Loading...
Minutes - 02/25/2016 - Plan CommissionV I ULAG E_ O F OAK BR ,K 1. CALL TO ORDER: MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 25, 2016 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON JUNE 20, 2016 The Special Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Tropinski in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:05 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Marcia Tropinski, Members Thomas Doyle, Naveen Jain, Raj Lal, Simon Sheers and Kenneth Wilczak ABSENT: Member Raju Iyer IN ATTENDANCE: Trustee Edward Tiesenga, Director of Community Development Robert Kallien Jr. and Planning Technician Gail Polanek 3. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. ZONING CONSULTANTS, TESKA ASSOCIATES — COMPREHENSIVE YORK RD ASSOC, - CLEARWATER REVIEW OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT - 04 DISTRICT, TEXT AMEND Director of Community Development Kallien provided a brief overview of the zoning ordinance update process. The Village's consultant, Teska Associates has led the stakeholder interviews, has been gathering information, and ultimately will draft a set of code recommendations, which the Plan Commission will evaluate and make recommendations. Kon Savoy, Teska Associates, the Village of Oak Brook Zoning Ordinance Update Consultant introduced the team, Jason Engberg and Michael Blue. Mr. Savoy provided an overview of the zoning ordinance update process to date. They provided a key issue summary list with staff input and their internal review of the code. They were looking for general direction in order to have a zoning policies workshop for community leaders. There were also technical reviews or housekeeping matters to simplify and some organization issues. Jason Engberg reviewed the following: VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 12 February 25, 2016 .1a Why are we changing the Zoning Ordinance? Increase clarity Streamline development process Remove unnecessary and outdated regulations Definitions, off - street parking, development review procedures, bulk regulations, etc. Public engagement opportunities Interactive website Business card promotional materials Public input workshops They encouraged everyone to go onto the website to provide comments. The Phases and estimated timeframe: Phase 1 - Dec. 2015 — Mar. 2016 Kick -off meeting, regulation evaluation, focus groups, zoning policy report, community workshop Phase 2 - Apr. 2016 — Sep. 2016 Draft regulations focusing on primary issues determined by staff, steering committee, and public input. Phase 3 - Oct. 2016 — Dec. 2016 Preparation of draft ordinance, community newsletter, public hearing, Plan Commission and Village Board review The Process: A list of Key Policy Issues will be created by: Staff Stakeholder Consultant After the Key Policy Issues are determined, Teska will: Analyze each issue in -depth List pertinent details Examine treatment /status in the current Zoning Ordinance Consultant recommendations to deal with each issue The Final Product: A concise and thorough document which is easy to understand but specifies each regulation clearly. Additional graphics to assist clarification of difficult concepts Consolidate lists into tables Remove repeating language Add table of contents District consolidation Updated definitions All new regulations will be legally verified (including signs) VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 12 February 25, 2016 Graphics will be added in order to make it user friendly: (example) 7.05 RESIDENCE DISTRICT BULK REGULATIONS R -1 One Family Residence District 10' Minimum Interior Side Ya 25' Minimum Corner Side Yard Initial Issues: Our initial review has determined several key policy issues (shown in the Ordinance Issues Summary Handout) Residential Uses Sign Regulations Definitions Business Uses Tree Preservation Requirements Planned Development Administration & Enforcement VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page e33 of 12 February 25, 2016 �Lf Minimum MlNmum Idintmum Minimum Minimum Maximum Lot Area lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Roar Yard Lot Is% R.) Sotback Sotback Setback Coverage One famlly detached dwelling* 12,500 90' 30' 101r.5' ' 30' 35% Non-residential uses 20,000 100' Special uses 20,000 100' Initial Issues: Our initial review has determined several key policy issues (shown in the Ordinance Issues Summary Handout) Residential Uses Sign Regulations Definitions Business Uses Tree Preservation Requirements Planned Development Administration & Enforcement VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page e33 of 12 February 25, 2016 �Lf Residential Uses ® Residential Building Scale ® Building Height ® Accessory Dwellings (in -law units) ® Telecommunication Towers, Antennas ® Storage: Boats, Trailers, Recreational Vehicles, Commercial Vehicles Ll Mind c& Solar Energy Generation A lot of new redevelopment consists of very tall box -type structures. They will look for ways to mitigate some of those factors. Mr. Savoy sought input from the Commission on this topic: Chairwoman Tropinski noted that she would like to see something in the code in regards to building scale some of the newer buildings do not enhance the character of the neighborhood. It helps to define what the character of the neighborhood should be, especially if the homes are traditional in nature versus adding ultramodern and does not look good and in a way devalues other properties for sale. There are people on the homeowners association not qualified to comment on the character of the neighborhood. Keeping the value of the adjoining neighborhood intact. Member Doyle said that his neighborhood most of the lots are 1/2 acre or less, which is unlike most of the Village. The subdivision was scaled with ranch homes and now they in the process of teardowns are the new homes. One is larger, but not offensive. The second looks like a big block with a second story added in order to keep the original footprint. Some thought should be given in teardowns and whether the requirements should be given to all size lots or variation depending on the size. Chairwoman Tropinski said that it should be pleasing to the neighbors and the neighborhood should be attractive if you should want to sell your home so that someone may want to buy it. She was in favor of broad language to guard the size. Member Sheers noted that they have a building in their neighborhood that is almost translucent; it is supposed to be a solar house. He questioned how taste would be dictated. Member Lal said that he has been a resident since 1979 and he sees the size of the lot versus the size of the building. In the Village, there are different sized lots some 2 -3 and some 5 -acre lots. Larger lots are going to have larger buildings and the larger lots should have the freedom to do that. The size of the building versus the aesthetics and the freedom of the builders who have invested money acquiring the land and their desire to build a home that they think meets their needs, but also balancing that with the sensitivity of the neighborhood while maintaining the character, elegance, and the rustic feeling and quaintness of Oak Brook. Some lots VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 12 February 25, 2016 are close to $1 million. People are investing money and we cannot be that rigid. There needs to be flexibility and to remember that times have changed. The village is 60 years old and as the technology, tools are improving so even though we may not want changes we need to look at the future, which is one of the Commissions responsibilities and cannot tie them down as to what used to be. The question is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A building may not be pleasing to him. In Ginger Creek, they have an architectural review committee, and the design has to pass through that and then it goes to the village. What they are all trying to do is enhancing the Village, increasing the property values and making it attractive to enjoy the ambiance of the Village. Member Jain noted that he is on the board in the Trinity Lakes Subdivision. He said that they have had some interesting cases. As we go through this process, it should be from a forward - looking perspective not backward. He has found there are phenomenal variations in the community. A new neighbor has two young children and the only one with young children and they want to build a new house. The Village wants to attract young families; otherwise, the schools will not have young kids. It is very important to look at it from a progressive mindset and how do other communities handle it. Many of the houses will be torn down because they are very old. So how is the transition handled and how does the zoning code facilitate that kind of evolution. It is a very critical conversation; otherwise, everyone has a very strong perspective. It is difficult, even on the Trinity housing board. It is not just the house, but the trees and landscape. Mr. Wilczak said that the Village needs to be very careful as to what is regulated. When you try to pick out what size house someone can build. In the 1960's the average house might have been about 1100 square feet, now its 3200 square feet. If a house on Canterberry does not belong in Oak Brook, then where does it belong? As long as it meets the setbacks, One person may like it and another may not. His subdivision has an architectural review committee that is overboard and there are some homes that look like upside down boats. Even with those laws, you cannot dictate to someone exactly what they can build. As a Village it can determine how far a home can sit from the street, from the neighbor, and how high. The problem with the one house referred to, is that it does not have enough windows, so it looks like a commercial building with solid walls. We should be careful as to how much we want to restrict the construction, because they will just go to the next town. His home was built in the 1980's and was told it was dated. If those houses are not torn down with new ones built, then it will be a dated community. Director of Community Development Kallien said that a number of the homeowner associations have identified this as a concern. It is not a concern that all of the houses are bad, but we are starting to see some extremes. The Midwest Club controls overbuilding, the rest of the associations do not. He suggested identifying a few houses that are believed to be too much. Oak Brook is unique in that it has a wide variety of lot sizes ranging from 12,000- 15,000 square feet to Breakemidge where there are 4 to 5 -acre lots. It is designed for a variety of housing size. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 12 February 25, 2016 41 Unfortunately, many people are taking the smaller lots and are moving the larger sized homes into York Woods or Brook Forest. Although it may be a really nice house, it would look better on a different kind of lot. We do not want to thwart people from wanting to move here and invest in their property, but we need to watch out for everyone. Not just the new residents, but also those that live here. It may take time to figure out if and how we would do something without creating unintended consequences. Member Wilczak responded that many homeowner associations are going by personal taste, not by what the market is today. The younger generation is looking for smaller lots and they do not want the yard work. If Oak Brook wants to stay with open land that is another issue. People are going for larger homes on smaller lots. If they do not come to Oak Brook they will go to Downers Grove, Clarendon Hills, etc., which is exactly what they are doing today. It is Oak Brook's choice if they want new construction they are going to have to make some changes, or they will keep going to other towns. Chairwoman Tropinski said that maybe helpful guidelines could be created, not to dictate anything, but to help preserve value and resale value. Member Lal commented that if someone is building it, then the owner should understand what the consequences would be to sell it. If they make a personal choice, he would not feel sympathy when it comes to resale. Mr. Savoy said that there is a clear message that it needs to be talked about. He said that there was a concern on the way the structure height is determined. Member Lal said that there should be clarity provided. Member Wilczak said that it is market driven. In the 1970- 1980's ceiling, heights on the first floor were just starting to hit 9 feet and basements were 7 feet. A basement is poured unless it is 9 feet. The first floor will be at least 9 or 10 feet. The market has driven higher ceiling heights per floor. We do not want to make Oak Brook the odd ball in the other communities and think people will go back to build what was built then. Mr. Savoy said that it was then more of the overall building height, rather than the grade issue, which is a technical issue. Accessory structures /dwellings /in -law is an issue. These are generally allowed, with limitations, guesthouses, domestic servants. He questioned whether it would be logical to expand that to allow for in -law units. Given what is happening culturally, with aging parents and it may provide an option. Chairwoman Tropinski said that she would like to see it included and may be an important issue going forward. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 12 February 25, 2016 7 Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Code is clear, but that is not what people are seeking today. Elderly parents are living with their children and grown children are living with parents. They are not in separate units but within the single family home. The Code was good when it was written however; it is not reflective of today's society. We may need to look at what other towns do. Instead of fighting with people, we need a clear way forward. It needs to be able to be regulated and enforced with good definitions in place. Oak Brook was meant to be limited government and regulations. It was based on a simplistic approach. You can have all the regulations and it will be regulated community wide and may have unexpected consequences. Member Jain said that there could be tremendous misuse as to how it is written. The Telecommunications Act must be followed and regulations will help the Village to regulate it in the code. Storage does not have many regulations. Some would like to see it banned. Wind and Solar Energy. Solar power should be regulated and controlled so that it is aesthetically pleasing. Wind turbines are located on the roof, some are allowed in the yard on poles. Some can look like an art piece. Member Doyle said that something should be in the Code and we should check to see how other towns deal with it. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there are some very affluent areas that do allow it. Some things are silent in the code and Member Sheers questioned how you would regulate taste. Director of Community Development Kallien said that some people in town utilize solar but the neighbors would not know it. Some businesses want to look at wind generation. Member Wilczak said that the pole should only be allowed in the rear yard and not go any higher than one foot above the roofline. The Commission agreed that it be handled as a technical issue. Commercial districts: Sign Regulations: ® Digital Signs Current regulations prohibit the use of digital signs but with proper regulation, these signs may be beneficial to the community and businesses. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 12 February 25, 2016 ® Adhere to new court decisions (content neutral) Director of Community Development Kallien said that digital signs are not allowed anywhere, with the exception of gas stations, allowing electronic gas prices. The school district has asked for them as well as the Forest Preserve District. Mr. Engberg said that the recent Supreme Court ruling passed last year was that you cannot regulate based on the content of the sign, including temporary signs. On Premises and off premise signs cannot be treated differently. The size and shape can be controlled per district, but you cannot differentiate to say one is a political sign, religious sign, or real estate sign. Regardless of what is written it is a first amendment issue. Member Wilczak said to leave the code the way that it is. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that technology is changing and there are uses that have needs for communicating their message. Definitions ® Family Need to accommodate different living arrangements. Air B &B raises new issues regarding control of residential uses Member Doyle questioned whether there were regulations for rentals and if they were needed. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that some communities have adopted a rental program. He did not think Oak Brook needed that at this time. Mr. Savoy said that Air B &B is room rental. If it can be proved it is a commercial business, but it is difficult to prove. It will remain as a technical review. Business Uses ® Outdoor Sales Outdoor sales are limited and highly regulated within Oak Brook. Prohibited for most stand -alone businesses Mr. Engberg said that this also applies to food trucks, tents, etc. Mr. Savoy noted that a lot of retail store desire outdoor displays for a season, which has become more common, but the Code prohibits it. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Red Box, or LP gas outside displays are not allowed outside. The gas station cannot put a pop machine outside. We are behind the times, but there may be a middle ground to offer some of these things in Oak Brook so that people do not have to go out of town. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 12 February 25, 2016 Member Doyle noted that food trucks were popular in office parks and perhaps licensing should be required to allow them. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Chicago allows them and it is a big deal for these businesses. Oak Brook has had a prohibition to them, and should the Sports Core, Park District, or the Oakbrook Center have them, so reasonable regulations should be considered. Additional Issues ® Tree Preservation Extent of preservation? Commercial and /or residential? Tree preservation was discussed, what is to be saved, what is reasonable. Chairwoman Tropinski said that several years ago tree preservation was discussed over a long period. Nothing was passed because it was a very difficult subject. Many people showed up with properties with many trees and brought arguments that it would be very difficult to preserve their trees purchased by them or remove a diseased tree and be required to replace it with several smaller trees. Having something for landscaping might be considered. We should review the minutes from that meeting. There was a lot of resistance especially from large lots well forested and did not want to be backed into a corner to maintain and replace. Mr. Savoy said that at the meetings with the public felt there should be something. Public discussion was considered, but the past case file should be reviewed. Member Doyle said that the area was all farmland and there were no trees. People bought property and planted the trees 40 -50 years ago and now there are big trees and sometimes they get too big and