Loading...
Minutes - 03/04/2008 - Zoning Board of AppealsMINUTES OF THE MARCH 4, 2008 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS AMENDED ON APRIL 1, 2008 CALL TO ORDER: CALL, TO ORDER The 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 Govenunent 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 Jeffrey Bulin, Baker Nimry, Joseph Rush and Wayne Ziemer ABSENT: Members Glenn Krietsch and Steven Young IN ATTENDANCE: Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development 3, APPROVAL OF MINUTES. MINUTES REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5 2008 Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Nimry to approve the minutes of the February 5, 2008 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to discuss. 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TEXT AMENDMENT — REAR YARD vOI3 - TEXT AMENDMENT - SETBACKS ALONG STREETS — REVIEW AND AMENDMENT OF REAR YARD SETBACKS ALONG APPLICABLE TEXT STREETS Chairman Davis swore in the Director of Community Development Kallien. Director of Community Development Kallien provided an overview and history of the request. Section 13 -3 -5 of the code relates to extraordinary setbacks along primarily to residential properties that abut Oak Brook Road (31St Street), VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 9 March 4, 2008 York Road (north of 31St Street) and 22nd Street. When the extraordinary setback was established, a planning tool that created extraordinary setbacks of 110 feet from the centerline of Oak Brook Road; 100 feet from the property line on York Road north of 31" Street; and 100 feet from the property line along 22nd Street primarily to ensure that there would be adequate room for road improvements. Back when the provision was created 31" Street, York Road and some of 22nd Street were two lane roads and all of those roads have been improved. Oak Brook Road has been improved to 4 lanes with a median; York Road north of 31St Street is 4 lanes and 22nd Street has been improved with up to 6 lanes. What staff found is that many of the property owners were not aware that this provision existed on their properties; however, the impact is significant. Measuring 110 feet from the centerline of Oak Brook Road, clearly the houses are outside of the right of way. What it does do is that the 110 feet encroaches well within the rear yard of the property. As a result, the village cannot issue any permits for gazebos, pools, decks or any other type of accessory structure if it is within the 110 -foot area. The same holds true for the area along York Road. As a result many of these properties have very little rear yard, if any, to utilize for accessory structures. All of the properties in Oak Brook are very expensive and it is really an unnecessary burden on some of these properties. If the village were going to see future road improvements along these roadways then it would not be the time to recommend this change; however, the roads have already been improved. Midwest and Meyers Road are two other major roadways that are improved to the same degree as York Road and Oak Brook Road, but this provision did not apply to them, so they have much more utilization of their rear yards. It was felt that it was time to level the field between these various properties. The property owner of 11 Dover applied for a permit for a detached garage last summer. The staff person that did the plan review found in the code that it was allowed and issued the permit. However, in other parts of the code it was later discovered that there was a contradiction, so the permit had been issued in error. Within the existing code, depending upon which page that you look at, another page states something else. The purpose is to make it fair for all properties that abut these areas. No property owner will have anything taken away. Either of the alternatives would provide something that does not currently exist. Chairman Davis asked how it impacts the rear yard of the house. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that as an example, the houses that back up along Oak Brook Road in Hunter Trails and front on a VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 9 March 4, 2008 street in Hunter Trails, the rear yard setback for the property 1s 110 feet from the centerline of Oak Brook Road. It falls somewhere within in the middle of the lot because of the way that the regulation 1s written. In another property, that does not have this restriction, accessory restructures are permitted within 5 feet of the rear property line, which is the way that it is for 95 percent of the properties in Oak Brook. A house can be located only within the buildable area, however, accessory structures are allowed providing they meet all of the other requirements. Chairman Davis said that the way that this provision is written accessory structures are not allowed in that setback. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in the last 40 years, it has not been implemented the same way. Some structures were allowed to happen and others are in conflict with the code. Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed the proposed alternatives. • Alternative 1 — Revert to setbacks imposed by the underlying zoning distracts. Explanation: If the property is zoned R -3, then allow it to be treated as any other R -3 property and allow detached structures to be located within 5 -feet of the required rear yard. • Alternative 2 — Measure the extraordinary setback for principal structures from the centerline of the road but permit accessory structures to locate per accessory structure zoning requirements Explanation: The principal structure would not be able to be located within the extraordinary setback, but detached accessory structures would be able to be located within 5 -feet of the required rear yard. • Alternative 3 — Leave as as. Explanation: Do not make a change and leave the provision as it is today, which is not a good alternative. The Plan Commission discussed it and the recommendation by a vote of 6 to 1 was Alternative 2. This alternative takes care of accessory structures, but it does not address the fact is that there still are some houses today that encroach into that extraordinary setback. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 9 March 4, 2008 Chairman Davis added that there might also be houses that would like to expand by putting an addition on the house and the provision, restricts that. Director of Community Development Kallien said that some of the houses are 40 years old and if they would wish to do a teardown, they would then be required to comply with the extraordinary setback provisions. Member Nimry said that if any of the properties are impacted by this provision, if they would tear down the homes they could not be made any bigger. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that they would be required to seek a variation. Member Nimry asked what if any shortcomings exist for Alternative 1. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the only thing there could be might be the loss of some existing vegetation, which may give the appearance that a structure located there may look out of place. That could be mitigated if it were required that some vegetation be maintained. Member Nimry said that the vegetation should be a requirement. Chairman Davis said that the extraordinary setbacks were not initially imposed for aesthetics reasons; they were imposed to allow the widening of roads. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it was imposed in case the county would come through to widen the roads that the right -of -way was there and would not impact any dwellings or structures, which was the key element of the provision. Chairman Davis questioned if the village had an official position on the provision. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that he discussed this matter with Village Engineer Durfey and he felt that the provision really was outdated and no longer reflective of what Oak Brook requires. Member Rush said that when this provision was initiated, a lot of these properties were not developed and they were concerned with Oak Brook Road being widened and suddenly being on someone's doorstep. The change does not impact many homes. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 9 March 4, 2008 WMAP Director of Community Development Kallien roughly tallied and the provisions impacts approximately 110 properties. The majority of those houses are well outside the setback area. It basically opens up the rear yard area. Because of the locations of the lot lines, some of the properties may only be impacted by several feet; it is not uniform. The lots in York Woods are impacted and the lots in Brook Forest are impacted. Chainnan Davis asked how the notice was given. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that all of the homeowner associations were notified and we tried to notify all the properties that appeared to back up to these roadways. Many phone calls were received from residents in response and in support of the amendment to the text. Chairman Davis swore in all who testified. Richard Alison, 31 Robin Hood Ranch, president of Fullersburg Woods, questioned the Philips vacant property on York Road and that he approached the Zoning Board of Appeals about changing the zoning from R -2 to R -3. It was his understanding that the lot line on some properties south of Oak Brook Road on York Road go to the middle of the road. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that no formal action was ever filed and was only discussed with staff. Several years ago the front yard setback for properties along York Road located south of Oak Brook Road was measured 100 feet fxom the street line, which was difficult because of where some of the lot lines were located. The text was changed to 100 feet from the centerline, which reduced the setback significantly for some properties that extended to the center or across York Road. After the text was amended, several variances were approved for properties in that area, because some properties still have issues. Raj Deshpande, 3 Lambeth Court, Brook Forest said that he appreciated the Zoning Board and the village seeking uniformity in the code especially along Oak Brook Road, because that is where he lives. He meant to raise this issue several times, as a concern that the residents located off of Oak Brook Road were looked at contrarily compared to other property owners located in the same Brook Forest community. Uniformity would certainly benefit some of them and he appreciates and supports the proposed change. Many of the back yards have not been able to be utilized the way that they wanted them to. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 9 March 4, 2008 .cot Charlie Dickson, resident at 2625 York Road said that his property has frontage on York Road and asked if the change would affect his property. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the way the provision is written they have not advocated changing the requirement for properties that fiont York Road, however, if the Village Board feels that they would like to extend the request to the front yard, they may consider it. Chairman Davis questioned that the front yard setback would not be impacted by the text amendment. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the property is unique in that it has double frontage. Technically, it could be interpreted to his benefit and the change could have a very positive impact on his property. Arshad Mrrza, resident at 14 Chatham Lane said that he was grateful to the village and to Zoning Board of Appeals to accord them this opportunity to ask for uniformity of treatment for all property owners that are impacted by this provision. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the extraordinary setback for this particular piece of property encroaches into the house. Jim Chan, 8 Chatham Lane said that he really appreciated that the village consider this harmonious interest. He was a little shocked when he heard that his property was impacted by this 100 -foot setback and that nothing could really be built on it. This really makes him worry about the value of the property because if he cannot have the option to have the main structure within the buildable area, then the value of the property is really reduced quite a bit, which is his concern. He really hoped that the setback line would change so that he can increase the size of the main structure. Denise Grooms, resident 43 Croydon said that her property abuts 22 "d Street and they have recently submitted a plan for a renovation to their home. She strongly supports the change Director of Community Development Kallien said that it appears from the aerial, if the provision is not changed then nothing could be added behind her existing home. Chairman Davis said that the Zoning Board often places a lot of credence and deference to the Plan Commission, which supported Alternative 2 and that VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 9 March 4, 2008 might be different from the one that was suggested by Director of Community Development Kallien. Member Bulin said that he was in favor of Alternative 1 that would revert to the setbacks of the underlying zoning district, which is what is allowed along Midwest Road and Meyers Road. If they would like to have everyone to be treated equal then it would seem that it should revert to the underlying zoning district. Director of Community Development Kallien said that one of the comments that came up during the Plan Commission hearing was a concern that in the future there could be some need to place additional utilities or whatever along the major roadways. However, the Village Engineer did confirm that most of these areas already have an additional 10 -foot utility easement on the existing lots. There is room for future expansion of infrastructure that would ever become necessary Chairman Davis said that he echoed Member Bulin's comments and favors Alternative 1. The testimony provided by the members of the public tends to also favor the first alternative, which, if approved by the Village Board would revert the setbacks to the underlying zoning district Regular accessory rules would then apply. Member Nimry agreed and said that this would be the first step in having consistent zoning across the village, because consistency is lacking in the zoning ordinance. If Alternative 1 is approved, something should be included in regards to maintaining perhaps 10 -12 feet of vegetation along with a height requirement to not impact the visual of the road. Chairman Davis asked if that stipulation could be imposed at the time of building permit. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it is something the village could suggest at time of building permit, but normally if you want to achieve something exact than some sort of regulation would be needed to provide for it Mr. Mxrza said when York Road was broadened they had to give up some part of their easements, which they had been enjoying for 20 plus years; that should be a factor in not adding any other onerous conditions in the new provision. For the foreseeable future properties along York Road has been brought into a realistic limit. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 9 March 4, 2008 Chainnan Davis noted that going back to the initial reason for the extraordinary setback was not for aesthetics it was for the possible widening of the road. Vegetation would be nice, but it would be difficult to impose conditions to govern all situations. Director of Community Development Kallien said that many property owners have gone out of their way to try to screen their home from the impacts of the major roads, so in most cases they have taken that additional step. In some cases, the impact of the salt on the vegetation has made it difficult for some species to survive. The pines along Meyers Road have been impacted. Pool requirements include a minimum of a 48 -inch to 60 -inch fence The village does have a Beautification Committee that over time is looking at adding additional vegetation along major thoroughfares and may be a way to address some of the open areas. Member Rush said that if the setback change is approved, when a permit is issued for these properties to construct a structure, it can only be suggested that vegetation be added. Member Ziemer commented that the only major difference between the two alternatives is the inclusion of the primary structure. He questioned whether the village was looking to push the primary structure back toward the main roads. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there is no reason why these properties should be treated differently, not only with accessory structures but also with the principal structure. They all have a significant value invested in their property and should have the right, at least to improve their property to a greater degree than they have been afforded in the past. Member Nimry said that if one of those impacted by these regulations would want not be able to do a tear down and rebuild, they would not be able to. Director of Community Development Kallien said that they would need to seek a variation to something that is should be routine. Director of Community Development Kallien said that all of the required standards for approval of text amendment deal with reasonableness, which this is. The residents at this meeting spoke of the hardship and diminishment of their property values when held to this regulation and the change would have a positive impact on the community at large. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 9 March 4, 2008 Q 7 Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Rush to recommend approval of Alternative 1 as proposed on page 14.a of the case file to modify the language in Section 13 -3 -5 of the Zoning Ordinance and how it relates to residential setbacks for properties that abut those named streets and would allow the setbacks to revert back to the underlying zoning district requirements ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 — Members Bulin, Nimry, Rush, Ziemer and Davis Absent 2 — Members Krietsch and Young. Motion Carried. Member Bulin commented that this provision only applies to rear yard setbacks. OTHER BUSINESS Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed the status of the Commercial Areas Revitalization Plan. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Village is engaging a consultant to do a North York Road Traffic Study. This study is to review York Road north of 22nd Street to Roosevelt Road. They will be looking at the impacts of the Clearwater projects and other sites north and east of Clearwater that have shown a desire to develop, which may have an impact on the traffic situation. In addition, Elmhurst is in the process of approving a very large hospital, so the village has taken a proactive step and find out what road improvements may be needed in the long term to handle all of the expected traffic. There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Rush, seconded by Member Ziemer to adjourn the meeting at 8:18 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, irector f Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 9 March 4, 2008 10v--1 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT