Loading...
Minutes - 08/27/2003 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK SPECIAL PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES August 27, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. Chairwoman Members Director of Community Development Acting Fire Chief Barbara Payovich Paul Adrian David Braune Jeffrey Bulin Surendra Goel Marcia Tropinski Gerald Wolin Robert Kallien Robert Cronholm IL 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 a matrix had been included with the case file (page 19) that provides additional information requested at the previous meeting. The analysis included what would be the largest house on the smallest lot in all of the surrounding /comparable communities. There were a couple of anomalies such as Hinsdale, which if the lot is over 30,000 square feet and achieves a 27 -foot side yard they could have a 42 -foot high house, measured at the mean. He called Hinsdale and they indicated that a 42 -foot high home, the way they measure it equates to a 50 -foot high peak, based on a 12/12 slope of the roof. A 10/12 slope will provide a 48 -foot high house. For communities that allow a 35 -foot mean, which is the majority, equates to approximately a 42 -43 foot peak. The lots that support these measurements are very small. Some of Naperville's lots are as small as 6,000 square feet. Most of the houses in Oak Brook, the first floor is bigger than 6,000 square feet, so there is a significant difference. Director of Community Development Kallien said that letters regarding this meeting were sent to all of the Homeowners Associations as well as the Village web page. As a result, only one call had been received and that person was very much in favor of any increase in structure height. Page 19 of the case file is an outline of items to be covered in a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Village Board. The Plan Commission decided to review each item. 1. All structure heights for single - family homes will be measured to the peak of the roof. — All Members agreed. SPECIAL PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 03- AUG -8 -27 Special Mtg.doc August 27, 2003 2. The structure height will be measured the following ways: a. In engineered subdivisions, the height will be measured using the approved grading plan. — All members agreed. b. For lots improved with an existing single - family home, the existing floor elevation and/or foundation elevation can be maintained. — Members agreed to add the word existing for clarification. C. For any other situation, the Village Engineer can amend shall determine an elevation based on the existing grades and grades of adjacent properties. — Members agreed to change the word from recommend to determine. During the discussion on accessible heights by the Fire Department, Acting Fire Chief Robert Cronholm said the gutter line allows the Fire Department an access to the roof. In order to access the window of occupiable space would be 32 feet, which is actually the bottom of the window. A ladder can be put up to the bottom of the window to access that living space. They bring a roof ladder with them to climb up further on the roof. To provide hard numbers is very difficult because there are so many things that come into play. In a perfect situation is where they have access to 100% of the building, however hindrances can exist, such as cars in the driveway, vegetation, etc. A strategically placed car in the driveway can keep the Fire department from getting to the front of the house, even with a fire engine. Problems can be established in a number of different ways. In commercial settings they build structures higher than they can put there ladders up to. In many different residential situations, they do the same. The Fire Department should not make a determination for the maximum height. They have adapted over time. As far as access with the ladders for rescue situations also depends upon the design of the buildings. The creativity of the current house designs prohibits access to certain windows. They will not be able to get to every roofline, with every ladder. He said that the Fire Department should not stand in the way of any increased heights that can increase the property values and improve the quality of life in Oak Brook. Hinsdale is a perfect example of some place that the Oak Brook Fire Department goes to assist and they are posed with these very obstacles. There are houses in Hinsdale that are 50 feet high on smaller lots that makes it more difficult to get around those houses because they are closer together than in Oak Brook. As far as fire operations go, if Hinsdale has a fire, Oak Brook's Fire Department goes to help them. Chairwoman Payovich asked if the fire department felt there was a real concern would he recommend different size ladders and equipment to deal with these situations. Acting Fire Chief Cronholm responded absolutely and said that over the years in Oak Brook, they have been fortunate to be provided with the additional equipment and training to take care of whatever situation, they have come across. Member Wolin noted that in some of the other suburbs, they have fire suppression requirements and if the Plan Commission would recommend heights from 45 -50 feet, would there be any urgency to say anything about fire suppression. Acting Fire Chief Cronholm said in his opinion that was another subject and that absent this issue, he is a supporter of residential sprinkler systems. The statistics support that they save lives and property. Some communities are requiring them in all new residential construction, but it is far from 100 %. Member Adrian asked about the cost. Acting Fire Chief Cronholm said that it is approximately 5% of the total cost of construction. Member Bulin added that it runs approximately $3.50 per foot. SPECIAL PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 27, 2003 2 PC -MTG 03- AUG -8 -27 Special Mtg.doc Member Adrian said that he does not believe that this issue should be tied to structure height. All members agreed that they are not in a rush to recommend this, but it should be addressed separately by the Village Board. Director of Community Development said that it is really is a building code issue and should be addressed by the Village Board. Member Goel noted that it is an important issue, but not an urgent issue and should be separated from the structure height issue. All members agreed. Member Bulin reviewed some of the reference materials provided for the Plan Commission. Page 9 of the reference materials was taken out of the 2000 International Building Code, which speaks to emergency escape and egress. It refers to rescue windows and the height of ladders required to get into 32 feet. Page 11 describes the size of the windows and the basic location relative to the floor of where they are allowed. Page 12 shows a maximum elevation for some of the egress windows, which is over and above the issue of the International building code. A sample sentence was given that could be added to the definition of structure height, if the Plan Commission wanted to address the issue, where a building that exceeds a thirty foot highest occupiable space, there would be a requirement that there be an egress window with a maximum elevation of thirty -two foot above grade. There is a way to deal with it if we wanted. There are different definitions for habitable and occupiable space based upon the International Building Code that the Village follows. (Page 7 and 8 of the reference documents). Occupiable space is the more stringent definition of space because if the 3.5 stories is allowed, then the %2 story could be considered an occupiable space and we want to ensure that we have access to that occupiable space as a means for emergency egress, as opposed to defining it as a habitable space, such as a look -out tower, which may not be able to be accessed due to the height of the highest egress window. As structure height is redefined, we may want to add a sentence or definition that provides for a maximum elevation of the egress window if we have roof heights that exceed the current maximum. There is no provision for that in the building in code. Add the following: The Plan Commission recommends the following language, where residential building heights exceed 30 feet, the highest occupiable space must have an emergency escape and rescue opening at a maximum elevation of 32 feet above grade. — All members agreed. Member Adrian said that he agrees with the idea of increasing the structure height in the R -1, R -2 district. The parcels in Oak Brook are much larger than in other communities. On a 3 -acre parcel, you would not be able to tell the difference between a 40 and 55 foot home. There was a general discussion on the pros and cons of imposing increased side yard setbacks for increased structure heights. Generally all the members were agreeable to higher structures in the R -1 and R -2 districts but their views varied in the R -3 and R -4 districts. Member Goel said that he would not impose increased sideyard setbacks. Member Tropinski favored increased setbacks in the R -3 and R -4 districts because there are many lots that are long and narrow. She reviewed a concept called a "daylight setback plane" used in some towns that controls the bulk. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in the R -4 district if someone built a 31 -foot house, by using increased setbacks they would have to increase their sideyard setback by 5 feet. He believes that would be a total disincentive for this process. The Village would be inundated by variations. It should be stepped process. The current premise of the Ordinance is that once you go over 30 feet there is a graduated scale to increase setbacks to increase structure height. There is a significant difference if someone goes to 31 feet versus 38 feet and the increased setback would be the same. To add this condition would not be an incentive for someone to modernize their property or seek a variation. Many of Oak Brook's subdivision are older and there are lots that have difficulty fitting normal sized houses and are not perfectly shaped. Many lots in Ginger Creek have 70 feet of frontage and are 1'/2 acres in size and very long. Under this scenario, we would have tall narrow homes. R -4 is the only district that has small setbacks and he questioned the true benefit to requiring increased setbacks. SPECIAL PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 27, 2003 3 PC -MTG 03- AUG -8 -27 Special Mtg.doc Member Adrian did not agree with the increased setback requirement, because we are trying to allow for a taller house and maintain what the residents already have. They want to build the same house with bigger floors and more stories. By forcing someone to make the house skinnier defeats what we are trying to accomplish. You also start to lose something that is important to this community which is the yard size. He would much prefer to have a bigger back yard than a side yard. This is something that our community has that not many others have. Member Goel noted that he did not see any 50 -foot high houses in the study. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Hinsdale`s houses could go over 50 feet in height. The large lots in Oak Brook have the land to support the increased height. 3. The maximum structure height for single - family homes will be laddered by zoning district as follows: ;- - Members agreed to delete language to avoid confusion. a. R -1 District - 50 feet b. R -2 District - 45 feet (lots one acre minimum) C. R -2 District (lots less than one acre) and R -3 District - 40 feet d. R -4 District - 35 feet 4. The maximum number of stories for any single - family home shall not be limited to 2.5 stories. be 3.5 steFies s6lbjeGt to the GGRditiGR that the basement shall be deGigRated as the first flooll: G he tnca c FWGturre+. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it might not be necessary to define when we have agreed to the maximum structure height. The Fire Department has said that it is not an issue. With the type of home and investment that people are putting into these structures, would it really matter? All members agreed that it would provide more architectural flexibility. The structures will still need to meet the new egress window height, so there are defining elements. 5. The current required front, side and rear yard setbacks shall continue. However, it is recommended that the existing requirement which increases the side yard setback for any home to be built to a height of 40 feet (R -1 and R -2 parcels of at least an acre) shall be eliminated. After a long discussion, the members agreed to maintain the current setbacks and eliminate the need for increased setbacks imposed on the R -1 and R -2 districts. 6. The maximum height for any home constructed with a continuous flat roof shall be changed to: 35 feet in the R -1 and R -2 Districts. Homes with a continuous flat roof in the R -3 and R -4 districts would be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. The reef height fell: any heme GORStFUnters with a flat reef shall he limited to 30 feet innlu Jinn These heights include the parapet wall. This was part of the discussion on establishing structure height. All Members agreed to these numbers to allow some increase in size on the larger lots. All members agreed. SPECIAL PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 27, 2003 PC -MTG 03- AUG -8-27 Special Mtg.doc 7. Any lot, which has been granted a variation to reduce any required yard should be limited to the current maximum structure height of 30 feet. Any request to increase the structure height will require the approval of a variation by the Village. There are wide ranges of variations granted that encroach into the side yards. Member Goel commented that he did not believe that someone would need to be held to a restricted height because they were granted a variation, considering all the homes around it would be allowed to be built much taller. Member Tropinski, said that practically speaking, the greatest impact would be in the R -4 District, and questioned that it would be a significant difference. she suggested that this matter be taken into account when they are seeking a variation. It is reasonable and all members, with the exception n of Member Goel agreed. 8. Regarding comments form the Fire Department the Commission recommends the following language; Where residential building heights exceed 30 feet the highest occupiable space must have an emergency escape and rescue opening at a maximum elevation of 32 feet above grade. All relevant concerns and issues raised by the Fire Department are incorporated into this recommendation. All the Members agreed to this condition. 9. The Commission discussed the issue of requiring additional fire suppression and detection devices as part of its deliberation to increase the maximum height of residential structures. It was recommended that the fire suppression /detection device issue be detached from this case and be addressed separately by the Village Board. All members agreed to this condition. 10. The Commission recommends that the Village Board refer a case back to them to review the height of accessory structures in residential district which are now limited to 15 feet. Chairwoman Payovich noted that there have been several residents appearing at all the hearings that have stated strong support of the request. Throughout these four hearings no one has spoken or sent any communication in opposition to the request. In making this recommendation, the Plan Commission finds that the Village (as the petitioner) has satisfied the applicable standards required for a text amendment finding that: 1. The request to increase the structure height of single - family homes is based on a substantial analysis of how other similar communities regulate the height issue. 2. The maximum structure heights for single - family homes presently allowed in Oak Brook are significantly lower than other similar communities. 3. The Plan Commission concurs with the concept that by permitting taller homes, it will have a positive impact in Oak Brook regarding keeping the community current, offering a variety of housing styles and creating an environment which increases home and property values. 4. The proposed structures heights are deemed reasonable and in line with the survey information from other similar communities. 5. The Plan Commission considered the input provided by a number of residents and local architects who support the concept of permitting taller homes. SPECIAL PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 27, 2003 5 PC -MTG 03- AUG -8 -27 Special Mtg.doc 6. The fact that Oak Brook with its large lots permits very large homes. However, the 30 -foot height restriction limits the type of roof structure that can be built and often results in the use flat roofs for all or a portion of the home. 7. The fact that Oak Brook already requires larger lot sizes and side yard setbacks mitigates the potential impact of allowing taller residential structures. 8. The recommendation to allow the tallest homes on R -1 and R -2 zoned properties is consistent with the current Village policy to permit 40 -foot high homes on the R -1 and R -2 zoned parcels. 9. The recommendation to no longer limit residential structures to 2.5 stories is based on the principle that the design of homes should be controlled by structure height, not number of stories. 10. The current setbacks are adequate to support increased structures heights. 11. The recommendation to increase the maximum height of homes with continuous flat roofs to 35 feet for R -1 and R -2 properties and 30 feet in the R -3 and R -4 properties is reasonable. Member Goel moved, seconded by Member Adrian to recommend approval of the text amendment to increase structure height based on the petitioners having satisfied the applicable standards and to incorporate all conditions as follows: 1. All structure heights for single - family homes will be measured to the peak of the roof. 2. The structure height provision as defined in 13 -3 -10 of the Zoning Ordinance should be modified so that height of homes will be measured using one of the following methods: a. In engineered subdivisions, the height will be measured using the approved grading plan. b. For lots improved with an existing single - family home, the existing floor elevation and /or foundation elevation can be maintained. C. For any other situation, the Village Engineer shall determine an elevation based on the existing grades and grades of adjacent properties. 3. The maximum structure height for single - family homes will be laddered by zoning district as follows; a. R -1 District — 50 feet b. R -2 District — 45 feet (lots one acre or larger) C. R -2 District (lots less than one acre) and R -3 District - 40 feet d. R -4 District - 35 feet 4. The maximum number of stories for any single - family home shall not be limited to 2.5 stories. 5. The current required front, side and rear yard setbacks shall continue. However, it is recommended that the existing provision that increases the required side yard setback for any home built to a height of 40 feet in the R -1 and R -2 districts shall be eliminated. 6. The maximum height for any home constructed with a continuous flat roof shall be changed to; 35 feet in the R -1 and R -2 districts. Homes with a SPECIAL PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 27, 2003 6 PC -MTG 03- AUG -8 -27 Special Mtg.doc continuous flat roof in the R -3 and R -4 districts would be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. These heights include the parapet wall. 7. Any lot, which has been granted a variation to reduce any required yard should be limited to the current maximum structure height of 30 feet. Any request to increase the structure height will require the approval of a variation by the Village. 8. Regarding comments from the Fire Department, the Commission recommends the following language; Where residential building heights exceed 30 feet, the highest occupiable space must have an emergency escape and rescue opening at a maximum elevation of 32 feet above grade. 9. The Commission discussed the issue of requiring additional fire suppression and detection devices as part of its deliberation to increase the maximum height of residential structures. It was recommended that the fire suppression /detection device issue be detached from this case and be addressed separately by the Village Board. 10. The Commission recommends that the Village Board refer a case back to them to review the height of accessory structures in residential districts which are now limited to 15 feet. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 - Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Payovich Nays: 0- Motion Carried. SECTIONS 13- 3- 6A- 3 -F(2) - 13- 3- 6B- 3 -F(2); 13- 3- 6C- 3 -F(2) and 13- 3- 6D -3F(2) — YARDS - SIDE LOAD GARAGES Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed the previously discussed proposed amendment regarding side -load garages in the residential districts. With respect to side load garages, at the present time, there is no specific ordinance standard requiring a larger side yard to accommodate the turning movements associated with a side load garage. Based on the recommendation of the Village Engineer, a side yard of at least 23 feet is required to provide safe ingress /egress to a side load garage. No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the request. In making this recommendation, the Plan Commission finds that the Village (as the petitioner) has satisfied the applicable standards required for a text amendment finding that: 1. The amendment for side load garages is consistent with accepted engineering standards, 2. The amendment will protect the public health, safety and welfare of the residents, and 3. The amendment will not have a negative impact on the community. Member Bulin moved, seconded by Member Braune that the petitioner has satisfied the requirements as required by ordinance to recommend for approval of the proposed language as requested. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7 - Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Goel, Tropinski, Wolin and Payovich Nays: 0- Motion Carried. Chairwoman Payovich thanked the Commissioners and staff for their hard work and dedication on this important issue. SPECIAL PLAN COMMISSION Minutes August 27, 2003 PC -MTG 03- AUG -8 -27 Special Mtg.doc M. ADJOURNMENT Member Braune moved, seconded by Member Bulin to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. SPECIAL PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 0 PC -MTG 03- AUG -8 -27 Special Mtg.doc Director of Commu evelopment Secretary September 15, 2003 Date Approved August 27, 2003