Loading...
Minutes - 09/02/2014 - Zoning Board of AppealsMINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON JANUARY 6, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Acting Chairman Alfred Savino in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:01 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Acting Chairman Alfred Savino, Members Jeffrey Bulin, Natalie Cappetta, Baker Nimry and Steven Young ABSENT: Chairman Champ Davis and Member Wayne Ziemer IN ATTENDANCE: Dr. Mark Moy, Trustee, Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development and Gail Polanek, Planning Technician 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR MINUTES OF THE APRIL 1, 2014 MEETING Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Bulin to approve the minutes of the April 1, 2014 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to discuss. 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. GOEBEL — 3517 MADISON STREET — VARIATION — REAR YARD SETBACK Acting Chairman Alfred Savino announced the public hearing and stated the requested relief. He noted that the property had previously been granted a variation in 1973 to permit an addition to the existing home. All witnesses VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 8 September 2, 2014 GOEBEL - 3517 MADISON ST. - VARIATION -REAR YARD SETBACK providing testimony were sworn in. Matthew Goebel, applicant and property owner, 3517 Madison Street introduced his wife, Roxy Goebel and Architect, Dennis Parsons. Mr. Goebel requested a variance request regarding the proposed location of their new home. Specifically they were seeking a variation to the required rear yard setback from 60 feet to 40 feet. They are committed Oak Brook residents. Having lived in this house as a family for 13 years (with Roxy having lived in Oak Brook 30 of her 42 years), they love the neighborhood and village, and want to continue to live on this lot and raise their children. However, their current house has deteriorated to the point that additions will not fix its many problems. The foundation was put in place in 1895, and is now crumbling with no possibility to repair in a logical or economical way. It was poured too low for the existing contours, and as a result, the basement is constantly flooding. Additionally, the house was built with a poor floor plan that has been exasperated by an ill- conceived addition prior to buying the house. Overall, the structure is in a continuing, slow deterioration. The only possible solution for them to remain on the lot is to build a new structure. They requested a variance to the rear yard requirements from 60 feet to 40 feet to place the new house, which completely conforms in area and bulk, in a location similar to the existing home. This new structure will conform in height, front and side yard setbacks, and lot coverage. In fact, in all these criteria, the new structure is less than the codes and ordinances allow. They are not building a huge house that doesn't live within its allowances (it is a modest - sized home on a small lot compared with the other lots and homes around them. The lot is 2/3 less than the R2 minimum standard — the neighborhood is zoned for a minimum of 43,560 square feet, while their lot is 14,464 square feet). They are seeking to build an approximate 3,600 square foot home that is sensitive to existing conditions and will add value to the Village of Oak Brook. The uniqueness of this request lies not in asking for an overall lesser requirement, but rather a shift in the requirements from a 40 foot front yard and 60 foot rear yard to a 60 foot front yard and a 40 foot rear yard. This would allow them to build the new house in the approximate location of the existing structure, which makes design sense, economic sense and environmental sense. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 8 September 2, 2014 jok- This variance will help maintain many large existing trees, and will maintain the current streetscape than if they were required to build strictly to code (which would put the house 20 feet closer to the street, meaning the loss of several existing beautiful trees and a reduced street view for the neighbors directly to the south). Document D, page 3 in the case file shows some pictures of the trees that would need to be removed. The new structure will be larger than the existing house but will be far smaller than permitted and therefore will not adversely impair the light and air to adjacent properties. The proposed variance, if granted, is also "greener," as they will build using the existing excavation, which will decrease stress on existing trees and the environment as a whole. This is not the first variance requested for this property. There was a prior variation request (S -283) approved by the Village in July, 1973. The variation allowed a 32 -foot rear yard setback for the construction of the existing room addition. This requested variation would allow a 40 -foot rear yard setback, thus encroaching 8 feet less than the previously approved variation. The existing conditions were not created by them, but they were attempting to deal with them in an intelligent, sensitive way to their neighbors and the entire neighborhood. They discussed the need for the variance request with the immediate neighbors, and those they spoke with agreed and supported this application for a variance. Page E has a signed list of the neighbors who support the request. He noted that Gail had said others had contacted the Village and also supported the request. Quite simply, they love the ruralness of the Fullersburg area and wish only to build a house that conforms to the streetscape of the surrounding houses and respects the beautiful trees on our lot and the surrounding environment. They respectfully requested the consideration and approval of the requested variance to allow the construction of their new home. Mr. Goebel reviewed the standards for a variation as follows: 1. a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located. RESPONSE: Thanks to 120 + - year -old foundation and ill- conceived additions VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 8 September 2, 2014 prior to their purchase of the home, the current structure is in a continuing, slow deterioration and must be dealt with for ongoing residential use. If permitted to be built under the existing conditions of the Village, their new structure would negatively impact the views of their direct neighbors, will alter the streetscape by being the a house that "sticks out" as closest to the street than any of the neighbors, and will mean the destruction of at least seven decades -old, mature trees. All of these would impact the "reasonable return" of the property (as well as the "reasonable return" of our neighbors). They spoke with their immediate neighbors about this request and they all agreed that it would be injurious to the neighborhood and their own properties if the request is not granted. 1. b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: The size of the lot is the smallest in the area and is non- conforming to the R2 zoning, making the placement of the structure critically important. They are not building a huge house that doesn't live within its allowances (it is a modest -sized home on a small lot compared with the other lots and homes around us; in fact, the lot is 2/3 less than the R2 minimum standard — the neighborhood is zoned for 43,560 square feet, while theirs is 14,464 square feet). They are building a home that is sensitive to existing conditions and will add value to the Village of Oak Brook. 1. c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: They believe the variation will enhance the essential character of the locality. Keeping the house in essentially the same location on the lot will ensure it complements the neighbors' lot locations and will not negatively impact the streetscape, or that of their neighbors' views of the street. Furthermore, a variation if granted would mean they could keep several large, old and mature trees, which currently add to the character of the Fullersburg area. The uniqueness of this request lies not in asking for a lesser requirement, but rather a shift in the requirements from a 40 foot front yard and 60 foot rear yard to a 60 foot front yard and a 40 foot rear yard. This would allow them to build the new house in the approximate location of the existing structure so as not to alter the existing, essential character of the locality. 