Loading...
Minutes - 01/04/2005 - Zoning Board of AppealsMINUTES OF THE JANUARY 4, 2005 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON FEBRUARY 1, 2005. 1. CALL TO ORDER: 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 7:30 p.m. 2.' ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Richard Ascher, George Mueller and Manu Shah ABSENT: Robert Sanford and Steven Young. IN ATTENDANCE: Director of Community Development, Robert Kallien, Jr. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES There were no minutes available to be approved. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: There was no unfinished business. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. CSA FRATERNAL LIFE — 122 22nd STREET — TITLE 13 OF THE CSA FRATERNAL LIFE — 122 22 "d ST— VILLAGE CODE - ZONING ORDINANCE — VARIATION — SECTION VARIATION — 13-1 OA -3 — TO ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT IN THE REQUIRED SECTION 13 -10A -3 — SIDE YARD SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ORDER TO SUBDIVIDE A PROPERTY SETBACK — IN WITH TWO EXISTING OFFICE BUILDINGS SURBD VID Kenneth Shaw, Attorney for CSA Fraternal Life, the petitioner and owner of the property at 122 22nd Street reviewed the request. There are two buildings currently on the property. There is a covered walkway that connects the two buildings. The doors are in the middle and are used by both buildings as the main entrance. The applicant is seeking to subdivide the entire lot which would in effect draw a line down the middle between the two buildings. On both sides of the buildings they are not far enough apart to provide for the current 30 foot side yard setback. They are seeking a variation to allow a zero setback for VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 8 January 4, 2005 approximately 14 feet of the covered walkway and a 25.9 -foot setback for the remainder of both lots. Currently CSA Fraternal Life occupies the west building. The east building is used as rental to law firms and businesses for office space. There is no intention to change the use of the buildings. Subdivision of the property would allow two separate lots and the availability of selling the one lot with the 3 -story building. They are not seeking any change of the use. By allowing the setback to be varied, there would be no change to traffic or to the community and it would not bring in any more traffic onto the streets. There would not be a need for any structural changes if the variation is approved. They appeared before the Plan Commission and they recommended approval of the subdivision of the property if the variation is granted. Chairman Davis said that the plan is that there would be absolutely no change in anything other than if the property is subdivided there would be two lots instead of one and at that time the buildings would not be in compliance if the variation were not granted. He asked what the current plans were for the walkway. Mr. Shaw responded that they would like to keep the walkway. It serves a function, and if it were removed the buildings would have to be redesigned and put up separate entrances. At this point they feel the use of the walkway and the maintenance can easily be handled by covenants and conditions in the recorded subdivision. It has worked very well and served both buildings over the years. Member Mueller asked if the Plan Commission recommended that the walkway be removed. Mr. Shaw responded that they did not. He said they felt it could be dealt with by easements, covenants and conditions; they did say that if for some reason any part of the walkway would come down in a permanent manner, it should be removed then it would not be allowed to be rebuilt. Mr. Shaw addressed the standards required for a variation as follows: 1. 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 existing walkway is currently allowing the employees of both buildings to utilize it. That is not going to change once the subdivision takes place and the variation to the setbacks will not affect it. 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: The unique circumstances are when the buildings were built. It was initially two separate lots that were combined prior to VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 8 January 4, 2005 being owned by the petitioner. The buildings were there and once the lot was combined the walkway was added. 3. The variation if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: The structure is already there and will not change. The size of the combined parcels is not going to change. Once the subdivision takes place the use is not going to change in any substantial way. 4. 2.a. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owners as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. RESPONSE: If they were to subdivide but needed to provide for the 30 -foot setback required, it would require a substantial structural change to both buildings to provide for that. 5. 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 buildings and this situation is somewhat unique. This would not be the cause of a variance for other unrelated types of structures in the area. 6. 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: In its current state it is not injurious to the neighborhood and does not cause a hazard. They do not plan on changing the use so it would not cause any injury to the public or hazards to the area. 7. 2.d. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjoining 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: It currently does not cause a fire hazard or increase the danger of fire the way it currently exists and subdivision of the property and granting of the variation will not diminish the adjacent property values. 8. 2.e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property. RESPONSE: They admit by subdividing the property it does make it available so that they can sell one lot with one of the buildings. It makes more use for the buildings. There are distinct separate uses of each building. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 8 January 4, 2005 9. 2.f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. RESPONSE: CSA Fraternal Life purchased the structures including the covered walkway in its present condition on one combined lot. They did not combine it themselves and put it into this condition. They did not cause the current condition. Chairman Davis questioned how the walkway was used. Mr. Shaw described the usage as being the main entrance to both buildings with access from the parking lot. It is a convenience to the tenants. Maintenance of the walkway would be shared by both buildings through covenants and maintenance agreements. If the walkway were removed, they would still need a 25'9" variance. Chairman Davis reviewed the comments from the Plan Commission and their recommendation was that if any part of the walkway were removed then it must be removed in its entirety. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he brought the condition to the attention of the Plan Commission. He said at a point in time, one of the owners may desire to build a separate entrance and want to take the walkway down, and then it should be removed. Member Ascher said that he was concerned about the parking. He said that in his awareness of the lots there is hardly enough parking there now. Mr. Shaw said that if an expansion were proposed, there would be a parking issue there. However, they are not seeking to build a larger building. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if one of the buildings were demolished, as part of the building permit for a new structure it would be reviewed to make sure that the required parking meets the code. If it does not, then they would have to seek a variation or downsize. There is enough parking on the entire parcel now. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the requested variation. Chairman Davis said that the petitioner has addressed the standards on pages D of the case file and the request does not appear to jeopardize the public health, safety or general welfare of any party. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 8 January 4, 2005 Motion by Member Shah, seconded by Member Ascher to recommend approval of the variation as requested subject to the following conditions: 1. Reduce the required 30 -foot setback to allow a 0' (zero foot) side yard setback for each lot for approximately 14 feet, which is the extent of the covered walkway, and a 25.9 -foot setback for the remainder of both lots in substantial conformance with the plan on page G of the case file. 2. In the event that any portion of the covered walkway is removed, then the entire walkway is to be removed and the side yard setback would be 25.9 feet for each lot. 3. The variation is subject to the approval of the Final Plat of Subdivision. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Members Ascher, Mueller, Shah and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 - Absent: 2 - Members Sanford and Young. Motion Carried 5. B. WILLETT — 3404 ADAMS ROAD — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE WILLETT- 3404 ADAMS ROAD - - ZONING ORDINANCE — VARIATION — SECTION 13- 6A.3 -F.3 — TO VARIATION - ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROOM ADDITION IN THE SECTION 13- 6A.3 -F.3 - REAR YARD REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK SETBACK Chairman Davis swore in James Willett, the petitioner and owner of the subj ect property. Steven Norgaard, attorney for the petitioner reviewed the history of the property and the request. They are requesting a change in the rear yard setback from 100 feet to 60 feet. The lot is unusual in that it is a slightly over one acre in area and zoned R -1 in a zoning district that requires 2 acre lots. The building was built within the R -1 District setbacks and placed diagonally across the lot as shown on page H of the case file. The homeowner is requesting the change in setback to the 60 feet required in the R -2 District, which lots are required to be one acre. Chairman Davis asked if the standards have been addressed. Mr. Norgaard said that the standards are addressed on pages E to E.2 of the case file. The neighbors have been notified, and there are six letters of neighbors in support. Another letter was received from a neighbor this evening from Joan Katsis that appears to be objecting to any kind of building in the area that she refers to as open countryside. They see it as a wooded area, not an open countryside. There are residences throughout the area. Page I of the file shows the zoning parcels and each lot has a home with the exception of one, which is Ms. Katsis' property. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 8 January 4, 2005 After a brief discussion on the issue, Chairman Davis said that it appears the objection in the letter is based on the requested variation being sought for the entire rear yard, which is an unusual request. He asked if the applicant would be willing to restrict the variation request. The applicant agreed to limit the request to the proposed footprint for the addition. Member Mueller asked if the owner knew the restrictions for the property prior to buying it. Mr. Norgaard responded that when the Willett's were looking at properties they inquired whether they would be able to put on an addition. The owner at the time, who was very eager to sell, said that he would check with the Village. He said that he was given a plan that was a general print of what could be built on the property. He advised that they could place a 25,000 square foot house on the property. It came to pass that could not be done; and if so, that would have been accomplished by maxing out the existing footprint with height, width and depth. In a sense he believes he was misled but does not believe it was ill intent on anyone's part. An addition could be built with a structure that would have a similar square footage as the proposed structure, but it would be put up on the front or the back of the home and it would not match the style of the home or fit into the existing space that is available in the front. Since the home is set diagonally this seems to be the only place architecturally that make sense to keep the home consistent with its current style. They think that the same size structure could be put within the same envelope it would just make the home inconsistent with the neighborhood and the character with the area. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Willett if a representation was made to him prior to the purchase of the property that he could build an addition similar to that shown in the proposed plan. Mr. Willett responded that he was led to believe that an addition could be placed on the home. When he spoke with the owner he told him that he would place the addition toward the rear. The way the house is tilted on an angle, it is set up for the sunrise and the windows are viewing the back portion of the yard, which makes the most sense where the addition would go. Within the addition is a two -car garage and currently the house only has a two car garage; the location of which plays into where the addition would be placed. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 8 January 4, 2005 Chairman Davis said that the unique circumstance would be the position of the house on the lot and the undersized lot area for the zoning district. Mr. Norgaard said that the lot is an irregular shaped lot within other irregular shaped lots and he does not know at what point in time the lots were ever subdivided. Member Ascher reviewed the location of the lot with respect to Ms. Katsis property and the proposed addition. Mr. Willett said that there are elevation changes in the area and there is approximately 500 feet between her lots and his. Her lot is vacant and the entire area is very heavily wooded. Member Ascher questioned that the other neighbors had no objection to the proposed addition. Mr. Willett responded that letters were submitted from the neighbors that reviewed the plans and did not object. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the previous owner did come into the office and he did show him where the setbacks were on the lot. Ideally, if you could take the house down you could build a 25,000 square foot home. At that time he told him that he would need the variance and he said that a detached garage could be placed in the rear yard. Chairman Davis said that the unique circumstance appears to be the placement of the house on the lot and the lot is undersized for the area. No one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the request. Motion by Chairman Davis seconded by Member Shah that the petitioner has met the required standards to recommend approval of the variation request as modified and agreed to by the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variation request is limited to allow an approximate 60 -foot encroachment in the rear yard setback in order to build the addition within the footprint as proposed. 2. The addition is to be built in substantial conformance with the Proposed Site Plan as submitted on page H, Sheet S -1, prepared by Erik Johnson & Associates dated November 4, 2004. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 — Members Ascher, Mueller, Shah and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — Absent: 2 — Members Sanford and Young. Motion Carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 8 January 4, 2005 6. OTHER BUSINESS: There was no other business to discuss. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Mueller, seconded by Member Shah to adjourn the meeting at 8:26 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert L. Kallien, Jr. Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 8 January 4, 2005 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT