Loading...
Minutes - 03/05/2002 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES March 5, 2002 L CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis Members George Mueller Manu Shah Ayesha Zaheer MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Louis Aldini Richard Ascher ALSO PRESENT: Village Trustee Alfred Savino Village Trustee Susan Korin Village Trustee Elaine Miologos Director of Community Development Robert Kallien Village Attorney Richard Martens A quorum was present. I/. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Zaheer, to waive the reading of the February 5, 2002 regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Ill. HARTMANN — 44 MEADOWOOD DRIVE — VARIATION — SIDE YARD SETBACK (ABUTTING A STREET) Chairman Davis swore in the petitioner, John Hartmann, 44 Meadowood Drive, who is the owner of the property. Mr. Hartmann said that his home is located in the Woodside Estates Subdivision. His family moved into the house in 1988, and at that time he had two very young children and had another child a year later. When he purchased their home, he did not anticipate the need for a three -car garage, but now that he has three teenagers the need for a third car it has become a problem. He is seeking the variance to add an approximate 12 x 24 foot, one stall addition onto his existing attached two -car garage. He intends to use the same type of building materials so that it conforms to the rest of the house, which is the Indiana limestone and cedar trim to make it look like it is part of the original building. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAR I �a Le March 5, 2002 It is a very unusual corner lot with almost 375 feet of street frontage around an arc surrounding the property on three sides. It creates an extraordinary amount of setback and restricts the amount of buildable space. The design allows them to have two backyard neighbors, but no next door neighbors. The nearest neighbors are across the street. The house is legal nonconforming having been built in approximately 1953 under County regulations. The setbacks were different at that time, than what they are currently for Oak Brook. The zoning is R -3, which requires a front and corner side yard setback of forty feet. The house currently has a fifty -foot setback. If it were possible to reposition the house on the lot, it would not be necessary to seek a variance, but that is not possible. The corner side yard setback back under which the house was built is 27 feet. The corner of the garage currently encroaches six feet beyond this line, which makes it approximately 19 feet beyond the required40 -foot building setback line. The proposed addition would end up being about 14 feet past the existing 27 -foot building line, which would be approximately 29 feet beyond the required 40- foot setback line. This is the relief he is seeking. The current roof overhang at the front of the garage is about four feet. On the proposed addition, he is reducing the overhang to approximately 18- inches to minimize the amount of encroachment that would be needed. He is also proposing to recess the front of the new section of the garage to help reduce the encroachment as much as possible and will allow them to save a mature oak tree. There will still be approximately 41 feet from the corner of the addition to the edge of the street, which will minimize the impact on the neighbor's property. Other options were considered, trying to place the garage addition in other locations to comply with the setback requirements. There is no other location on the lot where it can be placed. The bedrooms are on the northeast corner of the lot and it would not meet the setback requirements for the rear yard. He also considered a tandem style by trying to place the addition in front of or behind the existing garage. Neither option worked, it would have created a further encroachment, than what he has proposed. Many new houses are being development in their subdivision, one has a four -car garage the others are all three -car garages. With today's current standards and trends, a three -car garage in an Oak Brook subdivision is not out of the ordinary and almost considered the norm. Chairman Davis questioned what he would do if the request were denied. He responded that he would be forced to park the car on the driveway. Chairman Davis reviewed the street and the properties surrounding Mr. Hartman's property. He also noted that a document was in the file with signatures from 12 neighboring residents, including the two that are immediately adjacent to the subject property. Mr. Hartmann noted that the signatures are from all the neighbors located within 250 feet of his property. Mr. Hartmann addressed the standards as follows: 1 -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. The return would be limited because without the relief granted, it would not be possible to bring this house up to the minimum housing standards, with regard to garage size, for a house of this caliber in Oak Brook. New homes that have been constructed recently all have at least three -car garages. 1 -b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. There are several unique circumstances for this property. First, this is an older house that was originally built under county jurisdiction, around 1953 and the county had different setback requirements. The house is setback ten feet further from the front setback than is currently required by code. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 2 ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAR March 5, 2002 Secondly, the lot has a very unusual shape. It is considered a corner lot, but is almost horseshoe shaped. There is an extremely large amount of easement that goes along with this shape that heavily restricts the buildable area of the lot. The hardship is not based on inadequate lot size, but rather the fact that it is a horseshoe shaped corner lot and the position of the house on the lot. 1 -c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. This variance will not alter the character of the locality. The enhancement of his property would be in line with the character of the Woodside subdivision and the Village of Oak Brook housing standards. The current trend in this area is to have three or four -car garages as a minimum for new houses and renovated houses. 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 mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out. The physical shape of this lot is a very unusual horseshoe shaped corner lot that has over 375 feet of street frontage. Other options were explored such as trying to put the additional garage space on a different part of the house that would conform to the setbacks, but no other configurations would work. 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. The house is considered a legal, non - conforming property. Because of the shape of the lot and the position of the house on the lot, this variation would not be generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. Chairman Davis noted that on page H of the file, the plat appears to show that only one lot might be similar, but the remainder of the lots are rectangular in shape. 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. The variation will not be detrimental to neighboring properties. He explained the proposed plan and design of the addition to all of the neighbors within 250 feet of his property and all have approved the proposal and signed a note saying that they did not have any objections. 2 -d. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property of substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The addition will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties, nor substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The addition would not be any closer to the backyard neighbor (42 Woodside Drive) than the current building. All other properties are located across the street. The addition would enhance, not diminish the value of properties in Woodside Estates. 2 -e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon the desire to make more money out of the property. The purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property. It is based on the fact that his family is growing with three teenagers that will be driving and they anticipate the need for a third car this year. A garage to protect the vehicle from the elements will be needed. They have lived in the house since 1988 and have done renovations to it including adding a basement in 1994 and expanded the bedrooms and bathrooms in 1996. They are ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 3 ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAR March 5, 2002 long term residents of Oak Brook and would like to modify the house to make it possible to meet the needs of their growing family. 2 -f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The hardships described have not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. All of the conditions were present prior to the purchase of the home in 1988 at which time the existing two -car garage was adequate for his family's needs. If the home could be rebuilt it could be constructed to accomplish the objective without the need for a variance by reconfiguring the house on the lot. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to the request. None of the members had any further questions of the petitioner. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Zaheer that the petitioner has met the standards have been satisfied to recommend for approval the Variation as requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the additions match the existing garage limestone. 2. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 2 - Aldini and Ascher Motion Failed. IV. CREDEDIO — 3308 MIDWEST ROAD — MAP AMENDMENT FROM R -1 to R -2 Chairman Davis swore in the owner of the property, John Crededio and his attorney, John Brechin Mr. Brechin noted that the petitioner's have been residents of the village for over 16 years. Approximately four years ago they purchased the property located at 3308 Midwest Road. Their initial intention was to consider building a new single family residence on the site. However, in the past few years the character of Midwest Road has changed with its widening. In light of the diminishment of the area caused by that they felt it best to sell the property. However, the R -1 zoning has been an impediment, which is why they are requesting the amendment to R -2. He reviewed the plat of survey of the property showing that the frontage of the lot along Midwest Road is 396 feet and the depth is 330 feet resulting in an approximate 2.81 acres parcel. He reviewed the official zoning map and described the zoning surrounding the property in question., Except for the small portion with this property and a small portion further south on Midwest Road this is the only remaining R -1 zoning along Midwest Road. To the east is Trinity Lakes Subdivision and northeast is Brook Forest which are both zoned R -3; to the west of the property is the Midwest Club which is also zoned R -3. This R -1 property is already surrounded by R -3 zoning, but for the property owned by the church to the north which is zoned R -2 and immediately to the west is a single - family residence zoned R -1. The character of the area is clearly residential. Residential uses predominant, to the north there is a house associated with the church; and to the east, west and south. The proposed rezoning would not change the character of the area. In fact, it would be consistent with the character of the area. It is also consistent with the intent and spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 4 ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAR _-a ZC March 5, 2002 The second factor associated with rezoning is the extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning. Mr. Crededio has marketed the property for the past several years and that it has been unsuccessful, speaks to that fact. A 2.81 parcel that fronts on Midwest Road and zoned R- 1 is not immediately saleable. The reason for that is because the character of Midwest Road is different than what it was 10 or certainly 20 years ago. In 1993, DuPage County Highway Dept. estimated the average daily traffic at 16,600 vehicles. When that count was made again in 1999, it was estimated to be 21,100 vehicles per day along Midwest Road, in this area. He submitted that this amount of traffic is not conducive or compatible with 2 -acre zoning and that is why Trinity Lakes, Brook Forest and Midwest Club which also front on busy roads have the type of zoning that they do. If the Board wonders how 21,100 vehicles per day compare to other roads in DuPage County, it is very similar to the volumes seen on Gary Avenue, Roselle Road, Plainfield Road, Maple Avenue in Lisle, and St. Charles Road. Although the Comprehensive Plan likes to view Midwest Road as a minor arterial and not a collector street, its character has changed since the last update of the Comprehensive Plan and is more of a collector roadway because of the improvements made to it. In light of that the R -1 zoning has become an impediment to realizing the utilization of the property and making a fair return on it. Chairman Davis asked for an explanation of the traffic and lot size. Mr. Brechin responded that if you look at the R -1 zoning in Oak Brook, such as the Fullersburg area, where there are 2 -acre lots. The character of those roadways is that of local roads, that services the residents. They are not meant to be collectors or arterial roads. Clearly, the character of Midwest Road compared to Madison or Adams, or southern Spring Road is entirely different. The volumes are different, the size of the roads are different, and the character of usage is different. Because of the collector nature of Midwest Road, R -1 zoning is inappropriate, just as it would be for most of 315' Street or 22nd Street, if it were residentially zoned. Looking for a 2 -acre site you would want it to be in area where there was less traffic than exists on Midwest Road today. He anticipates that the volumes will go up as further improvements are completed to the transportation network. The third factor is the extent to which removal of the existing zoning limitations would depreciate the value of other property in the area. The precedent exists with the R -3 zoning of Trinity Lakes and Midwest Club, which surrounds this R -1 territory. He submitted that R -3 zoning existing since the 1970's, indicates without any negative impact upon this property and that the rezoning from R -1 to R- 2 is not going to negatively impact the remaining R -1 property. He believes it may enhance the value of the remaining R -1 property, because a development of two lots along Midwest Road would allow for additional screening and buffering of the noise, traffic lights, etc. from properties to the rear and to the north and west. The fourth factor is the suitability of the property for the zoned purposes. Single- family utilization is what is called for in the Comprehensive Plan and that would be exactly the same if it were zoned R -1 or R -2. One of the nice features of this property is its size will mean that the resulted division of the property will be two lots that equal or exceed all of the bulk requirements of the R -2 standards. The size of the property will allow a subdivision that exceeds more than one -acre for each parcel, and still be conforming with all regulations. The existing uses and zoning of nearby property. Except for the church, in every direction there are single - family detached residences, which is exactly what they are proposing for this site and the zoning would be consistent with that. In addition, rezoning to R -2 would be a nice transition from R -1 to the R -3. The next factor is the length of time under the existing zoning that the property has remained unimproved, considered in the context of land development. It is fair to say, but for the Breakenridge area, there has been no substantial R -1 development, with the exception of in -fill lots in the Village of Oak Brook. To the contrary, R -1 in most instances is viewed as a holding zone until an appropriate use is brought forward to the Village for its review, evaluation and approval. In this case, rezoning ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAR 5 r L. e �_ March 5, 2002 from R -1 to R -2 is entirely consistent with that type of process. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the realities of the geography of where this particular property is located on Midwest Road. The property has remained vacant for over 20 years and believed to have remained vacant because it does not quite fit this location. A 2.81 -acre parcel on a major roadway is not a prime R -1 type of property, when there are alternatives to the east and south along roadways that are much less traveled, that have equal or greater scenic vistas with trees and forests, and the existence of a forest preserve nearby. It is very difficult to utilize or market a property such as this with the competition and speaks again as to why R -1 zoning is not appropriate today for this parcel. The seventh factor is the relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed on the individual property owner. Mr. Crededio has tried to market the property after considering the utilization of it for himself, but decided against it because of the traffic. Likewise, prospective buyers see the same problem. If it were four acres, they would probably subdivide and have two conforming lots. Unfortunately, it is only 2.8 acres and a conforming subdivision cannot be done under the R -1 zoning. It can be subdivided if the R -2 zoning is approved and eventually the Plan Commission and Village Board would be reviewing subdivision along those lines. Chairman Davis questioned that if they had a four acre parcel they would have the same problem they are having now as far as the size of the property. Mr. Brechin responded that some of those same problems would remain, but obviously a two -acre site as opposed to a 2.8 -acre site the problems are still there, but somewhat diminished. Mr. Brechin said the benefit of the public is nonexistent because vacant property is located on one of the major thoroughfares and focal points of Oak Brook. Development of this parcel consistent with high quality residential standards will be an advantage and a benefit to the public and a continuation of R -1 zoning is nothing but a detriment to the property owner. The eighth factor is the extent to which the proposal promotes the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public. Rezoning to R -2 is not radical. It is consistent and less intense zoning than that of property immediately to the east and just to the west past the R -1 residence. It will allow for the construction of a high - quality single - family residence. It will enhance the tax base and improve the appearance. It will provide buffering between the R -1 and R -3 and provide screening to the remaining R -1. It will enhance the tax base. Currently it is assessed as vacant land. Whatever improvements are made they will be consistent with Oak Brook standards and will enhance the tax base of the Village. The ninth factor is the relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan. Page 58 of the Comprehensive Plan lists four residential objectives: 1. Maintain the quality and open rural character of Oak Brook as the population grows to optimum density. One -acre zoning is clearly not intense, it is not R -3 zoning. It is one -acre zoning and enhances the rural character of the area and allows someone to have a manageable piece of property they can develop in a way that is consistent with the real character of this particular sub -area of Oak Brook and will make it a visual as well as a financial commitment to the village. 2. Maintain stability, balance and present zoning classification districts. An R -4 zoning district would not be maintaining balance, but with the existence of predominately R -3 in this area, R -2 is the epitome of stability and balance in zoning classifications and is consistent with the trend of development in this area. 3. Maintain residential zoning classifications to those classified in the zoning ordinance. This is not a departure from the zoning ordinance. R -2 has been recognized from the first day Oak Brook had a zoning ordinance. R -2 had been the predominate type of zoning, but for the newer developments in the last 15 -20 years. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 6 ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAR , March 5, 2002 4. Explore variety and flexibility in new concepts in site planning. The exciting thing about this property being 2.8 acres is that it allows for a great deal of creativity and flexibility when it is eventually divided. One lot could be 1.5 and the other 1.3 acre, or one could be 1.1 and the other 1.7, so it provide the ability to be flexible. It will not be a cookie cutter parcel that barely meets the bulk standards. It can be developed to be a very valuable addition to the residential community in Oak Brook. Member Zaheer asked if there were similar R -1 parcels that are vacant elsewhere in Oak Brook. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Mr. Brechin correctly indicated that the majority of the R -1 lots are located in the southeastern portion of the community that has certain characteristics. A few parcels are larger lots that have existed because that was the proper zoning designation based on their existing lot size. Some are located off Oak Brook Hills Road and there are a few others. The majority of the parcels have been developed and some have undergone redevelopment recently. Mr. Brechin added that the area just east of Route 83 and 35th Street is the subject of a pending condemnation action by the Forest Preserve District. The probability of its development is minimal right now. The Forest Preserve District purpose for acquisition is to preserve it as open space. Member Zaheer asked for the requirements of an R -2 parcel. Director of Community Development Kallien said that R -2 is a minimum of one -acre and there are significant differences in the setbacks. The R -1 has a very wide side yard of 30 -feet and the R -2 requires 18 feet. R -2 is more accommodating to development. Member Zaheer said that if approved, they are guaranteed that there will not be less than a one -acre parcel when subdivided. Mr. Brechin said that when Midwest Road was widened, there was a question as to whether they took additional property or used what right of way was available. Because of that, it decreased the usable area that was there for the type of development Mr. Crededio was thinking about. Under R -1, the setbacks are quite restrictive so the options become more limited. With R -2, there is a little more flexibility, yet it will still allow for a high quality development. Mr. Brechin said that the Plan Commission recommended approval unanimously. No one in the audience spoke in support of in opposition to the request. Chairman Davis said that through the presentation the factors the Board are required to find in order to recommend approval of a map amendment, have been satisfied in his opinion. Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Mueller to recommend approval of the Map Amendment as presented and as recommended by the Plan Commission. The petitioner has met the standards as required by ordinance for recommending approval of the proposed map amendment from R -1 to R -2. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4- Nays: 0 - Absent: 2- Motion Carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAR Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Aldini and Ascher 7 March 5, 2002 V. FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT of DuPAGE COUNTY - AMEND SPECIAL USE ORDINANCE S -841 TO INCLUDE AREAS IN THE RETREAT WING ADJACENT TO THE MANSION TO ALLOW ADA ACCESS TO THE MANSION Chairman Davis said that this request has been brought back to the Board for reconsideration. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he has been in contact with the Forest Preserve District and they are supportive of the request for reconsideration. Chairman Davis said that at the last meeting, the vote was three in favor and one in opposition. Member Ascher, who is out of town, would like to be involved in any reconsideration of this matter. He asked that the matter be set over to the next regular meeting for hearing. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Shah to reconsider the motion to recommend approval of the petitioner's request to amend Special Use Ordinance S -841. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 4- Nays: 0 - Absent: 2- Motion Carried. Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Aldini and Ascher Village Attorney Martens explained the process for hearing a reconsidered motion. At the next meeting, the matter shall be before the Board as it was when it was moved and seconded to approve. At that time, it would be open to debate and then it would be up for another vote. The statute provides that absent members can read the transcript (or listen to a tape) of the proceedings. If they come forward and state that they have done this, it will be permissible for them to take part in the debate and vote. In that way an applicant would have a fair opportunity to get four affirmative votes. Chairman Davis moved, seconded by Member Mueller, to continue the matter to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. V. OTHER BUSINESS - CONSIDERATION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Village Attorney Martens said that he had reviewed the Board's Rules of Procedure and had found that they had not been updated in a long time (last revision February 5, 1980). Consequently, he was recommending that the Board's Rules of Procedure be amended, based largely on the Plan Commission Rules of Procedure that were adopted in 1993. Two substantive changes were recommended: Conduct of the Hearing. There is recent case law coming out of the Village of Lisle that requires a zoning board or commission to allow cross - examination during a statutory public hearing. He recalled a matter in Lisle with Meijer Inc. that wanted to construct a facility in Lisle. It created great interest to the point that hundreds of people wanted to testify at the public hearing. It was a combined hearing for annexation and zoning purposes. Very strict ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 8 ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAR March 5, 2002 rules were imposed on the proceedings with presenters having a substantial period of time, but the individual objectors were constrained to very short 3- minute presentations, and could only return after everyone else had the opportunity to speak. The objectors wanted to cross - examine the applicant, but were denied the opportunity. As in many communities, if objectors have questions, they are posed through the hearing body. If the hearing body felt it was appropriate, the question would then be asked of the applicant. The court said that was not the process that was due both the community and the objectors. The Appellate Court ruled that the objectors should have an opportunity to address the applicant directly, and vice - versa. This change in the law should be reflected in the Rules to permit an opportunity for examination of an applicant by objectors and vice versa. It can be found in Section 12.8 (e) and 12.8 (h) of the revised Rules. Chairman Davis noted that in general the objectors make statements rather than ask questions. In the past, no one has ever been denied the opportunity to speak or ask questions. 2. Section 13.5 addresses the vote. At a statutory hearing four votes are required for a favorable recommendation. In the case of the Forest Preserve District, there was a three to one vote. Under the proposed rule, members who are absent for a meeting, but listen to the recording or read the transcript of the missed meeting, are eligible to vote on a matter (Section 13.4). If a motion in favor of a recommendation fails to receive four votes, and if the votes of absent but eligible members, when added to the number voting in favor of the application, would total four or more, the matter shall be postponed to the next meeting of the Board. If the motion to approve an application fails to receive four votes at the next meeting, a motion denying the application shall be formally entered on the record (Section 13.5). Village Attorney Martens noted that the remainder of the revisions is not controversial. The current Rules allow the matter to be brought up at one meeting and voted at the next to allow the Members to review and discuss them. Trustee Savino noted that at most hearings, more people tend to want to make a statement rather than pose a question. Village Attorney Martens agreed. Chairman Davis said that a Special Meeting will be held prior to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for the purpose of further consideration and possible adoption of the revised Rules of Procedure. Vl. ADJOURNMENT Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Zaheer to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. "Z L Director of Community Devo nt Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes v'. ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAR Date Approved March 5, 2002