Loading...
Minutes - 06/19/2012 - Zoning Board of Appeals MINUTES OF THE JUNE 19, 2012 RESCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON SEPTEMBER 13,2012 1. CALL TO ORDER: CALL.TO ORDER The Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Champ Davis in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:03 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: RoLI,CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Jeffrey Bulin, Natalie Cappetta,Alfred Savino, Steven Young and Wayne Ziemer. ABSENT: Member Baker Nimry IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Wolin, Trustee, Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development, Peter Friedman, Village Attorney and Michael Hullihan,Village Engineer 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES Approval of the minutes of May 1, 2012 meeting was continued to the next meeting. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS BUSINIS S BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to discuss. 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. CANTORE — 2021 SWIFT DRIVE — VARIATION — PARKING CANTORE -- 2021 SWIFT DRIVE - REQUIREMENTS—FRONT YARD VARIATION - PARKING i REQUIREMENTS Chairman Davis swore in those that testified at this hearing. Joseph Cantore, owner of the property located at 2021 Swift Drive reviewed the requested variation to allow additional parking spaces in the front yard. The building was constructed in 1977 and at that time Stone Container was the original tenant in the building and the parking lot was deemed to be adequate VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 24 June 19, 2012 not only through the building code, but met the tenants needs. As the years progressed a 6,000 square foot addition was constructed and the number of parking spaces, while still to code at the time, narrowly met the requirements of the tenant. As time went on the tenant outgrew the building and moved out. Mr. Cantore and his father purchased the property about 14 years ago. The building was then leased to Griffith Laboratories a company with laboratory needs. At that time they deemed the parking to be adequate, although at the time of their move-in,they advised that parking might become an issue at some point during their lease or during their renewal period that with additional staffing needs, the parking might not be adequate. Years later, at the end of their lease Griffith moved out (approximately 4 years ago) and consolidated their operations to a larger main facility off of I-294. Part of the reason for their move was due to the minimal parking that was available on the property, which helped with their decision. The property has sat vacant since that time. For the last 14 years ownership has maintained and successfully leased the property. They have tried to be a good neighbor and commercial resident of the Village. As consolidation among businesses continues, increased parking demands arise. The Village of Oak brook has addressed this by increasing the minimum parking standards for new construction. There are several factors affecting leasing of the building that are a hardship to the ownership. They have continually attempted to lease the building over the past 4 years. They have utilized two different brokers, as well as personally going out to find potential lessees. As of this date, ownership has had interest, but still has no pending leases for the property. The current real estate broker, NAI Hiffman, has shown the property approximately 20 times to interested parties, but none have been able to make the property fit their business plan, due largely in part to the amount of parking spaces available. The current minimum parking requirements set by the Village for this type of commercial building requires at least 3.3 parking stalls per 1000 square feet of building. Using the current village minimum requirements, their parking lot is inadequate by 19 parking stalls, or 38% deficient when compared to similar VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 24 June 19, 2012 buildings in the area,essentially tagging our parking lot as obsolete. They attempted to negotiate additional parking with the ComEd property immediately to the north; however ComEd was not interested in any type of parldng arrangement. The percentage of the lot in the front area of the building is high due to the configuration and placement of the building. The subject property has far more front yard than any other property in the immediate neighborhood. The existing parking lot along the cast and south perimeter of the building has no room for expansion, and the area to the north is utilized for storm water detention leaving the front yard area the only option to obtain additional parking. They did not construct the original building, because if they had, they might have built a second story and thought more about the placement of parking. His father always tried to put extra parking at his buildings because they generally buy buildings and hold them. When they bought the building it was an exchange and is not the kind of building his father would have built. Through recent negotiations with prospective tenants they have said that if a variance could be obtained for additional parking they would strongly consider leasing the property. If additional parking was present, the property would have been leased years ago because all of the other elements are present for a business to move in. It is a desirable building location, such as proximity to all major area highways, and being located in the premier town of Oak Brook. They have everything going for them, except the parking. The ongoing parking hardship in excess of 4 years has greatly impacted their desire to remain in Oak Brook and provide a fully leased building. They respectfully requested a variance be granted allowing additional parking be constructed to confoim to current minimum parking regulations greatly increasing their ability to lease the property which in turn would be an asset for the Village. Chairman Davis questioned the specific relief was being sought and how close they would be to the building. Brian Person, Cantore Construction, responded that they were seeking an additional 44 parking spaces in the front yard and the parking lot would abut VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 24 June 19,2012 the existing building. He referred to page H of the case file,which represented an aerial view of the property. Chairman Davis noted that the parking appeared to take up most of the property and questioned how it would impact the neighborhood. Mr. Person responded that 2020 Swift also received a variation for parking in the front yard. Also, most of the other lots in the neighborhood have as much impervious area as they are seeking. Chairman Davis noted that the existing trees in the front yard would be removed. Mr. Cantore responded that through their engineering they will be providing all of the storm water retention on their property. They are also providing all of the screening on their property,not in the parkway. Chairman Davis questioned how they concluded that an additional 44 spaces were needed. Mr. Person responded that it was part of two prospective tenant requirements. The additional parking and the existing would give them a total of 100 spaces. One tenant, a medical laboratory use, is requiring a minimum of 88 spaces. Chairman Davis questioned that Exelon (ConrEd) with the large amount of parking on its site,would not work out a parking arrangement with them. Mr. Cantore confirmed that they did not. Their broker thought that they would negotiate some sort of a deal for parking,however,they would not. Chairman Davis noted that the current required parldng ratio is 3.3 spaces and if all 44 spaces were approved they would have approximately 4.5 spaces, exceeding the Village requirement. Member Ziemer questioned if the detention area was being modified and questioned the impervious area that would be on the site. Mr. Person responded that they were adding to it so that everything from the front yard parking area would be routed to the detention basin and would then be filtered to the storm sewer. The detention basin is large enough to handle the new parking facilities. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 24 June 19,2012 Mr. Ziemer asked if they were close to 100 percent impervious area on the lot. Mr. Cantore responded that they would be 72 percent. Member Young questioned whether there was enough room to turn around space for emergency vehicle access onto the site. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that there was enough room. He added that over the last several years there have been a number of similar requests to add additional parking in the front yard. Most recently,there was a request at 600 22"d Street (formerly 600 Hunter), also at 814 Commerce, and a number of other locations. The issue is that the Village has a minimum standard, which are 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. This building did not meet that because originally a portion of the building was used for warehouse and over time it has been used and developed for office research type use. As stated by the applicant, 3.3 spaces is really the minimum requirement. It appears that the value that is now placed on the real estate we are tending to see the office tenants require a higher parking standard. The John Buck building at 2001 York Road has a parking ratio of about 4.5 spaces. The recently approved Hub office building has a parking ratio close to 5 spaces. It appears that there is some logic to the request to move the number upward. The question is what is the balance between maintaining a reasonable amount of open space relative to the ultimate parking needs Chairman Davis noted that he drove through the area and the neighbors all have quite a bit of green space. In his opinion, if the green space is all taken out to accommodate parking space, it would essentially alter the character of the neighborhood. He questioned whether there could be a lesser amount of spaces needed or to reconfigure the lot to save some of the beautiful front yard. Mr. Cantore noted that he and his father have been Oak Brook residents for a long time and they both like a lot of green space, and they like their buildings to be landscaped correctly to blend with the environment. They would go out of their way to make sure that the Village and the neighbors are satisfied and happy with how the final product looks. He thought that the landscape plan could be modified and would still give them the proper amount of parking that they need in order to rent the building. Chairman Davis questioned whether parking was being added to the north and west of the detention area. He noted that none of the other neighbors have parking in the green space in front of their buildings. Adding berms and landscaping would still result in losing all of the green space in the front. He understood that additional parking for the building is needed, but there must be VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 24 June 19,2012 a better plan than to have parking out to Swift Drive. Member Savino said that it was stated there are no pending leases for the property,but are asking for a huge variation. He suggested that the tenants may not need 94 spaces and he understood that more parking is needed and perhaps the number could be reduced to 80 spaces. It looks like it is being maxed out potentially for some tenant in the future. Right now there is not a tenant in need of all the parking being requested. Mr. Person responded that they have a Request For Proposal and the tenant needs 88 spaces minimum and they would not sign a lease unless a variation was approved that is the reason they are taking the steps now in order to make the building more marketable to the corporations that require this parking and then hopefully they will be able to rent the building, which would be better for the entire neighborhood. Mr. Cantore added that they are taking a big chance to do the parking if they receive approval of the variation because the cost of this work is about $200,000. They are willing to take the gamble based on the location of the building in Oak Brook because it is a desirable address and location for some company to be in. As mentioned, everyone is talking about consolidation, because times are not what they used to be 10- 15 years ago. The building was great back 15 years ago. The type of tenants coming to them to potentially rent the building have a whole different set of needs than they had 15 years ago. In order for it to be economically feasible they need help. Member Savino said that under the code, 19 spaces could be put in. He questioned whether the detention pond could be moved to the front and would provide green space. Bernard Bono, Bono Consulting Civil Engineers said that they worked on the civil engineering plans. He said that the detention area could be relocated, but questioned in advantage in moving it because currently it is an established green space. Mr. Cantore noted that it boils down to money. The building has been empty for four years and it is to the point that they need to rent the building. If things could be moved around to relocate the detention area to the front, and was not cost prohibitive, they would be open to that, but the costs are a big factor. They want to be good neighbors and they do not buy buildings in order to flip them. They want to make sure that everyone is happy. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 24 June 19,2012 Member Ziemer asked if they had considered a storm trap so that it could be paved over. Mr. Bono responded that they had not considered it, based on preliminary discussions with the engineering staff they were told that if they could keep the detention as is,they would not need to add additional detention on the site. The designs were based on keeping it at 2500 square feet of disturbed area. It is an option, but becomes a cost issue. A storm trap system they had done in Elk Grove Village cost $100,000, which results in expensive parking spaces. The original idea of moving a grass basin in the front and taking the dirt to fill in the basin could possibly add 9 or 10 spaces to the north side of the building and keep detention on the site. Member Ziemer asked if they had looked at the alternative plan in the case file and could result in approximately 30 spaces, which would correlate to 411,000. Mr. Person said that would not help with one of the potential tenants they had been talking with. They currently have 50 spaces and need at least 38 spaces in order to play ball with them. Mr. Cantore said that they would look at just about anything because the main focus is to rent the building. If they add 30 and are short by b, then they could not rent it. He would be more flexible, but some of the big corporations have minimum requirements and there is no room to negotiate. They have wants and needs and if