Loading...
Minutes - 10/20/2003 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES October 20, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:29 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairwoman Members Director of Community Development Barbara Payovich Paul Adrian David Braune Jeffrey Bulin Surendra Goel Marcia Tropinski Gerald Wolin Robert Kallien Member Adrian moved, seconded by Member Tropinski, to waive the reading of the September 15, 2003 Plan Commission meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. Ill. FALCO SUBDIVISION — 2901 OAK BROOK ROAD — PRELIMINARY PLAT— FOUR -LOT SUBDIVISION Chairwoman Payovich advised that a Memorandum has been received from the Village Engineer advising that the required engineering information has not been received from the applicant. It has been recommended that this matter be continued to a future date, after the applicant has submitted the required documents and the Village Engineer has reviewed them. Member Goel moved, seconded by Member Wolin, to continue the matter to a future Plan Commission meeting date, after the applicant has submitted the required documents and the Village Engineer has reviewed them. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENTS — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE — CHAPTER 3 — GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS SECTION 13- 3 -6 -A3 (d) (1), TO INCREASE THE DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HEIGHT FROM A MAXIMUM OF 15 FEET TO A HEIGHT COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE HEIGHT Director of Community Development Kallien said that Oak Brook currently allows fifteen (15') foot high accessory structures. For example prior to the change in structure height, in an R -1 district, a forty foot house could have been built, but if they decided to build a detached garage, it would be limited to 15 feet. In order to work around that limitation many developers would need to physically PLAN COMMISSION Minutes 7 PC -MTG 03- OCT.doc October 20, 2003 attach the garage structure to the house. The original structure height permitted one -half of the previous principal structure height. The house was allowed to go up to 30 feet and accessory maximum structure height was 15 feet. As a starting point, he suggested to continue that philosophy and suggested looking at one -half of each residential district newly adopted increased structure height. However, there is one shortcoming. Currently detached accessory structures are allowed to be located within five (5') feet of the required rear property line. If the accessory height were increased, we have to question would five feet still be an appropriate setback. Member Wolin said that he believes there is a lot of logic in the approach, however, he is not in a rush to vote. He questioned whether this would be a good time to review some of the confusing language in the ordinance to make it easier to understand. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it would be appropriate because much of the existing language originated in 1959. Clarity is as important as substance. Member Wolin asked if we have any information from other communities, such as Hinsdale and a few others that Oak Brook relates and what types of structures are included. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that there should probably be some limit set on the size of certain accessory structures such as playground equipment. Member Adrian asked for a review of the height of playground equipment. In the 1960's, playground equipment consisted of a simple swing set with a bar that has changed dramatically. Member Goel asked what the increase to the accessory structure height would accomplish. Member Bulin commented that it gives the opportunity to a usable second floor, which cannot be done now. It could be occupiable in theory especially in the R -1 and R -2 districts. Member Tropinski said that it some of the importance would be to the design features. In some of the areas where there are taller buildings, the structures would look out of scale to have a short little building. There are all kinds of wonderful things that could be done with the increase. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in the R -4 district there would be minimal change because the lots are relatively small. The use would probably be more likely in the R -1 and R -2 districts where the lots are bigger. Member Tropinski noted that her property is in the R -4 district and built a detached garage, which was limited to the 15 feet. She would have loved to have the increase to 17.5 because she would have had more storage space. It would have been perfect from a user standpoint. Member Bulin noted that he also built a detached garage and the increase would have given him ample room to expand. Member Tropinski said that she did review Glencoe, Lake Forest and Lake Bluff requirements, and they wanted accessory structures built in the same setbacks of the building, except structure that were 10x10 or smaller they could be placed in the five foot setback, because most of the time they are tool sheds or play houses and would not really encroach upon the neighbors property in terms of air rights, shade, etc. If an accessory building would be added, it would not be fair to a neighbor to place a large structure only five feet from the property line. Clarification is needed to some of the wording, which may confuse people. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there is some ambiguity throughout the ordinance, and when it is written that way, it means required rear side or front yard. On a R -4 lot the required front yard is 35 feet, rear is 40 feet and side is 10 feet. If the lot is very deep, it is possible that an accessory structure could almost be located in the front of a home, because that would be in the buildable area. Whenever the ordinance makes reference to certain types of yards, it is always meant as the required yard. Accessory structures are limited to 30% coverage of the required rear PLAN COMMISSION Minutes October 20, 2003 2 PC -MTG 03- OCT.doc yard. At some point some people max out as to the amount of structures that can be located in those areas. Member Adrian said that Saddle Brook does not allow accessory structures through their covenants and other subdivisions may have similar covenants. Director of Community Development Kallien said that some covenants regulate fences and the types of materials that can be placed on the house. Whatever the board approves may only apply to certain areas of the Village once the covenants area factored in. If there is something not included in the accessory structure list, then it is not an allowed structure. Member Wolin said that he believes this is on track, but would like to see some information from a few representative communities. Page 7a, item a. describes the required separation between structures. Member Bulin said that the language makes sense from a designer's standpoint. He said that a certain amount of ambiguity in the code is a positive thing, because it allows for interpretation by the Director of Community Development, which can get over some problem areas, because he would have the ability to make some decisions and alter things accordingly. If everything is black and white, there is no room for compromise. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it is there to comply with building codes, for fire separation, so that if one structure catches on fire the other will not. Member Wolin questioned and it was agreed with by the members to insert the word, "required" in section 13- 3- 6 -A -d -1 to read "Cover not more than thirty percent (30 %) of the required rear yard" Member Wolin said that something should be said about an accessory structure that is located within the buildable area. All agreed. Member Adrian said that if the accessory structure is located within the buildable area that should be allowed to build to the height in that zoning district. Director Kallien said that they must meet the fire separation requirements. Chairwoman Payovich said that perhaps a review of what other towns allows should be done and reviewed at the next meeting. It was suggested that Hinsdale, Downers Grove, Lake Forest, Barrington, Burr Ridge, be used. Director of Community Development Kallien said that a list of heights will be provided and a list of accessory structures that other towns may use. Member Braune said that he could build something that was five feet from the lot line, 25 feet long, and the neighbor could choose to do the same thing, and that structure is now ten feet away from the other structure and could be parallel for a long distance. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if that were the case, the second yard could be required to separate. Member Bulin said that if it is written that the distances are variable dependent upon the size of the structure. The distance could be based on height and length. Member Tropinski said that perhaps it should be simplified that small things such as sheds could be located toward the property line, and control it that nothing larger than 10 x 10 can be located within five feet, anything larger than that must be in the buildable area. Director of Community Development Kallien said that we need to look at what would be the reasonable requests and try to legislate for that. If every scenario were thought of we would end up with a thick book. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 03- OCT.doc 3 1Jc October 20, 2003 Member Wolin questioned the language in paragraph a on page 7a. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it could be construed that there are some uses that are only allowed in the required rear yard. Member Bulin said that in the accessory structure list it refers back to that paragraph which tries to prohibit the construction of some of the limited structures from occurring in a front or side yard. If they do occur in the front or side yard, then the setbacks need to be doubled. Director of Community Development Kallien said that for the next meeting we will have our computer system print out all of the types of accessory structure permits that have been issued to see what types are being built. How many pools, detached garages, etc. Member Wolin moved, seconded by Member Braune, to continue the matter to the November 17, 2003, Plan Commission meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. V. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TEXT AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 15 — TREE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS Director of Community Development Kallien said that when the Forest Preserve District decided to start clear cutting the property across 31s` Street, the Village started to get excited. There were many phone calls and residents were concerned about what was going on. As a result, it was decided that we need some type of regulation on the books to stop that should that occur. A number of tree preservation ordinances were reviewed and some are very complex and some are very simple. He picked one in the middle that is being used in Orland Park. It introduces the concept and we can make it fit for what Oak Brook needs. The basic questions, are that if a tree preservation ordinance was recommended to the Village Board, then, how extensive is it going to be and is it going to regulate some of the following situations: a. When a resident may want to remove a large tree in their yard b. When someone wants to put an addition onto their house. c. When should they be required to put in replacement trees. Should it occur in any of these situations or should it be for just large parcels, like the Oakland Subdivision. How far should the regulations go? The issue has been brought up before, but there has never been a great urgency to adopt regulations, until the clear cutting started. The cutting goes against the character of Oak Brook. Member Bulin said that it appears the proposed regulation may be the correct way to go. It is progressive. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if we have a simple clear process in place so that when certain situations occur, we know what is expected of a developer. The Forest Gate Development has provided three times more trees than what was required by ordinance. Ten years from now, it will look quite wooded. The wall will also be quite hidden. There is a benefit to landscaping. Director of Community Development Kallien asked the members to contact him prior to the next meeting with any suggestions as to how it may apply to an existing lot in their subdivision, and how this ordinance would effect them. Is it appropriate if there are large trees on a property to try to fit a new home on the lot or if trees need to be cut down, then mandate replacement trees? In Oak Brook, many people do plant extensively, but it would be appropriate to encourage everyone to plant. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 03- OCT.doc October 20, 2003 Member Braune asked how we would deal with trees that are diseased that would effect other trees. In many places the trees are removed to protect the other trees. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he believes there is a policy in place that if a resident has a diseased elm tree, Public Works will remove it. In the Property Maintenance Code, if a tree has died and it is unsightly, we require that it be taken down. The commercial area behind the shopping center east of Midwest Road and just north of 1 -88 had a very detailed landscape plan. Over time the salt off of the tollway killed many trees and bushes, so now they have changed the species of bush and modified the landscape plan. There are some manmade hazards that may effect different species. Member Wolin said that it would be helpful to send e-mail to each member to answer specific questions. He asked for detailed ordinances to read. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he would provide a list of questions for the members to answer along with sites for the members to visit. Member Braune moved, seconded by Member Braune, to continue the matter to the November 17, 2003, Plan Commission meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. V1. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. V11. ADJOURNMENT Member Tropinski moved, seconded by Member Adrian to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes PC -MTG 03- OCT.doc Director of Com y Development Secretary November 17, 2003 Date Approved October 20, 2003