Loading...
Minutes - 06/16/2003 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES June 16, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:39 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairwoman Members Director of Community Development Barbara Payovich David Braune Jeffrey Bulin Surendra Goel Marcia Tropinski Paul Adrian Gerald Wolin Robert Kallien Member Braune moved, seconded by Member Bulin, to waive the reading of the April 21, 2003 Plan Commission meeting minutes and to approve them as amended. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. Ill. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION— SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SPRING AND COMMERCE — TEXT AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE AND SPECIAL USE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MCDONALD'S and CHIPOTLE RESTAURANT ON THE SITE TO ALLOW A DRIVE -IN ESTABLISHMENT AND OUTDOOR DINING AREAS Chairwoman Payovich advised that McDonald's Corporation had requested a continuance of this matter to the September 15, 2003 meeting. Member Wolin moved, seconded by Member Braune, to continue the matter to the September 15, 2003 Plan Commission meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. IV. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION — SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SPRING AND COMMERCE — PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION — THREE -LOT SUBDIVISION Chairwoman Payovich advised that McDonald's Corporation had requested a continuance of this matter to the September 15, 2003 meeting. Member Wolin moved, seconded by Member Braune, to continue the matter to the September 15, 2003 Plan Commission meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes June 16, 2003 1 PC -MTG 03- JUN.doc V V. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENTS — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE — CHAPTER 2 NATURAL GROUND LEVEL AND CHAPTER 3 STRUCTURE HEIGHT AND DRIVEWAY GATES Director of Community Development Kallien said the first item in the continuing comprehensive Zoning Ordinance review relates to Chapter 2, Definitions, Natural Ground Level. Whenever a building permit is reviewed for a new home, the elevation by which the home is measured is done in one of two ways. One, if it is in an engineered subdivision, such as Hunter Trails, Brook Forest, etc., the subdivision has been approved by the Village Board. As part of that process, they also approve a grading plan, which contains a first floor elevation for the lot. Over the years, it has been found that some scattered lots were not part of the larger subdivisions and the elevation was never determined, so in these instances the natural ground level is used to establish the elevation. Since Oak Brook is a rather well developed community, the natural ground level on either side of a vacant lot may have been modified. This change in the definition allows the Village Engineer to establish a natural ground level for a lot, which may be different from the actual ground. It will only impact a few lots in Oak Brook that do not have houses on them and will give the Village Engineer some latitude rather than requiring someone to go through the variation process just to establish a first floor elevation. It is a housekeeping item that should have been done long ago and it establishes how it should be done for the isolated lots. Under Section 13 -2 -2, it is proposed to read, "The existing elevation prior to the moving of any organic or non - organic matter, which requires the issuance of a permit under the ordinance of the Village, or the proposed elevation as depicted on a subdivision grading plan approved by the Village. That establishes approved grading plan. Section 13 -3 -8 defining structure height "Structure height is either measured at ground level or the ground level established by the Village Engineer." If it is an engineered subdivision, the elevation is determined by the approved grading plan. If not then the Village Engineer would establish it. Member Braune questioned how this would impact someone who may be adding on to an existing home where this has never been taken into account. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if there is an existing home, the ground level has been established. At the present time there is a maximum height elevation of 30 feet, so therefore, if there is an addition it cannot violate the 30 foot height restriction, and must be consistent with the original construction. Most additions are occurring in subdivisions that are engineered lots. Joseph Perri, 137 Saddle Brook, owns a vacant lot in Breakenridge Farm. The original house was demolished approximately 1 -'/2 years ago. They situation described exists on this lot. Currently, the building structure height is based upon calculating five corners. The lot is like a soup bowl, but also slopes down quite a bit. They would like to build a house with a walkout basement, but would like to be able to build two stories and be able to have the front elevation even to the street. He also asked how this change would affect him. Director of Community Development Kallien said the Village is trying to minimize the use of the five - corner method. The five - corner method used to establish the base on a lot with that type of typography, works as a disadvantage because if two of the five corners are depressed, it affects the height of what the building would be. The change in this definition would allow the Village Engineer to establish a reasonable grade for the new home. The proposed change, in situations where the lot is low, ensures that the lot is not unfairly treated. Mr. Perri said that this has been the situation with some builders and homebuyers. He said that he had also looked at a lot in Ginger Creek with a sloped lot and after estimating the top of foundation (based on the present calculations), you are penalized and it is impossible to build a two -story home with a walk out basement. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 03- JUN.doc June 16, 2003 Director of Community Development Kallien said that is why there have been situations with uneven elevations on property and houses are built with either low or flat - pitched roofs to account for the situation. DRIVEWAY GATES: About two years ago, driveway gates were limited to parcels of at least two - acres of land. There was some interest expressed by a couple of individuals to expand the opportunity to parcels of one acre. In the Ginger Creek subdivision, Herb Stade proposed it; ultimately, the language was approved to reduce the requirement to one -acre parcels. When it went through the process to amend the ordinance from two acres to one acre, there was an assumption made, by some, that any parcels zoned R -2 would qualify. Under the zoning ordinance, R -2 zoned lots require one acre of land. Parcels in that zoning district are also required to comply with maximum height and setbacks, etc. There were a couple of individuals that came forward after Mr. Stade, and it was discovered that they lived on parcels under one acre. The lots were established legally, but the lot did not comply entirely with the zoning ordinance. There is the situation, in Ginger Creek and probably other subdivisions, where some lots meet the one -acre minimum, while many others do not; it is random, like a checkerboard. To drive through the subdivision you would have a difficult time telling which is an acre and which are not. They all are very similar in width with the same size house on them; however, the difference is that some homes go much deeper with lot lines that go out into the lakes. This amendment is to correct this inconsistency, where one property can have the gate and another cannot, especially when the lots look identical. They live by the same setbacks and structure height and it does not seem to be unreasonable, to state that the text be amended to read, "No driveway gate may be installed on a lot of less than one -acre, unless zoned R -2, which would capture this inconsistency. Member Bulin questioned the possibility of driveway gates being allowed on the R -2 zoned lots that are in Robin Hood Ranch, which are less than one -half acre. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that no one from the Robin Hood Ranch area has ever applied for driveway gates. He added that possibly some type of threshold could be applied. He also noted that none of the lots in Robin Hood Ranch meets the R -2 district minimum lot requirements. The zoning assigned to that area a long time ago was never questioned, and as a group, the homeowners have not attempted to change it. Member Wolin questioned that most lots zoned R -2 are of one acre or more. Director of Community Development Kallien said that of all the R -2 properties in Oak Brook, probably 70% of the lots meet the minimum lot size. In Ginger Creek, at least half are very close to meeting the minimum. None are less than a half -acre, and most are .85 acres or larger. With others, such as those in Robin Hood Ranch, the question remains, is R -2 zoning the correct zoning? Most of the homes in that area have a great difficulty in adding anything to their homes because they extend into the setbacks already. Member Wolin asked what negatives the Village is exposing itself to on the smaller lots. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that all the other provisions prevail. In some subdivisions, there are people that love driveway gates and while others are not fans of the issue. The requirements are as follows: minimum of 1 acre; direction of the swing — the gates have to swing inward onto their property; cannot go onto adjacent property; the minimum width is 12 feet; the gate must be 50% open; the location is established at 20 feet from the pavement on local streets and 30 feet on thoroughfares. There have probably been less than 10 requests for driveway gates over the last several years. Some are very attractive amenities. Some of the subdivisions have covenants that may be adverse to this issue, but from a zoning perspective, those subdivisions enforce them. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 3 PC -MTG 03- JUN.doc June 16, 2003 Member Wolin moved, seconded by Member Braune that in making this motion, the Plan Commission found that the applicant satisfied the standards required for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and to recommend for approval the text amendment as proposed by the Village and to amend the existing text as follows: 1. 13 -2 -2 Natural Ground Level: The existing elevation prior to any movement of organic or nonorganic matter which would require the issuance of a permit under the ordinances of the Village, or the proposed elevation as depicted on a subdivision grading plan approved by the Village, or as otherwise expressly determined by the Village. 2. 13 -3 -8 Structure Height: No structure shall be erected, converted, expanded, reconstructed or structurally altered to exceed the height limit above the ground level established by the Village Engineer for the district in which the structure is located; except that mechanical rooms, penthouses or roof structures for the housing of elevators, stairways, tanks, ventilating fans or similar equipment required to operate and maintain the structure, skylights, towers, steeples, flagpoles, chimneys, radio and television aerials, wireless masts, electric and telephone service poles, water tanks, elevators or other appurtenances may be erected above the height limits prescribed in this title. However, no such structure shall be erected to exceed by more than fifteen feet (15') the height limits of the district in which it is located. Structure height may be measured from a base elevation other than natural ground level only with the express approval of the village, provided, however, that an elevator housing enclosure for the purpose of providing a single elevator access to the penthouse level not to exceed three hundred twenty five (325) square feet in area may be erected to heights which do not exceed by more than twenty two feet (22') the height limits of the district in which it is located. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5- Braune, Bulin, Tropinski, Wolin and Payovich Nays: 0- Absent: 2 - Adrian and Goel Motion Carried. Member Braune moved, seconded by Member Bulin that in making this motion, the Plan Commission found that the applicant satisfied the standards required for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and to recommend for approval the text amendment as proposed by the Village and to amend the existing text as follows: Section 13 -3 -14 Driveway Gates. A. Required Acreage: No driveway gate may be installed on a lot of less than one acre, unless zoned R -2 or the front yard of said lot abuts a thoroughfare. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5- Braune, Bulin, Tropinski, Wolin and Payovich Nays: 0- Absent: 2 - Adrian and Goel Motion Carried. Vl. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENTS — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE — CHAPTER 10 OFFICE- RESEARCH - ASSEMBLY DISTRICT — SPECIAL USES — PARKS AND OPEN FIELD RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES Director of Community Development Kallien said that the next item in the continuing comprehensive Zoning Ordinance review is Chapter 10 -A -2, in the Office - Research - Assembly District. The Village is proposing to add, as a special use, "Parks and open field recreational activities." The proposal is for the addition of this language to the special uses in the ORA -1 PLAN COMMISSION Minutes June 16, 2003 4 PC -MTG 03- JUN.doc District. If anyone would want to utilize the language, they would have to then apply for a special use for the property in question. This amendment has been motivated primarily by the existence of a substantial piece of property in the ORA -1 District. It is located south of Kensington north of the Park District, the property is known as Autumn Oaks and is owned by McDonald's Corporation. They do not have any immediate plans for the property. However, since it is adjacent to Park District property, it does have some possible use for open space use. Over the years, there have been a couple of entities that have contacted the Village trying to pursue low -key recreational activities. Under the current zoning ordinance, it is not allowed because there is no recreational element exists in the ORA -1 District. This amendment is really a precursor to an upcoming case. There is someone who is interested in playing soccer on the property as long as McDonald's would give them the okay and that a special use can be obtained, if the text is approved. This is not being looked at as a permanent or long- term recreational element, because the highest and best use for the property is office use. However, there may be an interim use that could benefit the community. In all the proposed text amendments, is for some benefit that can be available to the citizenry of Oak Brook. Chairwoman Payovich said the amendment is not for any specific use, it is for an open field type activity, such as soccer. This amendment does not recommend approval of a specific use. Director of Community Development Kallien said that technically, by the strict letter of the ordinance, if someone wanted to fly kites on the property, there is no provision there, especially if it were not approved by McDonald's. The proposed text amendment enables someone to be able to pursue some type of formal recreational activity on the property. Member Braune asked if the application for the specific special use would carry a time limit with it. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it could. It could set parameters, and in this particular case there may be a license agreement between the property owner and potential user of the property that would further stipulate how and when the activity would end. Member Tropinski moved, seconded by Member Braune, that in making this motion, the Plan Commission found that the applicant satisfied the standards required for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and to recommend for approval the text amendment as proposed by the Village and to amend the existing text as follows: Section 13- 10A -2: Special Uses: Parks and open field recreational activities ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5- Braune, Bulin, Tropinski, Wolin and Payovich Nays: 0- Absent: 2 - Adrian and Goel Motion Carried. Vll. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENTS — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE — CHAPTER 6 — RESIDENCE DISTRICTS, SECTION 13- 6A -3 -D, SECTION 13- 6B -3 -D, SECTION 13- 6C -3 -D, SECTION 13- 6D -3 -D — STRUCTURE HEIGHT: SECTION 13- 6B -3F- 2, SECTION 13- 6C -3F -2, SECTION 13- 6D -3F -2 — SIDE LOAD GARAGES Director of Community Development Kallien said that the next item in the continuing comprehensive Zoning Ordinance review is Chapter 6, which deals with residential districts. The PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 03- JUN.doc June 16, 2003 Village of Oak Brook has submitted a petition seeking approval of additional text amendments to Chapter 6 — Residence Districts, of the Zoning Ordinance, which is also known as Title 13 of the Village Code of the Village of Oak Brook. These particular amendments relate to; increasing the maximum structure height from 30 to 40 feet in all residential zoning districts and to require a minimum side yard of 23 feet if the property owner wants a side load garage. This would apply to all the residential zoning districts. At the present time Oak Brook has 4 residential districts. R -1 has a two -acre minimum, R -2 has a one -acre minimum, R -3 has a minimum lot size of 25,000 square feet and R -4 has 18,000 square feet. In the R -1 and R -2 the maximum structure height is 30 feet, however, there is an additional caveat that allows a structure height up to 40 feet, as long as the setbacks are appropriately modified to adjust for the increased height. In the R -3 and R -4 District the maximum structure height is 30 feet. Many of the homes in Oak Brook are 20+ years old. We are now in a redeveloping stage, we are issuing permits for new homes on lots that had a home that has been demolished. In the past three years, we have had around 20. The logical assumption is that we are going to be getting more. A common comment made to staff is that people are interested in getting taller houses. The primary reason is that in today's architecture there is a desire to have higher ceilings and larger great rooms. There is also an interest to eliminate some of the flat roofs that result in some of our houses because of maintenance issues that come up with flat roof houses over time. With the 30 -foot window they had to either have a very low pitched or flat roof. As we progress, there are people that have expressed seeing that changed. We reviewed our districts where there is 40 feet allowed in some and 30 feet in others, so the question was what would be the downside of allowing 40 feet on all. On the other hand there is the issue of setbacks. In the larger districts, when the height was increased to 40 feet, there was a requirement that they had to increase the side yards. If that theory would be carried forward to the smaller lots, in some respects you would be moving backwards because people could have taller houses, but they would have a much smaller house because they would not be able to build in the original buildable area. After much review, the only way to resolve the issue and move upward, would be to come up with a uniform standard, to allow 40 feet for everyone. Many other communities have a uniform standard that goes across the board for all of their residential zoning districts. Member Tropinski asked if the structure height were raised to forty feet, what happens to someone where they want to have a nice big attic space that they could build up and now they have 3'/2 stories instead of 2'/2. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the caveat that allows them to go to 40 feet, but they are limited to 2%2 stories of house. The concept is that we do not want to end up with a walk out basement with three stories of living space above it. It would allow for a taller house with a different roof configuration. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the dilemma is that over 95 percent of the houses in Oak Brook are 30 feet. What is going to be the impact when you have this nice uniformity of 30 feet and now a 40 -foot house is added, or two 40 -foot houses with a 30 foot in the middle. This might be more significant in the R -3 and R -4 districts where the lots are smaller and more concentrated. Member Tropinski said that she believes it is an issue, especially in areas such as Forest Glen and Woodside Estates. At the last zoning Board meeting, the Siddiqi residence, he proposed a taller house and the neighbors were upset about the whole thing. Many of the homes in those subdivisions are ranch homes. How does that impact the neighbor in regards to his views, breezes, sunlight, old trees being removed. It does have an impact. Personally, she does not have a problem with the increased structure height on the lots in the R -1 and R -2 districts because they can easily to scale handle a big house. Many of the lots such as Forest Glen or Wood Glen, some of the lots do not conform to the minimum lot standards and they are small. This type of change could impact the character of the subdivision. Some people want to have a bigger house. Oak Brook is a great location, with a great school district, building a house in with a 9 -foot ceiling versus PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 03- JUN.doc 6 _"�4 June 16, 2003 a 10 -foot ceiling is not going to make their house less valuable. Her concern is the character of the neighborhood is maintained in some of the older subdivisions. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that he understands her concerns, and a majority of the houses in Woodside Estates are one story houses, however, the ordinance, currently allows 2 %2 story houses across those districts. Some decision was made in the beginning that a certain kind of home could be built. They did not utilize what the zoning allowed. We cannot overlook what is there now, but we also have to look at where Oak Brook is going. We have to look both ways, we cannot just look backwards, because you would have to have a compelling reason to consider doing this. However, as we move forward and what opportunities are out there and what people want, people have a tremendous amount of investment in their property. Oak Brook's average house value is in excess of $600,000 and the new houses that have been built over the last five years, that number is far lower than what the new houses are valued. The trend is to fully utilize what is there as well as what the zoning offers. To get this height, there may need to be certain requirements. As with Mr. Siddiqi, it would not made sense to give the lot additional height, when they could not meet the basic setbacks for the property to begin with. Maybe there needs to be a connection between meeting the setbacks of the districts before you can qualify, so that if a substandard condition existed, you could not make it worse. There have also been people who would like to see 45 feet in the R -1 and R -2 lots. Right now, there is 40. The input of the Fire Department should be obtained on this issue. Maureen Steele Perri, she is also an ERA Realtor. She suggested that the 40 -foot height be considered across all zoning districts, and the subdivision could require a certain height, if they wanted to. If that association would not want 40 feet they could put that in their covenants that would limit it to 30 feet. It could be left up to the individual association to decide if they want the 40 feet. Member Tropinski said that the Village has to release building permits based upon the zoning ordinance not on what the individual associations would want. How many associations actually enforce their own guidelines and rules. If the association has a certain requirement that allows only colonial homes, the village does not enforce that. The battle then is with the association and how much money the association wants to expend to take them to court, which makes it difficult to enforce. There is also the issue of Life Safety with the Fire Department. Ms. Perri said that in Hinsdale they can go up to 42 feet and she would believe that the Oak Brook Fire Department would have the same, if not better, equipment than Hinsdale considering we have many tall office buildings. However, that is something that should be looked into. Personally, she believes the language should be changed from 2 %2 stories to 3 stories, because most of the town around Oak Brook build out their third floor space. When she shows people in Hinsdale they are getting, lower level, first, second and third floor. Many people do not want to look in Oak Brook because of the restrictions. They want the additional space. Mr. Perri said that if you are building under the roof, aesthetically from the exterior it does not change anything, so why wouldn't you be able to finish off an attic space. Especially going the Village that can approve or disapprove what is being built, as opposed to someone going in at a later date and finishing it, without the village knowing what was going in there. Would the Village consider that. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Village is looking for input. Member Bulin said that there are a lot of people that finish attics after the houses are built and they do not take out a building permit out for it. Director of Community Development Kallien from a Village perspective you do not want to have people work without permits because there is no guarantee down the road. Member Bulin said that it would be better to loosen restrictions and allow people to do things with a permit, than it is to PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 7 PC -MTG 03- JUN.doc June 16, 2003 make tight restrictions and have people violate the permit process, because they are going to do what they want to do anyway. If you get people to take out the permit, then the Village has some control over it. If the restrictions are tight, people try to skirt around it. Member Tropinski added that the reality is that when there is an attic or basement space, people do not want to get a permit because they do not want their property taxes and insurance go up. Member Bulin said that a lot of it is the issue that they do not want to have to deal with any restrictions that may be enforced, so if some of the restrictions are removed, hopefully they will go for the permit and then the Village has the process of reviewing the construction and looking for life safety issues. If people do the work without a permit then there is no review of life safety issue. He said that he is in favor of fewer restrictions and having the building inspectors have some oversight on what is going on. He said that he is not opposed to the 40 foot height, he's almost in favor of no restriction, but it may be better to go with the 40 feet and three stories because that appears to be the trend in housing. Ms. Perri said that with the proposed change maybe the property values in Oak Brook will start increasing like all the surrounding communities. It would be nice to see the values go up like the surrounding areas as well. The only way that will happen is to get people to come in and buy the homes and people want certain luxuries. Member Tropinski said that what about the people that have been living here and it is there home and they are not intending on selling in five years. Maybe some people do not want their property values to increase. There is a 10 -14% tax increase effective next year. Having a home that is built in the subdivision that dramatically increases your property value also increases your property taxes. She does not want her property taxes increased and she plans to stay here a long time and not sell her home. She does not want a monster home next to her that creates a huge increase in her taxes. She is thinking about the people