Loading...
Minutes - 05/03/2016 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK 1 � 1. CALL TO ORDER: MINUTES OF THE MAY 3, 2016 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON JUNE 7, 2016 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 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Jeffrey Bulin, Natalie Cappetta, Alfred Savino, Steven Young and Wayne Ziemer ABSENT: Member Baker Nimry IN ATTENDANCE: Dr. Marls Moy, Trustee, John Baar, Trustee, Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development and Gail Polanek, Planning Technician CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR MINUTES OF THE APRIL 11 2016 MEETING APRIL 11, 2016 Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Ziemer to approve the minutes of the April 11, 2016 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS BUSUSINIS BINESS S There was no unfinished business to discuss. 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS CHRIST A. CHRIST CHURCH OF OAK BROOK — 501 OAK BROOK ROAD, 3212 OAK BROOK RD s 12, and 3222 YORK ROAD — VARIATIONS and YORK RD — VARIATIONS B. CHRIST CHURCH OF OAK BROOK — 501 OAK BROOK ROAD, OAAKKBRCHURCH —soI FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PLAN — AMEND SPECIAL USE —FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PLAN — SPECIAL USE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 7 May 3, 2016 5 Chairman Davis announced the public hearing and stated the applicant would be requesting a continuance. Walter Morrissey requested that the matters be continued in order to ensure that they had satisfied the notification requirements contained in the Code and requested a continuance to the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Chairman Davis questioned whether the relevant parties had been made aware of the request to the continuance. Mr. Morrissey responded that all of the interested parties were notified of the request to the continuance. Member Savino asked that the quality of the landscaping on Oak Brook Road be addressed at the next meeting. Mr. Morrissey responded that they would be prepared to address the landscaping at the meeting. Motion by Member Ziemer, seconded by Member Young to continue the public hearing to a Special Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 23, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. C. WESELAK — 31 BAYBROOK LANE — VARIATION — SIDE YARD WESELAK -3I BAYBROOK LANE - SETBACK VARIATION - SIDE YARD SETBACK Chairman Davis announced the public hearing. All witnesses providing testimony were sworn in. Elizabeth Weselak, an owner of the property, reviewed the background and history of the request. She said that they are looking to add onto their home that they purchased 7 years ago when they did not have any children. They came from a very tiny house and thought that it was great and would last forever. They now have three children and only three bedrooms so their youngest child is sleeping in a pack and play in her closet, so they love their home and are looking to add onto it. They also looked at the possibility of moving, but really like their house and their neighbors and they do not want to leave their location. Everyone has given them their blessing for the project. The way that the house is laid out there is no other way to do the addition, without going through the master bedroom. Also there are 100 -year old oak trees on the other side of the house and there is nothing on the side of the house where they are proposing the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 7 May 3, 2016 addition. They have been working with the architect for the last year and a half and were looking for the best case scenario before they moved forward with the proj ect. Daina Furuya, licensed architect reviewed the current property with views of the existing house, trees and setbacks on the site plan along with the proposed addition which is proposed to be located in the side yard setback. The area of the encroachment is approximately 90 square feet. He reviewed documents contained in the case file showing how the addition would be located above the garage. Chairman Davis questioned the approvals that have been obtained. Mrs. Weselak responded that in the case file is an approval letter from the Ginger Creek Homeowner Association for the variation and addition. There is also an email from their immediate next door neighbor, Mr. Trilla supporting the requested addition. They did not go forward with the request until they let them know what was going on and received their support. Mr. Furuya said that the encroachment would be approximately eight (8') feet at the eave level, which is a three (3') foot wide eave. From the wall it is about a five (5') foot encroachment into the side yard setback. It is a pie shaped encroachment due to the layout of the house to the angle of the property. There is a detached louver at the rear of the property that will be located there but will not be part of the principal structure. He reviewed the floor plan to indicate the flow of the house, which makes it virtually impossible to locate the addition anywhere else. To build to the east allows them to take advantage of the existing first floor garage. The graphic provided were shaded to show the area of the encroachment. There will be a small increase to the footprint and will help to keep down the construction cost. He noted that the proposed encroachment narrows down from eight feet (measured at the eave, five feet to foundation wall) down to no encroachment at the front of the house. The documents contained in the case file indicate the elevation to see the proposed addition from the front and rear of the house. Chairman Davis noted that the standards were on page C of the case file. Mr. Furuya 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 VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 7 May 3, 2016 regulations governing the district in which it is located. RESPONSE: The property is in the R -2 district. Properties within the district are to be 1 acre, but this property is only 3/4 of an acre. It meets all of the setback requirements of the R -2 District. The house is already in disadvantage to add more living space to the house. They have explored many options, but the only option was to place it at the east of the lot. The livable area of the existing house is 3200 square feet with the addition, it will be 4950 square feet. The area of approval for the variation is approximately 90 square feet. 1. b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: The existing plan layout of the house makes it extremely difficult to build an addition to the west side of the house. Also, there are several 100 -year old maple and oak trees growing in the west side yard of the house, and it is detrimental to build on this side yard for these trees and to maintain the local character of the neighborhood with lush large trees. 1. c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: The proposed addition is designed to conform to the aesthetics of the existing residence and is sensitive to the surrounding houses. While a maximum 40' ridge height of the roof is permitted in the R -2 zoned lot, our addition will match the ridge line of the existing structure estimated at 25' above grade. The design has been approved by the Ginger Creek Home Owner's Association. 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 existing layout of the house, the large trees to the w est and existing swimming pool in the rear yard limit the options of where the addition can be located. The addition at the proposed location (at east side above the existing garage) is the only option to achieve the owner's family needs. If the addition is to be anywhere else, it will involve a major demolition of the existing structure and will cost too much to the owners and the removal of the existing trees. 2. b. The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 7 May 3, 2016 be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning classification. RESPONSE: Because of the layout of the house's original plans, the original placement of the house to the east, the trees to the west and the pool at the rear yard, this petition is unique to the site and will not be generally applicable to other properties. There is also an existing pool in the rear yard. 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 proposed structure will be constructed of conventional methods and materials and will meet the minimum requirements set forth in the codes adopted by the Village of Oak Brook. The affected neighbor to the East and the Ginger Creels Home Owner's Association has been contacted, seen the proposed plans and images of the addition. They have no objections and support the proposed addition. Also, they are asking for the least amount of relief in this petition, which is 90 square feet. 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: When this petitioned is granted, the portion of the addition closest to structures in the adjacent property will be 29' -0" (approximately 28' -0" at eave). Considering the maximum height from grade of the addition, approximately 25' -0" above grade, this distance between adjacent structures shall be adequate not to impair the issues addressed above. The maximum 40' ridge height of the roof is permitted in the R -2 zoned lot, however, the addition will match the ridge line of the existing structure estimated at only 25' above grade. As stated above in the standard 2.c., the affected neighbor to the East and Ginger Creels Home Owner's Association has been contacted, seen the proposed plans and images of the addition, have no objections and supports the proposed addition. Also, we are asking for the least amount of relief in this petition. 2. e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 7 May 3, 2016 RESPONSE: The goal of this variation is to update the existing house(built in the 1960s) to meet the 2016 lifestyle needs of this young growing family who is looking to remain in Oak Brook for the long -term. 2. f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. RESPONSE: The original house was built in the 1960s and current property conditions were already present at the time of owner's purchase Chairman Davis thanked them for preserving the trees, which protects the character of the neighborhood. Chairman Davis noted that the Standards had been sufficiently addressed in their testimony and in writing on page C of the case file and that the Zoning Board of Appeals was of the opinion that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for the requested variation. Michael Wencel, 30 Baybrook Lane, lives directly across the street from the property. He noted that he was on the Ginger Creek Homeowner Association board. Peter Huizenga, President and Maggie Betten, went through the plans, and it will be a very nice project. Mr. Trilla the next door neighbor is on board and he is also on board with the project living right across the street. It will be a very nice addition and they are only seeking 90 square feet. They are keeping the existing trees which is one of the reasons they are in the neighborhood is a good reason as well. No one spoke in opposition to the request Motion by Member Nimry, seconded by Member Young that the applicant satisfied the requirements for the requested variation to the property at 31 Baybrook Lane and to recommend approval of the variation as requested, subject to substantial conformance to the plans submitted. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Nimry, Savino, Young, Ziemer and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — Motion carried. The public hearing was concluded. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 7 May 3, 2016 6. OTHER BUSINESS OTHER BUSINESS Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed possible upcoming cases. There was no other business to discuss. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments from the public. 8. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Ziemer to adjourn the meeting at 7:36 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: /s/ Robert L. Kallien Jr. Robert Kallien, Jr. Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 7 May 3, 2016 PUBLIC COMMENT ADJOURNMENT