Loading...
Minutes - 05/07/2002 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES May 7, 2002 L CALL TO ORDERThe regular meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Members MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. I/. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Village Trustee Director of Community Development Champ Davis Richard Ascher George Mueller Ayesha Zaheer Louis Aldini Manu Shah Alfred Savino Robert Kallien Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Zaheer, to waive the reading of the April 2, 2002 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Ill. McDONALD'S CORPORATION — TEXT AMENDMENT — SECTION 13- 10 -C -2 in ORA -3 DISTRICT Chairman Davis swore in the petitioners Jack Lawlor, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, attorney for the Petitioner and Joe Endress, Vice President of Facilities and Systems, McDonald's Corporation. Mr. Lawlor said that for many years, McDonald's Corporation and its South Campus has blended harmoniously with the surrounding community. McDonald's has found that certain ORA -3 restrictions are creating difficulties in maintaining its Lodge operation located in the South Campus. The challenge has been cause by a shift in McDonald's business operations which has resulted in a more decentralized global operation which has negatively changed the company's usage patterns of the Lodge and its room occupancy. As a result, McDonald's would like to make the Lodge and its accessory facilities available to the general public rather than limit their use to employees of McDonald's, its subsidiaries, its affiliates, franchisees, and other invitees. In laymen's terms, the amendment would do two things. First, it would add to the list of permitted uses, "hotels" and "restaurants" which may include musical entertainment and dancing. They would become permitted uses in the ORA -3 district. They would also delete certain restrictions from the long list of accessory uses. The ORA -3 accessory uses include such things as limited retail and service facilities nonpublic meeting and conference room facilities and private recreational uses. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAY May 7, 2002 Chairman Davis asked if members of the public are now allowed to use the facilities. Joe Endress said that right now if someone from the general public came in and wanted to register in the hotel, they would be asked what their affiliation is with McDonald's, and if they could not prove the affiliation, then they would be turned away. In the case of the restaurants and cocktail lounge, the spirit of it was that the use of the campus was for the citizens of Oak Brook. Walking the trails and coming in for lunch was never regarded as being against the zoning regulations. The Lodge does not do any advertising. Mr. Lawlor said that due to the proximity of the Lodge to McDonald's world headquarters campus office building, McDonald's has it in its best interest, to continue to operate the Lodge in a first class manner consistent with the surrounding community. The change does not set precedence anywhere else within the Village. McDonald's South Campus is the only property zoned ORA -3 in the village. In the traffic and parking study, which is part of the file, lifting the public use restrictions on the Lodge will not create any traffic or parking difficulties. FACTORS Mr. Lawlor reviewed the applicable Zoning Amendment Factors as follows: a. Character of the neighborhood. The proposed change in use in most respects is already known. The McDonald's Lodge has already proven to be consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The Lodge was designed by Lohan Associates. The physical appearance will not change as a result of the text amendment. The Lodge is carefully situated in a campus -like setting on the South Campus. At certain times of the year, it is almost invisible from the public streets. From an aesthetic standpoint, the appearance of the Lodge has been and will continue to be consistent with the Butler National Golf Course to the north and east and other surrounding uses, such as Oak Brook's own sports complex and administration facilities to the east and south, as well as the Oak Brook Park District facilities across Jorie Blvd. to the west. The proposed text amendment will not change the way the Lodge looks and will continue to blend in this fashion. b. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions. McDonald's feels compelled to ask for this change because of the worldwide emphasis now in its business. There are fewer people within reasonable traveling distance to the world Lodge headquarters facilities to take advantage of this amenity. c. The extent to which the removal of existing limitations would depreciate the value of other property in the area. The proposed text amendment will not result in a change to the appearance or physical configuration of the Lodge. As indicated in the traffic and parking report submitted by Gewalt Hamilton, the existing street system and parking facilities serving the Lodge have more than adequate capacity to accommodate any additional Lodge customers. As a result, the removal of the existing limitations will not depreciate the value of other property in the area. d. The suitability of the property for the zoning purposes: The property has been zoned ORA -3 for decades and has blended harmoniously with the surrounding community. Experience has shown that the McDonald's South Campus and the Lodge are functioning in manner suitable for current zoning purposes. They want to continue to operate it in a first class manner, which is good for the corporate image of the company ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAY 2 _akl May 7, 2002 since this is the world headquarters, and it adds a bit to the stature of Oak Brook to have it continue to thrive. e. The existing uses and zoning of nearby communities; The Butler National Golf Course and the Oak brook recreational facilities located to the north and east of McDonald's South Campus and Lodge are zoned R -1 and CR, respectively, and the Village's administrative facility to the south is zoned R -3. The Oak Brook Park District's recreational facilities to the west are zoned CR. These are the predominant land uses surrounding the subject property. At the southern most boundary of McDonald's property along 31s' Street there is a section zoned R -1, which was done historically to preserve the McDonald's woods. There is also an ORA -1 zoning district on the far north end of the Lodge at the Autumn Oaks property and an adjacent R -3 zoning district to the far southwest of McDonald's South Campus. f. The length of time under which the existing zoning that the property has remained unimproved, considered in the context of land development. This factor does not apply to this request. g. The relative gain to the public as compare to the hardship imposed on the individual property owner. McDonald's property is the only property in the village zoned ORA -3. The use restrictions can be amended in the manner requested by McDonald's without imposing any hardship on the public. The existing use restrictions could possibly undermine the economic use of the Lodge, which is why McDonald's is requesting this relief. h. The extent to which the proposal promotes the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public: The Village and McDonald's share an economic interest in the economic viability of the Lodge operation. The success of the Lodge facilitates its continued operation in a first class manner. It lends to the stature of Oak Brook as a hub of corporate headquarters. Also, as a unique town that provides in addition to first class residential facilities, an array of other activities that adds to its strength, hotel accommodations supporting tourism and supporting the first class retails provided in the Village. i. The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan. The development is not inconsistent with the Oak Brook Comprehensive Plan. j. The community need for the use proposed by the property owner. Oak Brook is a unique community in that it provides first class headquarters, hotel, tourist amenities and retail facilities while providing a high quality of life for its residents. It is in the best interest of the Village to keep that balance and to maintain the stature of each. The modification of the ORA -3 regulations in the manner requested by McDonalds will help insure that Oak Brook's legacy will continue to include the support of an economic and viable world class headquarters, such as McDonald's. It is for these reasons that McDonald's respectfully requests that the ORA -3 text be modified to allow for the use of the Lodge as requested. They do not believe it will have a widespread effect on other property within Oak Brook insofar as the McDonald's South Campus property is the only property with this zoning district classification. The Plan Commission was in agreement with this idea and voted unanimously in favor of the proposal. Chairman Davis questioned the redlined text on page 8 of the petition file. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 3 ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAY May 7, 2002 Mr. Lawlor said that the text amendment adds two uses to the list of permitted uses. These are hotels and restaurants, which may include musical entertainment, dancing, cocktail lounges and tearooms. Both are the phrase used elsewhere is the zoning ordinance to define these two uses. Certain language has also been deleted. The redlined version shows that the deleted text refers to limiting the use of the Lodge and its accessory retail and meeting space for the use of the owner, etc. By deleting the language, the restriction is lifted. Adding the two permitted uses allows the Lodge to be operated as a regular hotel. Chairman Davis asked if they would want to delete the reference, "lodging facilities for the transient use of employees." His concern was that in a few years the language might cause some confusion. Mr. Lawlor said that the Lodge would continue to be used in the fashion that it is now. He said that as long as both are permitted, they are safe. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he generally agrees with the Chairman. The language could be deleted and making lodging facilities as a permitted use basically encompasses any current use of the Lodge. Chairman Davis noted that the next item says, "non public meeting and conference facilities" and questioned whether they would like to have the "non" deleted. It could be deleted and making lodging facilities a permitted use encompasses any aspect for the lodge. Chairman Davis wants to be assured that there will not be construction issue later, that would question hotels permitted, and yet under accessory uses it says lodging facilities for the use of employees only. Mr. Lawlor said that their goal is to continue to use the Lodge as an integral part of McDonald's world headquarters. To the extent that it is a lodge now, it will continue to be a lodge. They also need the inclusion of hotels as permitted uses because to the extent that there is room to invite the general public in, they will be authorized to do that. Their goal is to maintain both uses and would be happy to work with staff to figure out the best way to do that. No one in audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. Member Zaheer said that even though the two uses are presently in the text, they are restricted, so it is being added as a permitted use without those restrictions. Chairman Davis asked if there would be any changes made to the signage on Jorie Blvd. Joe Endress responded that there would be no changes to the signage. Chairman Davis asked how sales tax revenues are handled and as a result of this change would additional revenues be accrued to the Village when used by the public? Joe Endress responded that for McDonald's employees no tax is collected. However, non- McDonald's employees pay a sales tax. Accordingly, sales tax will be accrued from use by the public. Member Zaheer asked if there are any parking concerns. Mr. Lawlor said that the attached study used very conservative assumptions. There are 600 parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of the Lodge. There is more than that in the south campus, which is within a reasonable walking distance. The property was surveyed during normal usage period over several days and at no time was there less than 180 spaces available. Chairman Davis asked if there is a long -term management contract with Hyatt. Mr. Endress responded that it was and it typically is a two to three -year contract, which is renewed. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 4 ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAY May 7, 2002 Joe Endress said that McDonald's has changed its philosophy on training. The training students used to come in from all over the world for a two -week class. It was changed to a one -week class, and now they have created six other Hamburger Universities throughout the world. From an international perspective, they no longer get the population of students, so the demand on the hotel for training is not as great. With the current restriction not allowing them to market to the public, they cannot fill in the gap that has been created with the philosophy change on training. They have no intention of creating any other use for the hotel than what has been the norm since 1984. Member Ascher responded that at one time the facilities were used at their maximum potential and would like to bring its use back up to that, but with people other than McDonald's employees. He asked if there would be a foreseeable time that McDonald's might want to make this a more profitable operation and increase the revenues. Joe Endress responded that their core business in hamburgers and this is an intended amenity for the campus for the training and the corporation. Opening the facility to the public they are able to bring it back up to the revenue levels that it was at before and there are no other levels they are looking at. Member Ascher asked for an explanation on how the sales tax is paid. Mr. Lawlor said that if McDonald's invites its people in and they pay the bill, it would be exempt because it is not a hotel room at issue. However, if a member of the general public comes in and pays the bill, the hotel tax applies. If McDonald's invites someone in and the guest pays the bill, the tax applies. The only exemption would be where the corporation is paying the cost. Chairman Davis asked what the room capacity is for the Lodge. Mr. Lawlor responded 220. Chairman Davis asked if they have received any comments from other hotel. Mr. Endress answered that they have not. Member Mueller said that when the facility was used for trainees there was limited traffic because most would come in over the weekend and leave over the weekend. He asked if the use were opened to the public, would it generate more traffic during the week and rush hours. Mr. Endress said that they do not foresee that. Most of the transient and group business comes via limousines and taxis from the airport. Their market is not the immediate vicinity of local communities coming in. Their market is really outside of the immediate area, which means they have some sort of transportation coming in and it is not by car. Previously, when the training was not in, because they were training only 22 weeks out of 52. During those non - training weeks, they never experienced problems. They do not anticipate going above that level, so they do not anticipate any problems. Mr. Ascher questioned how they plan to market the facilities. Mr. Endress responded that their interest is protecting the corporation. They intend to market to specific corporations that are like corporations, such as Fortune 100 corporations. "Successful Meetings" is a magazine that is a trade publication for the meeting market and conventions. With the average rate that they will be requesting along with the food and beverage pricing will exclude a lot of the lower end market. Part of the issue is that with senior management and this facility being the world headquarters they cannot take the chance of booking lower level groups into the facility for the detriment of McDonald's important meetings at the facility. Today, the Chairman of the Board was there and had there been a suspect group next door it could have caused problems. Hyatt markets what McDonald's tells them. They will not allow that it is not the mission of the hotel. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 5 ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAY May 7, 2002 Chairman Davis asked how long McDonald's has had a relationship with Hyatt. Mr. Endress answered from the very beginning in 1984. None of the members had any further questions of the petitioner. Chairman Davis said that the corrected changes are redlined on pages 8 -8a of the petition file and subject to any further changes that would be consistent with seeking to open the hotel and facilities to the public. The Zoning Board is in receipt of the Plan Commission review. The standards are set forth on pages 10 -10a of the petition file. Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Mueller, that the petitioner has met the standards that are necessary to recommend for approval the Text Amendments as requested. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Aldini Motion Carried. IV. WOLLENSAK — 3604 YORK ROAD — VARIATION — FRONT YARD SETBACK Chairman Davis swore in Daniel Wollensak, petitioner and owner of the property. Daniel Wollensak said that he purchased the property in December of 2000. He hired an architectural firm with a goal towards designing a new home for his family. It became clear that the property, which is zoned R -2 was going to present several unique challenges. The first challenge was the size of the property with R -2 zoning, which calls for a minimum 1 -acre lot area. This parcel is about 2/3 of an acre or 28,000 square feet. It is very irregular in shape, which tapers down from the front towards the back. The R -2 zoning calls for a 150 -foot minimum lot width. This property is 132 feet wide at its maximum and tapers down to the rear to about 93 feet in width. The topography of the property drops off from south to north, particularly in the rear of the property by about six feet. It is located on York Road which results in the extraordinary 100 -foot setback, all other R -2 zoned property requires a 40 -foot setback. Tentative site plans have been submitted which include a detached garage and swimming pool. The original structure is also outlined on the plans. The neighboring houses to the north and south, are also nonconforming with setbacks of 74 feet and 68 feet respectively. The 18 -foot variance he is seeking would result in an approximate 82 -foot setback. The requested variance would allow him to position all of the items he is seeking and eliminate potentially hazardous situations. Through the design process with the architectural firm, it was decided that if they were to conform with the setback as it exists, there would be a problem with traffic near the swimming pool. Suggestions were made to reorienting the pool and the detached garage, however, even though it may not be clear on the site plan, the northwest portion of the property drops off dramatically. It is virtually unsuitable for building, which is the reason for the proposed location as submitted. Various configurations were tried and the one presented seems to be the only practical approach. Chairman Davis said that he did not understand why he could not rotate the position of the proposed structure to bring it into conformity. Mr. Wollensak responded that the heavy dotted line is the existing buildable area. The front portion of the structure is garage space with side load doors. He ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes May 7, 2002 6 ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAY was trying to avoid a front load garage off the street, which would result in a driveway coming along the property line and then requiring a turn in. His objective was to maintain at least a 25 or 26 foot turn in at the narrowest point. If he were to reorient the property closer to the build line, it would be virtually impossible to pull into the side load garage. The front elevation depicts the driveway on the left, which would be the driveway approach to the structure and side - loading garage. The portion of the structure that would be across the build line, for which he is seeking the variation, would be the gable end. Member Zaheer said that if the proposed swimming pool were not included, then the house could be setback further. Mr. Wollensak agreed. He said that when they concentrated on the structure and fitting it into the buildable area, they conformed to the side yard setbacks, the rear, and height, but when the pool was added, a hazardous situation developed with the pool moved back toward the garage driveway. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he also rearranged all the piece on the survey. He moved the house as far back as he could and it touched the rear buildable area. A small portion still protruded into the required front yard by at least five feet or so. They only way to get it to fit is to turn it and mirror the south property line, at which time he would have trouble getting into the garage. Chairman Davis asked how the detached garage would be used. Mr. Wollensak said that it would be for pool equipment and his passion, which are British cars. Chairman Davis asked when the original house was demolished. Mr. Wollensak said that it was taken out at the beginning of this year. Chairman Davis asked how far the front of the former home was to the centerline of York Road. Mr. Wollensak answered approximately 50 feet. It was 100 percent nonconforming. The existing neighboring properties are both nonconforming, as well as the one located further south on York Road. They are both closer to the property line than what he is proposing. Chairman Davis asked for an explanation of the issue with the swimming pool. Mr. Wollensak responded that the north west corner drops off dramatically and is virtually not buildable. There is standing water there most of the time. He is trying to avoid changing the contour of the land any more than they have. This is the major concern of the neighbor. There is standing water several weeks out of the year and she does not want to make the situation any worse. Chairman Davis said that the relationship between the traffic and the pool is traffic from the driveway. Mr. Wollensak agreed. There is no parking allowed on York Road, so the area would also provide for guest parking in the rear. On occasion, there will be people unfamiliar with the layout. Without the requested buffer, it is not doable. Member Ascher asked what his awareness was to the zoning requirements for the property. Mr. Wollensak said that at the time the setback was being reconsidered, it was going from 100 feet with the possibility that it would conform to the R -2 District standards of 40 feet. That did not happen, but at the meeting on January 15, 2000, it was indicated that most of these properties would still have some difficulty, but they would have the opportunity to come in and request variances. Director of Community Development Kallien said that originally it was measured 100 feet from the property line. It was changed due to the characteristic south of 3155 Street, to measure 100 feet from the center line of York Road. It did not make all the properties conforming along York Road, but it did give them more of a buildable area than they had previously. Member Mueller asked if a zoning variation may be granted to allow for a pool. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 7 ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAY May 7, 2002 Director of Community Development Kallien said that a variation was granted earlier for the property located at the southeast corner of York Road and 31St Street. It was of similar size, but more square. They were affected by two extraordinary setbacks. 110 feet from 31St Street and 100 feet from York Road. In that case, they had no buildable area. The existing home was totally nonconforming. This request and the previous request, is something that they will see more of as this portion of York Road redevelops. There are some properties that are designated with R -2 zoning, but do not meet the dimensional criteria for R -2 zoning. Chairman Davis asked if he had made contact with the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Wollensak said that he had the opportunity to make contact with most of the neighbors within the 250 foot radius of the property. Everyone was in favor, but the neighbor to the north was concerned with the drainage situation. She was concerned with the change to the lay of the land. That was the only negative comment. This proposal neutralizes that concern. Member Zaheer said that she would be open to granting the variation to allow for the house to fit even though it sticks out five feet, because a two -car garage is needed for a home. However, should a variation be granted to allow for a pool. Basically, the house would fit if it were not for the pool. So the pool is driving the variation as requested. Mr. Wollensak said that was one of the features, which got him into the project. If the property actually fit the R -2 zoning standards, there would not be a need for this to begin with because there would be sufficient amount of setback. He is not seeking over and above what would be expected to be used on a R -2 property. With the 100 -foot setback the hardship is that he is being forced to eliminate something if this is not granted. Member Ascher asked the Director of Community Development Kallien if there would be a lot of these issues coming up as the area redevelops. How much of a problem is created by one by one piece- meal. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the factors that exist for a variation are rather specific. They are very clear and it is basically incumbent on the applicant to show how their request addressees each of those factors. One of the essential elements is issues with topography, extraordinary dimension problems with a lot, those would be items that would be considered and use in a favorable way for a variation. However, if it is just a matter of desiring to maximize the use of the property it is not one of the factors. Are the physical features of the lot unique? Is the circumstance something that does not exist with the other properties? He said that he does believe that unless there is the ability of adjacent property owners to actually purchase multiple parcels and then resubdivide the property, there are going to be more and more requests like this one. Many of the houses in that area are older and substandard in terms of Oak Brook's current standards. It is an evolution of an older area. Chairman Davis requested the standards be addressed and Mr. Wollensak responded 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 property is subject to R -2 zoning although it does not meet the minimum standard for lot area nor does it meet the minimum standard for lot width. In addition to these limitations, the property is also subject to an extraordinary front yard setback due to its location along York Road. Without some relief of the front setback, it will not be practical to build a home that will best utilize the property's potential. In effect, it will not be able to yield a reasonable return. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 8 ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAY May 7, 2002 1 -b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. The original property boundaries were determined without regard to current village standards. Front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks were not a consideration at the time the original structures were located on the property. The eastern edge of the property is actually located at the middle of York Road. When current R -2 zoning standards are applied to this substandard irregular shaped parcel, severe hardship is inevitable. 1 -c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variation would allow the construction of a new home that would be in harmony with the essential character of the locality and would enhance the neighborhood. 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 fact that the property is substantially small in area (28,400 square feet versus the standard of 43,560 square feet) and substantially narrower (132 feet maximum /93 feet minimum versus the standard of 150 minimum) than other R -2 properties creates a hardship by severely limiting design options. Secondly, the topography of the property is such that the highest elevation, which is the most desirable, is located at the front of the property where building is currently restricted, whereas the rear yard northwest section is approximately six feet below the high grade level rendering it unsuitable for building, creating an additional hardship. 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. Properties classified as R -2 generally will comply with the minimum lot area and width standards. Since this lot has an irregular shape and is substantially smaller than other R -2 lots, the extraordinary York Road front yard setback has a much greater impact on this property than any other buildable lot in the area. 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. Any potential impact to the public welfare or other properties should be favorable. A positive contribution to the public welfare would be the provisions for off street guest parking and the configuration of a driveway turn around to assist vehicle re -entry onto the busy public roadway. 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 proposed variation affects only the front setback and does not compromise the side, rear and height standards. All construction will conform to current building codes. The end result will compliment and revitalize the area and enhance property values in the neighborhood. 2 -e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon the desire to make more money out of the property. The sole purpose of this endeavor is to allow him and his family to realize their dream. It has long been their desire to relocate to the Village of Oak Brook. The primary goal is long -term enjoyment and the quality of life that can be found in Oak Brook, not a return on investment. 2 -f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes May 7, 2002 9 ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAY The lot has existed for many years. The present owner did not create the nonconformity. Chairman Davis asked if by granting this variation, would it not set a precedent for others who may wish to tear down existing homes. Mr. Wollensak said that it his belief that the property to the north is close to 8/10 of an acre so it is substantially larger as well as being more regular in shape. To the south is a 50 -foot wide lot and is not suitable for building in any situation without being combined with the adjacent lot which is two lots to the south of the subject property. Chairman Davis clarified that the existing house on that property was torn down it would not buildable. Mr. Wollensak said that was his understanding. It is his belief that the properties would be combined sometime in the future. It is his understanding is that his particular parcel is the narrowest that would still be a buildable piece without combining it with other property. Chairman Davis questioned the number of parcels he referred to. Mr. Wollensak replied that although he does not know the total number, the majority of the parcels to the north of his property would be owned by Dressler and he believes that they are all one acre or greater. Member Ascher asked why the letter from Shirley Moffet was not in the file. Mr. Wollensak said that she is in support of the request and lives directly to the north. She is the one concerned with the drainage issue. Chairman Davis said that not long along the setbacks were changed in this area to 100 feet, and now the petitioner is seeking to come in and change it to 80 feet. If another neighbor comes in and makes the same argument, referring to this property. Mr. Wollensak said that he understands the concern and he has followed this closely since 2000. His contention is that his particular property is probably the narrowest and would still be buildable. The only other property that would be more narrow would be the 50 foot property that is not buildable. He said that any one else that would approach this Board on the same subject would have a wider lot with more design options than he is faced with. If this lot were wider, he could do something. The problem is that the rear tapers down. If the lot were reversed he would have greater flexibility, however the topography presents a problem in itself. Member Zaheer said that it appears there is about a five -foot change over the distance of the property. In her opinion she does not believe it is a severe drop off. Mr. Wollensak said that the topography is not completely accurate. The best thing to do would be to view the property and the northwest segment is a pure drop and falls off. Member Zaheer said that it appears that it slopes off in that direction but she does not think it is a severe drop off. He responded that it is not like the edge of a cliff but retaining walls would be required to build anything level. Member Zaheer disagreed with the analogy. Mr. Wollensak said that his main concern is to avoid doing any backfill or changing of the topography to appease the neighbors concerns. Mr. Wollensak offered the members to view the property and offer suggestions. Member Zaheer said that if he were seeking a variation to the side yard setback she would take that as a unique circumstance because the lot is narrow, but in terms of the depth he is seeking a change to the front yard setback. Mr. Wollensak said that to maintain the required side yard setback, which would be more intrusive on the neighbors, it made sense to go to the front. All of the homes are already in the front as well as the previous home. This plan would be the least intrusive on all the neighbors and that is what they were trying to achieve. They were trying to blend what they need to do without offending anyone. Chairman Davis said that it appears the Board is having some difficulty with this. They have spent a lot of time discussing whether there are other alternatives for moving the detached garage, turning ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 10 ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAY May 7, 2002 the house, etc. He has not gone and viewed the property and would like to do so and would suggest the matter be continued so that the members would have a chance to view the property. Chairman Davis would like to have Village Engineer Durfey look into the matter and provide comments to the Board. There is a concern felt by the Board and would suggest that he review the matter further with Mr. Kallien and Mr. Durfey. The other members agreed. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he would ask Village Engineer Durfey to provide his professional opinion as to how much grading can be done in the northwest corner. He may say very little can be done, or quite a bit can be done. If that is the case it will offer the applicant the opportunity to move the structure into that area. The accessory structures can be moved within five feet of the rear property line. It appears there is reluctance in occupying the northwest area due to the drainage issue. Chairman Davis stated for the record that the letter from Shirley Moffet was in the official file and copies were provided to the members. Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed the York Road area from 31St Street to Ogden Avenue. Originally they had measured the front yard setback from the property line. The reason the line changes from each property is that some properties actually went to the centerline of the road and some had the right -of -way already dedicated. Looking at the various alternatives, it was decided to go with the 100 -foot setback from the centerline of the road. There are a number of structures that either all or a portion is located within the revised setback. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Christ Church had a special use granted and requested an allowance to allow the parking. The addition was within the buildable area. The special use requirements are not as stringent as a variation. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Zaheer to continue the public hearing to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting schedule for June 4, 2002. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. V. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. Vt. ADJOURNMENT Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Mueller to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 11 ZBA- MTG.2002 -MAY Director of Co pity Development Secretary June 4, 2002 Date Approved May 7, 2002