Loading...
Minutes - 08/20/2001 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES August 20, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. ll. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Members Village Trustee Director of Community Development Stelios Aktipis Samuel Girgis Surendra Goel Barbara Payovich Anthony Tappin Alfred Savino Robert Kallien Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Goel, to waive the reading of the May 21, 2001 Plan Commission Meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. M. BRIARWOOD LAKES SUBDIVISION — SPECIAL USE AMENDMENT The petitioner, Constantine Xinos, President of the Briarwood Lakes Homeowner's Association, reviewed the request to seek an amendment to Special Use Ordinance G -68 from 1968. The petitioner is seeking an amendment to one specific part only. A specific provision in G -68 states that there can be no private structure on common property. This resulted in some inequity and confusion that affect property values and the resident's ability to enjoy their property to the maximum. The development is over 30 years old, all townhouses (199 total) clustered as two or three unit buildings. In 1967 -1968 the developer Oak Brook Development, conveyed only that portion of land that was the footprint of the house. As time progressed, owners were given approximately 18" of land around the perimeter of their units as more time passed, the land area conveyed became even greater. Finally, in the last phase of the development, which was the island, the homeowners on the outer perimeter of the island own from the curb into the lake. The petitioner is not seeking to expand the basic structure with room additions. There is an inequitable situation as to the ability to build decks. Those who bought one of the later lots, had the right to ask the association for permission to build a deck or a patio because they owned the property over which it would be built. However, the owners of the units sold during the 1960's, cannot even step outside their structure without going onto common property. As a result, there are some decks and patios not in compliance with the Village Ordinance that were built by the developer. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG. 01- AUG.doc August 20, 2009 Several years ago a resident reviewed the Ordinance, took his neighbor to court, and forced the removal of a deck, which the Association had no objection to being built. The lawsuit began consideration of developing language that would allow the Briarwood Lakes residents some equality in the right to ask the Association permission to build decks onto their house. The language would only allow a brick patio, concrete patio, or an elevated uncovered deck with a railing. It took almost two years before the language was agreeable to all parties, the Village Attorney, Community Development Director and Briarwood Lakes. After everyone agreed, the Village Attorney said that the covenants must be amended so that the Association could allow encroachments over the common ground. They only needed one person to file a petition for the change and they have succeeded in the last year in getting 99% of the owners to consent. Out of 199 owners, they have 195 -196 who have irrevocably consented. The original signatures have been made part of the official file. This change would not affect any property outside of Briarwood Lakes. The difference in the encroachments, would be indiscernible from Brook Forest, and could not be seen from Forest Gate, Hunter Trails, or any other subdivision. Proper notification was given to all surrounding property owners. This amendment, if approved, allows the units to be used and enjoyed by the residents equally, keeps the property value up, and stops the inequity between the units. There is an understanding with the Community Development Department that a permit will not be issued for patio construction if there is not an approval letter from the Association. The association will not approve a request through the architectural committee, unless a survey submitted shows there will not be an encroachment. The proposed encroachment is a revocable license that gives the Association control even after it has been granted, in the unusual case that something would go wrong. The association is diligent in enforcing its covenants and is trying to correct something that is unfair. The proposed language is designed to bring that into effect. Member Tappin asked how far the deck could be built. Mr. Xinos said that the language calls for an uncovered deck with a railing no more than sixteen feet. They take into consideration the input from adjoining neighbors and neighbors across the way. They ask anyone that could see it to comment. An objection would not give veto power over the request, but they do take into consideration whether it will effect another's view or access to a unit. The association owns a part of each lot and there is no rhyme or reason as to how much land was conveyed to the homeowner. The only conclusion they could come to was that as time progressed, the developer realized that people like to enjoy the outside of their homes. The early units have a Romeo and Juliet balcony. All you could do on it was to go out and stand. Member Girgis questioned whether this amendment would allow the person whose deck was removed, to rebuild it. Mr. Xinos said it would. The following people spoke in favor of the proposal. John Gramas, 187 Briarwood Loop, asked for clarification on the amendment. Mr. Xinos explained that just because the language has been added to the covenant that does not mean the Association will approve the request if it is not in harmony or would interfere with the neighbors enjoyment of the property. Chairman Aktipis added that the only result of the amendment is that it would allow an owner to petition the homeowners association for the construction of a patio or deck within 16 feet of his walls. The request would be subject to the approval of the architectural committee of the association. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 20, 2001 2 PC -MTG. 01- AUG.doc Lori Morency, 129 Briarwood Loop, said that she is in favor of the amendment. She is the property owner who had to remove the deck. She said that she would put in a patio on the first floor if the house were configured differently, but the whole living area is on the second floor. In order to get to a patio on common ground, she would have to go through her bedroom for access. There is no outdoor area that can be built and she is right on the lake. She owns only eighteen inches outside of the house. The driveway and patio are on common ground. Member Payovich asked out of 199 units, how many would benefit. Mr. Xinos said that it affects all of the units, even those on the island. Approval must come from the Architectural Committee. Mrs. McGreevy, 85 Briarwood, noted that the amendment would give people what they do not now have, i.e., the right to seek approval of a deck. Right now, many do not even have the right to seek an approval. Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Payovich, that the petitioner has addressed the factors as required by ordinance to recommend for approval the petitioner's special use amendment as requested. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Girgis, Goel, Payovich, Tappin and Aktipis Nays: 0- Absent: 0 - Motion Carried. IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — FURTHER REVIEW of CHAPTER 3 — 13 -3 -6 -B - FENCES Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals had made a recommendation to the Village Board to amend Section 13 -3 -6 -B — Fences. The proposed amendment would permit the construction of solid six -foot fences in residential districts where the residential uses abut nonresidential zoning districts or the corporate limits of the Village. It was thought that it would provide additional visual protection for those cases that comply with these provisions. The Village Board approved all of the text amendments to Chapter 3, however, it was felt that there were some issues that needed further discussion and consideration. In particular, in cases where there is not a homeowners association in place, to allow an individual homeowner to construct a solid six -foot fence, a hodgepodge of different fence styles could be created. Trustee Savino had taken pictures to help illustrate the effect. A matrix has been prepared of how other communities regulate fences. Ideal language could not be found from any community that would benefit the Village. Also, rather extensive research was done on the issue of chain link fences. Some opinions have been expressed over the past year that perhaps the Village should not allow chain link fences in the community. We found that Oak Brook has a very extensive inventory of chain link fencing on individual properties, surrounding subdivisions, surrounding particular uses and along many of the major roadways. This issue becomes more complicated because there is such an extensive inventory throughout the village. Chairman Aktipis asked if comparable communities, such as Wilmette allow chain link fences. Director of Community Development Kallien said that they are only allowed by variation, on a case by case basis. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 20, 2001 3 PC -MTG. 01- AUG.doc Member Tappin said that chain link fences do look shabby, however, when plantings and bushes are placed in front of and around the fence it can hardly be seen, yet the fence performs the function needed. Perhaps a stipulation to combine fencing and vegetation may be the way to go. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the typical chain link fences are silver metal, however, others are painted black which are more difficult to see because they blend into the surroundings. Not all chain link fences are the same. A fence, such as the one around Midwest Club, is not even looked at as offensive because most people cannot see the chain link, because over time it has been covered by vegetation. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that the fence survey that was compiled reviewed solid fencing and their heights, not specifically chain link fencing. Chairman Aktipis said that before any recommendation is made to the Village Board, he would like to see the survey focused on whether chain link fencing is allowed in other comparable communities. Member Tappin noted that if we recommend to allow six foot fences, and at the time of application it is required that it be disguised by vegetation, then chain link fences could be tolerable. Chairman Aktipis said that it could be tied together with a landscaping requirement. The requirement could be, if that type of fence is desired, then appropriate landscaping could be required to keep it from being visible from the street. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it many of the subdivisions there are covenants that control what type of fencing, if any, could be built on private property. What was originally intended by this solid six -foot high fence, there are properties that back up to something that is not aesthetically pleasing. An individual whose properties borders an unincorporated area outside the village, sent pictures of the view showing abandoned vehicles and trash and they were seeking a visual barrier so that they did not have to look at it. A couple members suggested landscaping, but, it was noted that landscaping takes some time to provide a sufficient barrier and does not have the protection or durability of a fence. Member Goel said that most solid fences are ugly. Director of Community Development Kallien said that fences may look nice individually, however, if several different styles were located together it would not look nice collectively. Member Payovich said that if a standard is set requiring a certain type of uniform fence. Chairman Aktipis asked if the village could put into effect a regulation in that manner. Director of Community Development Kallien said that If there is no homeowner association, each individual will rely on the regulations of the village. Staff can review the information from some of the other communities and possibly ask Attorney Martens to try to draft some language that could put some controls in place. Member Girgis said that in Hinsdale and Lake Forest they allow solid fences along major highways and busy streets. What the village has had has worked for a long time and is aesthetically pleasing. guidance. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the proposed change has evolved because there are instances where property backs up to the edge of the community, and what is on the other side of the community is in visual conflict. Requests have been received over the years, however our regulations do not allow solid fencing. The only way it can be accomplished is through a variation and it can be very difficult to meet the standards. The compromised language still maintains the integrity of the fence provisions. The intention was not to create more problems, but to resolve some. Member Goel said that no matter what the merits are for a solid fence it is always very ugly. The way around it is to cover it with shrubbery. It takes time to grow vegetation, but when a lot is purchased, they can see the problem, and the way to improve it would be with vegetation. Member Tappin said that aesthetics is one thing, but protection is another, so there is another factor. Director of Community Development Kallien said that unless it is a very tall fence, if someone would want to get over it they would. Unfortunately, a fence is a small hindrance if someone really wants to get from one side to another. That is why very tall fences surround some of the utility equipment PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 20, 2001 4 PC -MTG. 01- AUG.doc WL't' with barbed wire on top. If taller solid fences are allowed, there will be long term maintenance that the village will get involved with through the property maintenance code. Member Goel moved, seconded by Member Payovich, to continue this hearing for further review of this matter. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. V. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Aktipis took a few minutes to comment on the resignation of Steve Allen. Effective immediately, he will no longer be part of the Commission. Steve did a great job and always provided a positive contribution to the hearings. He will be missed, along with his wisdom and helpfulness in the decisions that were reached. Personally and on behalf of the Plan Commission Chairman Aktipis extended his gratitude to Steve and wished him well. Vl. ADJOURNMENT Member Tappin moved, seconded by Member Goel to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 5 PC -MTG. 01- AUG.doc Director of ommunity eve o Secretary October 15, 2001 Date Approved August 20, 2001