they want to take them down. Would we require someone who does not want a tree on their property to replace them? Some of the issues are taking down 100+ year old trees. There were two different issues. ® Planned Development Expand for residential areas and in mixed -use developments Mr. Savoy defined the concept of planned development as providing broad flexibility in regards to use and bulk regulations for commercial uses but not residential. A residential use could be for the concept of cluster housing or conservation oriented development, which is if you have 10 acres, all 1 -acre lots you have 10 lots. In a cluster subdivision, you do not get more than 10 lots, but you want to develop 10 lots on a 1/2 acre lot each and the rest (5 acres) developed as open space. The structures are on smaller lots, but there is preserved open space and everyone enjoys the open space. It might be something to consider as a residential VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 12 February 25, 2016 planned development allowing flexibility in design, lot size in return for enhanced open spaces and natural and landscaped area that are traditional in planned developments. More flexibility is given and there are higher design standards in return. This is something they brought up to consider in the code and in other communities are a common practice and the trend. Chairwoman Tropinski said that at one point, there was a builder who had proposed something like that and the neighbors did not like it because it would increase traffic. Mr. Savoy noted that there would not be more units than allowed, but it is a cluster conservation said that allows a developer to develop smaller Lots with the same number of homes allowed, which means that the land not being built on goes to permanent open space. It does not increase the density. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that Forest Gate has a similar concept, where the houses are built on a pad and the rest of the area is shared open space and storm water management of the lakes. It was developed as a special use. The benefit of planned development is packaged so that you do not need to go to extremes to justify variations and waivers. Similar criteria could be created for residential. Mr. Savoy noted that higher design standards could be set requiring plantings that are not required on a single - family lot in the ordinance. It would allow preserving a cluster of trees and build on another area. It has the potential to remove many problems. It might not be appropriate in all zoning districts. The topic should have further discussion. LJ Design Review Commercial and Multi- family? PC or new commission? Mr. Engberg said that you cannot regulate someone's taste, but could help push people in the right direction. There are certain architectural and landscape designs that could be enforced. It would be done though a separate design committee that makes a recommendation. Chairwoman Tropinski said that she would like to see some guidelines. Member Sheers said that the general looks of some new development is good, but there have been some that have the wrong mix of colors and use of bricks and stone looking to artificially enhanced, which is not pleasing and does not flow within the style. He questioned how a design committee could handle that. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 12 February 25, 2016 Mr. Savoy commented that there could be a limited number of materials on a house or front elevation; boxy architecture could be avoided by requiring pitch in the roofs or a proportion to the pitch, setbacks to the second level, treatments that would break up the mass, window openings, etc. It should be simple, general basic guidelines. A separate body or advisors should review it. It is much more common for commercial and multi - family. Chairwoman Tropinski suggested guidelines in regards to tools to make a better product by a separate committee. Member Doyle said that he would hate to see design review become a Plan Commission issue. It would make many people miserable. Director of Community Development Kallien said that clarity is needed in regards to the Village being a non -home rule community. Mr. Savoy said that he would verify whether aesthetic review would be possible for a non -home rule community. Director of Community Development Kallien said that this issue should proceed with caution. Many projects would not need to go through this process and would not want to see them go through it. The Duchossois building is an example of a top of the line unique commercial structure. The same applies to the HUB building, the Rush Medical Building, the Hyatt House Hotel, LeMeridien Hotel, etc. Many buildings in Oak Brook achieve a very high design status without the need of going through some additional process. We need to be careful so as not to create new problems. Mr. Savoy questioned how the Village was able to get the good designs. Director of Community Development Kallien said that we are fortunate as to where we are in the market and the expense people want to keep in their property. Member Doyle said that some of what was heard might have been more from homeowner associations. The residential structures may be more of an issue than the commercial. Mr. Savoy questioned any opinion on multi- family projects. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there is no multi - family. Teska Associates provided an extensive review of the comprehensive updated to the Zoning Ordinance. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the next step is for the community workshop. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 12 February 25, 2016 Member Doyle motioned, seconded by Member Lal to continue the zoning ordinance updated review to April 18, 2016. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 4. OTHER BUSINESS Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed possible upcoming cases and the commencement of the zoning ordinance review. There was no other business to discuss. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments were made. 6. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Doyle, seconded by Member Wilczak to adjourn the meeting at 9:13 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: /s/ Robert L. Kallien Jr. Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 12 February 25, 2016 -1 F OTHER BUSINESS PUBLIC COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT