Loading...
Minutes - 08/18/2003 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES August 18, 2003 L CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairwoman Members Director of Community Development Village Engineer Barbara Payovich Paul Adrian David Braune Jeffrey Bulin Surendra Goel Marcia Tropinski Gerald Wolin Robert Kallien Dale Durfey Member Adrian moved, seconded by Member Bulin to continue the reading and approval of the July 21, 2003 Plan Commission meeting minutes to the September 15, 2003 meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. M. FALCO SUBDIVISION — 2901 OAK BROOK ROAD — PRELIMINARY PLAT— FOUR -LOT SUBDIVISION Mr. Jim Fey, Project Manager, Balsamo /Olson Engineering Company reviewed the request. He said that the Falco family would like to subdivide the parcel to add three additional lots. One lot would be used as a private street and they are seeking a variation to waive sidewalks and reduce the easements. There is an existing house on the property that belongs to the Falco family. The property is zoned R -2 and will meet the requirements of the R -2 District. The property contains wetlands, which are being reviewed by the Village's stormwater consultant, and they are in the process of completing the report. The wetlands are located on the border of the existing lake. There is a riparian area and the trees, which surround the wetland area, will be addressed by the consultant. They have contacted the village to seek permission to go onto the adjacent Village property in order to get some credit for some of the required flood plain compensatory storage. They have offered to clean up and enhance the area. They have not received a response yet from the Village PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 03- AUG.doc I� August 18, 2003 Village Engineer Durfey said that there is still a lot of work to be done on this project. There is a letter from the Village consultant on page 9 of the case file. There are questions remaining regarding the flood plain, compensatory storage, detention, wetland, and riparian. These items are in the process of being done by the applicant and then will be submitted for review. Member Adrian questioned the applicant's request for a waiver of streetlights, etc. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the Sue Boon Subdivision had requested a similar waiver as well as the Yorkshire Glen Subdivision (located north of Harger Road). It is a 7 -lot subdivision with a private court. He said that they are seeking a waiver to things that are common in smaller developments. Village Engineer Durfey said that typically the Village waives the streetlights, except those located at intersections. They are providing one at the intersection of Oak Brook Road and an additional one back by the cul de sac. The request would meet what the village has typically done in the past. Member Wolin questioned if the request for the 48' width driveway request consistent with other exceptions granted. Village Engineer Durfey said that the roadway itself will meet the standard of curb and gutter and pavement width. It is just the private right of way will be smaller than normal. Member Wolin said that the variation request is for the sidewalks. Village Engineer Durfey agreed and said that is typical in Oak Brook. Director of Community Development Kallien said that with the placement of the two ponds it does seem reasonable that they would be a minimal amount of space to encompass the roadway. Member Goel questioned the right of way and the lakes. Village Engineer Durfey said that there are proposed retaining walls, which are noted on the plans as two bold lines. Those are the proposed retaining walls, which area the edges of the proposed lakes. The edges of the existing lakes are fairly close to the existing proposed edges of the lakes. It seems to make sense, since there is room for a full sized roadway, the water mains, and other utilities that would be located there. From an engineering perspective, there was no great need to have a larger right of way in this particular case. The lakes were already there and it did not seem like they should be pushed back artificially for no great purpose. It is a dead end street servicing three properties. Member Braune questioned the proposed retaining wall and that a comment in the Village Engineer's letter noted that there was a potential that it may not be sufficiently strong for some of the hydrostatic pressures. Village Engineer Durfey said that they would have to provide the engineering seals to ensure that it would be okay. Village Engineer Durfey said that typically in the preliminary plat stage, we look at the concepts of the issues. We do not get into the details of the stormwater detention, but the applicant must provide enough information that confirms the concept that they can provide the volumes they need in concept. The same issues would apply to wetlands and those issues. Enough information needs to be provided to show that it would reasonably work and then the details would be provided in the final plat stage. George Mueller, 3113 Meyers Road said that his property is adjacent to the subdivision and he is concerned about the proposed berm. He would like it terraced on the other side so the grass can be cut to prevent the building of a weed wall along the western border. In 1977, a substantial amount of fill was put into the property. It dumps water onto his property now and he does not want more coming onto his property and would hope that the proposed development would mitigate it from what is happening now. The west pond is currently filled with algae and stagnant water. The east pond is also stagnant, but does not contain as much algae as the west pond. There is an overflow of the west pond that also goes onto the Village property, which also has created stagnant water. There are some problems on the site that need to be addressed if the area is going to be improved. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 18, 2003 PC -MTG 03- AUG.doc .4 Member Braune asked about the status of the negotiations with the village to work on the western part of the pond by the village property. Mr. Flowers, the applicant, said that they have written a letter to the Village Manager asking if they could do some work on the property, but they have not received a response yet. Village Engineer Durfey said that the Village Manager has been waiting to see how this works through the process. Member Wolin asked if the ponds were natural or built. Mr. Fey said they were built for compensatory storage for the current property. He asked if there were plans for aeration. Mr. Fey said they plan to aerate the property. Member Braune asked if the ponds were built to the standards at that time, and whether the standards have changed. Village Engineer Durfey said that the building permit was issued in 1977 and there were standards at that time. It was just two aesthetics lakes built by the property owner. Village Engineer Durfey noted that because of the retaining wall situation, they are located next to the lakes and compensatory storage. Upstream there is a separate detention system. As more details are received and the plans defined, those issues should be reviewed. Member Braune said that the last project had a retention pond that had built in safety steps contained in the pond. He questioned the pond depth. Mr. Fey responded that they are approximately 6 -8 feet deep. The very center may be as deep as 8 feet, but the majority of the pond is no more than 6 feet deep. Member Bulin moved, seconded by Member Wolin, to continue the matter to the September 15, 2003 Plan Commission meeting, subject to the applicant providing the following 1. The applicant is to provide cross section elevations through the property to help identify the changes in elevation of the water levels. (a couple cross - sections going east/west around the pond and the street and where the two lots are being filled, and one cross section going north and south) 2. The applicant is to provide a landscape plan. 3. The applicant is to address the issues in Village Engineer Durfey's Memorandum dated July 11, 2003. 4. Response to the questions from the Village Consultant, including the wetland report. 5. A response from the Village Manager as to the state of the extra pond area that is village property. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. IV. PALUMBO'S RESUBDIVISION — 407 and 409 FOX TRAIL LANE — FINAL PLAT— TWO - LOT SUBDIVISION Director of Community Development Kallien said that Mr. Palumbo is the owner of 407 and 409 Fox Trail Lane in the Hunter Trails subdivision. The request is to move the property line six feet west to slightly increase the size of the property at 409 and slightly decrease the size of 407 Fox Trail Lane. The lot line revision will not effect the lot area requirements as both lots will meet the minimum requirements of the R -2 zoning district, and the current setbacks are more than ample in terms of the minimum requirements. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 18, 2003 PC -MTG 03- AUG.doc Craig Pride, PPKS Architects, Glen Ellyn, Illinois reviewed the proposed subdivision. The owner is simple wishing to move the west property line over approximately six feet and has submitted all documents for review and approval. Member Bulin asked what was the reason for relocating the property line. Mr. Pride responded that they are currently underway for a large residential addition at 409 Fox Trail Lane. There is an anticipated need for modification to the addition on that side of the parcel for some pool equipment. During the process they looked at many alternatives and this was one of them. Since Mr. Palumbo owns both properties and resides next door to the one he is affecting, he decided to choose this alternative to keep his options open in the future. This procedure would be to avoid any variation request to the side yard setback. Member Wolin asked if the drafting revisions have been made yet. Village Engineer Durfey said that a plat was received, but he has not reviewed it yet. Member Wolin commented that in Village Engineer Durfey's memo noted that the proposed Lot 1 needs to have a revised six foot utility easement. Mr. Pride responded that they had retained the current 12- foot easement on the property at 409 and added a six -foot easement to the 407 property. It could be revised to provide six feet on each parcel, which would comply with the current Village ordinance. Village Engineer Durfey said that if there are no outstanding major conceptual issues, to recommend approval subject to conditions, such as, final engineering approval. Village Engineer Durfey said that typically there is an easement on each side and rear lot line of each lot. This proposal would not have an easement on the east side of lot 1. To have six foot easement on each lot, would require the granting of the easement, which would be the subject of this plat; but then there would be a separate plat of vacation or plat of abrogation to delete an existing six -foot easement, which would be an additional document. Member Goel said that if this property would ever change ownership, then the six -foot easement should be on each property. Mr. Pride agreed and said that it would be a modest drafting revision and would comply with the request and submit it to the Village Engineer for review. Mr. Pride asked if it would be a Plan Commission requirement to vacate the existing six -foot easement. Village Engineer Durfey said that it would be part of the motion and then if the Village Board also concurred then the documents would be recorded together. Member Wolin moved, seconded by Member Braune to recommend approval of the request for a final plat of subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise the plat to provide a new six (6') foot easement on each side of the revised lot line 2. To prepare a Plat of Vacation to vacate the original six (6 ") foot easement on the 409 Fox Trail parcel, subject to any existing utilities. 3. Final Engineering approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 - Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Payovich Nays: 0- Motion Carried. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 03- AUG.doc August 18, 2003 V. 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 at the previous meeting an analysis was done which reviewed a number of neighboring communities that have similar characteristics of Oak Brook (page 10 -a of the case file). There was a wide range as to how structure heights are measured, but when the analysis was finished, it was evident that Oak Brook is at the bottom end of all the comparison communities. Some communities offer a higher height in terms of the peak being 35 feet and higher, or measures it differently. Some communities measure to the mean, which is between the eave and the peak. When you look at other communities we end up having house styles that look a little different than what is the norm in some of the other towns. As a result of last meetings discussion, he was directed to look at the issue further. He has put together a number of scenarios, however there is really no true planning principle that one would focus in on to say that there is the right answer. Five scenarios have been drawn to measure height differently that offer a different twist. He tried to identify the pros and cons of each alternative. The themes are common in each of the scenarios. Also, to get a representation of the buildable area for each zoning district he prepared additional information and the numbers are astounding. No one in Oak Brook utilizes all of their buildable area. On the R -1 lots the buildable area approaches an acre and even the smallest 18,000 square foot lots, a first floor buildable area is almost 10,000 square feet. We are not approaching any of those figures with any of the houses. Even Mr. Frank Thomas' old house, which was 30,000 square feet, did not even cover a portion of the buildable area. There is also a representation in the file of various roof styles. There are gambrel, hip and gable roofs, etc. There are different styles for the various roof styles, which influences the ultimate height of the structure. The information was provided early to the commissioners so that they could thoroughly review the material and pose any questions or comments prior to this meeting. Chairman Payovich said that the Commission has had a lot of time to review the five scenarios and have probably picked the one each feels best represents Oak Brook. Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed the five proposed scenarios as follows: Scenario 1 — 40 foot maximum height for all residential lots. 30 foot maximum for flat roofs. Maintain the current 2.5 story maximum. Height would be measured as we have by using the first floor elevation and the five - corner method. All existing front, side and rear yard setbacks would continue for each zoning district. The basic change from the current standard would be to overall change the structure height from 30 feet to 40 feet. Scenario 2 - 45 foot maximum for all R -1 zoned lots. 40 foot maximum for all R -2, R -3 and R -4 lots. 30 foot maximum for flat roofs. Maintain the current 2.5 story maximum. Height would be measured as we have by using the first floor elevation and the five - corner method. All existing front, side and rear yard setbacks would continue for each zoning district. The only difference between Scenario 1 and 2 is that there has been a differentiation for the biggest lot. In the next scenario it was found that other towns measure roofs in a different way. 35 -foot mean is the mean distance between the eave and the peak. Scenario 3 — 35 foot maximum for all residential lots. 30 foot maximum for flat roofs. Maintain the 2.5 stories. All existing front, side and rear yard setbacks would continue for each zoning district. What the mean does is to allow for some diversity. If someone chooses to have a greater pitched roof, it may bump the top of the roof out a little bit. There will not be uniformity across the board. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 03- AUG.doc August 18, 2003 The next scenario is similar to Scenario 2., but setbacks are instituted. Scenario 4 - 45 foot maximum for all R -1 zoned lots, however, if any house is over 35 feet they must meet the current increased setback provision of one and half foot increased setback for each one foot increase. 40 foot maximum for all R -2, R -3, R -4 lots, and if any house is over 35 feet they must meet the current increased setback provision of one and half foot increased setback for each one foot increase. 30 foot maximum for flat roofs. Maintain the current 2.5 story maximum. Height would be measured as we have by using the first floor elevation and the five - corner method. All existing front, side and rear yard setbacks would continue for each zoning district In the last scenario, the biggest lots can support the tallest homes. Scenario 5 — 45 foot maximum height for all R -1 lots; 42 foot maximum height for all R -2 lots that area one acre or more in size; 40 foot maximum height for all R -2 lots under one acre in size and all R -3 zoned lots; and 38 foot maximum height for all R -4 lots. 30 foot maximum for flat roofs. Maintain the current 2.5 story maximum. Height would be measured as we have by using the first floor elevation and the five - corner method. All existing front, side and rear yard setbacks would continue for each zoning district. As directed, the Director has tried to come up with a way to allow someone to build a taller home, without creating a bureaucratic maze. The five - corner method used now is not very clear. He would like to see something simple that can be understood and enforced as well as for those who potentially would want to use it. If someone buys a parcel in the Village they would be able to know what to expect height wise. Michael Trilla, 59 Baybrook Lane, questioned that on a lot that slopes from where would it be measured. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that his recommendation was that they way things are measured now should not be changed. Mr. Trilla recommended voting for Scenario 2. Joe Perri, 137 Saddle Brook, said that someone with a walkout basement would be penalized using the current five - corner method. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Plan Commission would address whether or not they want to change that aspect of the measurements for people who want walk out basements. Mr. Perri said that if the Village maintains the five corners, then you would have to take two corners in the rear, which obviously would be the lowest corners and after the average is calculated, then going up 35 feet. Village Engineer Durfey said that on an engineered subdivision with suggested tops of foundation; the five - corner method is not used. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if a lot is bought that has a first floor elevation established, then that would be the step off point for the height. The comments where the height is measured to roof peak using the approved first floor elevation for all engineered lots, or the five cornered method on a lot that has not been engineered. Village Engineer Durfey said that the reason was that on an engineered subdivision, there could be significant dirt movement from the natural ground to what is was built to be with new roads. The engineered subdivisions all have suggested tops of foundations and some suggest that it is a walk out lot and another lot would not be a walk out lot, depending upon the lie of the land. The older subdivisions that do not have suggested tops of foundation are stuck with the five - corner method. Member Bulin asked if that was the Fullersburg Woods area. Village Engineer Durfey agreed. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 18, 2003 PC -MTG 03- AUG.doc Mr. Perri asked about increasing the structures to allow 3 stories. If the structure height is increased, then there would be the ability to have some third floor space that would be able to built it out up front. Member Bulin asked if the Fire Department had commented. Director of Community Development Kallien said that they would have the ability to go to the top of an occupied floor would have to be under 40 feet. If it were an architectural feature, i.e., turret or cathedral ceiling that would be okay. They are not comfortable if someone is going to live in space over 40 feet. Mr. Perri said that the floor on the third floor would actually come in at approximately 25 feet. It would not be anywhere near 40 feet on the floor. That would be with a ten foot first and second floor. Craig Pride, 733 Prairie in Glen Ellyn, and is an architect that practices in Oak Brook. They