Loading...
Minutes - 11/19/2007 - Plan Commission2. 3. E MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 19, 2007 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON JANUARY 21, 2008 CALL TO ORDER: The Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Payovich in the Sarnuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL: Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Raju Iyer, Gopal Lalmalani and Mintu Sharma ABSENT: Member Marcia Tropinski IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Wolin, Trustee, and Robert L. Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development APPROVAL OF MINUTES: REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2007 Motion by Member Lalmalani, seconded by Member Iyer to approve the minutes of the August 20, 2007 Regular Plan Commission Meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL MINUTES UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. WHITE OAK MEADOWS — 3101 WHITE OAK LANE — FINAL PLAT -- 2- WHITE OAK MEADOWS - 3101 LOT SUBDIVISION WHITE OAK LN - FINAL PLAT Director of Community Development Kallien said that the applicant had requested a continuance in order to meet with the Village Engineer. Motion by Member Iyer, seconded by Member Lalmalani to continue the hearing as requested by the applicant. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK -- TEXT AMENDMENT -- REAR YARD voB - TEXT AMEND - REAR SETBACKS ALONG STREETS — REVIEW AND AMENDMENT OF YARD SETBACK S ALONG STREETS APPLICABLE TEXT Director of Community Development Kallien requested a continuance. Motion by Member Iyer, seconded by Member Lalmalani to continue the hearing to the January Regular Plan Commission Meeting. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular- Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 10 November 19, 2007 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. FRANK PAUL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -- DANA PARK FRANK PAUL REVEL. - DANA SUBDIVISION — MAP AMENDMENT TO REZONE THE PROPERTY PARK SUB - MAP AMENDMENT Director of Community Development Kallien provided an overview and background of the request. The Dana Park Subdivision was approved by the Village for the development of three single- family lots in the R -2 District. Because of some issues, the applicant is requesting a map amendment that would possibly allow some additional lots. The subdivision request would come at a later date. John Brechin, Attorney for Frank Drukas, the owner /developer of the property summarized the request. A power point demonstration was provided to review the case file material. At the time of the Dana Park Subdivision approval, it was believed that the development would be commercially viable because there were three homes previously on the site. An extensive amount of regrading was required in order to accommodate flood plain and compensatory storage on the site. Over a significant marketing period of 18 months and the real estate market in that time period had not improved some of the negatives on this site as zoned R -2 were reflected when the lots were actually available for sale. The cost of the regrading to accommodate the site _jumped significantly, such that the contemplated price for a home was in the $2.5 — 2.7 million range. Based on the increased costs they were looking at $3.2 — 3.4 million. Based upon the size and location of the properties they have not supported that kind of market. Even though a number of potential buyers have looked at the lots, there have not been any buyers. Some of the objections raised were that the lots are only 50 percent usable. Tennis courts cannot be built because of the flood plain on the site. A number of potential purchasers preferred the Hinsdale school district to the Downers Grove school district. They looked into possibly moving the property into the Hinsdale school district, but Illinois law is so complex and cumbersome that it really is not a viable alternative. Another objection is that Meyers and 31" are busy streets and that the property is located next to a pumping station and across the street from a dog kennel. It would be fair to say that anyone seeking to spend $2.5 to $3 million on property in Oak Brook, that some of those concerns are valid. There are other sites in Oak Brook that would better accommodate their taste. Mr. Drukas added that some of the objections raised are not going to go away, such as the school district, pumping station and busy streets. However, because the costs drove them to a $3 million, the homebuyers' expectations are where the objections became issues. If they were in a lower cost market some of the objections would be more subtle. Mr. Brechin reviewed alternatives to rezone the property. Straight R -3 would not be commercially viable because the additional costs expended in order to reconfigure the land would make the project exceed the actual value that the lots could be VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 10 November 19, 2007 marketed. They would not be saleable and it would not create any remedy to the situation. The percent of usability on the lots would not be improved and would actually be diminished. In reviewing comparable sales in the marketplace, there really are none, which calls into question to use straight R -3 as a realistic alternative. They reviewed other alternatives. An R -4 development would be fully compliant and they believe that it would be saleable with minor reworking of the site. The last alternative was an R -3 development with variations to the yards. The variation relief would move the front of the structures closer to the private right -of -way to allow more usable area. The variations would not cause any negative impact and would not be seen by any adjacent properties in Midwest Club because the area is already screened and there is a roadway. They also believe that it would give a better configuration to the home sites and makes the properties more usable and user friendly to the ultimate new property owner. The roadway is planned as a separate lot. They could reintegrate the roadway into the parcels and not need the front yard variations, however, they felt that this was a straightforward way of looking at it and the road will be there and the setback would be computed from the end of the road rather than the road being part of the lots. They believe that only R -4 or R -3 with variations would make the property commercially viable. 1f the village would like this site improved with quality homes they will need some sort of relief because in the foreseeable future the market will not allow for R -2 utilization of the property. They reviewed a commercial viability chart that was contained in the case file on the last page of the Letter of Explanation (Index number B). The purpose is not to gain a larger profit; they are simply trying to make the cost of the land consistent with what the market will bare without detracting from the appearance or quality of the homes developed. Mr. Drukas noted that the usability of the lot is still going to be to some degree a question mark with regard to the marketplace, so they will still have to deal with some of the issues, however, they believe they will be somewhat diminished. Mr. Brechin addressed the standards for a map amendment as follows: 1. Character of the neighborhood RESPONSE: The character of the neighborhood is single family with values ranging from $1 to 3 million. There is R -3 zoning to the south and R -2 to the east, west and north separated by 31" Street and Meyers Road, which both carry a significant amount of traffic. 2. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions. This has been the topic of the hearing about how an R -2 development is more than likely unfeasible for the present and foreseeable future along with the unique characteristics of the property, which contains a significant amount of flood plain. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 10 November 19, 2007 1��5f 3. The extent to which the removal of the Existing Limitations Would .Depreciate the Value of Other Property in the Area. With the proposed housing in the $2 million range, there would be no depreciatory effect caused by the development to any other property in the Midwest Club or the surrounding neighborhoods, The development of the property with quality single- family. With one R -2 exception, all of the adjacent R -3 zoned properties are valued at or below their proposed alternatives. The subject property is physically separated from Midwest Club and there is no real visibility because of the roadway and screening that has been installed. 4. The suitability of the Property for Zoned Purposes They have attempted to show that R -2 does not fit on this property or in this market and do not see it happening at any time in the foreseeable future. Other than the variations talked about they are prepared to develop this property totally consistent with R -3 standards. All of the proposed alternatives increase the marketability of the property, which does not relate to profitability. Although the density is somewhat increased it is somewhat comparable to that in Midwest Club and other R -3 properties in the area. 5. Existing Uses and Zoning of Nearby Properties. With the exception of the kennel across the street, all of the property is single family, and what they are proposing is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The Length of Time Under the Existing Zoning that the property has remained unimproved considered in the context of land development. The first parcel was purchased in January 2005 and the remaining two parcels were purchased in June 2005. The lots and home design have been marketed since October of 2005. The property has been ready for construction when the land improvements were completed in March 2006. It has been unimproved for 2 years, which speaks to the impediments of the site and the market conditions here and throughout the country. 7. The Relative Gain to the Public as Compared to the Hardship Imposed on the Individual Property Owner. They have noted and detailed that the hardship to the owner is significant because the property as R -2 is virtually unable to sell and could only be sold at a significant loss. That possibility presupposes that there would be a ready, willing and able buyer that would want to build, recognizing the constraints the site places on the development of a single - family home and the traditional amenities that many Oak Brook residents in the R -2 District would have on their property. 8. The Extent to Which the Proposal Promotes the Health, Safety, Morals or General Welfare of the Public. Adoption of any of the options will expedite the development of the property. They VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 10 November 19, 2007 believe development will increase assessed valuation and the ability to look at high quality single family homes will be a nicer view than what is there today. 9. The Relationship of the Proposed Use to the Comprehensive Plan. Single family residential is totally compatible to the Comprehensive Plan for this site in this neighborhood. 10. Community Need for the Use Proposed by the Property Owners. On the site, there existed three single family homes which were in the flood plain and the flood plain was not controlled in any way. That situation has been corrected and there is flood plain storage on the site so it is no longer an issue. The property today is in a much better condition than it was 2 years ago. They are seeking consideration to an alteration of the zoning map to be able to implement the rest of the plan, develop houses and allow it to be enjoyed in a way that is not injurious to the neighbors or the Village in any way, shape or form. They recognize that an additional step is necessary to submit a revised final plat for the property, but thought that it would be presumptuous to do so until the Village would find any of the alternatives acceptable. No one spoke in opposition of the request. Charles Shemely, President, Heritage Oaks Homeowners Association, said that Heritage Oaks, which is one -acre lots (R -2), was developed with the lots going to the centerline of the road and there have not been any problems. It would seem reasonable to eliminate the lot for the road. From an aesthetics standpoint, he has felt that some of the newer subdivisions, such as the one on Midwest Road south of 31St has had a very large home standing on a small lot for about 2 years and cannot imagine what it would look like with three more houses on it. On the subject property, six houses, surrounded by R -2 and R -3 zoning would look busy and crowded. He would hope that the developer would build fewer than 6 homes, no matter what the zoning is. He understands the developer's problem and in their subdivision, they have had homes sitting for sale for a couple of years, in some cases, because there is no market. A rabid warrant of large homes is not Oak Brook. Trustee Wolin said that he was on the Plan Commission when the approved subdivision first moved forward. The Falco Subdivision, which is directly east of this property, preceded it and he was very vocal against both developments. He felt that in both developments that a detention pond in the back yard, there was little that could be done in it and he had trouble envisioning spending a lot of money on that kind of home. It is true that the market conditions are very bad everywhere, but it is not a reason to change zoning, which is a risk that the developer took. The pumping station and the kennel were there before. He said that he is not sure that it is the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 10 November 19, 2007 Village's responsibility to bail out a developer if a risk is taken, which turns out to be a bad decision. However, from the very beginning it was very clear, that with Mr. Drukas, the Village was dealing with a very high quality person. He made it very clear at the beginning, and he lived up to his word that he was going to follow every rule and regulation. He did not seek any variances or exceptions. He pointed out the limitations of the property and lived up to those goals. If more homes are allowed and are built on this site, in his opinion, the area would look better at that point in time, than it did before. Mr. Drukas would replace a couple of older homes, which were no longer in keeping with the image of Oak Brook. In addition, the property had limitations with the existing flood plain. If the people that previously owned those homes had torn them down, they would not have been able to rebuild them on the sites the way that they were structured. The flood plain is a sensitive issue and is going to become more of a sensitive issue in the future in Oak Brook because the County wants to remap the flood plain and that would particularly impact those people living along Salt Creek by putting more homes in the floodplain. The subject area feeds into Salt Creek so anything that can be done to help Salt Creek is a very positive step. He would not go along with the R -4 zoning alternative because it would stick out and would set a precedent. The subject site is adjacent to R -3, and is in an area that would not be visible. A case could be made for the R -3 with the variances requested and may be a possibility. The marketing and developer risks are not relevant to rezoning. What may be relevant is that the improved property would be an improvement to what was previously there and based on his understanding of the facts; it does improve the flood plain, which could be significant in terms of what is happening in the area. As a Trustee, he could only speak for himself and others may see it another way. The R -3 with variances appears to be a reasonable approach in view of the floodplain considerations and as a general improvement would make Oak Brook look better. Member Lalmalani questioned what would happen if the variances were not approved. Mr. Brechin responded that if they were not approved, they could eliminate the roadway and make it part of the lots, which would solve the problem. They are not seeking that so that each lot is defined as a separate lot. The roadway would clearly be owned by the homeowners association, which would maintain it. If it is part and parcel of each of the lots, there is no way to know what could happen 20 -30 years from now. If an individual property owner would want to install something that may encroach into the roadway, it would then be an issue with the homeowners association. As proposed, it is a clean solution for the property owners and the Village. Mr. Brechin noted that aside from the Village's notification to the neighbors, Mr. Drukas contacted each of them by letter and received several responses (a copy of some of the neighbor responses is on page J of the case file). No objections were VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 10 November 19, 2007 made by any of the neighbors. There was a question regarding any impact to the value of the neighbor's property and when it was stated that they would be in the 2+ million ranges the concern went away. a Mr. Brechin said that the request is not due to the market, it is because of the unique characteristics of the property with the extensive floodplain, which correct or perceived is made worse by the market conditions. A perceived defect when the market is soft becomes a much bigger defect. The fact remains that there is extensive floodplain and the resulting issue with the amount of land that can be utilized by a property owner. An Oak Brook property owner expects more from their property than in many other communities. To market the property they have to approach that as close as they can to be consistent with what else is in the neighborhood. They believe that the R -3 with variations does that in a reasonable way. Mr. Ditdcas responded that typically the Font setbacks are set so that there is not a jagged line along the front yard of the houses. Because this subdivision is a separate entity onto itself, all of the setbacks would be consistent for the five homes. The side setback on Lot 1 is actually 48 feet from the curb and 30 feet from the property line, so it would need a 10 -foot variance, but it is not an onerous variance because there is a bicycle path, parkway and curb. The hornes could all be set back 10 feet but the homeowner is deprived of 10 usable feet in the rear yard and there does not seem to be any practical reason for doing that if the variance is approved. Member Lalmalani asked about building 4 homes. Mr. Drukas responded that the 3 existing lots are 1.2 million; if it is divided by 6 they are $600,000 lots, if there are 5 they are approximately $725,000 lots; if divided by 4 they are $850,000 lots. The fewer lots, the marketability places them back to where they are now. If they are back to that scenario then they should not be doing this and they don't want to make a mistake again in terms of marketability should be. The best business deal would be R -4 with 6 lots, but given all of the other considerations, the next best arrangement is the R -3 with variations. Member Lalmalani said that he remembers the issues that were brought up during the initial subdivision process and they are still valid now, such as Meyers Road and 31" Street; they have not changed or the school district. It comes back to soft housing market conditions. Mr. Drukas responded that there was no question that the market conditions are poor, but early on in the development cycle for this project, he had real $3 million buyers who passed on what he had to offer on the lots, which was the problem. The $3 million buyer did not want a 50% usable lot. That buyer wanted a full acre and to be in the Hinsdale school district. For example, one buyer was a doctor who wanted to put a tennis court in the yard, but that could not be done on the lot, so it became a problem they could not resolve. Another buyer wanted to buy all 3 lots as a family compound, with his daughter and son living in the other two houses. When he found VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 10 November 19, 2007 out that, it was not the Hinsdale school district he had a problem with it. It was not the market conditions, the buyers were real, but it was what he was able to offer a $3 million buyer. He is not comfortable with the low $2 million, but believes that can be managed. If they are over $2.5 million, he should withdraw the application request and limiting it to four lots would do that. Member Lalmalani said that he was concerned that Callaghan would come back. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the Callaghan development at Brittwood Creek is protected because of a covenant that was signed off by all of the neighboring property owners. It would be very difficult for Mr. Callaghan or any other landowner in that subdivision to come back. They are two different circumstances with far different controls in place. For all the changes in zoning there are a series of standards that must be looked at and analyzed; that should be the real reason why it is granted or not, and the focus should be placed on that. Many things have been debated that are related to the market and preference of the home buyer, and cost, which are important, but in terms of meeting the test for a zoning change the standards need to be met. Member Lalmalani said that he did not have an issue with the R -3 proposal, but the variations are not under the purview of the Plan Commission. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Village's review of the zoning text relating to setbacks does not impact this property, the setbacks under review relate to the rear yard setbacks along several roads including Oak Brook Road, York Road and 22'a Street. The variations requested by the applicant will have to be reconciled with the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Village Board. If they are successful with the map amendment and variation approvals, a Final Plat will be required and will be reviewed by the Plan Commission. Member Iyer questioned the objection to the 4 homes versus 5. Mr. Drukas responded that mathematics was taking the overall cost of the lots $3.5 million, amortized over only 4 lots is close to $900,000 each. Adding the cost of the home itself increases the overall cost of the home up to $2.7 -- 2.9 million range, which becomes scary ground again and they would be right where they are right now. The focus of the request is to improve the marketability; and if the marketability is not improved, then they should not make any, changes to the zoning. Member Sharma said that she agreed that 6 homes would not look right. A lot of the land is unusable and she questioned what would need to be done to the land. Mr. Drukas responded that not much would be done to Lot. 1. There is some movement of land on Lot 2 over to Lot 3 in order to make the other two homes. The homes would have approximately 4500 feet of primary living space and up to 1 500 feet of English basement. The green space is in proportion`to the home and usable VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 10 November 19, 2007 by the hornebuyer. Because of the compensation and the flood plain area, the homes will not look like big trucks on postage stamps. They will be 25,000 square foot lots and will look fine in the setting; it is just that it would not all be usable, but would be quite usable in that price range. Director of Community Development Kallien said that another benefit of going from R -2 to R -3 is that the maximum structure height for R -2 is 45 feet; under R -3, it would be limited to 40 feet. There may be additional homes placed on the site, but the overall scale will be lessened, which will have some positive visual impact on the neighbors. Mr. Brechin said that the zoning amendment standards must be evaluated and determined if they are met. The most important standard is the suitability for the zoned purposes. They have set forth a lot of objective and rational reasons why R -2 does not work for this particular site. The location and some of the unique features of the lot, which includes significant flood plain that has to be accommodated. Where there is water there carunot be a home or structures, which is based upon a character of this property, not because there would be more money to be made. From a financial or marketability standpoint R -2 does not work. They are seeking modest relief so there is an ability to market the property and have it built for what it is zoned, which is single family residential in a reasonable way that is consistent with everything that surrounds this property. Motion by Member Lalmalani, seconded by Member Iyer that the applicant has addressed and satisfied the requirements for a map amendment to recommend approval of the request to rezone the subject property from R -2 to R -3, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the variations as requested. 2. Submission of a revised final plat. 3. The Plan Commission noted that the request for R -4 zoning is inappropriate and less desirable. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 -- Members Iyer, Lalmalani, Sharma and Chairwoman Payovich Absent: 1 --- Member Tropinski Nays: 0 —None. Motion Carried. 5. B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TEXT AMENDMENT — PERFORMANCE "os - TEXT AMENDMENT - STANDARDS — REVIEW AND AMENDMENT OF APPLICABLE TEXT PERFORMI NCE STANDARDS Director of Community Development Kallien requested a continuance. Motion by Member Iyer, seconded by Member Lalmalani to continue the hearing to the January Regular Plan Commission Meeting. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 10 November 19, 2007 on 7 OTHER BUSINESS B BUSIN StNLSS A. CONFIRMATION OF THE 2008 MEETING DATE SCHEDULE CONFIRMATION OF zoos DATES Gail Polanek reviewed the request from the Village Clerk's office to review the Plan Commission's current and proposed dates, times, locations and then to confirm its 2008 meeting schedule by motion. Following a brief discussion, it was decided to maintain the current schedule through 2008. Member Iyer, seconded by Member Sharma to confirm the Plan Commission 2008 meeting date schedule and to maintain the current Regular Plan Commission meeting date to be held on the third Monday of each month at 7:30 p.m., in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. Director of Community Development Kallien discussed upcoming matters that would be before the Plan Commission in early 2008. There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Iyer, seconded by Member Lalmalani to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, Dix ctor Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Regular Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 10 November 19, 2007