you cannot accommodate them, then you are out. He would hate to see them go to Westmont or Elmhurst,etc. Chairman Davis noted that it is a very attractive building; however he had a great concern of changing the character of Swift Drive in the circle with the present plan as proposed, which is one of the major steps in the standards that must be met. He suggested that several alternatives were discussed at the hearing and that the applicant should look at the alternatives and come back to the next meeting to continue the presentation. He would like to see another way to preserve some of the green space along Swift Drive. William Lindeman, 11 Pembroke Lane, said that the Zoning Board did not consider storin water detention under the parking as an option. There are several very ugly dry detention basins at the McDonald's on Midwest Road and at Gibsons. The property at 814 Commerce was granted at least 20 parking spaces in the front of its building for visitors and those spaces are always filled while the parking in the rear is not. Everyone wants to get whatever they can, but there is not a committed tenant to rent the building, subject to the increase VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 24 June 19,2012 of parking. He did not think that it was being a good neighbor to create disparity between the appearances of the surrounding properties. The board needs to draw the line somewhere regarding people seeking far more than what is reasonable. Chairman Davis said that he sensed that the board is sensitive to the plight of the property owner and that additional parking spaces are needed. If the board agreed and if the applicant would be agreeable to look into some of the other alternatives it could be continued too review at the next meeting. He noted that it was a very nice building. Member Savino suggested that perhaps the parking spaces adjacent to Swift Drive could be designated as compact car spaces with a shorter car length required. That might be of some benefit to the applicant and would allow for more green space. He also noted that the Board would like to see a landscape plan that meets the screening requirements of the code, including evergreen vegetation to properly screen the cars from being viewed. Mr. Cantore responded that they had intended to provide the 4-foot high landscape screening as required and would take care of the landscape plan. Member Young questioned the date for the proposed tenant. Mr. Cantore noted that there were two, one due on June 30 and the other tenant in negotiations is in ongoing, while they are checking out other properties. However,their property was the front-runner pending the parking issue. Chairman Davis noted that it was likely some relief would be granted,however, it would be to what extent and the location of the relief. Motion by Member Savino, seconded by Member Ziemer to continue the hearing on the request to the August 7, 2012 meeting. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 5. B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK -- TEXT AMENDMENT — AMEND THE VOA - TEXT AMENDMENT - ZONING REGULATIONS TO CLARIFY THE REGULATIONS FOR CLARIFY THE REGULATIONS FOR CEMETERIES CEMCfERIEs Chairman Davis swore in Mr. Kallien, who testified as the petitioner at this hearing. The issue relates to cemeteries and cemetery improvements. There are four VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 24 June 19, 2012 cemeteries in Oak Brook. Bronswood is the largest and abuts Adams Road and Madison Street. There are three smaller cemeteries, which include, St. Johannes, which is on the Faith Fellowship Church property, Zion Lutheran is on Glendale Road and a very small cemetery that is now owned and maintained by the Institute in Basic Life Principles, which is located just south of Bronswood. All of the cemeteries have existed for many years, some dating back more than 100 years and were all annexed into Oak Brook in 1962 and have been part of the community for the past 50 years. In analyzing the issues, Bronswood Cemetery is zoned Institutional and back in 1966 several other properties were also zoned Institutional, including Mayslake, the Friary as well as several other properties and over time those properties were rezoned. Today, the only property zoned Institutional is Bronswood, which is around 40+acres in size and cemeteries are listed as a permitted use in the Institutional District. The other three cemeteries are all in residential districts, one located in the R-1, one in the R-2 and the other R-3. Nowhere in the residential districts are cemeteries listed, not as a permitted, accessory or special use; the Ordinance is silent. He talked to one of the residents, Joe Rush who was on the Village Board when the first Zoning Ordinance was adopted and he asked why the three cemeteries were left with residential zoning. The response that was given was that there were State rules that governed the cemeteries. In theory the State regulates the cemeteries operations and I Liles. In the four cemeteries there are five large mausoleums, four are located in Bronswood and two of those date back to the 1940's, one (LaGrippe) was built along the eastern portion in 2006. In 2011, the Feldman mausoleum was built close to Adams Road. The other three cemeteries do not have any mausoleums except for the Institute in Basic Life Principles, which has Paul Butler's mausoleum and has been there since 1985. The reason we are here is because last October (2011), the Village was contacted about a mausoleum that was being constructed in the Bronswood cemetery along Adams Road. Upon investigation it was observed that the mausoleum had been constructed approximately five feet inside the west property line. Some of the adjacent residents contacted the Village and expressed their concerns and questioned the permit process, etc. In reviewing the process the Village has consistently enforced its rules the same over the last 50 years. The Village has never issued any permits for any headstones or mausoleums in any of the four cemeteries. So since annexation there has been no record that any of the structures had been issued permits. The matter initially went to the Village Board and in December they referred VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 24 June 19,2012 the issue of cemeteries to the Plan Commission. Over several months the Plan Commission held a number of public meetings, which was attended by a number of residents some spoke at length at the meetings,which are included in the minutes of the case file. The Plan Commission struggled with the issue and what to do or recommend to the Village Board. Ultimately, there was a consensus by the majority of the Plan Commission that some type regulations were needed to prospectively deal with some uses in the future. The recommendation went back to the Village Board who had a very lengthy discussion on the matter and after trying to decide how best to move forward it was decided that the Zoning Board of Appeals should hold a public hearing on some potential amendments to the Zoning Regulations. Staff identified and researched a number of ordinances from many communities in the area and found that the regulations really ran the gamut going from some that were very restrictive to others that were very lenient. Staff has recommended what is really a starting point to begin the discussion. The recommendation really relates to some changes to the Institutional District to create better clarity as to what is a structure and what is not. It would reinforce and categorize what is to be considered to be a mausoleum, burial building or the like in the future. It would enforce the issue of setbacks. It recommended the institution of a height limitation for these types of cemetery structures with some flexibility. In the residential districts, cemetery uses had to be added because right now it is void of that in those regulations. The height requirements were imported as well as the definitions for the various cemetery structures. The goal is to create a set of some reasonable standards that would provide some certainty as we move forward. Chairman Davis questioned whether they would be permitted or special uses under the proposed text. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that in the R-I District any cemetery that was annexed and existed in 1962, which were the three cemeteries that were identified, would be deemed to be a permitted use. Any expansions or moditications made to those cemeteries would be done as a special use. A similar process was recommended for the Institutional District, so if there ever was a possibility for Bronswood to expand, it would be required to go through the special use process. Member Ziemer questioned whether it was better to modify all four districts that each cemetery is located rather than to rezone the cemeteries. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that he and Village VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 24 June 19,2012 Attorney did discuss the creation of a new district or rename the Institutional District and apply that standard to all of the properties, which would take another public hearing,because it would rezone the properties and there is some logic to that option or the way it is being proposed. He noted that normally the statue requirement for a text amendment is the publication of a public hearing notice. A letter is sent to all of the homeowner associations. This case was treated as it was affecting the zoning of these properties. Public hearing signs were placed by all of the properties, the required public hearing notice was published and all properties located within 350 feet of the boundaries of all four properties were sent a notice by mail. Our Code requires 250 feet, but the Village expanded the notification, so there was a considerable amount of outreach. There were at least 30 phone calls responding to inquiries taken in by the department There were a lot of rumors about what was going on and we were able to answer all of the questions. If the Institutional District were to be opened up, he found that there were a number of other things listed as permitted uses that are rather onerous allowing farm animals and the like and suggested that some of those uses should be moved to the special use category. Some of the existing permitted uses allow farm animals, horse stables, kennels, poultry and game as well as chapels, churches, synagogues, schools, etc. It is not uncommon to have some of these things be handled as special uses. In the residential district, churches are handled as a special use. These four properties have been in the community for 50 years and are primarily developed and there is not a lot of land left to be developed. Member Savino commented that the Institutional District could list just cemeteries. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it would not be uncommon for a cemetery to have a chapel or an administrative office or other facilities that are ancillary to its principal use. Village Attorney Friedman confirmed that the Municipal Code specifically provides the Village to have authority to provide regulations for cemeteries. It does not require that the Village do it, but authorizes the Village to do it. The document prepared by staff was designed as the business points of the regulations. He suggested that the focus should not be on the nitty-gritty language of it, but rather the essence of the regulations and based upon the Zoning Board's recommendation, it would be put in the proper form for the Village Board to review. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page I I of 24 June 19, 2012 The Village Board's referral on this amendment specifically included that the regulations should be prospective only and confirms that the existing structures are permitted and the proposed language reflects that. On the special uses for cemetery expansions stipulate that it must be a minimum of 25 acres. As written, if a new cemetery came in and wanted to be 10 acres or an expansion of an existing cemetery by 10 acres would need a text amendment or variation so that there are not piecemeal cemeteries. The issue as to whether there should be the Institutional or Cemetery District, the Village Board did not want to overly complicate the regulations to the extent that they we needed them. If there is a desire, within the Institutional District to make it only apply to cemeteries would clean up the Code and rezoning or mapping the other three cemeteries in that district would be a rather simple process. It would require another public notice, but if there is a desire to keep all of the regulations in one place, as opposed to spreading it around could be accomplished easily. The way that Mr. Kallien has presented it works as well. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Mr. Feldman, the resident and owner of the mausoleum as a result of the Plan Commission process has made an offer to the Village Board to provide landscaping to better screen the mausoleum. He has shown good will to minimize the impact and is waiting to see how the process goes. Chairman Davis swore in all those in the audience that intended to speak at the hearing. Norm Chimenti, attorney for Bronswood Cemetery and its new owner StoneMor Partners, LP, is from the Iaw firm of Clausen Miller, P.C., Wheaton, Illinois. He introduced Phil Clark former owner of Bronswood Cemetery, Jeff Rathjen, Vice President of Operations, western region for StoneMor. Mr. Troost and Mr. Keeley were also present because they were currently constructing a new mausoleum. The project was paused at the request of StoneMor so that it would not appear that another mausoleum would be constructed prior to new regulations being adopted. StoneMor Partners purchased Bronswood cemetery from the Clark family in April of 2012. Although they have only been operating the cemetery for a couple of months, they have considerable experience as a national operator and owner of cemeteries, which was founded about 13 years ago. At the end of 2011 they owned or operated 274 cemeteries throughout the United States. At VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 24 June 19,2012 all of the locations, their personnel are dedicated to serving the needs of local grieving families. In addition to providing internment and counseling services to local residents, like most cemeteries they furnish other items such as burial lots, crypts, mausoleums, cremation memorials, burial vaults, grave markers, benches, and other decorative memorials as needed by local families utilizing the services of the cemetery. Bronswood has flowers and plantings grown on site in the greenhouse, which are also provided along with the other amenities. The original cemetery was founded in 1887. Adjacent to Madison on the west side, it was called Oak Forest Cemetery. In 1910, the northerly portion of the Bronswood property was known as the Oak Ridge Cemetery. Prior to Oak Brook's annexation of the Bronswood