went through this issue in Glen Ellyn and he would vote for 50 feet in Oak Brook because the houses get really wide and deep and you get to 40 feet right away. In most communities roof height is meant to control bulk. One of the advantageous that Oak Brook has is that the lots are very expansive. In this community it is rarely even approach the potential buildable floor area or lot coverage area on the lots. However, the lots do get very wide and very deep, therefore you end up with the flat roof scenario, where there is a 12/12 -roof pitch and trying to control aesthetically the scale of the home. It creates a number of structural issues, but there is one difference that they found in a couple of projects in the Village and that is going to the issue of whether to buy a house and tear it down and then you have created an unimproved lot that has not been engineered. You are then forced to go to the five - corner method and there is a five to ten foot penalty because it becomes a new lot, and if there is a sloping grade, you can build to 30 feet because of the 5- corner method. However, if it is an addition and you use the existing foundation, it would be to the 40 foot height maximum allowed, so the homeowner is forcibly put into one construction method over another if they choose to go to a bigger house size. The only way they can get it is to do it via an addition versus a teardown on the same lot. That is a nuance of the code that they may want to review. If the 40 -45 feet is allowable in an addition from a known elevation point, then it would make the architect's life easier, as consultants to the owner or professionals, that the established height is where there is an improvement made, whether it is a teardown and reconstruction or an addition, the final height should be the same. You should be able to get there from both methods. The current standard for a story is more than half of the lower level ceiling height above the average grade or more than 50% of the exterior wall. There are a few cases, if there is an undulating site, in a curvilinear fashion that the house is moving away from it, you could very easily achieve more than 50% of the lower level as a walk -out, count as a story and from the curbside view, it will look like a ranch or a 1 Y2 story home. This diminishes the buildable value of the property that might not meet that guideline. Member Braune said it appears that two of the scenarios create a consistent uniform building heights throughout the Village and the other three scenarios establish some sort of grades system. One of his concerns, in his own neighborhood, he would rather not see some house of massive structure built there. It would standout from amongst all the other homes. He prefers the graded system as suggested in Scenario 5. The worst would be Scenario 1. The idea of grading the lot sizes is an intelligent approach. It does something to differentiate the various lot sizes in the Village. If you are going to build a massive house, it should be done on a big lot. It would be out of keeping in some areas and would not be aesthetically pleasing. Member Bulin said that he also preferred Scenario 5, primarily because it is the tallest and he is in favor of almost unrestricted height. The grading idea is good because of the different size lots. His least favorite was also Scenario 1 because it has less flexibility. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 03- AUG.doc August 18, 2003 Member Wolin said that he agrees with the two Commissioners and Scenario 5 is also his favorite. There could be some discussion on the numbers used, but he liked the approach. There is a big variation in lot sizes in the Village, and it should be reflected in the different heights. His least favorite was also Scenario 1. In the information provided by Member Tropinski at the last meeting, in the Lake County area in two of the suburbs, recommended fire suppression equipment on the higher heights. Should the Village look at measuring the structures at the mean versus the peak. Member Tropinski said that she also like Scenario 5. It is the most appropriate and it makes a lot of sense to allow height in proportion to the size of the lot. It would make it easier on everyone to go with the peak, because it is easier to understand and negotiate and makes a lot more sense. When there are different slopes, sometimes people have a hard time visualizing the three dimensions, which makes it difficult. Worst case would also be Scenario 1 because a lot of lots, especially in the R -4 district are long and narrow and there are a lot of ranch homes, so getting a 40 -foot high house in those areas is simply out of scale. Member Adrian said that he also agreed that Scenario 5 is the best and Scenario 1 would be the worst. He would also like to look at the maximum 2.5 stories and look at building out to the third story. He believes it should be addressed and that the buildable space is something that should be approved. We have heard from builders that it would not be a height that the fire department would have a problem and it should be allowed as buildable space. Director of Community Development Kallien said that not only is the issue of height important to where the fire department can get, but when there are three occupiable floors, the fire department could have the potential of a sandwich effect and would like to have the opinion of the fire department on that issue. Member Bulin asked if it were reasonable to tie fire suppression to increased structure height. Director of Community Development Kallien said it could be part of the recommendation, but there are other factors with fire suppression with sprinklers. Some towns have adopted it and others have not. Member Goel said that there appeared to be a consensus to increase the structure height, and he is in support of that and this is a move in the right direction. He said that the Chicago Tribune publishes a survey called the "price pulse." It was shocking to see that Oak Brook generally comes in low and has been decreasing in value. He also likes Scenario 5 because there is no point in increasing the height and then keeping it the same for all the large lots. If there is a bigger lot they should be allowed to build a bigger house. Scenario 5 does that very well. The only changes that he would make to Scenario 5 would be that once the height has been increased, it might be a good idea to increase the height on the flat roofed houses a little, from 30 feet to 35 feet. He also supports the idea of changing the number of stories from 2.5 to 3. His least favorite was also Scenario 1. Chairwoman Payovich said that she agreed with the rest of the board, she liked Scenario 5 because it seemed to reasonably allow an increase in the height based on the size of the lot. The worst was also Scenario 1. There was a consensus that the board preferred Scenario 5. Member Braune said that he wondered if a hybrid between Scenario 5 and adding a mean would make any sense on some of the larger lots. A recess was called.at 9 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 9:10 p.m. Member Bulin reviewed a graphic that he provided to the Plan Commission to look at setbacks, pitches and volume for each zoning district. The graphic showed that the large lots in the R -1 and R -2 district are truly being underutilized in the overall height scenario. Another 10 -20 feet of PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 18, 2003 PC -MTG 03- AUG.doc structure height could be added and proportionately it would not effect the overall image and it would not be affecting the neighboring structures with the light and vent issue because of the required setback requirements. In the R -3 and R -4 districts any additional height could significantly change the overall impact on the lots. Member Bulin also showed extremes that were part of Member Tropinski's material from Glencoe and the way that that town calculates structure height would require a class to calculate. The graphic provided the members the opportunity to visualize the elevations in relationship to the plans the commission has been dealing with to allow additional food for thought. Member Adrian said that the graphics illustrated that an additional ten feet in structure height is not going to cause a visually impact. Member Bulin agreed. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there are not many new structures in recent years that had the opportunity to develop to the maximum that did not use it, many used and additional 2 to 6 additional feet. Chairman Payovich said that all of the 12 communities survey allowed up to 2 '/2 stories. Director of Community Development Kallien said that most towns, for whatever reason, have 2 %2 stories. It has historically been that way for a long time. Is there a basis for it? Member Goel said that items are borrowed and propagate from one town to the next. Mr. Perri said that the trend has increased to allow the third story, for example, such as Hinsdale. Member Wolin asked if there was a standard definition for 2 '/2 stories or can it be interpreted in different ways. Mr. Pride said that the original definition in all of the zoning codes were looking at the Cape Cod style home, where it is a relatively flat site where the basement is not an issue, it is a basement. Oak Brook is different in that regards from Hinsdale, because in Hinsdale you are looking at small lots. Hinsdale puts 5,000 square foot homes on 60 -foot wide lots. In that case going to a bulk requirement that is like the proposed R -3 and R -4 triangle, starts to create some interesting architecture, where you can go higher if you are willing to setback further, and the house starts to step up as you go farther away form the property line. In Wheaton, has two side yard setbacks. One is for a one story or 1'/2 story the other is for a full two story and you can use them on the same house. They encourage homes to step down in height as you get closer to the property line. It is workable on a smaller site to give bonuses in height to create architecture and fit it into a bulk triangle. The same triangle works on a sloping site. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Oak Brook defines: half- story" as "a partial story under a gable hip or gambrel roof of which at least two opposite exterior walls are not more than three feet above the floor of such story." It is meant to be a partially enclosed area above the much larger floor below it. "Story" is defined as "that portion of a building, other than a cellar, included between the top surface of the next floor or roof above, except that a space used exclusively for the housing of mechanical services of the building shall not be construed to be a story if access to such space may be had only for maintenance of such services. The floor of a story may have split - levels provided there is not more than four feet (4') difference in elevation between the different levels of the floor. A basement shall be counted as a story and a mezzanine floor shall be counted as a story when it covers over one -third (1/3) of the area of the floor next below it, or if the vertical distance from the floor next below it to the floor next above it is twenty four feet (24') or more." He said that definition applies more to office buildings or commercial structures, because traditionally in a residential community, the first floor is what the first floor is PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 03- AUG.doc August 18, 2003 when you come into the house at the front door. The second floor is above that and the half story is the attic above the second floor. In the traditional sense basements have not been counted as a floor. Mr. Pride said that in order for a floor to be counted as habitable space you have to have a certain percentage of the room meeting the minimum headroom requirement. You can have a room that is 24x24 feet in an attic, but the sidewall area would only be four feet tall, so you can only count the area of the room that is 12 by 12. Member Wolin said that based on all of this the attic type living areas is probably legal. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that technically we allow three levels of living, and if factor in the basement it could be more. You would have to define very clearly what 3'/2 stories is or 2 %2 stories excluding a basement and one level below the established ground floor. A discussion regarding the use of peak or median for the measurement of structure height ensured. The Commission asked the question to the architect in the audience. Mr. Pride responded that we live and die by definitions professionally and in the zoning code. The first definition would be, in a home you could have multiple eaves at various elevations. So the discussion would be should it be from the lowest eave or the highest eave and is the dormer counted. The most common is the lowest eave and the highest point of any portion of the roof. Whether it is the main roof or a turret. Architecturally they are looking for ways to create interest in the aesthetics. The average does help, 35 feet on an R -1 lot seems like it would be too low. It would result in the same architecture. On a R -4 lot it would probably be adequate because you will deal with a house that is less spread out. Mr. Pride responded that if given a choice he would choose the peak approach because it is simple. You cannot build above it, there are not if's, and's or but's. There is no way to redefine the definition that is already written when it comes time for a variance. He would propose that it be measured from an unimproved lot it would be the five corner method, however if there is a house that it existing that it be measured from the existing foundation. It is an established point that relates to established architecture and it is a proper way of evaluating new versus existing. It is then the same rules for everyone, whether you tear down or add on, you are still building from the same point. The property on 409 Fox Trail had a ten -foot penalty for digging the foundation out of the ground and caused substantial work around in the project to work with an existing foundation to put a larger home on. It would have made sense to put something back in that was there before and go up to the maximum. He personally felt that lots in the R -1 and R -2 district could go even higher because chances are these houses are not going to be built right next to the street and are substantially off from the side yard property lines. There is mature vegetation and pines that are in excess of 50 -60 feet and they will still be taller than the house. Mr. Perri agreed and said that when you are dealing with a house that is 50 -60 feet deep, even being a 45 -foot height, you will still have a massive flat roof on the structure. On lots that are 2+ acres, to be able to go up to 50 feet or provide a bonus for having a larger lot to eliminate the flat roof. Mr. Pride said that in this day, if someone is buying such a large lot it is because they want to put a very substantial house on it and they are somewhat limited in Oak Brook compared to some of the other communities. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in that scenario you would need to establish a maximum occupiable space so that the fire department would be satisfied. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 18, 2003 PC -MTG 03- AUG.doc Mr. Pride said that the third floor is as far as he would increase it from a fire standpoint. The commissioners discussed the reason for the setbacks and the need to change them. The Director of Community Development Kallien said that our setbacks are measured to the eave, other communities do not measure that way. The closest our houses would ever be located together would be twenty feet, in the R -4 District. Mr. Perri said to increase the setbacks may have a negative impact. Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed the consensus of the commission at this point. 1. All height measurements are to the maximum peak. 2. Measurement of the ground elevation a. Engineered lots - the ground elevation would be determined by the approved grading plan. b. If there is an existing structure, the existing foundation height becomes the ground elevation for reconstruction. C. If it is vacant land, and is not an engineered subdivision, the ground elevation will be determined by the 5- corner method or a first floor elevation as established by the Village Engineer. 3. Consensus of the concept of Scenario 5, which uses the ladder height approach to increase the structure height for each residential district. 4. 30 -45 feet is the proposed range. Are the numbers in the range the right numbers, if not, what should they be. 5. Number of stories and how it is determined 2%2 to 3%2 stories and define how it is determined. Fire Department input is required to determine the maximum height and possibly a fire suppression system or alarm, dependent on the size and occupiable. 6. Are any of the setbacks to be changed? If there is an increase in structure height, should there be a provision to increase the setback. Member Wolin said that the suggested numbers in Scenario 5 appeared to be reasonable, however, there is sentiment in the audience as well as some commissioners that perhaps we should go higher. The missing ingredient that sets the Village apart from some of the other communities is our larger lots. He would like to see any information that shows people go up to the 50 -foot height. Member Bulin suggested that information may not be out there and the Village may need to be on the cutting edge. Member Braune asked how large some of the lots go up to in the R -1 district. Director of Community Development Kallien said they vary, for example some lots on Canterberry Lane are over four acres. Once you go over 4 acres in size the lot has the potential to be subdivided into two -acre parcels. Many lots in the R -2 district are less than one acre. Mr. Perri said that if the setbacks are increased to utilize the increased structure height, and each situation is different, in some instances you may not be able to increase the setbacks to achieve the height and that person would not benefit from any changes. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 03- AUG.doc August 18, 2003 Mr. Pride added that if the setbacks are increased, you should get a bonus to get there to go above the maximum proposed. The R -2 lots in Glen Ellyn average approximately 8,000 to 9,000 square feet and they can build 35 to 42 feet with bonuses. Member Goel suggested that we should consider raising the 30 -foot structure height limitation for flat roofed houses, or consider eliminating flat roofed houses. Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed the variation request for the property located at 1715 York Road. The lot was undersized, 12,000 square feet and should have been 25,000. Under the proposed increase in structure height, should such house be allowed to build that house ten feet taller? The adjacent homes were concerned over the property being built closer than the nonconforming structure already had been. Should the relief and increase height be subject to the variation request? Mr. Pride said that in Glen Ellyn, classified nonconforming lots are limited to the size of reconstruction based upon that. Member Wolin said that nonconforming lots come in all sizes and shapes and we are not going to be able to come up with rules that will apply to all of them, so the recommendation should say that nonconforming lots have to be addressed separately beyond the current regulations. Questions to be answered for the next meeting: 1. A written opinion for the Fire Department. 2. Do any communities have residential structures that go up to 50 feet. 3. How do you handle parapets and what is the 30 -foot measured to. Is it the roof deck? Member Wolin moved, seconded by Member Braune to continue the hearing to the next regular Plan Commission meeting on September 15, 2003. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Vl. 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 Chairwoman Payovich advised that the Village requested a continuance of this matter to the October 20, 2003 meeting. Member Braune moved, seconded by Member Adrian to continue the hearing to the Regular Plan Commission meeting on October 20, 2003. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Vll. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 18, 2003 PC -MTG 03- AUG.doc Vlll. ADJOURNMENT Member Wolin moved, seconded by Member Braune to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. L Director of Co Development Secretary PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 13 PC -MTG 03- AUG.doc Septembed5, 2003 Date Approved August 18, 2003