranted. This could possibly come into play if there were a large
redevelopment project that would mix a number of different uses. If office, retail and service type
uses were mixed there may not be a need to provide all of the required parking based on the
square footage of each of the spaces, because each may have spaces that do not have a peak
need or requirement at the same time. In the Shopping Center, there are office uses that have
• peak parking generation during the day, but in the evening, there is no need, so the parking that is
available is adequate for retail. If the parking is not needed, there is no reason to construct it
ahead of time.
Chairman Aktipis said that it makes good sense to not build something if it is not needed. His
concern is how it will be triggered to add parking when the need arises. He is concerned that there
may be a timing gap. He would like to see a triggering mechanism added that would review the
anticipated need early on.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the parking for the entire use, would be
engineered up front and planned for and would be depicted on any building permits. The Village
would give them the ability to phase in the actual construction if requested. Village Engineer
Durfey said that land planners in general say to minimize parking. Businesses would not want to
hurt themselves by not having enough parking for its tenants and customers. The business force
behind triggering needed parking spaces may be more driving than the Village force.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the 2001 York Road office building only
requires 3.3 spaces per thousand square feet but John Buck wanted close to 5 spaces because
their business plan required that much parking. A change in tenant could be used as a trigger
mechanism.
Member Allen questioned how the land would be used while it is Iandbanked. Director of
Community Development Kallien responded that it would be grass. Village Engineer Durfey added
that erosion provisions of the code would require at least grass for permanent erosion control.
Weeds are not an erosion control mechanism.
• Section 13-12-3-J. Collective Provision. They are recommending additional language, which would
permit the sharing of excess parking spaces to contiguous parcels. This is under the concept of
sharing one's excess parking spaces for the benefit of others. The caveat is the use giving up
some of its spaces would have adequate parking spaces for its parking demands. An example
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes March 19, 2001
5
.t",
would be a hotel between two large office buildings; the hotel may need more parking spaces in the
• evening hours and weekends, rather than during the day when the office use requires more
spaces.
Member Girgis and Allen asked whether there would be a liability issue for the Village or for each of
the parties. Director of Community Development Kallien said that would be best answered by the
Village Attorney regarding any liability. Member Girgis said that if we allow such an arrangement
there should be guidelines that address it. Member Allen said perhaps the Village should require
an agreement to allow the shared parking. Director of Community Development Kallien said that
there should also be notification to the Village that such an arrangement is in place.
Section 13-12-3-M. Repair and Service. This language prohibits automotive repair activities from
occurring in an off-street parking area.
Section 13-12-4-A. Design and Maintenance. Surfacing. Recommends language that clarifies all
new parking spaces be hard surface, except for spaces in the R1 and R2 Districts.
Section 13-12-4-B. Screening and Landscaping. Recommends language that requires parking lot
landscaping to be maintained once it is installed. It is consistent with the Property Maintenance
Code so that if something is planted they cannot just let it die off. They would be required to
maintain it. This has been used with Walgreen's and the Wyndham Hotel.
Section 13-12-4-D. Landscape Plans. Recommends language that suggests methods of
landscaping treatment being eliminated from the Ordinance. There are other parts of the
Ordinance and the Public Works Standards that have more than adequate standards to address
parking lot landscaping.
• Section 13-12-4-H. Size and Aisles. Recommends language to clarify the Village requirements for
parking lot striping concerning one-way drive aisles.
Section 13-12-4-J. Parking Structures. Recommends additional language that would require a
higher standard for the architectural design and landscaping for future parking decks in the Village.
Section 13-12-5. Off-Street Parking Areas. Recommends changes in the ordinance, which either
increases or decreases the required parking for specific land uses.
Section 13-12-6-D-2. Parking Sign. Recommends increasing the fine amount shown on handicap
parking signs to be raised from $50 to $100, which is the amount adopted by the current ordinance.
The only way the Police Department can enforce the fire lanes and no parking areas is if it is
properly signed. If it is not properly signed, they cannot issue tickets. Additional language may be
developed which provides better standards as to where the signs and number of signs need to be
located.
Section 13-12-7-A. Off-Street Loading. Location. Recommends language that clarifies how
loading berths are to be landscaped and screened. Oak Brook now has a very good standard.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that he had the opportunity in New Orleans to look
at their parking decks. They were developed in such a way to believe they were actually office
buildings. The Village needs to develop a standard that requires the parking deck to look more like
the principal building. Maybe a percent of the exterior of the parking structure has to mirror that of
the principal building.
• Member Girgis said that in Oak Park, on Lake Street just south of the hospital is a parking structure
that looks like it is an office building and was very well done.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes March 19, 2001
6
Director of Community Development Kallien said that keeping a high level of aesthetics with the
. buildings, not only benefits the community, but it also helps to maintain or increase their value.
Most other communities are able to accomplish these changes through a planned development
scheme that requires a review of the proposed parking deck. In this ordinance, we can require that
if there is a parking deck, the exterior of the deck must be architecturally similar to the main
building.
Member Allen asked if there could be a design committee, so that it would have to be reviewed by
the Plan Commission. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Attorney Martens and
ZORC has discussed this and they are not comfortable with formulating an ordinance because
there may not be the authority to enact one. Chairman Aktipis said that the Village has been
successful with the nice building, but what happens if they want to build something that is not so
nice.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that he would speak with the Village Attorney
regarding addressing the issue of design criteria, a standing committee versus some standards
what else is out there.
Chairman Aktipis said that a literal reading in Section 13-12-3-m would suggest that you could not
have an emergency road service call. Director of Community Development Kallien said that was
correct, and something could be added to cover emergency service calls.
For the benefit of the Plan Commission Director of Community Development Kallien said that he
would discuss with Attorney Martens the issue for encouraging better design/design committees.
Member Allen moved, seconded by Member Girgis, to continue this hearing to the next regular Plan
Commission meeting date set for April 16, 2001.
. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
Vll. ADJOURNMENT
Member Allen moved, seconded by Member Payovich to adjourn.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m. e/ --t. �
L
. A!�D
Director of Commurfify Qofelopment
Secretary
April 16, 2001
Date Approved
•
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes March 19, 2001
7
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK MARCH 30, 2001
1200 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook, Illinois 60523
NOT/CE
APRIL 2001
TUESDAY, REGULAR ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS MEETING 7:30 P.M.
APRIL 3 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Mon Ami Gabi—260 Oakbrook Center—Special Use Outdoor Dining Area Adjacent to a Restaurant'
4. Other Business
THURSDAY, HOTEL, CrAXMttbTORS COMMITTEE 5:00 P.M.
APRIL 5 MEETING
TUESDAY, REGULAR BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING 7:30 P.M.
APRIL 10 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
THURSDAY, OAK BROOK0 1 T �l�FIMTIVAL COMMITTEE 7:00 P.M.
APRIL 12 MEETING CA
MONDAY, REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 P.M.
APRIL 16 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Village of Oak Brook-Zoning Ordinance Review Project- Text Amendment-Title 13 of the
Village Code-Revisions to Chapter 12 Off-Street Parking and Loading
4. Christ Church of Oak Brook-501 Oak Brook Road-Amended Special Use for Expansion
of Church Facilities with Allowances to the 100 Foot Setback on York Road for an Addition to
the Building and a New Parking Lot
5. Maggiano's/Corner Bakery, Inc.-240 Oakbrook Center-Amended Special Use-Outdoor Dining Area
Adjacent to a Restaurant
6. DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference Subdivision-Village of Oak Brook - 1220 Oak Brook Road and
Lot 82, Forest Gate Subdivision-Final Plat of Consolidation
7. Other Business
MONDAY, COMMITTEE-OF-THE-WHOLE MEETING 7:30 P.M.
APRIL 23 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
TUESDAY, REGULAR BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING 7:30 P.M.
APRIL 24 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
'Item 3 on the Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda-Legal Notice for public hearing was published in the Daily Herald on March 8, 2001
In accordance with the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act, any individual who is in need of a reasonable accommodation
in order to participate in or benefit from attendance at a public meeting of the Village of Oak Brook should contact Michael Crotty, the
Village's ADA Coordinator, at 630-990-5738, as soon as possible before the meeting date.
NOTE: Changes to this schedule will be noticed separately.
MTG-NOT-01-APR
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
April 16, 2001
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Stelios Aktipis
Members Stephen Allen
Surendra Goel
Barbara Payovich
David Pequet
Anthony Tappin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Samuel Girgis
ALSO PRESENT: Village Trustee Alfred Savino
Director of Community Development Robert Kallien
Village Engineer Dale Durfey
A quorum was present.
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Goel moved, seconded by Member Payovich, to waive the reading of the March 19, 2001
Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as amended.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed.
Ill. CHRIST CHURCH OF OAK BROOK- 501 OAK BROOK ROAD — AMENDED
SPECIAL USE FOR EXPANSION OF CHURCH FACILITIES WITH ALLOWANCES
TO THE 100 FOOT SETBACK ON YORK ROAD FOR AN ADDITION of A NEW
PARKING LOT(PHASE B)
Ray Scott, church trustee and Joe Beczak, Director of Operations, reviewed Christ Church of Oak
Brook's request for approval of a new parking lot.
Acting on the suggestion of the Plan Commission, Christ Church contacted DuPage County
regarding the addition of a right turn only exit onto York Road, which would allow for a new pass-
through parking area. DuPage County approved the request and has been working with them
since January. Because of the approval, they were able to revise the proposed parking in a
different design. The new design created 32 parking spaces and eliminated the need of the
allowance for the driveway to encroach into the York Road setback as previously requested. A
• revised plan to the new design was presented to the Plan Commission showing a gain of 3
additional parking spaces, bringing the number to 35. They intend to use this as a preschool
parking area. There are over 100 preschool children every day and next September they will have
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes April 16, 2001
1
120 children. They are seeking this particular site because it is a level parking area and access
goes directly into the new atrium entrance.
• They also hope to use this area as a means of helping the handicapped and elderly members that
now park down the hill from the main entrance. By law, they are required to have 19 handicapped
striped parking spaces. Currently, they have 40. Even with the extra spaces, there are requests
from members that there still are not enough handicapped spots available so that they will have to
increase the number to 50. The striping requirement for handicap spaces means they will lose
existing parking spaces not only because of the increased size requirement of the handicapped
spaces, but if a space is designated as a handicapped space, it remains that way all the time. To
help accommodate some of these members, on Sunday only, they intend to use this new parking
lot by reservation only. The parking spaces in the new lot will be better than the already assigned
handicapped spaces because the members would be able to enter the building at a level surface
entrance. There is an elevator just inside the entrance so that they can gain access to the church.
Chairman Aktipis said that this solution goes along with some of the Plan Commission's
suggestions and he was pleased that the church received approval from DuPage County. He
noted that the landscaping along York Road (east side of the parking lot) was not shown clearly.
Ray Scott responded that there is an evergreen barrier between the parking lot, bike path and the
road. Chairman Aktipis also noted that access inside the parking lot does not appear to be access
friendly. To ease access, one or two parking spots may be lost. Ray Scott said that the 16-foot
entrance into the parking section of the lot is what the Village recommended. The entire parking lot
has been kept behind the 50-foot setback.
The Commission members discussed the possibility of a way to increase the width of the opening
into the parking lot to provide better access into the first two spaces in the new parking lot and
• whether there is a traffic control concern over layout and possible problems with the traffic flow.
Member Pequet and Tappin suggested softening the two curves, and possibly designate the first
two spaces for compact cars, even though in reality, it would be difficult to police. Member Allen
asked if they anticipate any problems with people blocking the entrance to run in and drop off the
children. Joe Beczak said that he personally will monitor the situation and speak with the parents,
however, he does not anticipate any problems.
Member Goel said that they already have a huge parking area, and wanted to know how much
more the parking area can be expanded. He said that perhaps there should be some kind of
guidance on how much area of parking that can be allowed on a property. Director of Community
Development Kallien said that outside of the setback requirements, there is not a prohibition of
paving literally the remaining area, however, the stormwater management requirements would
dictate that the stormwater be accommodated on site.
Ray Scott said that although there is sufficient parking on site, they are desperately seeking
convenient parking for the older portion of the congregation. This additional parking area will
provide another older person a level surface on which to walk into the church.
Village Engineer Durfey responded to some of the Commissioners concerns regarding the
possibility of problems with the cars backing out of the first two spaces where the back end of the
cars may protrude into the westbound lane of the driveway. That could happen, so the parking
should probably be moved to the north a few feet. The are a few angled parking lots around the
Village, and he did not recall a concern or a problem voiced where a diagonal space is right up to
the aisle. No one has ever told him that they have had a problem. Member Pequet noted that
• downtown Hinsdale has all angled parking.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes April 16, 2001
2
-ot
• Village Engineer Durfey said that some of the standard guidelines for an inside radius movement
for a car ranges from 15 feet to 20 feet. If one space were removed, it would be the distance to be
able to turn right and continue to the right. Chairman Aktipis polled the members as to whether it
should be suggested to the petitioner to remove two parking spaces. The members all agreed to
smooth the sharp corners and leave the number of parking spaces at 35. The also agreed that by
removing 15-18 inches off each corner would help the parking maneuver.
Trustee Savino noted that perhaps a more detailed landscape plan with possible berming could be
provided. The Plan Commission members agreed that they would feel comfortable for staff to
review a detailed landscape plan.
Member Allen said that he would also feel comfortable with staff reviewing the parking plan to
ensure there would not be a problem with the plan as presented. The members reviewed the
parking plan with Village Engineer Durfey.
No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal.
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Pequet that the petitioner has addressed the factors
as required by ordinance to recommend for approval the petitioner's request to amend their existing
special use to include the parking plan (Phase B) as proposed subject to the following conditions:
1. Increase the width of the new parking lot entrance by 15 to 18 inches on each side.
2. Submittal of a detailed landscape plan for staff review and approval, which incorporates
berming along the east side of the parking lot and low level vegetation on the corners so
• that visibility is not obstructed.
3. Address the items contained in Village Engineer Durfey's memorandum dated April 12,
2001.
4. The parking lot improvements shall be in substantial conformance with the Site Plan with 35
parking spaces as revised on April 13, 2001.
5. Final Engineering approval.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 - Allen, Goel, Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 1 - Girgis
Motion Carried.
IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — DUPAGE MAYORS AND MANAGERS CONFERENCE
SUBDIVISION— 1220 OAK BROOK ROAD—
The Village of Oak Brook is the applicant in this petition. Director of Community Development
Kallien represented the Village and reviewed the history of the property. Recently a special use
amendment was approved for this property with the goal of allowing Lot 82 in Forest to be
consolidated into this site and then permit DuPage Mayors and Managers, who are the
contract/purchasers of these two properties, to further develop the site and provide for a modest
• expansion of the building and additional parking. The action requested is to take Lot 82 of the
Forest Gate Subdivision and combine it with the 1220 Oak Brook Road parcel to make it one single
lot. It is very basic procedure.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes April 16, 2001
3
• Member Tappin questioned whether there is a contract entered into with Forest Gate to allow the
action. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the property was deeded by Forest
Gate to the Village.
No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal.
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Tappin, to recommend for approval the Plat of
Consolidation subject tot he Final Engineering approval.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 - Allen, Goel, Payovich, Pequet, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 1 - Girgis
Motion Carried.
V. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT
AMENDMENT TITLE 13 of the VILLAGE CODE — REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 12
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
The petitioner in this case is the Village of Oak Brook. Director of Community Development,
Robert Kallien reviewed Chapter 12 of the Off-Street Parking and Loading on page 3-3o of the
petition file. Page 3h of the petition file begins the list of parking ratios required for specific uses.
Assisted living units - .5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. At this time the Village does not have
any assisted living facilities. There have been ongoing discussions with the DuPage Housing
• Authority and there is a chance that the Friary building may come in as an application to be
converted into an assisted living facility. In preparation of that action, this category was created.
The recommended number has been based upon a survey of other communities. Most of the
people living in assisted living units do not drive. If the special use proposal should move forward,
more discussion would take place on the issue of parking for a particular site.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that generation tables are really numbers that are
derived through engineering studies and the ITE trip generation manual which takes communities
from across the country and factors in the high and low and then come up with an average number.
Oak Brook does not really have parking problems today. Some of the developers of the newer
office buildings actually want more parking than is required.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that as the Village moves forward to a
redevelopment stage and there are new office buildings, the development would require parking
structures. Instead of getting an average parking deck with a very nice building, the goal of the
Village is to compliment the very nice looking building with a very nice parking deck.
Chairman Aktipis asked about the concept of a formal Design Review Committee. Director of
Community Development Kallien said that the Village Attorney is not confident of the State Statute
to allow the Village to proceed down that path. Many communities that have Design Boards or
Commissions are Home Rule communities and they have the ability to enact additional regulations
beyond the basics that the statutes provide. He believes that it may difficult from a legal
perspective. In this amendment we are looking to set specific parameters by which the design can
be controlled by the proposed language for parking decks. Chairman Aktipis asked if a committee
could be a subcommittee of the Plan Commission. Trustee Savino said that several years ago he
had proposed possibly having an architectural review committee. The legislature in Illinois has not
• approved that kind of body. Member Allen asked if such a board could be made advisory, more
prescreening or fact-finding than giving an approval to ensure certain requirements are complied
with.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes April 16, 2001
4
_2411f_
• Director of Community Development Kallien said that there are other communities who require the
entire commercial and office development to go through a planned development process. During
that process, almost any reasonable condition can be attached. One of the conditions could not
only be the land use but also approving a building design. Chairman Aktipis said that planned unit
developments have a dark cloud attached that may not necessarily be justified. It may be time for
Oak Brook to consider this possibility and Trustee Savino agreed with him. ZORC has also
discussed this matter and there has always been a bad connotation with a PUD in Oak Brook, and
no one knows why. There is concerns with the citizens that the Boards and Commission's would
grant people whatever they wanted. Some controls could be added in the Ordinance, that would
not allow any changes to front yard setbacks or building height. Director of Community
Development Kallien added that the Village may be able to get higher quality development because
one of standards would include design review with qualifiers to get what the Village would like to
see developed.
Trustee Savino said that lately the Village has seen many special uses with many allowances,
which in effect are PUD's. Chairman Aktipis added that the allowances were granted without any
added advantages given to the Village. Director of Community Development Kallien said that for
the official record, the Village Board would see the Plan Commission feelings on formal Design
Review Structures and PUD's.
Page 3h begins the text for parking structures that states, "all exterior walls of such structures that
are visible from an adjacent roadway, shall be finished with a material to maintain a "common
architectural character"".
Member Goel questioned that he believes the 75-foot requirement for spacing trees in the parking
lots is too large and should be smaller (page 3-f of the file). He would like to see twice as many
• trees required. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the only way the changes
could be implemented, would be when redevelopment requires a new parking lot to be constructed.
Member Pequet said that with a forty-foot requirement, mature trees, such as a maple, the
circumference would be very large. A fifty-foot requirement might work better. Member Goel
agreed with that suggestion as well as Member Tappin. Director of Community Development
Kallien said that he would work with the Village Engineer as to what the adjustment would be
regarding the number of spaces.
Member Goel also said that he felt there should be some kind of guidance as to the maximum area
that can be covered with a parking lot. The main concern is all the area covered with asphalt.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that a standard to control lot coverage might be
considered. When adding additional impervious area, stormwater management also becomes a
factor. The entire surface cannot be paved because somewhere on the site stormwater
management must be provided. The Code states that interior parking lot landscaping (c)-
landscaped areas, shall occupy not less than 10% of the total lot area. There is a safeguard that at
least 10% of the area will have to remain green.
Member Allen said that to better utilize space, it might have been a good idea to approach Christ
Church and suggest that instead of having the parking lot take up such great expanses of property,
why not build a parking garage that would be closer to the facility. More areas would be left as
open space and the parking are would have been increased to better serve their needs. However,
cost and size would become a factor in building a parking deck.
Member Goel said that the first reaction seems to be to provide more parking. However, when the
• additional parking is not convenient to the structure it is serving it is not used because of its
inconvenience or distance. Instead of having all these large paved areas, he would like to see a
control added, perhaps to increase the percentage of green areas required in the parking lots.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes April 16, 2001
5
• Member Pequet said that without being well informed it is difficult to make a recommendation on
this issue. He suggested that a survey be done of other community's requirements for parking lots
to see how they have addressed the issue. It would be beneficial to see what coverage ratios or
F.A.R.'s are used.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that further review might be required to determine
what section of the ordinance this should be placed. It may not belong in this section. Chairman
Aktipis asked that within the next couple of meetings, more information could be brought back to
the Plan Commission to assist in their recommendation of this issue.
Trustee Savino said that he would like to see language that would use more evergreen trees in
screening, similar to what Callaghan was seeking from DuPage Mayors and Managers for
screening between the properties.
Trustee Savino reviewed pictures that he had taken of various parking structures.
The first two pictures are of parking garages in a downtown area in Florida
The third picture is in Schaumburg. They have tried to conceal the garage by giving it a lot of
architectural definition. The top has a lot of clutter of light poles.
The fourth picture is the Hyatt parking garage on Spring Road. They have done an excellent
job concealing their garage.
The AT&T Building on 22nd Street is the fifth picture. Although it is hard to make out the parking
garage, the horizon is free of lighting standards. He would like to see language developed to
keep the horizon uncluttered. They also have done a nice job on the landscaping to help
• camouflage the building.
The sixth picture is the Buck garage, although not finished, it also has the high standards.
The seventh picture is Advocate at 100 Bliss.
The eighth picture is the ComEd building at 2100 Swift. It is one of the newer garages in Oak
Brook and leaves a lot to be desired. It does not match the building and has tall light standards.
The last picture is the RSNA building and garage on Jorie Blvd.
The proposed language will help to alleviate some of these situations. There are structures that
have been developed to help conceal them from looking like garages. Another issue is the interior
lighting of the garages. When you look at the garage at night, the lights are so bright that it looks
like a hundred light bulbs shining. The Ordinance talks about light bleeding onto adjacent areas,
but the unattractiveness of the bright lights so that the source of the light is not seen, also needs to
be addressed.
Community of Development Director of Community Development Kallien said that language could
be added that from the exterior of parking structures the source of the light could not be seen. It
could require recessed bulbs or wall lighting. A good architect could come up with a solution.
Member Pequet added that the language should enforce what the Village does not want, but does
not dictate what they must use.
• In regard to the landscape plans, to suggest a fifteen-foot average, would give the developer some
latitude where the perimeter has to average the number. There may be areas, because of the
entrances, that may be reduced to 8 or 10 feet, and then go out to 20 feet in other areas. That may
encourage some interesting landscaping plans. It could also be suggested to specify an average
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes April 16, 2001
6
-0-Ir
or a percentage of evergreen landscaping to be used in the plan. Director of Community
Development Kallien said that an added incentive might be to require less landscaping, if the
• parking deck mirrors the building. Member Tappin suggested that perhaps an arborist should be
consulted. In Saddlebrook, they have had a lot of trouble with pine trees, because of the salt and
exhaust fumes. Member Allen added that the same consideration be given for the trees being
placed in parking lots. The trees in that environment need to be hardier in nature and be able to
handle the exhaust and salt. Many of them do not flourish because of the emissions from
automobiles. We should know what types of vegetation would flourish in certain areas so that
plantings do not die as often calling for the need to replace them.
The members agreed with those suggestions and that an extra five feet of landscape should be
added along with additional language to control the lighting on the top of the parking structure as
well as the lighting as seen from the deck.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that ZORC would come up with additional
language to cover these things as well as the lot area coverage. Chairman Aktipis asked that he
check with the Village attorney regarding the creation of a subcommittee of the Plan Commission
could be an advisory board. Director of Community Development Kallien suggested that when the
item goes forward to attach that as one of the things the Plan Commission desires.
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Allen, to continue this hearing to the next regular
Plan Commission meeting date set for May 21, 2001.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
• VI. MAGGIANO'S/CORNER BAKERY, INC. — 240 OAKBROOK CENTER — AMENDED
SPECIAL USE— OUTDOOR DINING ADJACENT TO A RESTAURANT
The Petitioner was not present for the hearing.
No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal.
Chairman Aktipis called for a motion to continue the hearing to the next meeting date.
Member Pequet moved, seconded by Member Tappin to continue the petitioner's request to the
next regular Plan Commission meeting date set for May 21, 2001.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
Vll. OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman Aktipis advised the Commissioners that this would be Member Pequet's last meeting
because he is moving out of the Village. He thanked him for his dedication and many years of
service to the Village and for his helpful and thoughtful insight, along with the intelligent and well
thought out ideas into the matters before the Plan Commission. He said that it will be very difficult
to replace him and wished him well for the future. All the Commissioners and staff joined in the
good wishes. Member Pequet thanked everyone.
•
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes April 16, 2001
7
--o_t
• V11. ADJOURNMENT
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Pequet to adjourn.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m.
Director of Commu ity evelopment
Secretary
5 -21 — Zoos
Date Approved
•
•
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes April 16, 2001
8
APRIL 27, 2001
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
1200 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook, Illinois 60523
NOTICE
MAY 2001
TUESDAY, REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING 7:30 P.M.
MAY 1 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Christ Church of Oak Brook-501 Oak Brook Road-Amended Special Use for Expansion
of Church Facilities with Allowances to the 100 Foot Setback on York Road for an Addition to
the Building and a New Parking Lot*
4. Rousonelos-3103 York Road- Variation to York Road Setback**
5. Other Business
THURSDAY, HOTEL, CONVENTION & VISITORS COMMITTEE 5:00 P.M.
MAY 3 Village Commons-Upper Level Conference Room
TUESDAY, REGULAR BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING 7:30 P.M.
MAY 8 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
THURSDAY, OAK BROOK 2001 AUTUMN FESTIVAL COMMITTEE 7:00 P.M.
MAY 10 Oak Brook Golf Club-2606 York Road
TUESDAY, LIBRARY COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 P.M.
MAY 15 Village Commons-Upper Level Conference Room
WEDNESDAY, OAK BROOK SAFETY PATHWAY COMMITTEE 7:30 P.M.
MAY 16 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
MONDAY, COMMITTEE-OF-THE-WHOLE MEETING 7:30 P.M.
MAY 21 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
MONDAY, REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 P.M.
MAY 21 Village Commons-Upper Level Conference Room***
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Maggiano's/Corner Bakery, Inc.-240 Oakbrook Center-Amended Special Use
-Outdoor Dining Area Adjacent to a Restaurant
4. Village of Oak Brook-Zoning Ordinance Review Project-Text Amendment-Title 13 of the
Village Code-Revisions to Chapter 12 Off-Street Parking and Loading
5. Other Business
TUESDAY, REGULAR BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING 7:30 P.M.
MAY 22 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
*Item 3 on the Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda–Legal Notice for public hearing was published in the Daily Herald on January 19, 2001
*Item 4 on the Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda–Legal Notice for public hearing was published in the Daily Herald on April 10, 2001
—PLEASE NOTE–The Plan Commission Meeting will be held in the Upper Level Conference Room
In accordance with the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act,any individual who is in need of a reasonable accommodation
in order to participate in or benefit from attendance at a public meeting of the Village of Oak Brook should contact Michael Crotty, the
Village's ADA Coordinator,at 630-990-5738, as soon as possible before the meeting date.
NOTE: Changes to this schedule will be noticed separately.
MTG-NOT-01-MAY
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
May 21, 2001
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Stelios Aktipis
Members Stephen Allen
Samuel Girgis
Surendra Goel
Anthony Tappin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Barbara Payovich
ALSO PRESENT: Director of Community Development Robert Kallien
A quorum was present.
ll. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Goel moved, seconded by Member Allen, to waive the reading of the April 16, 2001 Plan
Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as amended.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed.
W. MAGGIANO'S/CORNER BAKERY, INC. — 240 OAKBROOK CENTER — AMENDED
SPECIAL USE— OUTDOOR DINING AREA ADJACENT TO A RESTAURANT
Edwin Stockman, Facilities Manager for Maggiano's Little Italy, reviewed the petitioner's request to
amend its existing special. He said that the proposed amended special use would be under the
same conditions of the existing special use. The new area they are proposing is located in front of
the banquet facility.
1. The dining area will be set up between April 1 and April 15 and shall be removed on or
before October 15 of each year.
2. The emergency egress gates shall open out only and be three feet wide.
3. The entrance to the outdoor dining area will only be through the restaurant.
4. No signage or banner will be placed in the outdoor dining area.
5. In October, all equipment, including the railing, will be removed and sidewalk area will be
restored to its original condition including patching or plugging of any holes.
6. The restaurant will be responsible for maintaining and cleaning the outdoor area and shall
comply will all applicable requirements of the DuPage County Health Department.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes May 21, 2001
1
Community Development/PC-MTG.01-MAY.doc
7. A minimum six-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the outdoor dining area will be maintained at
all times.
• 8. There will be no live music, dancing or other entertainment in the area.
9. The planters will be water tight with internal drainage to allow for live greenery and seasonal
flowers.
10. The outdoor dining area will match the existing materials and workmanship of equal or
better than the surrounding area not to cause substantial injury to the value of other
neighboring properties.
11. The design. Location and operation will protect the public's health, safety, and welfare to
the best of our ability.
The reason for the request is that they created a larger waiting area inside the restaurant for people
to wait. They lost 16-18 tables and they are trying to recover the loss of some of the tables at least
for some time of the year.
Chairman Aktipis noted that it will be a nice addition to Oak Brook.
No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal.
Member Goel moved, seconded by Member Allen that the petitioner has addressed the factors as
required by ordinance to recommend for approval the petitioner's request to amend their existing
special use to increase the outdoor dining area as proposed subject to the conditions stated by the
petitioner and the following:
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted.
• 2. All other applicable conditions contained in Ordinances S-775 and S759 now in effect for
the existing outdoor dining area shall continue.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Allen, Girgis, Goel, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 1 - Payovich
Motion Carried.
IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT
AMENDMENT TITLE 13 of the VILLAGE CODE — REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 12
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
The petitioner in this case is the Village of Oak Brook. Director of Community Development,
Robert Kallien advised that staff continues to study the additional issues raised by the Plan
Commission and suggested the review of Chapter 12 be continued to the next Plan Commission
meeting.
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Allen, to continue this hearing to the next regular
Plan Commission meeting date set for June 18, 2001.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
•
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes May 21, 2001
2
Community Development/PC-MTG.01-MAY.doc �r J
. V. ADJOURNMENT
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Allen to adjourn.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Direr or of eommunity b4lopment
Secretary
July 16, 2001
Date Approved
•
•
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes May 21, 2001
3
Community Development/PC-MTG.01-MAY.doc
PGE OF 044,
� O
® �A
O y
G
• 2
9c�00UNi1 •\��\
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
1200 OAK BROOK ROAD
OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60523 - 2255
PHONE: 630 990 -3000
FAX : 630 990-0876
W E B S I T E: www.oak-brook.org
NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Plan Commission Chairman cancelled
• the regular Plan Commission Meeting of June 18, 2001, due to lack of quorum. The
next regular Plan Commission Meeting is scheduled for July 16, 2001.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
vE�F OAK
�' e9
� o
0
® A
� o
V �?
V�
��DUNT� •\
Village of
Oak Brook
1200 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook,IL 60523-2255 REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING
Website
www.oak-brook.org Village Commons - Samuel E. Dean Board Room
Administration JULY 16, 2001
630.990.3000 7:30 P.M.
FAX 630.990.0876
Community AGENDA
Development 1. Roll Call
630.990.3045 2. Approval of Minutes
FAX 630.990.3985 3. Kosowski-341 Forest Trail-Flood Plain Special Use - To Allow
Improvements to the Existing Home in the Flood Plain
Engineering 4. Village of Oak Brook-Zoning Ordinance Review Project- Text Amendment
Department - Title 13 of the Village Code-Revisions to Chapter 12 Off-Street Parkin
630.990.3010 g p g
FAX 630.990.3985 and Loading
5. Village of Oak Brook-Zoning Ordinance Review Project- Text Amendment
Fire Department - Title 13 of the Village Code- Chapter 3-Further Review of Section 13-3-
630.990.3040 6-B Fences.
W630.990.2392 6. Other Business
Police Department
630.990.2358
FAX 630.990.7484
Public Works
Department
630.990.3044
FAX 630.472.0223
Oak Brook
Public Library
1112 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook,IL 60523-4623
630.990.2222
FAX 630.990.0170
Oak Brook Sports Core
Bath&Tennis Club
700 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook,IL 60523-4600
630.990.3020
FAX 630.990.1002
Golf Club
06 York Road
Oak Brook,IL 60523-4602
630.990'3032
FAX 630.990.0245
Village ShaI/Community Development/PC-2001 Jul-Agenda
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
July 16, 2001
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Stelios Aktipis
Members Stephen Allen
Arrived 7:55 p.m. Samuel Girgis
Surendra Goel
Anthony Tappin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Barbara Payovich
ALSO PRESENT: Village Trustee Alfred Savino
Director of Community Development Robert Kallien
Village Engineer Dale Durfey
A quorum was present.
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Goel, to waive the reading of the May 21, 2001 Plan
Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as written.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed.
Ill. KOSOWSKI— 341 FOREST TRAIL — FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL USE and VARIATION
— TO ALLOW IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING HOME IN THE FLOOD PLAIN
The petitioner John Kosowski was called out of town, Tim Kral, Construction Manager for the
Petitioner reviewed the request and apologized for the petitioners absence. The flood plain level is
661 and the grade for the property is 660.7, and is almost completely out of the flood plain. The
property was not subject to any flooding during the flood in 1987 and since the dredging of the
creek and the Elmhurst Quarry, if the flood plain maps were ever revised this would not be an
issue. None of the proposed improvements would be located in the flood plain, but because a
portion of the existing home is, a flood plain special use permit is required.
Chairman Aktipis noted that the proposal has several variation requests, which will be not be heard
by the Plan Commission, those issues will be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Plan
Commission only hears the issue of recommending approval of the flood plain special use permit.
Member Tappin asked Village Engineer Durfey when the Village expects the updated report from
the County and whether he has an idea of what the report might contain in regards to the flood
plain maps.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes July 16, 2001
1
PC-MTG.01-JULY.doc
Village Engineer Durfey responded that the County has told the Village that they should have the
Salt Creek Flood Plain maps redone in about two years, however, they have been telling him that
for the last seven years. When the state dredged Salt Creek (after the 1987 event) Neil Fulton,
from the state told the Village they could expect a change (i.e., drop) from one (1) to one and one-
half (1'/2) feet because of the dredging. On top of that, the quarry is now on line so it should be
dropped no less than that when they finally do the maps.
Member Goel questioned the status of other buildings in the area, whether or not they are at the
same level and if variations have ever been granted for anyone else. He was concerned that
approval of the request may set a precedent for the area.
Chairman Aktipis said that this appears to be the first time that we are dealing with an expansion of
a footprint. Village Engineer Durfey said that he is not aware of any applications for flood plain
special use in the Timber Trails area, but that the Village has approved flood plain special use
permits in other areas of town. He also added that the state at one time advised them that if the
improvement/addition to the structure is a second story, it is okay as long as it is not built in the
flood plain. He said that the petitioner has met the compensatory storage requirements.
No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal.
Chairman Aktipis noted that on page 17 of the petition file the applicant has addressed the
standards for recommendation of approval of the flood plain special use.
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Allen that the petitioner has addressed the factors
as required by ordinance to recommend for approval the petitioner's request for a flood plain
special use subject to the conditions contained in Village Engineer Durfey's memos dated June 12,
2001 and July 12, 2001.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Allen, Girgis, Goel, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 1 - Payovich
Motion Carried.
IV, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT
AMENDMENT TITLE 13 of the VILLAGE CODE — REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 12
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
The petitioner in this case is the Village of Oak Brook, the Director of Community Development,
Robert Kallien reviewed the request. The actual text being considered is on pages 3-3o of the
petition file. On March 19, 2001, staff began the in-depth review and discussion on the proposed
update of Chapter 12. Follow up discussions continued through the April and May meetings and
covered issues relating to:
a.) establishing maximum lot coverage (asphalt for parking lots), which was a by-product of the
Christ Church petition;
b.) establishing some sort of design review/advisory process and/or committee with a goal to
review and "raise the bar" on new commercial construction; and,
C.) discussion on the merits of creating a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) scheme that could be
• used in the future in Oak Brook.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes July 16, 2001
2
PC-MTG.01-JULY.doc
�7
1�
Even these items are important, all three do not directly relate to off-street parking and loading
provisions, but evolved during the discussion process. Each item has some merit, and cases can
be considered as we review and update other zoning chapters in the future. In regard to the
proposed update of Chapter 12, following are several items that need to be addressed (page 3 of
the file).
13-12-3-D. Recommend language that permits with conditions, construction of seventy-five
percent (75%) of the required parking, as a condition of occupancy. The remaining spaces would
be set aside or landbanked in a written covenant against the property and constructed when the
Village determines these spaces are needed. This would apply to larger projects and the trigger
mechanism could be controlled within the building permit as construction progresses. As part of a
multiple phase project, occupancy of the building or restricting issuance of other permits could also
be set as an additional control. This would allow order to be kept to this provision.
13-12-3-J. Recommend language that clarifies the concept of a collective parking arrangement.
Excess parking from one parcel can be allocated to another parcel if it meets all other applicable
requirements of the chapter, particularly 13-12-3-B. It was suggested that additional language be
added to require a written agreement between the parties and be submitted to the Village.
13-12-4-B. Recommend language, which requires maintenance of landscaping and be required to
screen off-street parking spaces. Member Tappin noted that on large landscaping plans, the Village
needs to have the plan reviewed by an aborist to determine the type of plant material to be used
will better survive the conditions in which it is installed. Too often, it is suggested that pine trees be
added, when certain pines will not survive under the conditions in which they are installed. Austrian
and Scotch pines do not survive the salt spray conditions of winter and are very expensive to
• replace. Saddlebrook has had many problems with these trees in the subdivision. The Village
Boards, by requiring evergreens along 1-88 made a mistake, because they could not survive the
salt spray and many have died. Director of Community Development Kallien said that they have
discussed sending landscape plans for larger developments to an aborist or someone on staff that
has some skill so that problems are not created by putting in the wrong types of bushes or trees.
Trustee Savino agreed that the Village could have the plans reviewed either by an aborist or by the
forester consultant that is used by the Public Works Department.
13-12-4-C. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. Currently the ordinance requires at least one tree to
be planted with a maximum spacing of seventy-five (75) feet (be changed to forty (40) feet)
provided that at least one tree is located in the area occupied by every twenty (20) (be changed to
every fifteen 15) interior parking spaces. It should further be stated that the caliper of the tree be
not less than three (3") inches.
Member Goel added that in support of placing the trees closer and making them larger, there is an
added benefit to provide more shade for more cars. Director of Community Development Kallien
said that when there are more than two bays, you are required to put in a landscaped area in the
parking lot and that is where the trees would be planted.
The Commissioners discussed the cost versus benefit for developers. Member Tappin said that
requiring more landscaping would reduce the number of parking spaces that can be placed on a
site. In some instances it may be necessary to build a garage rather than adding more surface
parking and at what point would there be a burden placed on the developer. Member Allen agreed
and asked whether it would be better to require parking structures rather than to expand the
surface lot to accommodate more trees; or is the goal to keep it more compact, so that the parking
• lot is not spread all over the property? He said that he would rather see a parking structure
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes July 16, 2001
3
PC-MTG.01-JULY.doc
developed than the land being covered by asphalt. At what point, would this place a burden on the
developer? Several members agreed.
• Director of Community Development Kallien said that under the Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.)
concept, you could require trees every ten feet, as a trade-off. That is why communities that use
the P.U.D. concept end up having high quality buildings with more landscaping.
13-12-4-J. Recommend revised language for landscaping, screening, and design of new parking
decks. To enhance appearance of these new structures additional landscaping would be required.
Additional language relating to architecture and design has been proposed which should provide a
visual consistency between the parking strucurtre and the principal building.
Several lengthy discussions have taken place regarding this section. There is a consensus that we
want new parking structures to be of a higher aesthetic design and appeal than what have been
built in the past. We want to provide some type of design linkage between the principal building on
the lot and the accessory parking structure. The proposed language appears to have done that.
There were a number of suggestions made as to how much landscaping should be placed in front
of the new structures. Originally, it was said that for structures which are four floors or less in
height, there should be a minimum of ten feet of landscaped area in front of it. For structures that
are over four floors, it has been suggested that it be increased to twenty. The discussions suggest
an average of fifteen feet so that it gives some flexibility to the developer, but included in the
language would be to strongly encourage the developer to use evergreens wherever possible and
appropriate for survival because they provide more year round screening.
The Commissioners agreed that the following should be added into the text cover the following:
1. Add text that will keep the horizon uncluttered. The poles on the top deck should be
placed in the middle of the deck and low profile lighting standard should be used.
• The criteria should be something similar to what was used at the AT&T building,
which is a short standard with indirect lighting. Security measures are to be
maintained.
2. The interior light source is not to be visible from the outside. All light sources to be
screened so that the bulb is not seen from adjacent property. .
3. Linking the building and parking structure, aesthetically, architecturally and using
material so that the parking structure design structure is complimentary to the main
structure.
4. Landscape plans. An average of fifteen feet of landscape to be provided in front of
the building and Increase the requirement of the percentage of evergreen required
to be used.
The issue of maximum lot coverage should be addressed as part of the Ordinance review of other
chapters. Attorney Martens is unsure about the statutory authority to create formal design review
committee. An advisory body may be allowed, however there would need to be very specific
criteria and standards. What the criteria should be is unknown. The issue of PUD's may be the
technique to capture what everyone seems to want to require in new developments.
Member Girgis brought up 13-12-4-H. Striping and Traffic Circulation. The proposed text states:
Parking spaces shall be delineated by white lines. Add deleted text to read: Parking spaces shall
be delineated by double white lines approximately eighteen inches (18") apart. Member Girgis
suggested the text not be removed because it seemed that it would keep the cars further apart and
reduce the chance for dings. The other members agreed that it should be suggested the text
remain. The Plan Commission desires to keep the double lines, as long as it is not in conflict with
. some other Village standard. If a conflict exists, it is to go back to the Plan Commission and they
may reconsider the recommendation to this section.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes July 16, 2001
4
PC-MTG.01-JULY.doc
Member Goel moved, seconded by Member Allen to recommend approval of the revised text in
• Chapter 12 as presented with the above stated conditions taken into consideration.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Allen, Girgis, Goel, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 1 - Payovich
Motion Carried.
V. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK— ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT— FURTHER
REVIEW of CHAPTER 3— 13-3-6-B - FENCES
The recent proposal to modify the fence regulations (Chapter 3) has been referred to the Plan
Commission for further study. Trustee Savino advised the Commission that before making the
recommendation to the Village Board he had concerns that if approved, the Village could be left
with a checkerboard effect of fencing. Neighbors could be putting up different types of fences,
wood, metal and different designs. He does not believe this is something the Village wants to
have. The Village Board had a brief discussion regarding it and felt it warranted further review by
the Plan Commission.
Trustee Savino said that the issue is aesthetics. People have the ability to block a view; they could
do some heavy landscaping and really would not need to put up a fence. As far as perimeter areas
of the Village where there have been some problems with people coming in and vandalizing, in the
past, such as in Saddlebrook the Village approved a variation to put up a fence to do that. People
• can come in and seek variations from the Ordinance. The good thing about Saddlebrook is that
they put up the same type of fence throughout the subdivision.
Member Tappin responded that they have a chain link fence that gets broken down by vandals very
easily, so they would like to get a stronger type fence to protect the property from the invasion and
trespassing. The fence is between 8 and 10 feet high, but it is continually getting broken down and
the subdivision pays for the repairs. Trustee Savino asked what the solution would be. Member
Tappin said that perhaps a more substantial metal fence. Member Allen suggested wrought iron.
Trustee Savino said that at O'Hare, they removed all chain link fences and installed wrought iron
fences. Chairman Aktipis said that the present way that highways are screened from subdivisions
is with uniform solid wood fences.
Chairman Aktipis suggested that perhaps a description of the type of fence that the Ordinance
would allow, with the specifications added, like the highway department would require. Member
Tappin asked who would pay for these fences, if they would be around the perimeter of Oak Brook.
Would Oak Brook get involved to help pay for it, or would it paid for individually? Trustee Savino
said that he did not believe that the Village would get involved with putting up fences for individual
homeowners or subdivisions. Member Tappin said that vandals breaking down the fence is a very
big problem. They have tried many things, including greasing the fence, to try to deter the activity,
nothing has worked.
Member Allen said that perhaps the Ordinance should state what type of fences cannot be
installed. For example, the fencing along 31s' Street and Route 83 around Forest Gate looks
terrible. Something like that is not aesthetically pleasing. However, to install a wrought iron fence
around an entire subdivision would get very expensive. Member Tappin said Midwest Club also
• used chain link fencing, but they planted ivy and bushes have grown around it so that now you
cannot see the fence. Member Allen said that the idea of landscape screening is a good idea, but
then it would require proper maintenance so that it looks decent.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes July 16, 2001
5
PC-MTG.01-JULY.doc
• Director of Community Development Kallien said that the key words with the proposal was that this
provision would permit the construction of solid six-foot high fences when certain other criteria can
be developed. It does not say that it would allow a six-foot high chain link fence because it is not
considered a solid fence. The only types of solid fence are wood or brick, which becomes very
expensive. In Oak Brook today we allow 42-inch high 50% open fences for everyone. The
proposal adds an additional visual barrier to allow some type of solid fencing, if other criteria are
met. Chairman Aktipis said that does not respond to Trustee Savino's concern of ending up with a
hodgepodge of different styles.
Member Goel questioned whether this concerns fences just around subdivisions or individual
homes. Chairman Aktipis answered that it is both. Member Goel said for example in Saddlebrook,
there is a requirement that no two houses should be similar, the same thing should apply to fencing
also. Member Tappin said that there is over a mile of fencing in Saddlebrook to protect the
property, it is the end of Oak Brook property and it happens to coincide with residential property.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that there are some subdivisions that have a
common area where there could be a uniform fence, then there are other properties that literally
back up to an adjacent community. How do you differentiate between the two? Member Tappin
added how do you get every homeowner to put up a fence? If you do not have a continual fence,
the rest of it is useless. The people who are trespassing are going to come through the openings.
Member Goel questioned who put up the fence in Saddlebrook. Member Tappin said that it was
originally put up by the developer. The homeowner's association is maintaining it at a good cost.
The fence is not working, because they cannot keep the vandals from coming in.
Chairman Aktipis said that the suggestion from Director of Community Development Kallien is to
• defer the decision on this issue until he has an opportunity to research standards used by other
communities. We can see what other communities have done where individual homes and
association's abut commercial areas. Perhaps when the Plan Commission has an opportunity to
review more information some determination can be made.
Member Goel moved, seconded by Member Allen, to continue this hearing after sufficient
information has been provided for further review of this matter.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
Vl. ADJOURNMENT
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Allen to adjourn.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
Director of Commu velopment
Secretary
August 20, 2001
Date Approved
•
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes July 16, 2001
6
PC-MTG.01-JULY.doc
JULY 27, 2001
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
1200 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook, Illinois 60523
NOTICE
AUGUST 2001
THURSDAY, HOTEL, CONVENTION & VISITORS COMMITTEE 5:00 P.M.
AUGUST 2 Village Commons-Upper Level Conference Room
TUESDAY, REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING 7:30 P.M.
AUGUST 7 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Kosowski'—341 Forest Trail—Flood Plain Special Use and Variation -To Allow Improvements
to the Existing Home in the Flood Plain
4. Arias/Raddawi"— 10 Lochinvar Lane—Variation—Side Yard Setback
5. Village of Oak Brook—Zoning Ordinance Review Project—Text Amendment—Title 13 of the
Village Code-Revisions to Chapter 12 Off-Street Parking and Loading
6. Other Business
THURSDAY, OAK BROOK 2001 AUTUMN FESTIVAL COMMITTEE 7:00 P.M.
AUGUST 9 Oak Brook Bath and Tennis Club-800 Oak Brook Road
TUESDAY, REGULAR BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING 7:30 P.M.
AUGUST 14 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
MONDAY, REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 P.M.
AUGUST 20 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Briarwood Lakes Subdivision—Special Use Amendment to Ordinance G-68
4. Village of Oak Brook—Zoning Ordinance Review Project—Text Amendment—Title 13
of the Village Code—Chapter 3—Further Review of Section 13-3-6-B Fences.
5. Other Business
TUESDAY, LIBRARY COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 P.M.
AUGUST 21 Village Commons-Upper Level Conference Room
MONDAY, COMMITTEE-OF-THE-WHOLE MEETING 7:30 P.M.
AUGUST 27 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
TUESDAY, REGULAR BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING 7:30 P.M.
AUGUST 28 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
'Item 3 on the Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda—Legal Notice for public hearing was published in the Daily Herald on July 16, 2001
"Item 4 on the Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda—Legal Notice for public hearing was published in the Daily Herald on July 16, 2001
In accordance with the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act,any individual who is in need of a reasonable accommodation
in order to participate in or benefit from attendance at a public meeting of the Village of Oak Brook should contact Michael Crotty, the
Village's ADA Coordinator,at 630-990-5738, as soon as possible before the meeting date.
NOTE: Changes to this schedule will be noticed separately.
MTG-NOT-2001-AUGUST
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
August 20, 2001
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Stelios Aktipis
Members Samuel Girgis
Surendra Goel
Barbara Payovich
Anthony Tappin
ALSO PRESENT: Village Trustee Alfred Savino
Director of Community Development Robert Kallien
A quorum was present.
IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Goel, to waive the reading of the May 21, 2001 Plan
Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as written.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed.
III. BRIARWOOD LAKES SUBDIVISION— SPECIAL USE AMENDMENT
The petitioner, Constantine Xinos, President of the Briarwood Lakes Homeowner's Association,
reviewed the request to seek an amendment to Special Use Ordinance G-68 from 1968.
The petitioner is seeking an amendment to one specific part only. A specific provision in G-68
states that there can be no private structure on common property. This resulted in some inequity
and confusion that affect property values and the resident's ability to enjoy their property to the
maximum. The development is over 30 years old, all townhouses (199 total) clustered as two or
three unit buildings. In 1967-1968 the developer Oak Brook Development, conveyed only that
portion of land that was the footprint of the house. As time progressed, owners were given
approximately 18" of land around the perimeter of their units as more time passed, the land area
conveyed became even greater. Finally, in the last phase of the development, which was the
island, the homeowners on the outer perimeter of the island own from the curb into the lake.
The petitioner is not seeking to expand the basic structure with room additions. There is an
inequitable situation as to the ability to build decks. Those who bought one of the later lots, had the
right to ask the association for permission to build a deck or a patio because they owned the
property over which it would be built. However, the owners of the units sold during the 1960's,
cannot even step outside their structure without going onto common property. As a result, there
are some decks and patios not in compliance with the Village Ordinance that were built by the
developer.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 20, 2001
1
PC-MTG.01-AUG.doc
F N�
Several years ago a resident reviewed the Ordinance, took his neighbor to court, and forced the
removal of a deck, which the Association had no objection to being built. The lawsuit began
consideration of developing language that would allow the Briarwood Lakes residents some
equality in the right to ask the Association permission to build decks onto their house. The
language would only allow a brick patio, concrete patio, or an elevated uncovered deck with a
railing. It took almost two years before the language was agreeable to all parties, the Village
Attorney, Community Development Director and Briarwood Lakes. After everyone agreed, the
Village Attorney said that the covenants must be amended so that the Association could allow
encroachments over the common ground. They only needed one person to file a petition for the
change and they have succeeded in the last year in getting 99% of the owners to consent. Out of
199 owners, they have 195-196 who have irrevocably consented. The original signatures have
been made part of the official file.
This change would not affect any property outside of Briarwood Lakes. The difference in the
encroachments, would be indiscernible from Brook Forest, and could not be seen from Forest
Gate, Hunter Trails, or any other subdivision. Proper notification was given to all surrounding
property owners. This amendment, if approved, allows the units to be used and enjoyed by the
residents equally, keeps the property value up, and stops the inequity between the units.
There is an understanding with the Community Development Department that a permit will not be
issued for patio construction if there is not an approval letter from the Association. The association
will not approve a request through the architectural committee, unless a survey submitted shows
there will not be an encroachment. The proposed encroachment is a revocable license that gives
the Association control even after it has been granted, in the unusual case that something would go
wrong. The association is diligent in enforcing its covenants and is trying to correct something that
is unfair. The proposed language is designed to bring that into effect.
Member Tappin asked how far the deck could be built. Mr. Xinos said that the language calls for
an uncovered deck with a railing no more than sixteen feet. They take into consideration the input
from adjoining neighbors and neighbors across the way. They ask anyone that could see it to
comment. An objection would not give veto power over the request, but they do take into
consideration whether it will effect another's view or access to a unit.
The association owns a part of each lot and there is no rhyme or reason as to how much land was
conveyed to the homeowner. The only conclusion they could come to was that as time progressed,
the developer realized that people like to enjoy the outside of their homes. The early units have a
Romeo and Juliet balcony. All you could do on it was to go out and stand.
Member Girgis questioned whether this amendment would allow the person whose deck was
removed, to rebuild it. Mr. Xinos said it would.
The following people spoke in favor of the proposal.
John Gramas, 187 Briarwood Loop, asked for clarification on the amendment. Mr. Xinos explained
that just because the language has been added to the covenant that does not mean the
Association will approve the request if it is not in harmony or would interfere with the neighbors
enjoyment of the property. Chairman Aktipis added that the only result of the amendment is that it
would allow an owner to petition the homeowners association for the construction of a patio or deck
within 16 feet of his walls. The request would be subject to the approval of the architectural
. committee of the association.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 20, 2001
2
PC-MTG.01-AUG.doc
l�
Lori Morency, 129 Briarwood Loop, said that she is in favor of the amendment. She is the property
owner who had to remove the deck. She said that she would put in a patio on the first floor if the
house were configured differently, but the whole living area is on the second floor. In order to get
to a patio on common ground, she would have to go through her bedroom for access. There is no
outdoor area that can be built and she is right on the lake. She owns only eighteen inches outside
of the house. The driveway and patio are on common ground.
Member Payovich asked out of 199 units, how many would benefit. Mr. Xinos said that it affects all
of the units, even those on the island. Approval must come from the Architectural Committee.
Mrs. McGreevy, 85 Briarwood, noted that the amendment would give people what they do not now
have, i.e., the right to seek approval of a deck. Right now, many do not even have the right to seek
an approval.
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Payovich, that the petitioner has addressed the
factors as required by ordinance to recommend for approval the petitioner's special use
amendment as requested.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Girgis, Goel, Payovich, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 0 -
Motion Carried.
IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK— ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT— FURTHER
• REVIEW of CHAPTER 3— 13-3-6-B - FENCES
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of
Appeals had made a recommendation to the Village Board to amend Section 13-3-6-B — Fences.
The proposed amendment would permit the construction of solid six-foot fences in residential
districts where the residential uses abut nonresidential zoning districts or the corporate limits of the
Village. It was thought that it would provide additional visual protection for those cases that comply
with these provisions. The Village Board approved all of the text amendments to Chapter 3,
however, it was felt that there were some issues that needed further discussion and consideration.
In particular, in cases where there is not a homeowners association in place, to allow an individual
homeowner to construct a solid six-foot fence, a hodgepodge of different fence styles could be
created. Trustee Savino had taken pictures to help illustrate the effect. A matrix has been
prepared of how other communities regulate fences. Ideal language could not be found from any
community that would benefit the Village.
Also, rather extensive research was done on the issue of chain link fences. Some opinions have
been expressed over the past year that perhaps the Village should not allow chain link fences in the
community. We found that Oak Brook has a very extensive inventory of chain link fencing on
individual properties, surrounding subdivisions, surrounding particular uses and along many of the
major roadways. This issue becomes more complicated because there is such an extensive
inventory throughout the village.
Chairman Aktipis asked if comparable communities, such as Wilmette allow chain link fences.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that they are only allowed by variation, on a case
• by case basis.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 20, 2001
3
PC-MTG.01-AUG.doc 7 /,
'dC/1 C
Member Tappin said that chain link fences do look shabby, however, when plantings and bushes
are placed in front of and around the fence it can hardly be seen, yet the fence performs the
function needed. Perhaps a stipulation to combine fencing and vegetation may be the way to go.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the typical chain link fences are silver metal,
however, others are painted black which are more difficult to see because they blend into the
surroundings. Not all chain link fences are the same. A fence, such as the one around Midwest
Club, is not even looked at as offensive because most people cannot see the chain link, because
over time it has been covered by vegetation.
Director of Community Development Kallien noted that the fence survey that was compiled
reviewed solid fencing and their heights, not specifically chain link fencing. Chairman Aktipis said
that before any recommendation is made to the Village Board, he would like to see the survey
focused on whether chain link fencing is allowed in other comparable communities.
Member Tappin noted that if we recommend to allow six foot fences, and at the time of application
it is required that it be disguised by vegetation, then chain link fences could be tolerable. Chairman
Aktipis said that it could be tied together with a landscaping requirement. The requirement could
be, if that type of fence is desired, then appropriate landscaping could be required to keep it from
being visible from the street.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that it many of the subdivisions there are
covenants that control what type of fencing, if any, could be built on private property. What was
originally intended by this solid six-foot high fence, there are properties that back up to something
that is not aesthetically pleasing. An individual whose properties borders an unincorporated area
outside the village, sent pictures of the view showing abandoned vehicles and trash and they were
seeking a visual barrier so that they did not have to look at it. A couple members suggested
landscaping, but, it was noted that landscaping takes some time to provide a sufficient barrier and
• does not have the protection or durability of a fence. Member Goel said that most solid fences are
ugly. Director of Community Development Kallien said that fences may look nice individually,
however, if several different styles were located together it would not look nice collectively.
Member Payovich said that if a standard is set requiring a certain type of uniform fence. Chairman
Aktipis asked if the village could put into effect a regulation in that manner.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that If there is no homeowner association, each
individual will rely on the regulations of the village. Staff can review the information from some of
the other communities and possibly ask Attorney Martens to try to draft some language that could
put some controls in place.
Member Girgis said that in Hinsdale and Lake Forest they allow solid fences along major highways
and busy streets. What the village has had has worked for a long time and is aesthetically
pleasing. guidance. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the proposed change
has evolved because there are instances where property backs up to the edge of the community,
and what is on the other side of the community is in visual conflict. Requests have been received
over the years, however our regulations do not allow solid fencing. The only way it can be
accomplished is through a variation and it can be very difficult to meet the standards. The
compromised language still maintains the integrity of the fence provisions. The intention was not to
create more problems, but to resolve some.
Member Goel said that no matter what the merits are for a solid fence it is always very ugly. The
way around it is to cover it with shrubbery. It takes time to grow vegetation, but when a lot is
purchased, they can see the problem, and the way to improve it would be with vegetation. Member
Tappin said that aesthetics is one thing, but protection is another, so there is another factor.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that unless it is a very tall fence, if someone would
want to get over it they would. Unfortunately, a fence is a small hindrance if someone really wants
to get from one side to another. That is why very tall fences surround some of the utility equipment
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 20, 2001
4
PC-MTG.01-AUG.doc _
with barbed wire on top. If taller solid fences are allowed, there will be long term maintenance that
the village will get involved with through the property maintenance code.
Member Goel moved, seconded by Member Payovich, to continue this hearing for further review of
this matter.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman Aktipis took a few minutes to comment on the resignation of Steve Allen. Effective
immediately, he will no longer be part of the Commission. Steve did a great job and always
provided a positive contribution to the hearings. He will be missed, along with his wisdom and
helpfulness in the decisions that were reached. Personally and on behalf of the Plan Commission
Chairman Aktipis extended his gratitude to Steve and wished him well.
Vl. ADJOURNMENT
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Goel to adjourn.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
. Director of ommunity eve o
Secretary
October 15, 2001
Date Approved
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 20, 2001
5
PC-MTG.01-AUG.doc
GE 111 0AK
P d
9c
� t
9 0
_y
O
�v
OUNTI
Village of
Oak Brook
1200 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook,IL 60523-2255
Website
www.oak-brook.org NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING
Administration
630.990.3000
FAX 630.990.0876
Communitv NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Plan Commission Chairman
Development
630.990.3045 cancelled the regular Plan Commission Meeting of September 17, 2001,
FAX 630.990.3985 g g p
Engineering due to lack of quorum. The next regular Plan Commission Meeting is
Department
630.990.3010
FAX 630.990.3985 scheduled for October 15, 2001.
Fire Department
630.990.3040
0 630.990.2392 VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Police Department
630.990.2358
FAX 630.990.7484
Public Works
Department
630.990.3044
FAX 630.472.0223 If you have any questions regarding the next meeting please call
Oak Brook the Community Development Department at 630-990-3045 (8-4).
Public Library
1112 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook,IL 60523-4623
630.990.2222
FAX 630.990.0170
Oak Brook Sports Core
Bath &Tennis Club
700 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook,IL 60523-4600
630.990.3020
FAX 630.990.1002
Golf Club
'06 York Road
Oak Brook,IL 60523-4602
630.990.3032
FAX 630.990.0245
SEPTEMBER 28, 2001
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
1200 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook, Illinois 60523
NOTICE
OCTOBER 2001
TUESDAY, REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING 7:30 P.M.
OCTOBER 2 MEETING CANCELLED
THURSDAY, HOTEL, CONVENTION & VISITORS COMMITTEE 5:00 P.M.
OCTOBER 4 MEETING CANCELLED
TUESDAY, REGULAR BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING 7:30 P.M.
OCTOBER 9 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
WEDNESDAY, OAK BROOK 2001 AUTUMN FESTIVAL COMMITTEE 7:00 P.M.
OCTOBER 11 MEETING CANCELLED
MONDAY, REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 P.M.
OCTOBER 15 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
3. The Oakland Plat of Subdivision— 121 and 209 Oak Brook Road—Preliminary Plat—
Three-Lot Subdivision
4. Village of Oak Brook—Zoning Ordinance Review Project—Text Amendment—Title 13
of the Village Code—Chapter 11—Sign Regulations
5. Village of Oak Brook—Zoning Ordinance Review Project—Text Amendment—Title 13
of the Village Code—Chapter 3—Further Review of Section 13-3-6-B Fences.