who live here and make this their home as neighbors to have the character of their neighborhoods stay the way it is. Maybe they like it the way it is and would prefer to keep huge monster homes out to maintain the atmosphere and sunshine, view and big trees. Sometime monster homes are out of character for a neighborhood. Member Wolin said that this is not an easy issue. Before moving to Oak Brook, he lived in Elmhurst for a long time and the teardowns were a very emotional thing there. He was on the city council and one of the big objections of the residents when the teardowns took place was the height of the buildings because they had smaller homes next door to them, etc. To some extent, the problem is not as severe in Oak Brook because the lots are larger. The minimum lot is 18,000 square feet and in Elmhurst, many of the lots were 9,000 square feet. If you raise the height to 40 feet, builders are going to build to that height and they are going to build very large houses when they tear down a house they are paying a lot of money for it and they are going to build the biggest house that can be built. What happens, is that there is an awkward period when there are a lot of little homes and a few big monster homes. As time goes on increasingly bigger homes are built and eventually it starts to look better, but you go through a long awkward period. It will be an emotional thing. In the case of Hinsdale, Elmhurst, and other suburbs, the councils and boards are allowing that sort of things because it does increase property values. There are pros and cons and there are no easy answers, there is not going to be a solution that will make everyone happy. Member Tropinski added that a bigger home means a bigger family. A bigger family means more schools, which means more taxes. Director of Community Development Kallien said that they have found that Oak Brook is somewhat the opposite in that respect. With all the large homes being built, they were amazed to find that over the last 10 years the school enrollments are declining. They were not aware of the size of the decrease because it has happened gradually over the 10 -year period. The primary reason that the PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 03- JUN.doc June 16, 2003 Oak Brook population has dropped from 9100 down to 8700 is because the family size is getting smaller. Older couples are moving away, and they are not being replaced by families with a lot of children, maybe only one or two. It was an issue in Naperville and it created an impact on the schools. One of things that can be considered, from his experience as being a planner, is that Oak Brook is definitely on the lower end of maximum building height. There is only a community or two that has our standard. Conversely, Hinsdale is 42 feet, Riverside is 45 feet, Naperville was 35 feet but it is measured from the middle of the roof, not from the top, so the total height may have been 44 to 45 foot houses. Member Wolin said that he believed Elmhurst was 40 feet. Director of Community Development Kallien said that we might not want to rush this issue. It is a character issue for Oak Brook. What they do here is going to have an impact down the road. Driveway gates will have one here and there, but building height as it relates to a community in transition, there is going to be this continuation of tear downs and larger homes, especially since there is no vacant land for the most part. He offered to survey other communities comparable to Oak Brook such as Wilmette, Winnetka, Glencoe, Burr Ridge, etc. to find similar communities and see how they handle the third story versus the 2 %2 story. We will also see is there are any caveats that exist with some of the smaller lots. There also may be a way to create a maximum floor area ratio footprint, so that if they want taller, they would give up some of the buildable area. The reality is in Oak Brook, they maximize the setbacks and use the entire buildable area. In some of these instances if someone wants to go upwards, it may be a fair tradeoff. Mr. Perri said that 40 feet is thought of as being really high, but that height is not from end of building to end of building. If there is a hip roof, it might be 40 feet in the center of the structure, but along the sides, it could go as low as 30 feet. Again the architecture would be there and you could get what you are trying to achieve in the design. Being next to a ranch would not be anymore effected as though the roof height was 30 feet. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the impact would be in a subdivision that has a little bit of terrain and a ranch next to a two -story with a potentially bigger three -story. Mr. Perri said that he is a builder, and as you drive down the streets you can really see the difference in architecture and the beauty of different styles you can do if you could built up to 40 -45 feet. When you are limited to 30 feet or even 35 feet you are not able to do that, and are forced to go back to what is going on now, which is building the flat roofs and ranches. Director of Community Development Kallien said that from a staff perspective we are looking at this as where is Oak Brook going versus where the building trends and architecture is going. However, we do not want to forget where we have been. Oak Brook is a fine town and we do not want to create a situation that has negatives. By solving one problem, we do not want to create other problems. After this analysis is completed perhaps, we will be better prepared at the next meeting to continue the discussion. Member Wolin said that he agrees, it is an important issue and we should not rush off and vote on it. It would be a good idea to do a survey and in addition to the heights, he requested the corresponding lot sizes. Director of Community Development Kallien agreed so that we can compare apples to apples. Even comparing Oak Brook against Hinsdale, although the housing types and values may be similar, but the lots in Hinsdale have some much smaller lots, we do not have that. We might want to include Burr Ridge and Long Grove. Member Bulin said that there might be a way to work in a provision where you give a benefit to people if they keep the roof lower. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 03- JUN.doc June 16, 2003 Mr. Perri said that also because of the lower setbacks, you are forced to build out, which forces you to take out trees, that you would not need to do. He also suggested checking Palos Park because they have an ordinance in regards to the trees. Director of Community Development Kallien said that we will get as much information as we can, and if anyone has any contacts in other places, check them out also. Member Wolin said that he agrees with everything that Member Tropinski said, and there will be other people raising the same issues, however there are also going to be a lot of people giving reasons like the members in the audience have given. Personally, he believes it is probably the right thing to do, for the reason of forward looking. One of the things he would like to do is that the areas where there are smaller lots and ranch houses, he would like to get some feedback from those areas before making any decision. He asked if there were an easy way to do that. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in Woodside Estates, Wood Glen, Yorkshire Woods, Robin Hood Ranch, Timber Trails, we will do another mailing as soon as we get something together to send out a sample of what some of the findings are. The rules of development are different in the larger subdivisions, but we will be sure to get their input. Good quality research will be done. Director of Community Development Kallien said that another portion of this case file is the issue of side load garages. There is some difficulties in the R -2, R -3, and R -4 districts with side load garages. According to the Village Engineer, that to utilize a side load garage sufficient space and distance is required to make a safe turn in and out of the garage. The Village Engineer said that it has always been 28 feet from the property line to the garage door. However, after further evaluation he has indicated that he could live with a 23 -foot minimum. The reason this is being established is because under the current zoning there is no differentiation given toward the issue of side load garages. Recently there was an individual in one of the subdivisions that had a setback of 18 -foot side yard and wanted to create a side load garage. Staff advised it would very difficult to maneuver in inclement weather, but there was no standard to stop him. Therefore, they have a problematic situation down the road. They want to establish something that guarantees peoples safety and looks to the long term. If someone bought a house, tore it down and wanted to build a side load garage, the staff would be able to impose requiring one of the side yards having at least 23 feet, and they would have to design the garage around it. Member Bulin moved, seconded by Member Braune to continue this mater to the July 21, 2003 Plan Commission for further hearing. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5- Braune, Bulin, Tropinski, Wolin and Payovich Nays: 0- Absent: 2 - Adrian and Goel Motion Carried. M. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENTS — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE — CHAPTER 11 — SIGN REGULATIONS — ADD REGULATIONS FOR SALE AND FOR LEASE IN OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Director of Community Development Kallien said that Oak Brook has very restrictive sign regulations, far more restrictive than any of the neighboring communities. Signage is a secondary item to the building, versus what is seen elsewhere. We try to keep signs to a certain scale and a certain criteria in terms of not allowing a lot of colored signs and crazy lighting arrangements. There is uniformity in the signage that works quite well. One of our shortcomings is that there is PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 10 PC -MTG 03- JUN.doc �� June 16, 2003 specific mention in the residential districts for the placement of for sale and for lease signs. However, we do not have any exact language in the ordinance that deals with for sale or for lease signs in the commercial or office districts. Signs just appear on buildings from time to time. It is reasonable for people to announce that there is space available or that a building is for sale, as long as it is to scale and placed in the right location and does not create negatives. We do not have a standard today and he has tried to create a scenario that tries to accomplish that. Our commercial districts are primarily B -1, B -3 and B -4, while B -2, which regulates the Oakbrook Center has been excluded. The language would allow "one unilluminated ground sign or wall sign, not more than sixteen (16) square feet in area. The ground sign may be located in a front yard or side yard adjoining a street, shall be located adjacent to any existing permanent ground sign and shall be located not closer than ten feet (10') from the street right -of- way." The signs will not be permanent in any way and additional language is suggested to include "such signs are deemed to be temporary in nature and are approved for a time period not to exceed six (6) months. One additional six (6) month extension may be approved by the Village upon written verification that the building or a portion thereof is still For Sale or For Lease." Many of our office buildings front up to major roadways such as 1 -88 or 22nd Street and it does not seem unreasonable to allow up to a 32 square foot sign in those areas. We do not have a standard, and at one point in time, Oak Brook did not want a proliferation of these types of signs. It was thought that if someone had space available there were a lot of realtors and ways to make it known. Language needs to be added for clarification. If they are going to be allowed they need to be allowed in a particular manner, if not than that language needs to be included. Member Braune said that he has seen those types of signs out there so people do it, and of those observed, he questioned how they match the proposed language. Director of Community Development Kallien said that generally they are close. What happens with some of the buildings, is that literally they must taken down existing signage, because each building has an allowable amount of signage that can be used. If they have not exceeded the amount that is allowed, the excess can be used for these signs, if they do not then other signage must be removed so that they do not exceed the maximum allowable signage for each property. Some building have reached the maximum and it becomes a hardship to start removing existing signage. He believes that there is some inherent right to announce the property is for sale, but the ordinance is not clear. Since this is a new issue and it will shape our future, maybe we could research again and find out what other communities do, because this is a new aspect in our ordinance. Member Wolin commented that Oak Brook has done a very nice job with the sign ordinance. When you drive through Oak Brook, there is a much nicer look because of the sign ordinance compared to other communities. The approach that has been proposed is very reasonable. Although he does not believe it is a bad idea to look at other communities, he would be less reluctant. Director of Community Development Kallien agreed, because other towns allow so much more signage, but it may give us a feel for how they handle these types of signs. Member Braune noted that we control many aspects of normal signage, he questioned if there would be an attempt here to do the same to try to minimize garishness on the signs. Director of Community Development Kallien agreed. He said that there is a building at 800 Enterprise, across from the fire station. Grubb and Ellis came in seeking signage for available space. Our ordinance states that colors cannot be used that are in a stoplight, so red, yellow and green are prohibited. The logo colors for Grubb and Ellis is black and yellow, so they revised it to black and white. Therefore, our intent is to minimize or eliminate gaudiness from the signs. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 11 PC -MTG 03- JUN.doc June 16, 2003 Member Braune said that at this meeting we have discussed two issues and in both instances have asked staff to provide far more information than what was available at this meeting. He was wondering if the entire process could be made more efficient, if when things that are this important come up, that they come with some background material like what they are asking for; such as a survey of comparable communities and such. He understands that this last issue was so clear that it could have been passed on tonight without any extra information provided, but it would appear that these things were important enough that they require more information and maybe they should come with that before they are even presented in the first place. Member Bulin said that he believes it is important to get the issue out first, to release the information for the Plan Commission's initial review with the anticipation that it may take a series of reviews to go through it, similar to what was done with Oakbrook Center. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he does not disagree. However, Oak Brook is somewhat different than other communities. The Plan Commission serves as being advisory to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Other communities really have a single board or commission that deal with these matters. When there is a one -stop review and approval process, maybe better background data would be available. One of the roles of the Plan Commission is that in some respect, it is an extension of staff and we need people with experiences that can help us develop the language itself. We do not want to go ahead and do research that would somehow or could influence what the bottom line would be. A suggestion was included in the file on a way to handle it, and then the Commission can decide if there are other ways to address the matter. Sometimes we have to work our way through and find out what it is that we want to accomplish. If a private entity had proposed this, we would have done some analysis to see how it would compare with others. Member Braune moved, seconded by Member Wolin to continue this mater to the July 21, 2003 Plan Commission for further hearing. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5- Braune, Bulin, Tropinski, Wolin and Payovich Nays: 0- Absent: 2 - Adrian and Goel Motion Carried. IX. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. X. ADJOURNMENT Member Wolin moved, seconded by Member Bulin to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 12 PC -MTG 03- JUN.doc 0-.** 4;? Director of Co y Development Secretary July 21, 2003 Date Approved June 16, 2003