Loading...
Minutes - 01/03/2006 - Zoning Board of Appeals1. 2. 3 4. 5. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 3, 2006 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON FEBRUARY 7, 2006. CALL TO ORDER: The Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Champ Davis in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chainnan Champ Davis, Members, Baker Nimry, Jeffrey Bulin, Glenn Krietsch, Manu Shah and Steven Young ABSENT: Member Richard Ascher IN ATTENDANCE: Robert Sanford, Trustee and Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development APPROVAL OF MINUTES: REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1 2005 Motion by Member Shah, seconded by Member Bulin, to approve the minutes of the November 1, 2005 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: There was no unfinished business to discuss. NEW BUSINESS A. FELEY — 1 MEADOWOOD DRIVE — VARIATION — FRONT YARD SETBACK Chairman Davis swore in the petitioners Jacqueline and Ronald Feley, the applicant and owners of the subject property located at 1 Meadowood Drive. Mrs. Feley reviewed the variation request. They are seeking a variation that would permit an encroachment by approximately 8 feet into the required front VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 7 January 3, 2006 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL MINUTES UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS FELEY -- I MEADOWOOD DRIVE -- VARIATION TO FRONT YARD SETBACK yard setback which is required to be not less than 40 feet. Prior to purchasing their home they found out that there was a 40 -foot setback requirement. They measured from the front of the home to the edge of the concrete shoulder, where a typical lot line would be located; and they had 67 feet. They thought there was more than enough room to go ahead with plans to convert the current garage into a family room and relocate the garage in front of its current location. It was not until closing that they were given the plat of survey which showed the property line was set back more than 20 feet from where the grass ends. The subdivision that their house is located was approved in 1948 under Elmhurst zoning, which required a 50 foot setback and that is indicated on the plat of survey. Their home was built in 1955. The property was annexed into the Village of Oak Brook on October 9, 1962 and was given the R -3 designation. The R -3 zoning district requires that a single story home be not less than 1500 square feet' and their home presently is only 1259 square feet. The minimum lot size requirement under the R -3 zoning is 25,000 square feet and their lot is approximately 18,500 square feet; both below the minimum requirements. Their request is to build a modest 266 square foot family room, which would bring the home into compliance with the minimum 1500 square foot requirement. Originally, prior to closing, they had planned to bump the garage out 19 feet; however, they have scaled back the request due to the encroachment that exists in the front yard setback. The previous owner had recently renovated the home which has made it functionally impossible to add living space to the buildable area of the lot without reconfiguring the entire remodeled interior of the hose. The proposed addition that would encroach approximately 8 feet into the front yard setback is the only viable solution to adding additional family living space and maintaining the improvements that were made to the house. It would also produce a seamless unified visually pleasing exterior for the neighborhood. Chairman Davis questioned the length of the grassy area and sidewalk and who owns that 20 feet of area between there and the street. Mrs. Feley responded that it was probably owned by the Village, but that they maintained it, just as their neighbors do. Chairman Davis asked how the neighbors were notified of the petition. Mrs. Feley responded that she visited all the neighbors, including more than those listed within the 250 foot requirement. She showed all of them the plans and VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 7 January 3, 2006 asked them to sign a statement that they reviewed the plans and had no objection to the plan. A copy of the signatures was included with the variation request. She obtained all but 2 signatures. Both neighbors on either side of the property signed the statement and did not object to the request. Chairman Davis asked if their lot was different than their neighbors. Mrs. Feley responded that their lot is pie shaped which is different than the other lots in the neighborhood. They do not have a homeowners association that would require a formal process for approval of the request or plans. Chairman Davis asked the applicant to review the standards. Mrs. Feley responded to the standards as follows: (a) The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located. RESPONSE: The proposed modest addition meets a need for livable space. The home currently has one approximate 280 square foot room that functions as an entryway, living room and the only dining room area. The home does not have an eat -in- kitchen or family room. The property was purchased recently to be used as a personal residence, but needs more functional living space. (b) The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: The existing floor plan, previous owner's renovations, undersized, atypical lot shape and the position of the primary structure on the lot are the unique circumstances they are dealing with. (e) The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: The modest addition they have proposed will appear to be part of the original structure. It will remain a single story ranch as are all the homes on their side of Meadowood Drive. The character of the neighborhood will not be altered by it. 2(a) The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. RESPONSE: The homes floor plan, atypical lot shape and its position on the lot make it impossible to construct additional functional family living space VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 7 January 3, 2006 within the required building line. If the strict letter of the regulations is followed, the entire interior layout would need to be altered to accommodate an accessible family room addition. 2(b) The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning classification. RESPONSE: The house itself and its position on the atypical lot shape are conditions unique to this property. The house as it exists does not meet the R- 3 zoning district minimum standards for minimum square footage or minimum lot size. 2(c) The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. RESPONSE: The granting of the variation in order to accommodate the construction of additional family living space for the residence will not be detrimental or injurious in any way. The home will remain 52.37 feet back from the concrete shoulder adjoining the street. 2(d) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RESPONSE: The variation will not endanger, impair or diminish the property values within the neighborhood. The proposed addition will be located at the north end of the east side of the house. The addition will not alter the amount of space between the subject home and the house immediately to the north. Nor will it increase the number of feet that the two homes run parallel to one another. The elevation of the structure will remain the same as it currently is as well, which is approximately 14 feet. 2(e) That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property. RESPONSE: The purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon the homeowners desire to make more money on the property. It is based exclusively on the desire to have functional family living space. They plan to stay in the home for quite some time. 2(f) That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property RESPONSE: The home was built in 1955 before being annexed into the Village of Oak Brook in 1962. Its layout was designed at that time. Minor VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 7 January 3, 2006 alterations were made to the kitchen design by the previous owner. They have been made no alterations to the home. Chairman Davis questioned that when the home was built under the City of Elmhurst whether it was built in conformity to the zoning requirements at that time. Mrs. Feley responded that she did not research what the ordinance requirements were at that time. The survey showed a 50 foot requirement and when the home was built a variation may have been granted because the survey shows it as almost 48 feet. Member Nimry asked if the pine needle trees were going to be removed. Mrs. Feley said that she hopes not, but she is not familiar with what would be required to pour the foundation. Member Krietsch asked whether other front yard variations had been granted in the area. He mentioned a concern that there are not any sidewalks in the area, however, if at a later date sidewalks were built, the house would appear to be closer to the street. Mrs. Feley responded that she is not aware of anyone in the area with a front yard variation; she is aware of a neighbor that has a side yard variation. She believes the grassy area located in the front of the house is a drainage ditch and she is not aware that they would be able to put in a sidewalk. Chairman Davis asked what the general use of the greenway was. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that in most of the subdivisions that have public streets and ditches, if they exist, lie in the Village right -of -way. Within that Village right -of -way the utilities are located, as well as fire hydrants, sewer and water lines, etc. The potential for sidewalks in this area as well as most of Oak Brook is remote. We do not have sidewalks and if there was a sidewalk program, the Village would probably target the arterials in order to make them more usable. In the last 2 -3 years, there has been a situation where there have been a number of substandard lots in Oak Brook, which have come forward for improvements. Their opportunities are really very limited to either tear down the house and rebuild, or try to accommodate a reasonable expansion with what they have. Chairman Davis said that one of the main hardships that have been testified to is that the house was just bought and recently renovated. It would not make any economic sense to do a complete renovation, when one has just been done. Mrs. Feley responded that they purchased the home because it had been recently renovated. It has all new windows, doors, trim, kitchen and baths and they purchased it because it was finished. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 7 January 3, 2006 Member Nimry asked if the house were sold in 5 years and torn down, would the encroachment still apply. Director of Community Development Kallien said that when there is a teardown the new house would have to conform to the setbacks of the Village. They would not receive a benefit of the variation. Member Bulin commented that since the lot is undersized and nonconforming would it automatically be required to have a review prior to a building permit being issued. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that, the Code states that if the lot existed prior to the incorporation of the Village, they can receive a building permit as long as they can meet the required setbacks. Member Bulin asked in the future, what if someone would want to add a second story addition to the building in the area of the variation, which would mean a further encroachment into the setback. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that there have been homes with approved variations that try to apply for a permit to add an addition above the variation, and it is not allowed. They are required to seek another variation if they wish to add a second story. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to or in support of the request. Chairman Davis said that it appears the petitioner has addressed the standards as required, in order to recommend approval of the proposed variation requested. It appears that the property meets Proper notice has been given to all the surrounding property owners. Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Young that the applicant has addressed the required factors in testimony and in writing on pages C and C.1 of the case file to recommend approval of the variation to allow an approximate 8 -foot encroachment r into the front yard setback as requested. The recommendation is subject to the following conditions: 1. The one -story approximately 266 square foot addition is to be built in substantial conformance with the conceptual plans as submitted and the encroachment as shown on page K of the case file. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 --- Members Bulin, Krietsch, Nimry, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 -- None. Absent: 1 — Member Ascher. Motion Carried VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 7 January 3, 2006 6. OTHER BUSINESS: OTHER BUSINESS 7 There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry to adjourn the meeting at 8:04 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, Dir ctor o ommunity Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 7 January 3, 2006