6. Other Business
MONDAY, COMMITTEE-OF-THE-WHOLE MEETING 7:30 P.M.
OCTOBER 22 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
TUESDAY, REGULAR BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING 7:30 P.M.
OCTOBER 23 Village Commons-Samuel E. Dean Board Room
In accordance with the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act,any individual who is in need of a reasonable accommodation
in order to participate in or benefit from attendance at a public meeting of the Village of Oak Brook should contact Michael Crotty, the
Village's ADA Coordinator, at 630-990-5738, as soon as possible before the meeting date.
NOTE. Changes to this schedule will be noticed separately.
MTG-NOT-2001-OCT
r ►
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
October 15, 2001
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Stelios Aktipis
Members Samuel Girgis
Surendra Goel
Barbara Payovich
Anthony Tappin
ALSO PRESENT: Village Trustee Alfred Savino
Director of Community Development Robert Kallien
Village Engineer Dale Durfey
A quorum was present.
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Goel, to waive the reading of the August 20, 2001
Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as written.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed.
Ill. THE OAKLAND PLAT OF SUBDIVISION — 121 and 209 OAK BROOK HILLS ROAD
— PRELIMINARY PLAT— THREE-LOT SUBDIVISION
Rachel Robert, Day and Robert, P.C., is the attorney for the petitioners Dr. Alias and Hope
Sabbagha, who have been residents of Oak Brook for the past six years residing at 408 Bridgeway
Court. She reviewed their request to seek preliminary plat approval of subdividing two lots into
three lots. The property is located at 121 and 209 Oak Brook Road, east of York Road, west of 1-
294, south of Oak Brook Road.
There is approximately 7.7 acres of land which was bought on January 31, 2001. It is currently
zoned R1 and surrounded by R1 zoning. A preliminary engineering assessment has been done on
the site by Christopher Burke that reflects no wetlands or floodplain on the property. The site is
heavily wooded. Currently there are two lots with a direct access point for the western lot onto Oak
Brook Road. The eastern lot has access to a toll roadway which is maintained by the State of
Illinois, in conjunction with a frontage road that serves as access to the site as well as some other
parcels located to the east.
They have met with staff several times to review the proposal. No rezoning is being sought. All of
the new lots will meet the minimum requirements of the R1 zoning district. All setback
requirements will be met. They are proposing to eliminate a direct access point onto Oak Brook
Road. A private looped configured driveway will serve each lot and will have a teardrop landscape
center. The private drive would be owned by the homeowners association. Easements would be
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes October 15, 2001
1
PC-MTG.01-OCT.doc (�
on all three lots relative to the ongoing maintenance of the driveway and landscaping of the
teardrop center. The reason for the loop is to allow for the preservation of the existing mature
• trees. The property is heavily wooded and many trees are over 100 years old. It contains white
oak, burr oak, scarlet oak, hickory and cherry trees. The petitioners are very interested in
preserving and maintaining the overall integrity of the trees so that any disturbance to them could
be minimized while maximizing the aesthetic nature of the site. Detention will be provided on the
southeast corner and will flow west to east. The detention area is designed to be a dry bottom
facility and will be maintained through an easement agreement.
There have been a couple of previously approved subdivisions in the village that have tried to
incorporate similar types of features as far as preservation of trees and for private driveways, such
as the Sue Boon and the Mizen Subdivisions.
Six of the seven requested variations to the subdivision regulations deal directly with the
maintenance of the private driveway as opposed to having a public street. The variations
requested are as follows:
1. 14-6-2-B — Lot 3 the southern most lot does not abut a street but a private driveway.
2. 14-6-3-A(c) — The turnaround of the private driveway is less than 120 feet, it is actually 90
feet.
3. 14-6-3-A — The street is 20 feet wide at the entrance and 16 feet wide for the turnaround.
They are trying to minimize the pavement and stormwater runoff associated with the street.
4. 14-6-3-A (3) — They are also seeking a waiver of the requirements of curb and gutter.
5. 14-6-3-E — Seeking a waiver of the requirements for sidewalks.
6. 14-6-3-F — Seeking a waiver of the requirements for street lights
7 14-6-3-D — Requirement of sump pump connection to the sewer or detention system.
• In conclusion, they believe this subdivision will be a positive attribute for Oak Brook.
Chairman Aktipis asked how the road connects. Attorney Roberts responded that the existing road
is maintained by the Toll Authority and runs almost to 1-294 that is just east of the site. They are
adding the primary access to come off the frontage road for all three lots and will access Oak
Brook Road indirectly.
Member Tappin asked about the water main. Paul Bates from Spaceco responded that the Village
Engineer offered two possible solutions to either come in and loop the water main through the
subdivision or have the main line as an actual service to lot 3 and the other two lots would tap in off
that service. They will abide by either choice.
Member Tappin questioned if the solutions work for the Fire Dept. Village Engineer Durfey
responded that the Fire Department does not review the service. Director of Community
Development Kallien clarified that the Fire Department was concerned with the way the line was
delineated and the solution they are offering addresses that issue.
Member Girgis questioned whether the turning radius was adequate for the Fire Department.
Rachel Robert responded that the design as configured has been reviewed and is of an acceptable
width and radius. Director of Community Development Kallien said that is something that will need
to be checked, and Village Board approval will be one that provides suitable movement for the fire
trucks. Paul Bates added that the drive can provide truck-turning movement, but if it becomes an
issue, the turning radius could be expanded to accommodate the trucks to traverse the loop.
Member Tappin questioned the possibility of underground power lines being placed on the lot at
time of development. Attorney Roberts responded that the matter had not been discussed, and
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes October 15, 2001
2
PC-MTG.01-OCT.doc
could not commit. There was a brief discussion regarding the burying of power lines. Member Goel
and Member Girgis both questioned bringing the lines underground for just these three lots in that
• area. Rachel Robert said that they are going from two to three lots and to bare what may be an
extraordinary cost for solely burying the lines for 500 feet in the front, they may be hesitate to
undertake that additional work. Chairman Aktipis noted that it might not be fair to impose the
financial burden on one petitioner.
Chairman asked if there were any plans to bury the entire system along Oak Brook Road.
Engineer Durfey commented that the Village Board at one time discussed the matter, and it would
have cost approximately one million dollars a mile, so the idea was shelved. Engineer Durfey said
that the Village has an agreement with ComEd and that a specified number of feet per year can be
required to be buried at their cost. It is a small cumulative number per year.
Member Goel questioned the existing pavement width of driveway. Paul Bates said that the
existing was just private drives, which is why they are much smaller than the drives that have been
proposed. The reason for the wider width is that the drive is going to be serving three lots. They
needed to provide enough width that would allow two cars to pass by each other if one was pulling
out. There is a twenty-foot width at the entrance and sixteen foot on the roadway so that if
someone is parked another car can get by.
Member Tappin asked if there are cars on the driveway, would there still be enough room for
emergency vehicles to get through. Engineer Durfey said that it depends on far off the road they
pull when they park. The Sue Boon subdivision is a three-lot subdivision with a private drive. The
driveway is twenty feet wide and services all three lots by an egress easement. The Mizen
subdivision on Glendale Avenue is a three-lot subdivision that would share a common driveway
through an easement. There was no width stipulated for the driveway.
• Pete Pointer said that in contrast to the situation where the width of the drive would be determined
by those who built their homes, they have shown a twenty-foot width. Even a parking lot in the
downtown area is only eight feet wide for parallel parking. A car can park there and still leave
ample room for a fire truck, an ambulance or delivery truck to pass by. Each of the individual
property owners will also have a driveway going to their garage. There is a minimum thirty-foot
setback so there will be room for parking on the driveway in addition to the access drive. There are
some situations in Oak Brook where a fire truck does not have any turn around, cul-de-sac or loop,
so they have to pull up into a driveway to turn around. The worst that could happen would be that if
the biggest equipment could not make it in one turn, they would need to back up a short distance
and then cut the radius. Their engineer will work with the fire department to find something
acceptable to them. In terms of the parking, there will be only three families living there. It will not
be like the traffic that you have on a public street. The sixteen-foot area is the loop that would
serve lot 3. The twenty-foot section is where the driveway would come off to serve lot 1 or lot 2.
There has been a modification to the concept to shorten the loop a bit. The central spine road
coming in is twenty feet in width.
Member Tappin believes this should be reviewed and approved by the fire department. Rachel
Roberts responded that any concerns of the fire department would be addressed.
Engineer Durfey said that the comments in his memo have been reviewed and some things are
drafting revisions that they are proceeding to make. He noted that there are no conceptual issues,
there are details for which they need to revise the plans. The biggest question was the access
because a driveway with an ingress egress easement, is the point to measure the setbacks.
Rachel Roberts said that they were taking the thirty-foot setback from the actual lot line as opposed
to the pavement. As a result, they are in the process of working some minor revisions. They want
to keep the loop driveway, and believe it is an aesthetic plus for the subdivision.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes October 15, 2001
3
PC-MTG.01-OCT.doc
No one spoke in support of or in opposition to the proposal.
• Director of Community Development Kallien said that this is a preliminary plat and all the issues
raised by the Village Engineer and the Fire Department will be corrected before it goes to the
Village Board. At some point in the future, it will come back as a Final Plat.
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Payovich, that the petitioner has met the
requirements necessary to recommend for approval the preliminary plat for the Oakland Plat of
Subdivision, along with the requested variations to the Subdivision Regulations, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Fire Department approval.
2. Verify that the Safety Pathway Committee is not contemplating facilities on this site.
3. Address the issues contained in the memorandum from Village Engineer Durfey dated
October 9, 2001 and final Engineering approval.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Girgis, Goel, Payovich, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Absent: 0 -
Motion Carried.
IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK— ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT— FURTHER
REVIEW of CHAPTER 3— 13-3-6-B - FENCES
Director of Community Development Kallien stated that the Plan Commission, Zoning Board of
. Appeals and ultimately the Village Board approved text amendments to Chapter 3, which dealt with
general zoning provisions. As part of that chapter review, there were issues raised regarding
fencing. In particular, changes were proposed where residential development abuts nonresidential
development or the municipal limits of the Village and gives the owner the ability to construct a
taller 6-ft. high solid fence. Even though the Village Board approved amendments to Chapter 3,
they did not act on the fence issue and sent it back to the Plan Commission to further analyze.
At the last meeting, staff presented information on the fence issue from a number of other
communities. As a follow-up to that discussion, staff further analyzed the fence regulations from
other community's to determine how they may regulate chain link fencing.
Of the communities who were contacted, most allow chain link fences while two were found to
prohibit/limit their use. Others allow them with certain conditions such as location, height, and
gauge of the fence or being combined with landscape treatments.
Chairman Aktipis said that he does not care for chain link fences, however, based on ongoing
discussions and others views he has would not be opposed to limited use of this type of fence.
Several members have suggested black chain link fences, with the added provision that they are
fully sealed by landscaping on both sides within two years of installation. That would probably be a
good way to deal with them. He would also like an additional limitation that they be allowed only in
side and rear yards.
Member Tappin said that Butler National has a green chain link fence and prefers that to black. He
agrees with the side and rear yard restriction and that it be covered with vegetation. It should
definitely be colored. Some of the homeowners associations prohibit fencing, which would prevail
over the village code.
• Member Payovich asked if an existing fence had to be repaired, could the Village require that it be
brought compliance with any new changes made to the code. Director of Community Development
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes October 15, 2001
4
PC-MTG.01-OCT.doc
Kallien said that normally, when something is modified, it is subjected to the new zoning provisions
that are in place. However, if repairs are made to only a small portion of the fence, there has to be
• a standard that establishes a specific percentage of replacement before it triggers the new code
provisions.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that there are some types of metal fences that no
one objects to, such as wrought iron. Both wrought iron and chain link are constructed of metal
and 50 to 80% open. Based on these similarities, how do you differentiate between the two? One
is believed to be okay, however, the other needs to be landscaped significantly. The Village
Attorney is very concerned that if the only thing we are trying to address is aesthetics, then
something else needs to be added to the equation.
Chairman Aktipis said that they are addressing aesthetics, but requiring a specific type of
construction would seem to be enforceable. Member Payovich asked how Chicago does it.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the state statutes are written so that Chicago
is excluded from some of the provisions that affect other communities. In essence, they follow a
whole other set of rules. In Illinois, there are non-home rule communities like Oak Brook. There
are home rule communities where certain regulations can be adopted, and then there is Chicago,
that can generally do what they need to do.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that we are not advocating a change at all to the
ability to place a fence on certain areas of the property or the height of the fence. At the last
meeting issues were discussed on how to create an environment where you avoid conflicting
designs of fencing. One of the pictures showed previously was where a number of properties had
installed wooden fences along the rear property line that individually looked very nice. They were
expensive fences, but when they were all next to each other, none matched. Is that an important
issue considering that the solid fence provisions would only apply to properties that back up to
another community. In most cases, some of these areas are already screened with existing
• fencing/vegetation. How much new fencing will we potentially get?
Chairman Aktipis said that if the village cannot impose any particular style of a fence for the
community as a whole, then they are in a discussion that has no conclusion.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that at this time, it is very difficult to draft a
standard that controls the style of a fence while ensuring that it is uniform from one property to the
next. Solid, board-on-board fencing of a certain height and finish can be stipulated, but that does
not guarantee uniformity between one property to the next.
Currently we allow fencing to be 42 inches high and 50% open, with the exception of fences around
pools that are to be a minimum of 48 inches high which is a safety issue. As part of the proposed
text amendment, do we want to go one step further and allow areas at the perimeter of the
community that back up to another jurisdiction, as well as residential properties that abut up certain
types of commercial zoning, to offer them any additional fencing opportunity. This is now split into
two issues. How to handle chain link fencing, and still make a recommendation to the Village Board
on the original discussion, which related to limited use of solid wood fences.
There was a general discussion regarding the issue of chain link fences between residential
homes. It was discussed that the chain link fence should be of a particular color, no slats, and
landscaping should be required on both sides of the fence. Existing fences would be
grandfathered for repairs only. If they need to be replaced, they would have to follow the new
requirements. Many of the subdivisions do not allow fencing. The Village zoning ordinance is the
basic standard from which development follows. If we allow a certain type of fencing, and
subdivision chooses to be more restrictive, they can do that. They cannot be less restrictive than
the Village standards, we establish the threshold. After a further discussion, it was agreed that
• chain link fences would not be allowed between houses.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes October 15, 2001
5
PC-MTG.01-OCT.doc
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Goel to recommend for approval that the following
text be proposed as an amendment to the fencing provisions of Chapter 3.
• In areas where residential property abuts the corporate limits of the Village or abuts non-
residential areas, perimeter fencing is allowed with the following conditions:
Is a minimum of six-feet in height, be a green chain link fence, be constructed of not less
than 9 gauge wire and be landscaped on the Oak Brook side. Also, slats are not allowed.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Girgis, Goel, Payovich, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Motion Carried.
Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Goel to recommend for approval that the following
text be proposed as an amendment to the fencing provisions of Chapter 3.
Chain link fencing is not allowed in residential areas, other than previously specified.
If chain link fencing were desired, Village Board approval would be required.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Girgis, Goel, Payovich, Tappin and Aktipis
Nays: 0 -
Motion Carried.
V. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK— ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT— TEXT
AMENDMENT— TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE— CHAPTER 11 — SIGN
REGULATIONS
• As part of the Village's comprehensive review to the Zoning Ordinance, Director of Community
Development Kallien summarized the proposed text amendments to Chapter 11, Sign Regulations,
as follows:
Add a section entitled "Purpose" which establishes the foundation for the sign regulation and
identifies specific benefits to the community.
13-11-1. Specifies when permits are required to install, modify, relocate, or alter a sign.
13-11-2. Specifies the specific types of signs and attention getting devices that are
prohibited.
13-11-3. Specifies the types of signs that can be located in the Village without the benefit of
a permit.
13-11-5-B. Recommends language which helps to ensure that the design and scale of the sign
on a building or lot is compatible with the principal building and adjacent land uses.
13-11-5-C. Recommends language to ensure that ground signs and directional signs be
consistent in shape with the principal building. Also, it is recommended that all
ground signs be properly landscaped and maintained.
13-11-5-D. Provides language that confirms the current position on signage in the Village. In
particular, signs shall be illuminated by a white light and that light sources shall be
screened so that light/glare does not spill onto adjacent property. When signs are
internally lit, they are to be backlit on an opaque background. Language has been
• added to require that exterior light sources placed at the base of signs for
illumination should be screened.
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes October 15, 2001
6
PC-MTG.01-OCT.doc 1_�
13-11-5-D(3). Recommends that the maximum illumination of a sign or any other light source
as measured at the property line of any adjacent residential property shall not
• exceed one-half (1/2) foot-candle.
13-11-6-E. Recommends language that limits the number of additional ground signs to be
located on a residential lot.
13-11-7-A(3). Add language which confirms that the maximum size of any sign on a single
business in the B-1, B-3 and B-4 Commercial Districts is 240 sq. ft.
13-11-8-A(3). Add language which clarifies that signs internal to the shopping center (i.e.,
Oakbrook Center) in the B-2 District that are not visible to the any exterior street
and/or parking lot are exempt from the size limitations contained in the Chapter.
13-11-10-A(2). Recommends language which limits the number of additional ground signs to
be located on a lot in the Institutional District.
13-11-11-A(2). Add language which confirms that the maximum size of all signs does not
exceed 240 sq. ft. in the ORA-1, ORA-2 Office-Research-Assembly Districts.
13-11-11-A(3). Add language which confirms that the maximum amount of ground signage on
a lot shall not exceed 160 sq. ft.
13-11-14-D(2). Amends the fine that is contained on the sign which designates a handicap
parking space from $50 to $100 which is the current law in the Village.
In addition to the above changes, pages 3q and 3r of the petition file contain a list of definitions that
need to be moved/established/amended and integrated into the Chapter 2 Definitions.
No one was in the audience to comment on any of the proposed amendments. The members
• agreed to continue the discussion to the next meeting.
Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Payovich to continue this matter to the next regular
Plan Commission meeting.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
Vl. OTHER BUSINESS
Brief discussion regarding the Plan Commission members that would be attending the Zoning
Seminar being sponsored by the DuPage Mayors and Managers on October 20, 2001.
Vll. ADJOURNMENT
Member Girgis moved, seconded by Member Goel to adjourn.
VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m. ��"�
Director of Commu elopment
Secretary
• January 21, 2002
Date Approved
PLAN COMMISSION Minutes October 15, 2001
7
PC-MTG.01-OCT.doc
vE OF 04 4,
P e90
� O
y
V�
e ejo? I •\
Village of
Oak Brook
1200 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook,IL 60523-2255
Website
www.oak-brook.org NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING
Administration
630.990.3000
FAX 630.990.0876
Community NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Plan Commission
Development
630.990.3045 Chairman cancelled the regular Plan Commission Meeting of
FAX 630.990.3985
Engineering November 19, 2001, due to lack of agenda. The next regular Plan
Department
630.990.3010Commission Meeting is scheduled for December 17 2001.
FAX 630.990.3.3985 ommee9�
Fire Department
630.990.3040
is 630.990.2392
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Police Department
630.990.2358
FAX 630.990.7484
Public Works
Department
630.990.3044
FAX 630.472.0223
Oak Brook
Public Library
1112 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook,IL 60523-4623
630.990.2222
FAX 630.990.0170
Oak Brook Sports Core
Bath&Tennis Club
700 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook,IL 60523-4600
630.990.3020
FAX 630.990.1002
Golf Club
6 York Road
Oak Brook,IL 60523-4602
630.990.3032
FAX 630.990.0245
0
h
0
2
9CFCOUN14
Village of
Oak Brook
1200 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook,IL 60523-2255
Website
www.oak-brook.org NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING
Administration
630.990.3000
FAX 630.990.0876
Community NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Plan Commission
Development
630.990.3045 Chairman cancelled the regular Plan Commission Meeting of
FAX 630.990.3985 g g
Engineering December 17, 2001, due to lack of quorum. The next regular Plan
Department
630.990.3010
FAX 630.990.3985 Commission Meeting is scheduled for January 21, 2002.
Fire Department
630.990.3040
W X
630.990.2392
Police Department VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
630.990.2358
FAX 630.990.7484
Public Works
Department
630.990.3044
FAX 630.472.0223
Oak Brook
Public Library
1112 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook,IL 60523-4623
630.990.2222
FAX 630.990.0170
Oak Brook Sports Core
Bath&Tennis Club
700 Oak Brook Road
Oak Brook,IL 60523-4600
630.990.3020
FAX 630.990.1002
0Golf Club
2606 York Road
Oak Brook,IL 60523-4602
630.990.3032
FAX 630.990.0245