Loading...
Minutes - 01/06/2004 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES January 6, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. Il. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Members Director of Community Development Champ Davis Richard Ascher Robert Sanford Steven Young George Mueller Manu Shah Robert Kallien Member Young moved, seconded by Member Sanford to waive the reading of the October 7, 2003 regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. 111. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK - ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT - TEXT AMENDMENT - TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE - ZONING ORDINANCE - CHAPTER 3 - GENERAL ZONING PROVIISIONS, SECTION 13 -3 -4. TO INCREASE the MAXIMUM LOT SIZE FOR DRIVEWAY GATES Chairman Davis swore in the Petitioner. Director of Community Development Kallien summarized the proposed text amendment. Approximately four years ago the minimum lot area for driveway gates was two acres. A resident requested that the Village consider a text amendment reducing the lot size to one acre, which was approved by the Village Board. Since that time, two individuals requested a variance and one was approved. There was an interest expressed by the Ginger Creek Homeowners Association to amend the text back to the two -acre minimum. They felt there could be a potential for a proliferation of driveway gates in the subdivision. They have a significant number of lots zoned R -2 that are under one acre in size. The text amendment proposed is to change the text back to the way it was. If anyone would want to construct gates and could not meet the two acre minimum, they would be able to request a variation. The Plan Commission made one stipulation that any gates approved under the current regulation of one acre would not only be grandfathered but would be deemed a permitted use. This would allow the repair and replacement of existing gates in the future and would not be deemed legal nonconforming. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2004 -JAN January 6, 2004 Chairman Davis asked if the issue of relating the gates to the size of the lots is primarily an aesthetic consideration. Director of Community Development Kallien responded probably, because the way the original regulations were developed, it was deemed appropriate for 2 -acre lots, which were estate type lots with long width and significant depth. The placement of the driveway gates was viewed as an enhancement to the property and not viewed as a visual impediment to the neighbors. Smaller lots, such as some of those in Ginger Creek are only 50 -60 feet wide. If gates were placed on consecutive lots, it could create a barrier effect, which goes against the whole principal of Oak Brook being very open. Chairman Davis said that if a driveway gate is more aesthetic in purpose rather than for security reasons, then the smaller the lot, the less need for security. Member Young added that the only discussion has been on driveway gates and not surrounding fencing, so there is no security provided by the driveway gates. Mr. Peter Huizenga, President of the Ginger Creek Community Association, said that he agreed with Mr. Kallien's statements regarding the driveway gate issue. Ginger Creek was planned as an open community, without gates at the entrances. When the zoning text change was made four years ago to allow gates on 1 -acre parcels, several requests have been made in the subdivision. They do not want to get into the issue of having several applications every year. The majority of the Ginger Creek residents oppose the gates. The community itself is a protection. They do not have an issue of crime in Ginger Creek, because Oak Brook has a very strong police force and the incidence of crime in Ginger Creek is practically non existent. They see no reason to allow gates for aesthetic, safety or what other reason someone may have to put gates in front of their house. It does not beautify the community and in their opinion does not serve any purpose other than ornamental for the taste of the individual lot owner. For those reasons they have requested the Village to reinstate the 2 -acre minimum requirement for gates. They are well protected with that regulation because if a lot owner should desire gates they would be required to go through the variation process to prove hardship in order to seek approval. Chairman Davis said that the Zoning Board of Appeals is in receipt of the Plan Commission recommendation. They recommended approval of the proposed text amendment unanimously, by a vote of 6 to 0. He said that since the Village is going from less restrictive to more restrictive text, it appears that all of the standards would be satisfied. Member Sanford moved, seconded by Member Young that the applicant has addressed the required factors to recommend approval for the text amendment as requested with the condition that any gates constructed under any prior standard shall be treated as a permitted conforming use. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 4- Nays: 0 - Absent: 2- Motion Carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2004 -JAN Ascher, Sanford, Young and Davis Mueller and Shah, 2 January 6, 2004 IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK - TEXT AMENDMENT - TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE - ZONING ORDINANCE - CHAPTER 3 - GENERAL ZONING PROVIISIONS, SECTION 13 -3 -6 -A 3 (d) (1), TO INCREASE the DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HEIGHT FROM A MAXIMUM OF 15 FEET TO A HEIGHT COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDNETIAL STRUCTURE HEIGHT Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Plan Commission did a significant amount of review and analysis on this issue similar to the work done on the structure height case for single - family homes. Several months ago, the maximum height of single - family homes was increased in each district from 50 feet in the R -1 District down to 35 feet in the R -4 District. As a result, there was a recommendation made that since the principal structure height was being increased, it might be reasonable to increase the accessory structure height. Currently, Oak Brook allows fifteen (15') foot high accessory structures. There is a wide range of what is included in the definition of accessory structures, such as sheds, playground equipment or a detached garage. With some of the very significantly sized homes in Oak Brook, the detached garages can also be substantial. It was felt that since the principal structure has been increased, it would not be unreasonable to increase the height of accessory structures. However, when it comes to playground equipment and other accessory structures, any increased height would be burdensome and could cause problems we do not currently have in Oak Brook. Research of surrounding communities was surveyed for comparison to our existing code as noted on page 13 -13.a of the case file. Our current code is in line with other communities. The heights 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 on much smaller lots. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Plan Commission discussed that the proposed increase in structure height should be limited to detached garages only. All other accessory structure heights listed in the ordinance should not be increased and remain at 15 feet. Director of Community Development said that several scenarios for increasing the structure height of detached garages were developed as noted on page 13.a of the case file. 