Loading...
Minutes - 06/03/2003 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES June 3, 2003 L CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:29 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 George Mueller Robert Sanford Steven Young Ayesha Zaheer Manu Shah Robert Kallien Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Mueller to waive the reading of the May 6, 2003 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as amended. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Ill. OAK BROOK PARK DISTRICT — 1450 FOREST GATE — SPECIAL USE — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE - ZONING ORDINANCE - CHAPTER 13 -12 -4 (G) to AMEND ORDINANCE S -971 to ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE FAMILY RECREATION CENTER Tom Suhs, Director of Parks and Recreation of the Oak Brook Park District said that the Oak Brook Park District is going to be expanding its Family Recreation Center by an additional 8,000 square feet. They are seeking an amendment to the special use permit approved in 1996. There were questions raised at the last meeting regarding site elevation. In response to that request, the Park District submitted a conceptual drawing and elevations for review. Chairman Davis noted that those documents were received. Chairman Davis said that at the last meeting, the Park District reviewed the required standards for approval of a special use and those standards are found on page 14 of the case file. It appears that the standards have been satisfied. The Park District testified that the expansion would blend in with the existing building, however, the Zoning Board requested that a plan showing the proposed elevations and a rendering of the proposed structure be submitted for review. The matter was continued so those documents could be provided. The Zoning Board of Appeals is in receipt of the requested documents and has had the opportunity to review them. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 1 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUN June 3, 2003 Member Zaheer thanked the petitioner for providing the requested documentation, and noted that the plans submitted looked great. Chairman Davis noted that the Plan Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Special Use and that certain conditions were added to the recommendation as found on page 12 of the case file. Chairman Zaheer moved, seconded by Member Young that the petitioner has satisfied the standards required to recommend the special use amendment as requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted on pages G, H, 715.a and 15.b of the case file. 2. Final Engineering approval. 3. All other provisions of Ordinance S -791 is maintained in full force and effect. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6- Ascher, Mueller, Sanford, Young, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Shah Motion Carried. IV. FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT OF DuPAGE COUNTY - SPECIAL USE AMENDMENT - 1717 OAK BROOK ROAD - TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE - ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 13 -5 -3 to AMEND THE AREA OF SPECIAL USE ORDINANCE S -841 (Amended by S -1015) FROM 3.34 ACRES TO 46.42 ACRES AND TO ALLOW A PRODUCTION KITCHEN IN THE FORMER RETREAT WING Chairman Davis swore in all parties testifying. Paul Mitchell, attorney for the Forest Preserve District, said that at the last meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals expressed concern that the Plan Commission was unaware of certain improvements shown on the future site plan. Based on that the Forest Preserve District went back before the Plan Commission and reviewed each item. They specifically reviewed all of the future long -term site improvements. They received a unanimous recommendation for approval of the special use permit along with certain conditions, which the Forest Preserve District is agreeable. Chairman Davis said that the main reason this matter was referred back to the Plan Commission was that in connection with special uses conditions might be imposed with the approval recommendation. It did not appear to the Zoning Board that there was any discussion of the theater or other items shown on the future plan. It now appears that the matters were thoroughly considered by the Plan Commission as referenced in the letter from the Plan Commission Chairwoman dated May 28, 2003 (on page 16 of the case file). He did not see anything in the conditions listed regarding the items to be constructed in the future. There was reference made to compliance with restoring the mansion with historical accuracy. Michael Palazzetti, Program Services Director for the Forest Preserve District, said that the Illinois Historical Preservation Agency (IHPA) has helped them with grant opportunities. IHPA has oversight on any and all restoration including the site plan work, because the entire estate is on the National Registry. The Forest Preserve District confers with them on everything to the point that they helped them through the restoration of the interior of the house. The IHPA not only ensures that the plans meet with their approval, but they also give them certain consultants that the Forest Preserve District can work with. This coming budget year they are going to hire additional consultants that are experts on windows and plasterwork. The IHPA monitors what is being done and knowing that the Mansion is open to the public agree to some modifications, such as meeting Life Safety and ADA requirements. The IHPA works with them to be as least intrusive to the property as possible and still meet modern code issues. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 2 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUN June 3, 2003 Chairman Davis asked if the oversight by the IHPA also included the capacity of the theater. Mr. Palazzetti responded that they are working with their IHPA consultant and that it would be geared to the 250 - 300 - person capacity as it is now. However, there would be seating that is more formal compared to the lawn seating used now. If or when they ever have a banquet opportunity in the multi - purpose room, they would not have events held at the same time the theater would be used. The decision was made that way in order to preserve the site. Mr. Palazzetti said that the use in the Retreat Wing would be limited. There would be minimal use on the first and second floors and nothing but storage on the third floor. A resident in the audience asked what the entire building would be used for. Mr. Palazzetti said that the whole complex would still comply with the original special use permit. It is a cultural center with places where the public can organize, all of which are spelled out, in their existing special use. The uses currently allowed in the existing special use would, if approved, would also be allowed in the Retreat Wing. In an effort to preserve the historic integrity of the mansion, instead of putting ancillary uses in the residence, the use would be in the retreat wing. It is their hope that the upstairs would be more museum - like. Member Ascher asked if the Retreat Wing was on the historical register and whether the IHPA has oversight over the entire site. Mr. Palazzetti said that the entire site is on the National Register and the IHPA has oversight on the entire site. The Retreat Wing has a different history, so the level of oversight is different. They have oversight over the box office, gazebo and the theater to ensure that it fits upon the landscape. The gardens are being prepared for the future, which will meet the historic architectural design. Chairman Davis said that the Forest Preserve District responded to the standards at the last meeting and it appears that they have been satisfied as required by Ordinance. The Plan Commission addressed the matters and by unanimous vote recommended approval of the expansion of the special use subject to the conditions set forth on pages 16.a and 16.b of the case file. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Young, that the petitioner has satisfied the standards required by Ordinance to recommend approval of the special use as requested and expanding the site from 3.34 acres to 46.42 acres, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development will be in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted on pages N and O of the case file. 2. The new stormwater management plan for the site will be designed so that it is not detrimental to the existing water features located east of the Trinity lakes Subdivision, at the south end of the Mayslake property. 3. The new production kitchen will be designed to limit the emission of cooking odor as well as meet all requirements of the DuPage County Health Department. 4. All lighting to be located within the new parking lot and along the new driveway shall be properly shielded in accordance with Village Code. 5. All other provisions of Ordinance S -1015, S -986 and S -841 are maintained in full force and effect. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6- Ascher, Mueller, Sanford, Young, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Shah Motion Carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes June 3, 2003 3 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUN 0_�dt V. SIDDIQI - 1715 YORK ROAD - VARIATION - FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK Chairman Davis swore in all parties testifying. Zamir Siddiqi, petitioner, represented himself at this hearing. He is the owner and resident of the property located at 1715 York Road. He has requested a variation to the front and rear yard setbacks, because the house was destroyed by fire in March and they want to build another house on the lot. The new house will be a little bigger and will beautify the area and the neighborhood. He would like to remain in Oak Brook, because it is a nice place to raise children. Chairman Davis said that the original house was a legal nonconforming structure. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the lot is a non - complying lot. This lot along with the three lots south have similar circumstances. They are all very small and the houses were moved there when the Eisenhower Expressway was built. They are Sears homes. Chairman Davis asked the petitioner to address the standards, which are on page G of the case file. 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. He will not be yielding a reasonable return. The house will replace a fire - damaged house. 1 -b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Fire damage has caused a total loss of the home resulting in unique circumstance for building a new home. 1 -c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The locality is residential, building a new house will be in keeping with the residential character. Since the original house was so old, the new house will be more in keeping with the surrounding homes. 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 home was the principal home for the Siddiqi family, which was destroyed by fire. Since the insurance will only pay for the mortgage and Oak Brook does not allow new construction on his land, he would have nothing since the land will have no value. He is 60 years old and cannot afford to buy a new home in another location. 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. Same as 2 -a. 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 improve the area where the previous house is located. The old structure was not in keeping with the newer homes. Since his house has been destroyed by fire a new one will look much better. 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 property values will be improved by a new home. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 4 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUN 10�00' June 3, 2003 2 -e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon the desire to make more money out of the property. The variation is based on a real hardship caused by the total loss of the home due to the fire. 2 -f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The hardship is real. Fire damage has caused a total loss of the home. The variation is based on replacing the lost home and returning to the normality in their home. Chairman Davis said that the plan and layout for the new home are on Page L of the case file. Mr. Ildefonso Vasquez, 4 Meadowood, said that his property backs up behind the Siddiqi property. He said that the proposed house is not a slight variation to him. The house sits about 25 -30 feet from his property. He said that the garage sits about 11 feet from his property. It is his understanding that they want to build up to where the current garage is located. He does not want to live with a house that is located only 11 feet from him, which is one of the reasons that he moved to Oak Brook. He said that he has wonderful neighbors on the south and north side, however, he cannot say the same for the Siddiqi's. He said he always calls the police because there are cars all over. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Vasquez how the proposed plan differs from where the present Siddiqi house exists in proximity to the Vasquez home. Member Zaheer said that the present house is closer than where the proposed house would be. Mr. Vasquez turned in some pictures for review by the board. The pictures depicted the current state of the Siddiqi home. Mr. Davis said that the issue raised by the pictures presented is of things that are stored behind the garage. Mr. Siddiqi said that the things were cleaned over the weekend. Mr. Davis said that it appears that the concern of the neighbor is that this situation would happen in the future. Mr. Siddiqi said that it would not happen in the future. Mr. Vasquez said that when he bought his home 11 years ago, he looked at the four homes for sale where the Siddiqi property is located. The woman selling them told him that they were $390,000 for all four. He said that he told her he did not want all four. He said that she told him it could not be sold as one, it could only be sold as two lots because one lot was not big enough to build on by itself. He said that he bought another house in the area. He asked why the Oak Brook residents need to cater to help the Siddiqi's out, when it would not have worked for him. Chairman Davis said that the applicant is required to meet certain standards for the Board to recommend a variation. Mr. Vasquez responded that since there was not enough room for him to build a house on one lot on the site, why should there be room to build a house on one lot now. Chairman Davis questioned why there are two proposed elevations shown on the plan. Mr. Siddiqi said that he prefers the one shown on the left. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Siddiqi if he knew that he was prohibit from storing things out in the open on the lot. If the request were approved, things could not be stored there. He asked what his plans were. Mr. Siddiqi said that the area would be kept clean as it is now. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Village understands that the property has been damaged by fire, however, the damaged structure must be removed. It cannot be repaired, it has gone past the 50% rule that applies to nonconforming uses and structures. He viewed the site with a Building Inspector, it is blight, and the structure needs to be removed. A reasonable timeframe needs to be arranged to remove the structure. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in reviewing the drawings, the scale is inaccurate and appears to show a proposed structure height of over 30 feet. Director of Community Development ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 5 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUN �� June 3, 2003 Kallien said that the unique situation here is that Wood Glen Lane is to the west of the property, There is a strip of vacant right of way in front of the property. If this property is going to be rebuilt, a variation would be needed. It may be appropriate to move the house closer to Wood Glen Lane. He said there is no way to put the house on the lot without creating other deficiencies. Mr. Siddiqi said that he would comply and it would make the neighbors happy too. Steve Beto, 3 Meadowood Drive, said that his property abuts to the northwest side of the Siddiqi property. He said that the trash in the back was cleaned up because they were told to clean it up. There has always been trash there, all the years that they have lived there. The neighbor's are concerned that if a variation is granted, they could build within 12 feet of the lot line. There are overhead power cords and 3 large oak trees that might be placed in jeopardy. The current house angles to approximately 30 feet away. The final thing he is concerned about is that approval of this variation would open the door to the other three homes to do the same thing, then it will impact 6 or so neighbors that have been there for a long time. Chairman Davis said that the proposed 15 feet effects only a corner of the house. If there is a recommendation, approval would be based on the plans submitted or modified. This does not change the situation for everyone, the requirement is that it is a unique situation. Their argument is due to the fire. He said that if the house were moved forward, then all of the structures would be further away from the neighbors. Director of Community Development Kallien noted to the neighbors that the Village is now aware of the condition of the property and has received complaints. From a property maintenance standpoint, the Village staff cannot just walk across someone's property and at times it is very difficult to see what is hidden behind a house. In this instance the Village has had the opportunity to see what is there and they will take every effort to make sure that the property is kept in conformance with the Village Code. There is a great investment made by many people, and the Village wants that investment to be shared by all. Mr. Beto said that as neighbors that adjoin this property, they are concerned that there would be a devaluation of their property by allowing a variance moving the house closer to the rear. It appears that there is more room on the property by moving the house forward to the west. Chairman Davis said that in order for anyone else to seek a variation they would need to come forward and show hardship and show that the situation was unique. This matter is not precedent setting that would allow others to come in to seek the same relief. Chairman Davis asked Mr. Siddiqi if he would agree to modify his plans. Mr. Siddiqi responded that he would agree and he assured the Board that no trash or garbage would be outside the house in the future. Member Zaheer said that she would like the petitioner to come back, because she would like to see revised plans showing the new location and a correction on the structure height, so that it could be reviewed in its final form. Chairman Davis agreed. He said that the Board wants to make sure that the elevation is within the village code and that there is a modification showing where the house will be placed. The proposal is to move the house forward so that there is less of a variation in the rear of the home. Director of Community Development Kallien said that modifying the request shows sensitivity to the neighbors concerns. Judy Beto, 3 Meadowood Drive said that she sympathizes with their hardship, She would like this to work for them because they have no place to live. If the lot did not have a home existing on it, the lot would not be buildable by Oak Brook standards. When the house is replaced, it will probably be 2/3 the size or greater. Right now, the structure is very low, a new structure would be much more dense and higher, so the character, no matter what is replaced on the site would be different. She asked the Zoning Board to consider, if it is determined to be an unbuildable lot, that there is an alternative that the Siddiqi's be compensated for the their land so they could move somewhere else. She said that she understands that ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 6 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUN �� June 3, 2003 Oak Brook has minimum standards as far as square footage and she did not believe this house could meet that. The Siddiqi's could not improve the home as it existed, it had to burn down before they could improve it. There may be options that would be better for everyone, financially, structurally, and aesthetically. If that is within the power of the board, should they feel that if this land were vacant today, they could not possibly build on it? Director of Community Development Kallien said that for a two -story structure, the ground floor must have 1000 square feet. He will ask the architect for calculations for square footage. The variation belongs to the property not to the individual. Mr. Vasquez said that he understands that this is a hardship for the Siddiqi's, but he also does not want it to be a hardship for the neighbors, who live there and live by and obey the rules. Chairman Davis said that the board is trying to consider the neighbor's comments in reaching a fair resolution. Member Young asked if the house was in any way, shape or form zoned for commercial operations. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that it was not. Member Young asked Mr. Siddiqi if he had any plans to use the property for any type commercial purposes whatsoever. Mr. Siddqi responded, no never. He said that he is a handyman and his son works at Good Samaritan Hospital. Member Young asked if he planned to run a cab company out of his home. Mr. Siddiqi said that he never ran a cab company before, he said that his friend is a cab driver and that he used to come to his house. Mr. Siddiqi used to drive a cab in Chicago years ago. The house was never rented, and when they have a get together, many people come and go and they may park on the grass. Mr. Beto said he understands that Mr. Siddiqi is a handyman, but the problem the neighbors have had is that the debris from the work site tend to come back to the house and winds up sitting for months or years