Loading...
Minutes - 04/07/2015 - Zoning Board of AppealsMINUTES OF THE APRIL 7, 2015 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON MAY 5, 2015 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 6:58 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Jeffrey Bulin, Natalie Cappetta, Baker Nimry, Steven Young and Wayne Ziemer ABSENT: Member Alfred Savino 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 MARCH 3, 2015 MEETING Motion by Member Nimry, seconded by Member Bulin to approve the minutes of the March 3, 2015 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. RBP OAK BROOK, LLC (LeMERIDIEN HOTEL) — 2100 SPRING 210 P�rG ROAD- ROAD — SPECIAL USE — OUTDOOR DINING AREA ADJACENT TO SU- OUTDOOR A RESTAURANT DINING AREA Chairman Davis announced the public hearing and stated the requested relief. All witnesses providing testimony were sworn in. Ashley Brandt, Attorney, Freeborn & Peters, LLP, Attorney for the LeMeridien VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 12 April 7, 2015 Hotel, introduced John Baldwin, Director of Finance, LeMeridien Hotel. He noted that they finished construction last June and the patio is a part of the hotel, which already exists. The owner would like to request the use of the patio as an outdoor dining area. Chairman Davis noted that he thought the restaurant was on the 9th floor. Mr. Baldwin responded that there is a restaurant on the 9th floor. The coffee shop is on the ground floor with seating for approximately 30 people. He noted that everything that is served in the coffee shop comes from the 91h floor restaurant. Chairman Davis questioned if there were any issues servicing from the 91h floor. Mr. Baldwin responded that everything is currently everything is cooked on the 91h floor, which is brought down to the 1 st floor through the sei vice elevators. Member Young questioned if it had anything to do with the ventilation in the building, since it was up on the 9th floor and was probably more efficient from a heating standpoint. Mr. Baldwin responded that he did not know if that whether that was a factor; however the main kitchen is located on the 9th floor and that is where all the cooking is done. Mr. Brandt reviewed the standards for a special use and responded to each in writing on page D of the case file. 1. Is of the type described in subsection Al of this Section, is deemed necessary for the public at that location. RESPONSE: The hotel is seeking to operate the outdoor dining area because such a use will greatly increase the enjoyment and experience at the hotel for its customers and patrons. The patio is an outdoor space readily capable of functioning as an outdoor dining area and will be operated in the interest of public convenience and will not a significant adverse impact on the general welfare of the neighborhood or community. The patio offers an outdoor atmosphere provided both for meetings, weddings and shared experiences between friends and provides a vibrant, diverse atmosphere of hotel patrons to dine in proximity to one another. It will provide a greater public convenience to allow for patrons three seasons out of the year to enjoy outdoor dining. 2. Is so designed, located and proposed to be operated so that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 12 April 7, 2015 I =114 RESPONSE: The hotel has taken great lengths to ensure that the outdoor area is not only protected in terms of access, but also restricted in terms of access. The only ingress or egress to the patio area is through the hotel. There is an emergency one -way exit gate and fence exists and if approved the hotel will add a wrought iron rails installed to contain the area. There will be a hedgerow put in place. The public will not be able to access the dining area without going through the hotel. The speed limit along the drive in the parking area is 10 mph. There will also be rock bollards added that will be 20 -24" around and 24- 36" high to protect the guests from accidental motor vehicle access to the patio area. Member Nimry questioned whether the exit from the hotel to the dining area was a fire exit. He asked that the Fire Department review it for access. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it was one of multiple means of egress from the building. Chairman Davis questioned the outcome of the Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Brandt responded that the Plan Commission unanimously recommended approving the request. Chairman Davis noted that the Plan Commission imposed certain conditions and asked if the applicant was in agreement with those conditions. Mr. Brandt acknowledged that they were in agreement with the conditions, which include a capacity for 36 patrons and that no live music or entertainment would be allowed on the patio. Chairman Davis questioned the 6th recommendation from the Plan Commission. Mr. Brandt responded that the condition was that a hotel operates differently from other restaurants regarding alcohol being served without food in the outdoor dining area. He said that the outdoor dining area would provide a wonderful space for weddings, etc., or any type of celebration that would be going on where people could stand outside and consume alcohol without actually being there to eat. That was the reason the Plan Commission addressed and proposed the condition and the hotel asked that the Zoning Board also add the condition that would allow some sort of banquet or celebration held outdoors without the need for full food service in those limited incidences when those types of events would occur. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 12 April 7, 2015 Chairman Davis questioned whether that should be addressed or implicit with the special use that it could be done. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that originally the special use was used solely for restaurants to have direct access to a patio area so that dining could be provided inside or outside. Over time there has been some modification in terms of how the patio relates to the restaurant. The Marriott Hotel has outdoor dining, but there restaurant is located off to one side of the area, so technically the outdoor area is not directly adjacent to the restaurant. However, it serves as the same amenity as a restaurant. It would be different if the hotel did not serve food at all and the use was just for beverage consumption that would be a stretch and would not be allowed because it would clearly not be allowed and was not implied by the creation of the special use. In this case there is food which is available in the dining room, cafe or can be served outside so it is in keeping with the special use. When the Zoning Ordinance is updated additional clarification can be added so there will not be a question in the regulation. The Plan Commission brought it up in their letter. Chairman Davis asked the applicant if they were satisfied and accept the conditions as recommended by the Plan Commission. Mr. Brandt confirmed that they accepted the conditions. Member Bulin questioned the limit of patrons in the dining area, especially since some people may be standing and drinking and it appears that it would hold more that 36 seats in addition to people standing. Member Nimry added that if the hotel has a cocktail hour there could be more than 36 people and it was a large area. Chairman Davis noted that the 36 referred to seating. Director of Community Development Kallien suggested that the Fire and Building Departments could determine the maximum occupancy for the area. He said that a condition could be included that would have occupancy determined by staff. Chairman Davis noted that the Factors for a special use were addressed in their testimony and in writing on page D of the case file. Sufficient facts had been presented to enable a vote on the matter. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 12 April 7, 2015 "IF No one spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for a special use and to recommend approval of the special use to allow an outdoor dining area to be located at 2100 Spring Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development of the outdoor dining area shall be in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted; 2. The restaurant will be responsible for maintaining and cleaning the outdoor area and shall comply with all applicable requirements of the DuPage County Health Department; 3. The outdoor dining area will be operated in accordance with the following rules of operation: a. A maximum seating capacity for 36 patrons may be provided in the outdoor dining area or such capacity as determined by the Fire and Community Development Departments. b. No live music, dancing or other outdoor entertainment will be permitted in the outdoor dining area. 4. Comply with all other applicable rules and ordinances of the Village of Oak Brook. 5. Add the provision "Notwithstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all Village Ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically varied or waived." ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Nimry, Young, Ziemer and Chairman Davis Absent: 1— Member Savino. Motion carried. 5. B. CREBER — 518 WOOD ROAD — VARIATION — REAR YARD SETBACK Chairman Davis announced the public hearing and stated the requested relief. All witnesses providing testimony were sworn in. John Creber introduced his wife, Michela and said that they purchased the property at 518 Wood Road and were seeking a variation to the rear yard setback. He noted that 2 years ago he did a remodel down the street from the house, which he passed every day and noted that it was dilapidated and old. They have sold their home in Western Springs and are in temporary housing. They had been working with an architect on a plan on remodeling the existing VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 12 April 7, 2015 CREBER -518 WOOD ROAD - VARIATION - REAR YARD SETBACK house. The way the house is laid out it is almost impossible to expand anywhere except into the rear yard. They are seeking to take advantage of a 40 foot setback that would be permitted in an R -3 District. He reviewed the site plan and area of the proposed variation. He noted that not only was there a restriction to the rear yard setback, but there are also two very large trees in the backyard they are trying to preserve. They are only seeking relief to accommodate, a portion of the kitchen, family room off the back and master bedroom and closet. The house is laid out long and there is no mudroom or powder room. In order to do dishes a dishwasher has to be rolled over to the sink. The elevations showing the area of the proposed variation are noted on page K of the case file. Chairman Davis questioned that the rear of the property abuts a cemetery, which is a significant factor, since there are no neighbors. He also noted that there was a public hearing sign in the front yard notifying the neighbors of the public hearing. Mr. Creber agreed. He noted that with the exception of the neighbors on each side, the variation will not have a negative effect on the neighborhood. He said that he did talk to 4 or 5 of the surrounding neighbors and everyone was happy about it. The only neighbor he could not reach was one of the next door neighbors. She is in her 90's and he did speak to her son who lives out of state, who was okay with it. They love the design of the house although it has its limitations and needs a lot of work. Mr. Creber 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: The placement of the house restricts itself there is no way to go east or west, only north and the required 60 -foot rear yard does not allow for any expansion. 1. b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: It is an undersized lot in the R -2 District with a 60'foot rear yard setback. 1. c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: The variation, will not alter the essential character of the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 12 April 7, 2015 locality, in fact it will improve it. They are not going to cut down all the trees and they are not proposing something that would be overstated for the property. When it is restored to its original condition will improve the neighborhood. The standards were addressed in writing on page C -C.2 of the case file. Member Ziemer questioned that he had referred to the R -3 zoning and asked if they were seeking rezoning from R -2 to R -3 or just a variance to the setback. Mr. Creber responded that they were only seeking the variation. Member Young questioned the age of the home. Mr. Creber responded that it was his understanding the house was constructed in 1942. Chairman Davis noted that the Standards for a variation were addressed in testimony and in writing on page C of the case file. Sufficient facts had been presented to enable a vote on the matter. Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry Ziemer that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for a variation and to recommend approval of the variation to allow the construction of an addition to reduce the required rear yard setback to 48 feet, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance to the plans submitted; 2. 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: 6 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Nimry, Young, Ziemer and Chairman Davis Absent: 1— Member Savino. Motion carried. 5. C. CHICAGO LAND TITLE TRUST #8002365447 — BARBARA — 55 BREAKENRIDGE FARM — VARIATION — REAR YARD SETBACK Member Cappetta advised that this case was being represented by the Cappetta law firm and she was recused from the hearing. Chairman Davis announced the public hearing and stated the requested relief. All witnesses providing testimony were sworn in. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 12 April 7, 2015 BARBARA - 55 BREAKENRIDGE FARM- VARIATION - REAR YARD Frederick Cappetta, Attorney for the applicant and owner, advised that Mr. Barbara was out of town and was unavoidably delayed and did not get back in time, however he does have a letter of representation from Mr. Barbara. Mr. Cappetta reviewed the history of the subject property nothing that it had been for sale for several years. It is a beautiful home, but dated. The floor plan does not suit the home trend today. Older homes were made up of a lot of little rooms, and today people desire great rooms that combine family rooms and kitchens. The property is 2 acres and very expensive, but the desired floor plan does not exist. The property is located in the R -1 District located in the gated subdivision of Breakenridge. It is a lovely home but has not been renovated for years, which may account for reason it has had an extended vacancy. The new owner desires to expand the kitchen and therefore permit a reconfiguration of the rooms on the first floor to some extent, which would make the property more consistent with current floor plans, which are large and open, particularly among the more affluent homes, where it is located. The home is situated on the rear setback line and currently has a 2 -foot encroachment into the rear yard setback. In the rear of the home are a gazebo and an expansive deck, which are accessory structures. To expand the kitchen and living areas extending about 18 feet will further encroach into the rear yard setback. It will not dominate the property or the other lots in the neighborhood, which are similar 2 acre lots. Chairman Davis questioned the acreage in the rear yard. Jon Green, Engineer, estimated the rear yard to about 33,000 square feet, or approximately three /quarters of an acre. The area of the entire addition is approximately 18'x 32' which is approximately 576 square feet, which will cover less than 2 percent of the rear yard. Chairman Davis noted that the addition is relatively small. Mr. Cappetta reviewed the variation standards 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: The property is not income producing property, but is instead a single family dwelling that will be used by the owner as a principal residence. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 12 April 7, 2015 The home was originally built at the rear building setback. Due to the placement of the home on the property, the kitchen, because of its location within the home, could not be remodeled and updated without physically moving the home. The minimal relief being sought will allow modernization to the floor plan. The property had been on the market for 2 years and remained unsold in that period. 1. b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: The owner is seeking minimal relief. The addition to the home is being accomplished at the only place that can be altered to accommodate flow within the structure. The house was originally built at the rear setback line. The kitchen is located in the rear of the house, the portion which sits at the rear setback line. In order to expand the kitchen and bring the home up to current standards and design, a variance is necessary. The proposed addition will replace part of the permitted and existing rear deck. The proposed addition will not increase the actual footprint on the existing property. 1. c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: The addition is sensitive to the character of the neighborhood. The structure as seen from the Street will not change. There are no trees that will be disturbed or removed in the area where the addition will be built. The luxurious wooded and secluded nature of the 17 two acre lots that exist within the Breakenridge gated community will not be impaired by the proposed addition but will be an enhancement of the property and the neighboring lots. 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. RESPONSE: The physical location of the home at the rear setback of the property poses a particular hardship in that without the variance the kitchen cannot be updated to today's standards. 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: The house being located at the rear setback is unique to this property and generally not applicable to the other property within the same zoning classification. 2. c. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 12 April 7, 2015 neighborhood in which the property is located. RESPONSE: the minimal variation would not be detrimental or injurious to other property in the area or detrimental to the public welfare. The addition is sensitive to the current vegetation, landscape, neighbors and area. The spacious 2 acre lot provides ample space for the minimal addition without effecting the neighbors or neighborhood. To the contrary, the proposed alteration will enhance the value of the existing structure and will also enhance 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. RESPONSE: The home is situated on a 2 acre lot and is quite a distance from the other houses. The minimal 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. 2. e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property. RESPONSE: The purpose of the variation is to renovate and update the home so that owner can have his adult child and their young family move into the home and raise their family. The variation will bring another young family to Oak Brook to raise a family. 2. f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. RESPONSE: The owners recently purchased the property in its current condition. They are trying to accommodate with a minimal relief being sought. Just to have a functional updated kitchen. Mr. Cappetta noted that the neighbors were all notified as required by statute and submitted a document identifying the neighbors /owners that he had personally contacted. Those listed authorized him to inform the Board that they had no objection to the granting of the variance and support the applicant in his effort to remodel and improve the property with the just over 18 foot variance into the 100 foot rear yard setback. After the letter was written he spoke with Mr. Willet's attorney (Mr. Willet's rear yard directly abuts the subject property) and they made a private accommodation in regards to some landscaping and they do not have an objection to the request. He met Mr. and Mrs. Kremer prior to the meeting (their property is along Adams Road) and VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 12 April 7, 2015 after an accommodation was made they do not have a problem with the variation as requested. They have tried to address all issues with the neighbors. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Chairman Davis noted that he attempted to try to get into the gated community and was unable to enter because the gate was not working. Member Ziemer questioned whether the accommodations being made with the neighbors should be made part of any recommendation. Mr. Cappetta responded no, that the only concerns were possible new lighting, landscape, etc. These issues are important to the neighbors and will be enforceable between them and not a condition of the variation. Chairman Davis said that one of the conditions of approval was that the addition be constructed in substantial conformance to the plans as submitted and questioned whether they would be apply to comply with that condition. Mr. David Dressler responded that they would comply with that condition as well as to meeting all other Village ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application. Chairman Davis noted that the Standards for a variation were addressed in testimony and in writing on page D of the case file. Sufficient facts had been presented to enable a vote on the matter. Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Ziemer that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for a variation and to recommend approval of the variation to allow the construction of an addition to encroach approximately 18.2 feet into the required rear yard that would be approximately 32.2 feet wide, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance to the plans submitted; 2. 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, Ziemer and Chairman Davis Absent: 2 — Members Cappetta and Savino. Motion carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 12 April 7, 2015 R7 WAR 6. OTHER BUSINESS OTHER BUSINESS Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed possible upcoming cases. There was no other business to discuss. 7. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Ziemer, seconded by Member Nimry to adjourn the meeting at 8:02 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 12 of 12 April 7, 2015