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 171/2 feet for R -4 districts up to 25 feet in the R -1 Districts. Attached garages could also be built to the maximum height of the house when located in the buildable area. One 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 for each district, but for any structures constructed over 15 feet 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. The Plan Commission opted to go with Scenario C, which combines Scenario A, and B. Chairman Davis asked what restrictions there would be to having living quarters above the garage. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it could be improved with a room, but one stipulation is that it could not be improved it into another dwelling unit. It could be used as an office or storage area, etc. Member Young said that that he was slightly worried that in some other communities the garage becomes a professional mechanics garage. Director of Community Development Kallien said that would be a zoning enforcement issue. Those types of activities would be handled both through the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance and could be deemed inappropriate as a use in a residential zoning district. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes January 6, 2004 3 ZBA- MTG.2004 -JAN Director of Community Development Kallien said that in the R -1 and R -2 Districts there are provisions in the Zoning Ordinance to create a secondary dwelling unit. It stipulates that it would be for hired help or family members, but it is very clear that it cannot be rented out to receive payment, which would then violate the spirit of the ordinance. He noted that in over 4 years no one has come forward to build a new coach house. Chairman Davis swore in Joseph Perri, 137 Saddle Brook. Mr. Perri said that from an aesthetic point of view a 15 -foot detached garage in an R -1 District does not look right. Certain pitches on the roof of a detached garage would not work on a 15 -foot garage, if you are attempting to match the pitch on the roof of the house with that of the garage for aesthetic purposes. He ran into this situation while designing his detached garage. It was only a 3 -car garage and the ridge on the garage went up to 28 -29 feet. The only way to bring it down was to bring the gables down and when they did that the gutter line was coming down to the top of the garage doors. Chairman Davis asked if the recommendation made by the Plan Commission addressed the issues he has encountered with the design of his garage. Mr. Perri responded that it does. He also noted that the increased height would allow a second floor space for storage. Member Ascher noted that the garage he is proposing would be built in the buildable area. Mr. Perri responded that it would be. He also noted, that he agrees with the recommendation, for the detached garage height outside the buildable area. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that we are proposing a change to a long standing regulation and believe we are addressing an issue that will try to keep Oak Brook current and create an accessory structure height that is more consistent with the principal structure height. However, the situation will have to be monitored. If we see that additional problems are created, we will request additional modification to the Ordinance. Member Ascher asked what would prevent a flat roof from being built on the garages. There were controls set in place for flat roofs on houses. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it would be a good idea to limit continuous flat roof garages to 15 feet. The members agreed with the condition being added to the recommendation. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in terms of the standards for a text amendment, the recommendation is viewed as being in the public interest and will result in a positive impact on property values. It is consistent with previously approved text amendments. There have been no objections made to the proposal. Chairman Davis noted that there would be an enhancement to the property values so the changes would not cause a diminishment of the property values. Chairman Davis swore in Sam Vinci, 3025 Lincoln who stated that he was in support of the proposed changes and pleased with the recommendation and hopes that the Village Board will approve the change. After listening to Mr. Perri's comments, he is facing some of the same problems right now. He is building a detached garage in his rear lot. When it was initially planned and designed by the architect, he attempted to do a trellis attachment to enable a larger garage. Aesthetically it did not look right. The 15 -foot garage was extremely restrictive to and did not meet his needs. The garage would look much better with the increased height. Personally, there is a functional importance for the additional height. He believes this change would bring Oak Brook to more of the standards of surrounding communities. He has no desire for a coach house or to add living quarters above the garage, but it would be nice to use it for storage or let the kids go up there to play video games in order to get them out of the house. He commended the Zoning Board for reviewing this matter and ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes January 6, 2004 4 ZBA- MTG.2004 -JAN believes it is appropriate. If you have a 50 -foot home it does not look right to have a 15 foot garage. It would not affect a lot of the subdivisions, because most of the homes built have an attached garage. There are still those, like himself that like detached rear structures for various reasons. He has ceased construction of his garage until the Village Board has reviewed the matter. The members had a brief discussion on the possibility of a detached garage being built larger than the primary structure. It was suggested that a condition be added to prohibit the accessory structure from being built larger than the primary structure. Chairman Davis said that the Zoning Board is in receipt of the Plan Commission's unanimous recommendation of approval of the proposed text amendment and found that that the petitioner has satisfied the standards for approval of a text amendment as follows: 1. Not all detached structures are the same and that any amendment to increase the maximum height should be limited to detached garages. 2. The Zoning Board concurs with the Plan Commission of 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 offering a variety of housing styles and creating an environment which increases home and property values. 3. 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. 4. That the proposed text amendment will not affect the character of the neighborhood. Member Young moved, seconded by Member Sanford 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 be built, but not to exceed, the maximum height of the principal structure (i.e. single - family home). However, detached garages constructed with a continuous flat roof built anywhere on the lot are limited to a maximum height of 15 feet. The maximum height allowed for single - family homes in the zoning districts are as follows: 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, with the exception of continuous flat roof garages which are not allowed to exceed 15 -feet. 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. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2004 -JAN January 6, 2004 As part of the recodifying effort to accommodate these amendments, the Zoning Board of Appeals requests that any vague and ambiguous language be rewritten to improve clarity. V. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business discussed. V1. ADJOURNMENT Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Sanford to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Director of Co ty Development Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2004 -JAN February 3, 2004 Date Approved January 6, 2004