in the back of the house. He also asked when the house would be torn down. Mr. Siddiqi said he assured the neighbors that it would be kept clean in the future. Chairman Davis said that the board does not have any authority to say the house should be torn down. Mr. Siddiqi said that he would speak to his insurance company. They told him to advise when the variation was approved. Director of Community Development Kallien advised the neighbors that he would visit the site and if there are some oak trees that need to be preserved, they will take that into consideration. Member Sanford said that he visited the site, and he said that the Board cannot address the issues with his neighbors, Mr. Siddqi will need to do that. He said that the house that is being proposed would be a tremendous improvement over what they had. Chairman Davis said that they would continue this matter and consider it at the next meeting. Member Zaheer moved, seconded by Member Young to continue this hearing to the July 1, 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 7 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUN June 3, 2003 VI. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK - TEXT AMENDMENT - TITLE 13 of the VILLAGE CODE - CHAPTER 13 -3 -6B - ACCESSORY USES - CHAIN -LINK FENCE REGULATIONS Director of Community Development Kallien said that the issue of chain link fences has been analyzed numerous times. The goal was to improve the aesthetics of chain link fences. As a result, a number or recommendations have been forwarded to the Village Board. Some have been accepted while in some other instances they have chosen not to take final action. Village Board directed staff to take another look at chain link fences. Under the proposal, many places that would currently allow chain -link fences would no longer qualify. However, there is recognition by the staff and by the Board that people who have chain - link fences would be allowed to maintain and repair them. The issue is that in the future, if someone wanted to install a chain link fence on a lot where none exists, according to these proposed regulations, they probably would not be able to do so. A number of the Board members believe there is higher quality fencing available to be used, such as split rail, wrought iron, aluminum fences, etc. that offer better aesthetics. A number of other towns were contacted and only two suburbs, Long Grove and Burr Ridge have specific regulations, which restrict the use of chain -link fences. Member Mueller questioned how, if adopted, this would impact the residents that testified at the last public hearing. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it would not, because they are applying for the chain -link fence permit at this time. Chairman Davis questioned the restriction of fencing around swimming pools. Pools are usually out of site from the front yard and certainly, chain -link fencing would be less costly. He said that he has not seen many pools with wrought iron fences around them. Director of Community Development Kallien said that many pools have a chain link fence. Member Sanford said that he is concerned with allowing fencing around subdivisions. He said the purpose of a fence surrounding subdivisions such as Midwest Club, is that it is a private subdivision surrounded by a street. However, the division between two subdivisions, such as Briarwood and Brook Forest is a grassy patch open area, and to permit a chain -link fence in that area to delineate subdivisions, does not seem appropriate. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there is a provision requiring landscaping on both sides. The desired effect is similar to what is at Midwest Club and Hunter Trails; there is a fence in between all of the bushes. So, if they wanted to put up a fence, they would be required to place landscaping on both sides of the fence. He said that it should not be allowable around subdivisions, that to install one should require a variation. In most instances, he would support it, however in the above instance, he believes that it would be unsightly. Member Mueller said that Midwest Club has planted thorn bushes that grow two feet into his property and it makes it impossible to cut the grass. He does not believe that the neighbors should be imposed on to maintain someone else's plantings. If something is going to be planted it should be something that is going to grow up and not straggle all over someone else's property. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if it is planted on your property, at some point in time, when it gets big enough it could become part of the neighbor's property. Member Ascher said that in some states there is a law that requires a pool must be fenced, and he asked if Oak Brook has such a law. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the DuPage County Health Dept. requires it. Any pool installed today requires the installation ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 8 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUN �7� June 3, 2003 of a fence. He said that he would go out a survey the number and type of fences that surround the pools. Member Sanford moved, seconded by Member Young to continue this hearing to the July 1, 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Vll. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business discussed. Vlll. ADJOURNMENT Member Zaheer moved, seconded by Member Mueller to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUN L Director of Communi e pment Secretary July 1, 2003 Date Approved June 3, 2003