2. a. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 8 September 2, 2014 RESPONSE: They believe that the hardship would fall not only on them as owners of the property, but on their neighbors as well. Building to the strict letter of the regulation means their house would "stick out" compared with the lot locations of their neighbors, being the only house among the many lots that would be 20 feet closer to the street. Not only is that a hardship on them and the many trees they would have to tear down, but it would negatively impact the street views of their direct neighbors and impact the character of the entire neighborhood. The only solution for the age and condition of the current house is to build, and they simply want to maintain the character and feel of the current lot and neighborhood. 2. b. The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning classification. RESPONSE: They are the only lot in the neighborhood this small, so would have no choice (outside the granting of a variance) to build closer to the road and alter the environment. Their neighbors are able to maintain the current streetscape because they can, and have built away from the road. They do not have that luxury because the lot is 2/3 less than the R2 minimum standard — the lot is zoned for 43,560 square feet, while theirs is 14,464 square feet. 2. c. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. RESPONSE: The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. The variance would allow them to maintain the existing footprint (and therefore the existing views of their neighbors and the overall streetscape) and lessen the need for the excavation of the lot for their new home. This lessens the stress on existing trees and the neighborhood as a whole. The granting of the variance would only add to the public welfare and the value of the surrounding properties. 2. d.The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 8 September 2, 2014 RESPONSE: Similar to responses above, they think the variance is necessary to maintain the current supply of light and air to adjacent properties. Under the current regulation, they would have to move closer to the street, logically blocking the street views of their neighbors to the south and north. All of these reasons would substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood. 2. e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property. RESPONSE: They are building out of necessity — because of the condition of the current home. However, they are committed Oak Brook residents, having lived here for 13 years (with Roxy having lived in Oak Brook for 30 of her 42 years). They want to continue raising their children not just IN Oak Brook, but ON this specific lot, which they love. Granting the variance would enhance their property value for sure (and those of the neighbors), but they are Oak Brook residents for the long haul and have no plans to move or sell. The request for the variance is not based upon a desire to make more money out of the property, but a desire to keep the character of the neighborhood as it is now. 2. f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. RESPONSE: The foundation of the house is 120+ years old. The ill - conceived addition was added in 1973. The layout and design of the house is poor at best. Whether it would be them or any other owners, the house must be demolished for continued residential use. They have done their best to maintain the existing structure and lot, having invested over the years in interior upgrades and exterior landscaping. They are committed to the Village and to this lot. The size of the lot is the smallest in the area, making the placement of the structure critically important. They are not building a huge house that doesn't live within its allowances (it is a modest -sized home on a small lot compared with the other lots and homes around them; in fact, the lot is 2/3 less than the R2 minimum standard — the neighborhood is zoned for 43,560 square feet, while their lot is 14,464 square feet). He noted that there were pictures in the packet that depicted their views and those of the neighbors. Member Cappetta said that she was in favor of the request, but for the record stated that in the applicant's comments it was stated that they were shifting and trading the front yard setback for the rear yard setback and asked that it be clarified that Zoning Board was not shifting the setbacks, but would VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 8 September 2, 2014 recommend the granting of the variation to the rear yard setback. The other question she had was in regards to the side yard setback and although she thought they would need to seek a variation, she spoke with Bob Kallien and he advised her that there was a section in the Code that explained the provision that allowed it. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that Section 13 -3 -2C, states: "Existing residential zoning district lots of record at the effective date of the first zoning ordinance of the village (ordinance G -60 adopted on March 22, 1966), or upon annexation shall have side yards of ten percent (10 %) of the lot width or the side yard requirements of the underlying zoning district, whichever is less. Required side yards shall be not less than ten feet (10') in depth; except a side yard may be not less than eight feet (8'), provided the adjoining lot contains a dwelling with an attached garage or carport adjacent to such side yard." He noted that in the 15 years he has been with the Village the provision has only been used 3 -4 times. It is meant to deal with the anomalies of the very small lots and as the applicant has shown, this is truly a small lot that would not comply with any of the four residential zoning districts. Member Bulin understood the 10 percent provision in the zoning regulations but questioned the side load garage setback. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the setback is 23 feet 6 inches and the Code requires a minimum of 23 feet from the garage door to the property line. Member Bulin questioned and said that he was curious as to which part of the house exists from 1895. Mr. Goebel responded that to his knowledge it was only the foundation. There were no comments or questions from the audience. Acting Chairman Savino noted that the Standards for a variation were well addressed verbally and in writing on page C of the case file. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 8 September 2, 2014 Acting Chairman Savino stated the conditions to be included in the motion if approved. Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for a variation and to recommend approval of the variation, subject to the following conditions: 1. Rear Yard — reduce the required 60 -foot rear yard setback to approximately 40 feet to accommodate the proposed single - family home. 2. The proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance to the approved plans as submitted. 3. Add the condition "Notwithstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all Village Ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically varied or waived." ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Nimry, Young, and Acting Chairman Savino Absent: 2 — Chairman Davis and Member Ziemer. Motion carried. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed possible upcoming cases. There was no other business to discuss. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Bulin to adjourn the meeting at 7:28 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: /s/ Robert L. Kallien, Jr. Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 8 September 2, 2014 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT