Loading...
Minutes - 11/17/2003 - Plan CommissionVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 17, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: f►nT�Iy21:Z.y,l1 -14: •0 ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairwoman Members Director of Community Development Barbara Payovich Paul Adrian David Braune Jeffrey Bulin Marcia Tropinski Gerald Wolin Surendra Goel Robert Kallien Member Wolin moved, seconded by Member Tropinski, to waive the reading of the October 20, 2003 Plan Commission meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. Ill. 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. When the structure height was increased for single family homes, there was a consensus that 15 feet was too small. It was suggested as a starting point to look at half of the permitted structure height for each district. This would result in detached accessory structures ranging from 17'/2 feet for R -4 districts up to 25 feet in the R -1 Districts. A number of valid issues were raised. There is a variety of permitted accessory structures. There may be some that warrant additional height and others that do not. Research of surrounding communities was surveyed for comparison to our existing code. Our current code is in line with other communities. The height ranged from 15 feet up to 25 feet in Burr Ridge for properties with a minimum 1 -acre lot size. Downers Grove allowed up to 20 feet and Elmhurst 21 feet. Four communities allowed 15 feet as we currently allow. Director of Community Development Kallien suggested that the proposed increase in structure height might be limited to detached garages and leave the other accessory structure heights listed alone. The only request has been for a detached garage that would exceed the 15 foot maximum is for a new house in the R -1 District. Several scenarios have been offered for review on pages 10 -a and 10 -b of the petition file. PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 17, 2003 PC -MTG 03- NOV.doc A� 'L� Member Braune said that if the accessory height is increased, some of the structures listed should not be included, such as play yards. Member Wolin said that generally, the height recommendations make sense. He agrees with using half of the approved principal structure height for detached garages. He questioned Scenario C, which would allow a detached structure to be the same size as the house. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the buildable area is defined as that portion of a lot which is left after the required front, sides and rear yard is determined. It is possible for someone to build a principal structure that covers the entire buildable area. No one has ever come close to do that, however, since that concept is possible, if someone chooses to separate the principal structure and the garage, does it matter what the height is? Aesthetically, there may be issues and a ten -foot fire code separation would still be required between structures. Member Bulin said that it is practical to allow the maximum height as long as it is located within the buildable area. To get around that scenario, you would only have to attach the detached structure with an arbor. Director of Community Development Kallien said that is done presently. Member Adrian said that it is not displeasing; architecturally the effect can be very nice. Member Bulin said that as long as it is within the buildable area, he does not see the need to place a restriction on the height. Director of Community Development Kallien said that from a staff perspective he would not advocate allowing the building of taller sheds. Also included on page 11 of the petition file is a summary of the number of permits issued over the last 3 years for accessory structures. We have not had requests for taller sheds or play sets, etc. The only real request is for taller detached garages. Member Tropinski said that she thinks this is a good idea for garages only. If there is a special case, a variance can always be sought. She prefers Scenario C, but that all other accessory structures are limited to a maximum of 15 feet. Director of Community Development said that attached garages can be built to the maximum height of the house, when located in the buildable area. An option would be to allow a detached garage to be built to the height of the house when located in the buildable area or if it is located outside the buildable area they could be built to the proposed increased height, but for structures over 15 feet in height would be required to increase the setback one foot for every one foot of increased height over 15 feet up to the maximum permitted in each district. Member Tropinski and Bulin agreed with the concept. Member Adrian asked if livable space could be provided in a 25 foot structure. Joseph Perri, 137 Saddle Brook, asked if more than one detached accessory structure would be allowed. Director of Community Development Kallien responded yes, except that there is a maximum 30% coverage of the required rear yard with structures. The ordinance is very clear that only one residential structure is allowed on a single - family lot. The only exception is for guesthouses, and there are specific regulations in the ordinance. Member Braune asked if there were any conflict between the proposed text amendment and the current guesthouse regulations, assuming someone tried to put living space above a garage. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that there are specific regulations for a guesthouse. Typically, they could only be built on very large lots because of the distance requirement between the structures. Member Bulin said that the idea of having habitable /living space above a garage does not connote a guesthouse. Some other communities usually describe a living quarter as the addition of a kitchen, PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 17, 2003 PC -MTG 03- NOV.doc however, a bathroom could be added. There is no reason not to have living space above a garage, for a study, home office, etc. The Plan Commission found that that the petitioner has satisfied the standards for approval of a text amendment as follows: 1. The request to increase the accessory structure height is based on a substantial analysis of how other similar communities regulate height. 2. Not all detached structures are the same and that any amendment to increase the maximum height should be limited to detached garages. 3. The Plan Commission concurs with the concept that by permitting taller homes, it is reasonable to permit taller detached garages that will have a positive impact in Oak Brook regarding keeping the community current by offering a variety of housing styles and creating an environment which increases home and property values. 4. The concept of requiring increased setbacks for detached garages that located in a required yard will mitigate the potential impact of allowing a taller accessory structure. 5. That the proposed text amendment will not affect the character of the neighborhood. Member Braune moved, seconded by Member Tropinski that the petitioner has satisfied the applicable standards required to recommend for approval a text amendment as stated above subject to the following conditions. 1. The maximum accessory structure height for detached garages constructed in the buildable area will be permitted to build to the maximum height allowed for single - family homes in zoning district; 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 2. The maximum accessory structure height for detached garages constructed in a required rear yard shall be increased as follows: a. R -1 - 25 feet b. R -2 - 22.5 feet for all R -2 lots one or more in size c. R -3 - 20 feet for all R -2 lots smaller than one acre and all R -3 lots d. R -4 - 17.5 feet 3. However, any detached garage located in a required rear yard that is over 15 feet in height shall be required to increase the setback one foot for every one foot of increased height over 15 feet up to the maximum heights permitted in #2. 4. The maximum structure height for all other accessory structures shall remain at 15 feet. 5. As part of the recodifying effort to accommodate these amendments, the Commission requests that any vague and ambiguous language be rewritten to improve clarity. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 6- Nays: 0 - Absent: 1 - Motion Carried. Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Tropinski, Wolin and Payovich Goel PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 17, 2003 PC -MTG 03- NOV.doc 3 V. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENTS — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE — CHAPTER 15 — TREE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS The petitioner requested this matter be continued. Member Wolin moved, seconded by Member Braune, to continue the matter to the January 19, 2004 Plan Commission meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. VI. 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 -4, TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR DRIVEWAY GATES Director of Community De Brook were limited to par( thoroughfare. At that time lowering the requirements Board recommended apps suggested that the provisi( standards, R -2 parcels are zoned R -2 are less than subdivision, there are sorr result of that finding and a the matter. Ultimately, the gate issue once and for a reauirement. There has L ✓elopment Kallien said that prior to 2000 -2001 driveway gates in Oak als that were a minimum of 2 acres or parcels that fronted on a major there was a recommendation made by one of the residents to consider to one acre or larger. The Plan Commission reviewed and the Zoning oval and the Village Board approved that change. This year it was n be expanded slightly to include parcels zoned R -2. Under the District supposed to be one acre or more in size, however a number of parcels one acre. It was brought to our attention that in the Ginger Creek E? parcels as small as 20,000 to 25,000 square feet zoned R -2. As a ditional issues, the recommendation by both hearing bodies was to table Village Board withdrew the original case. To try to clarify the driveway I, it has been recommended to go back to the original 2 acre minimum yen only one reauest since the change, which was for Mr. Stade in the Ginger Creek subdivision. There is also a letter in the petition file from him regarding the proposed change. Two other people in the Ginger Creek subdivision, both had under an acre, one was unable to do so and the other, Mr. Warner, was able to construct driveway gates with the issuance of a variance. All of the other gates that exist in the community meet the requirements of the previous ordinance. Peter Huizenga, President of the Ginger Creek Community Association said that their Board has spent a lot of time on the issue of driveway gates. They are not a gated community and have never had this problem. The issue never came up because the previous ordinance required a two -acre minimum parcel. Herb and Joan Stade in Ginger Creek had requested to install driveway gates and lobbied strongly and successfully to change the ordinance to allow driveway gates on lots that were a minimum of one acre. Their gates were constructed and the Ginger Creek Community Association is not objecting to what happened in the past and would not suggest there be a limitation to Mr. Stade's right to those gates now. Since that time, there were many negotiating session with the Village and Ty Warner on the variance request, and there was a compromise with certain stipulations to allow those gates. Another resident attempted to install driveway gates, he was granted a permit and it was later discovered that his lot was less than one acre in size. The resident wanted to seek a variance, and the Ginger Creek Community Association did not support that request. The Ginger Creek Community Association does not want to struggle with this issue continually. They would like Ginger Creek to be an ungated community. To do that and to eliminate the problem that continues to exist, they would like to go back to the previous ordinance requirements. They believe this issue will PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 17, 2003 PC -MTG 03- NOV.doc 4 VOW be put to rest if the ordinance is changed. It would be a great assistance to Ginger Creek if the lot size is increased to 2 acres from the current one acre requirement. Chairwoman Payovich said that research was reviewed on the permit requests for driveway gates. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there have been 6 total requests. Of those requests, one was a variance for Mr. Warner; one for Mr. Lofti at 45 Baybrook, however, the permit was rescinded because it was issued in error; Mr. Stade and a couple of requests along Oak Brook Road. Mr. Huizenga said that they have had additional inquiries about gates from other Ginger Creek residents and they have strongly recommended that the Ginger Creek Community Association inform them that they would be opposing any request for a permit or a variance to install gates. As a result they have been able to stem the tide. They would like to have the backing of the Village added to that. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if someone were along one of the major thoroughfares and would like to install a driveway gate, such as on Oak Brook Road, Meyers Road, Midwest Road, would be allowed to have a driveway gate. If someone else would like to install a driveway gate they could always request a variation. Mr. Huizenga said that they have about 12 lots on Meyers Road and would not object to their having driveway gates because of the unique position of their lots and if there was a security issue that they were concerned about, they would go along with their desires. Within the entrance area of Ginger Creek they do not find there is any security need for gates and they think that it is an aesthetic blight to the area. Kathy Giangrasse, President of Saddle Brook Homeowners Association said that they also support the change to the 2 -acre minimum. She believes that the Village Board would want to work with Ginger Creek and achieve the look that the Ginger Creek Homeowners Association would like to have. Member Braune asked if there are other R -2 areas that would qualify. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Robin Hood Ranch is also R -2 however, the lots are very small in that area and the correct zoning in that area should be R -3. Hunter Trails is zoned R -2 and it is already a gated community, so a request for gates would not come from there. The other R -2 area this could effect is Fullersburg. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if the Plan Commission would support the proposed amendment, some language could be added to memorialize Mr. Stade's situation. He was granted his driveway gates under the ordinance when they were permitted, and there could be some non conformity issues down the road. It is unlikely, but that is a reality. The Village attorney could create some language to address it, so if his gates were damaged beyond 50 percent, they could be replaced. Member Wolin moved, seconded by Member Adrian, that the petitioner has satisfied the applicable standards required to recommend for approval a text amendment which would permit driveway gates on any parcel two acres or more in area, or on any parcel which front lot abuts a thoroughfare. Any existing gate that has been installed as a permitted use under the terms of the previous ordinance would continue to be a permitted use. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 6- Nays: 0 - Absent: 1 - Motion Carried. Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Tropinski, Wolin and Payovich Goel PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 17, 2003 PC -MTG 03- NOV.doc 5 i� � VII. OTHER BUSINESS Chairwoman Payovich discussed the cancellation of the December 15, 2003 Plan Commission meeting. Member Wolin moved, seconded by Member Braune, to cancel the next regular Plan Commission meeting on December 15, 2003. The next regular meeting will be on January 19, 2004. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion passed. There was no other business to discuss. Vlll. ADJOURNMENT Member Adrian moved, seconded by Member Wolin to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Director of Comm . evelopment Secretary January 19. 2004 Date Approved PLAN COMMISSION Minutes November 17, 2003 PC -MTG 03- NOV.doc 6