Cemetery in 1962, they were sometimes known as the Hinsdale Cemetery, but the Clark family felt that Bronswood was a more suitable name in keeping with its location in the Oak Brook community. Phil Clark provided some history of the cemetery. In 1945 the Brown family owned it and many of them had been long time residents of the local area, and most of them moved to California. The last remaining Brown, named Charlie Brown was getting up in years and wanted to sell the cemetery and join his family on the west coast so he sought out his grandfather who was a local Hinsdale resident for business advice on the process. His grandfather became concerned that it would be sold to just anyone and would not be maintained to the style that the Brown's had and he had expected because his family was buried there. Instead of giving Mr.Brown advice he offered to be the buyer. In 1945 he paid the family a fairly insignificant sum in today's' dollars, but also put $50,000 of his own money into establish a perpetual care fund so that as graves were sold there would be money added to the fund so that there would always be a trust fund to maintain the cemetery, which is the way that most cemeteries operate today and the State does regulate that whole process. His father had told him that it became clear to him that as the oldest of three sons, he was told to figure out how to figure out what it was worth and be prepared to run it. His grandfather told him that he put the money into the cemetery and he anticipated that there would never be more money put into it, nor did he expect any member of the Clark family to ever make a living in that venture. He had basically purchased it as a family trust and to benefit the surrounding communities. He said for 67 years both statements were true and they had never put more money into it and no Clark's ever made a living at it. He served as president of the cemetery for over 25 years and never made a living at operating Bronswood. His grandfather, father and uncles wanted to continue to provide the space for the residents of the community and they have done that faithfully for a very long time and always mindful of the needs of VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 24 June 19,2012 grieving families and understanding the issues that those bring. He realizes that the cemetery is somewhat of an oddity where they are located, surrounded by residences, and over his years as president of the cemetery,there had been very few, if any issues with the neighbors. If there were, they always found ways to resolve them to everyone's mutual satisfaction. It was not a business venture it was a trust for the neighbors and community and they were not seeking a buyer. There was no interest by the members of the Clark family of his generation or the next in the area who wanted to step into his shoes to carry this on in the manner that they had done. Several years ago they were approached by StoneMor as a possible acquisition candidate and they spent about a year and half in discussion with them. His family spent most of their time worrying about how they would operate it after his family was no longer involved. They wanted to insure that all of the families who had placed their trust for their deceased loved ones would be continued on. He talked to a number of families that had sold cemeteries to StoneMor and was gratified to find out that the community nature for those cemeteries had carried on after the sale. They became comfortable with StoneMor that they would treat the members of the community with the same respect that his family had. Mr. Chimenti noted that the Zoning Regulations were enacted in 1966, Bronswood was annexed in 1962 and the site had become a cemetery in 1887 so Bronswood had already been in existence for 79 years by the time the zoning code was enacted. Other cemeteries also existed in Oak Brook in 1966 and do today all in the residential district, however only Bronswood found itself in the Institutional District. There were other properties at that time were in that district as well, which reflected the nature of those properties at that time. Bronswood is the only property that has remained Institutional. During the entire 46-year period (1966 to today) the regulations regarding cemeteries had not been enforced by the Village and there were no regulations in any of the residential districts that were enforced for the other cemeteries. Bronswood and StoneMor recognize that it is the prerogative of the Village to begin regulating all of the cemeteries going forward if there is a benefit going forward of doing so. If that is the Village's intent then they share the view with the Village, staff and attorney that there is a need to amend the text of the code that takes into account existing and contemplated uses of Bronswood as well as the other cemeteries. They have reviewed the draft text and agree that it is a good starting point. They do have concerns that not all aspects of cemetery operations have been taken into account in the initial draft particularly how they relate to Bronswood over the last several decades that preceded the enactment of the zoning code. Nevertheless and notwithstanding their concerns, StoneMor VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page I4 of 24 June 19,2012 and Bronswood would like to stress that it was their desire to work with the Village with the objective of arriving at solutions together. They have thoughts they would like to share with the Village as to how the draft amendments could be improved and might better take into account the manner in which Bronswood and the other cemeteries in Oak Brook endeavor to meet the needs of the families that utilize their services and amenities. Although StoneMor is new to the community, Bronswood is not; and in keeping with the tradition of Bronswood and in being a good citizen and trying to be a responsible member of the community, StoneMor would like to hear the views of the residents as we move forward. They would like the opportunity to work with Village staff to develop regulations that would be enforced going forward that take into account not only the public interest and legitimate interest of the Bronswood neighbors, but also take into account the needs of the families that are serviced by Bronswood. In that spirit they asked the Village to look at aspects of the proposed amendments that they feel may require additional attention. They were mainly addressing those matters conceptually as the views of all parties that are assimilated by the Village. They said that their comments were based in part on StoneMor's considerable experience in operating approximately 275 cemeteries. They believe it would be beneficial to both the community and the other cemeteries to more carefully define what is meant by cemetery structures in the proposed revisions. The term is not currently defined and they are in agreement that not all structures in a cemetery should be regulated,just as they are not regulated in other communities. (Samples of typical cemetery structures were distributed to the members). They vary in purpose and height and in considering the structures he asked that it is taken into account that these are the types of structures requested by grieving families to memorialize and remember their loved ones and to inter their remains. The first draft of the text amendment refers to the regulations of structures, which are called "administrative buildings, maintenance buildings, mausoleums, burial buildings, or columbaria." The proposed amendments seem to regulate the location and height of such structures. With respect to mausoleums, burial buildings, or columbaria they believe that more specificity is required to predictably administer the proposed code. There is probably a common understanding among cemeteries as to what is meant by mausoleums or columbaria as burial buildings, but that, which constitutes a gravestone, or some other form of memorial or grave marker may take many forms. In general, Bronswood agrees with the Village draft that permits the location of things other than burial buildings in a required yard or setback,just as exists today. They suggested that the amended code make it clear that in addition to VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 15 of 24 June 19,2012 the so called headstones, such non-burial building items as benches, cremation stands, vaults, monument memorials, figures (such as angels), decorative urns or any combination of those kinds of items would also be permitted in the required setback area, just as they are today at Bronswood and the other cemeteries in Oak Brook. With respect to burial buildings, they are often referred to as private estates. The largest structure currently located at Bronswood is typically referred to as a community mausoleum. The third category of a burial building could be either a private or community columbarium. They thought the Village would agree that one of the purposes of yards or required setbacks in relationship to the height of a structure is to address the visibility of the structure from off the property. Bronswood is comfortable with the concept of imposing a limitation on the height of burial structures based on the distance of the structure from lot lines, whether the lot lines are located on streets or abut residential property. They are also comfortable with the concept of providing screening in the form of landscaping such as in the proximity of its lot line with Adams. The text embodies the concept of regulating the height of burial structures depending upon their distance from lot lines and Bronswood endorses that regulatory approach and thinks that it makes sense. Although it is not in the draft, they also endorse the concept of requiring a reasonable screening of structures like that from view off the property by the use of landscaping. As to a setback or yard requirement, the proposed amendment continues the previously unenforced 100-foot rule in the Institutional District. Leaving aside the fact that there are a number of structures already located within 100 feet of the Bronswood lot lines, and the lots lines of the other Oak Brook cemeteries and in some cases more than 100 years, they ask that Oak Brook look at the regulations from some other communities as well as comparing the Villages existing regulations for other structures in its current residential districts. Many i communities elect not to regulate cemeteries, but as to those that do, it has been StoneMor's experience that the enforcement of a 100 foot setback requirement, as it relates to burial buildings would be unusual and feel that it is somewhat excessive, particularly when you consider that one of the purposes and intents of setbacks is the impact those structures have on surrounding properties. They asked that the Village consider as to burial buildings only, establishing a starting point for a setback requirement of somewhere in the range of 25-30 feet, which other communities have done depending on whether the lot line faces a street or abuts a residential property. They also asked that the Village establish a graduated scale that permits burial structures or buildings up to 10 feet in height so long as they are located at least 25-30 feet from the lot line. Hat would permit burial buildings 25 feet in height so long as they are located a VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 16 of 24 June 19, 2012 minimum of 50 feet from a lot line and that would permit burial structures of up to 45 feet in height provided that they were located at least 100 feet from a lot line. That would mean the visibility and the impact of the larger structures from off the cemetery site is taken into account and means the setback and height requirements would more closely approximate those already in place for other types of structures in the residential district under the current zoning code. In the R-2 district a 45-foot high structure can be located within 18 feet of a side yard lot line. It would make little sense to ac cemetery to have a draconian restrictive setback and height requirement, which exceeds that, which already exists in the residential district for other structures. There are decades of history in the Oak Brook community. This type of approach would continue to afford the opportunity for local families to select from a menu of memorials and internment options that meet their needs. A regulatory scheme of that nature would protect surrounding properties and uses from an adverse impact and preserve the choices that have been available to Oak Brook families for generations. Bronswood asked the village to fiirther consider the requirements for the expansion of an existing cemetery. If it would acquire adjacent property and classified in another zoning district, it would make sense for cemetery regulations to correspond to each other. Bronswood is the only use in the Institutional district and existed long before 1966. To the east of Madison are other structures that are included in the Institutional district and are part of the property. There are Administrative offices, greenhouses, residences, storage facility, etc. The greenhouse has had sale of flowers and other plantings, sales fimctions, equipment storage and maintenance supplies and activities, etc. Plats of survey and aerial photographs were given to the members. They urged that provisions should be made in amended Chapter 9 for those structures and uses at that parcels as permitted uses rather than to leave them as code provisions related to existing legal nonconforming structures and uses. It would seem necessary and prudent to address those kinds of issues that are created by the Village taking a new look at if and how it would want to regulate cemeteries. A plan for the Keeley mausoleum was provided to the members. StoneMor had asked Mr. Keeley and Mr. Troost to not proceed with the construction of the mausoleum because they did not want it to appear to any neighbor that someone was trying to rush something through. Member Ziemer questioned the size of the mausoleum. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 17 of 24 June 19,2012 Mr. Chimenti responded that the height to the ridge of the mausoleum was 21 feet and the height to the top of the cross was John L. Keeley, Jr., said that since 1967 they have been residents of Western Springs. In 2002 their youngest son Christopher died of an embolism and is buried in Bronswood. As he and his wife approached their early 70's they decided that they wanted to do something for their son and themselves. He spoke with Mr. Clark about what he wanted to do around the beginning of 2012 and was told he would be fine. They contracted with Rock of Ages and it was a major financial commitment on the part of his family. It is located in the back of the major mausoleum, so it is in approximately the center of the mausoleum. The plans were submitted to the village. It was prior to April 10, when the cemetery was sold. They want to go forward with the construction and he assured the board that it would be something very nice that the village would be pleased with. Mr. Chimenti reviewed the plat of survey. He noted that the parcels were annexed in 1962, but they had been unable to find any record of Madison or Adams being dedicated as public rights-of-way. Prior to the villages decision to begin regulating cemeteries and being concerned where property lines were located, which had not been a primary focus as to how it related to Bronswood, until now. They thought it was an issued that Bronswood, StoneMor and the village would want to address, if it requires addressing. In the context of the proposed regulations and apparent imminent changes to the village's enforcement policy with cemeteries. He thanked the board for the opportunity to appear. Frank Troost, 907 Burr Oak Court and has lived there for 25 years. He and his brother have owned the Troost monument company with the main office located in Hillside. They were engaged in both the monument and cemetery business. They divided it several years ago and he and his family remained in the monument business. As a resident he would like to see what is best for the community. They were the company that installed the Feldman mausoleum and the LaGrippe mausoleum and was working with Mr. Keeley to construct his mausoleum. Mr. Feldman installed a fair amount of evergreen screening along the west side of the mausoleum. They are too close because they grow and will get the building dirty. Through his 50 years working in the monument business, they have never been asked for a permit by any village to construct a mausoleum. Their normal procedure is to bring the plans to the cemetery, they are reviewed and if deemed to be within their regulations they are allowed. That is not always a good thing because the mausoleums should be designed to last 1000 years. No one is going to tear them down and he has seen some VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 18 of 24 June 19, 2012 community mausoleums that have a flat tar roof with a cement block. It may be a good thing to have the village look at it,but not necessarily a permit. Most of the cemetery industry was a family business. Most of the major cemeteries now in the Chicago metropolitan area have been consolidated and are now managed by chains. There are 2 or 3 large chains, the largest being Service Corporation International and StoneMor is one of the smaller ones. They also own funeral homes. They get their revenue from selling lots and services. About every cemetery sells monuments, the Clark family did not. StoneMor does and is a competitor of Troost. The State of Illinois requires 15 percent of the sale go into a trust fund. The cemetery cannot touch the principal, but can use the income off of it in order to maintain the cemetery. When they installed the Feldman mausoleurn they did not think there was going to be a problem because they have never had any problems putting a mausoleum in a cemetery, because it is a cemetery and that's what they do. It was a shock to him when he had heard what was going on and that it was an issue. He didn't think a lot of mausoleums would be built in Bronswood because there are not many lots left along the periphery. The best place in the future for mausoleums would be near the back of the cemetery where the LaGrippe mausoleum is located, the neighbors have very deep backyards that are all wooded and be offensive to no one. Member Young asked if mausoleums have lighting and could it be allowed. Mr. Troost responded that typically no. The cemetery sets the regulations and he is not aware of any cemetery that have it. A community mausoleum is large and may have 25-500 crypts. People put all kinds of things out at the cemetery and most cemeteries restrict it. Some of the things they do today are pieces of art. There is not a great demand for the old gray slab with a name. They have designers and artists for many of the memorials that they do are works of art. The mausoleums are beautiful structures. Member Young said that concern was that if they begin to proliferate, someone would start to complain about lighting or requesting lighting on a mausoleum. Mr. Troost responded that he felt it unlikely that lighting would be added. Most cemeteries have pretty strict rules about what is allowed. Bronswood is not going to allow lighting. Oliver Drabkin, said that he owned 5 acres on Adams Road near Bronswood and he has enjoyed having them as a neighbor until this mausoleum controversy became a reality. He asked if a crematorium had been considered. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 19 of 24 June 19,2012 Director of Community Development Kallien said that it world not be a permissible structure, Something like that should be reviewed under a special use. Mr. Drabkin said that the height requirements should be taken into consideration as a neighbor. Diane Drabkin said that she and her husband had lived in Oak Brook for over 32 years on Adams Road. When Bronswood was run by the Clark family, it was a very nice low key place and they were good neighbors and never had any problems. Most of the gravestones were very low and didn't bother anyone, until the episode with the Feldman mausoleum, which is very sad for them, but very disturbing for all of the neighbors that live in the area. After listening to the presentation, it scares her and she was appalled because it feels like a big business thing that is coming into her neighborhood. It is a quiet residential neighborhood with lovely homes in an area that is still growing. She said that she didn't think people would want to have large structures no matter how beautiful or artistic they are as neighbors. She did not know of many communities that have a cemetery so close to their homes. To drive home late at night and see this great big tall thing so close to you, right by the fence looming at you. To think that there would be more of them all over the place is very bothersome. She hoped that the board would take its time and really take into consideration how they would if they were in the same situation. A lot of suburbs have cemeteries but they are in more isolated areas not next to homes. She did not think that the people were aware of the changes with the new owners and what they were requesting. Chairman Davis noted that she may not have been aware that over the last 100 years the structures she was concerned with could have been in Bronswood, but were not. The board is considering regulations and if anything, would impose limitations and not increase the types of structures and she should take some insurance in that. Chairman Davis said that a lot of ideas were brought up at this meeting and it appeared that staff would have more meetings. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he has talked with counsel a couple of times and there are a lot of ideas and he would like to learn more about what they are and what impacts there are and compare the regulations. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 20 of 24 June 19,2012 Member Ziemer asked Mr. Clark if any other property had ever been acquired since 1945. Mr. Clark said that they did not acquire any additional property. Member Ziemer asked how many empty plots were available at Bronswood. Mr. Clark responded that over 70 percent of the gravesites have been sold. Member Young questioned if spaces were ever reused. Mr. Clark responded that they never have, Jeff Rathjen said that there is a product known as double depth lawn crypts that have one body buried on top of the other to utilize the space more effectively and as they Master Plan the cemetery that would be a recommendation to show the details of the local architecture of the plan they are trying to create in the cemetery and would provide a vision of the different opportunities, height structures and how they can reduce the impact on the community and strategically taking into consideration the neighborhoods so they can develop the cemetery and take into consideration the types of families and what they consider as their options. A challenge is that about 50 percent of the families opt for cremations. The products they are looking for are not currently offered at Bronswood. They are looking into the future and transition from a traditional burial to cremations, which would include gardens and more green space to create a more park-like setting. They are looking to take it from the outside in and should not be distasteful to the community. Mr. Chimenti said that for the record, and it was not meant to be any type of criticism of the mausoleum, but the suggested standards presented would not have permitted the Feldman mausoleum to be built in its current location, but rather 50 feet off the lot line. He added that the resident's next door neighbor could build a 45-foot structure 30 feet from their lot line under the current zoning regulations in the residential districts. Bronswood cemetery has existed for over 100 years and what they have proposed is actually more restrictive than what could be built next door on the adjacent residential property to the resident. Member Young questioned whether there were industry standards such as best practice set for cemeteries. Mr. Rathjen said that there are not industry standards. They have more specific VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 21 of 24 June 19,2012 regional or specific cemetery standards. Every cemetery has cemetery regulations, which is a consistent regulation and guideline for most cemeteries. They do maintain and conduct business like most other cemeteries in the country. Mr. Smith noted that each cemetery sets its regulations as to how many lots, height of headstones, etc. These things do not tend to change, because there are people that have headstones,etc.,in place and cannot change that readily. Member Cappetta questioned that regulations would allow the plots to build more mausoleum five feet off the property line on Adams, which they did. Mr. Clark responded that there was nothing that would prevent them from doing that. They had the property and worked with Mr. Feldman, as they did with Mr. Keely and the LaGrippe family had before. They reviewed his plans and felt that it was structurally sound and attractive in the cemetery where there are a number of other older family mausoleums. Mr. Rathjen said that considering the consumer base that was not the practice they were going to continue and why they are putting a master plan together that would show the cemetery and create spaces that would be effectively pleasing to the current conditions of the cemetery and taking into consideration the neighbors and the conditions they acquired when they bought the property. Member Savino said that he did not think it was necessary for Mr. Keeley to continue to coming to the proceedings and suggested that his process not be delayed. Director of Community Developinent Kallien said that the plans were looked over and noted that it was in the middle of the cemetery. It is located over 200 feet to the east property line and over 500 feet to the west property line. Looking at the current regulations, it fits. Member Savino said that this situation should be settled for him and his family. Mr. Chirnenti said that based on the proceedings going on, they did not want to create a problem where someone would say something was being built there during this time. Member Ziemer asked whether a permit would be required under the ordinance when changed. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 22 of 24 June 19,2012 Director of Community Development Kallien said that due to its location and under the current regulations it works and would also work under the proposed regulations, Mr. Chimenti noted that Mr. Keeley would like to proceed with the project but they wanted to make sure that it would be okay. Chairman Davis added that this issue was not before the Zoning Board of Appeals and that based upon the comments from Mr. Kallien. Mr. Troost noted that they did bring the plans to the Village and was told that a permit was not necessary. They have never been asked for a building permit to put up a private mausoleum. He noted there was no water, sewer, electrical, etc. to be inspected. It is a solid granite structure with glass windows and a bronze door. They are superior to mausoleums in the past when they were made of limestone and marble. Village Attorney Peter Friedman said that there are regulations by other municipalities that require building permits for structures. Under the existing code that is not the case. The new regulations are not in place and we don't know when and in what form they will be, so with regard to the current project it is governed by the existing regulations and the Village's existing policies. Member Bulin noted that a permit when then not be required. Village Attorney Peter Friedman responded that was how the Village has interpreted its ordinance since the properties were annexed. Mr. Drabkin noted that if a permit had been required this might not be the situation today. He did not see anything wrong with requiring a permit. Chairman Davis said that many comments were made at this meeting and suggested that Staff try to refine the regulations and present them back at another meeting. Director of Community Development Kallien said that a Committee could be created to review Member Savino suggested that it may simplify matters to consider rezoning all the cemeteries to the Institutional District then it would only require one set of standards. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 23 of 24 June 19,2012 Member Young agreed that it would keep it all in one place. Trustee Wolin said that a subcommittee makes sense. He noted that the cemetery stated that they were in the process of creating a new plan and said that it would be highly desirable to see what the new plan would be and as a public relations gesture he would encourage the cemetery to share that with the residents in the area. Mr. Chimenti responded that they should be finished with it in about a week. Chairman Davis said that it would be appropriate to get the master plan and have another meeting and then perhaps the proposed ordinance would be more refined in light of all the comments and would be easier for the Board to address, Director of Community Development Kallien said that it may be very beneficial for the cemetery to have a neighborhood meeting to share what their ideas are and are not in order to eliminate the unknown. Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Ziemer to continue the public hearing on this matter to the next regular meeting. 6. OTHER BUSINESS OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss 7. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Ziemer to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m, VOICE VOTE: Motion carried ATTEST: /s/Robert L. Kallien, Jr. Robert Kallien,Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 24 of 24 June 19,2012