Loading...
Minutes - 07/01/2003 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES July 1, 2003 L CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Members ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Director of Community Development Champ Davis Richard Ascher George Mueller Robert Sanford Manu Shah Steven Young Ayesha Zaheer Robert Kallien Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Zaheer to waive the reading of the June 3, 2003 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as amended. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. 111. SIDD10I — 1715 YORK ROAD — VARIATION — FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK Chairman Davis swore in all parties who testified. Zamir Siddiqi, petitioner, represented himself at this hearing. He is the owner and resident of the property located at 1715 York Road. He said that at the last meeting there were several issues that were to be addressed at this meeting. They were as follows: Cleanup of the property - Everything has been cleaned and the grass was cut four times in one month. Reduction of structure height - The proposed house is less than thirty feet. Relocation of rear setback — The original proposal showed the distance of house from the rear setback as 15 feet. The plan has been revised and the rear setback from the house to the property line has been increased to 25 feet. Chairman Davis noted that the revised plan is page #10 of the case file. He commented that the proposed house has now been moved farther away from the closest neighbors. The variation request for the rear yard setback is now 25 feet. Mr. Siddiqi noted that on the new plan the trees will not be disturbed. He said that at the last meeting, it had been requested that the trees not be removed. Chairman Davis asked the petitioner to address the standards, which are on page G of the case file. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes July 1, 2003 9 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUL -;zc 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 circumstances 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. 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 at the last meeting questions were raised, and the changes that have been made to the plans are in response to the questions from the public. Ildefonso Vasquez, 4 Meadowood Vasquez, said that his property backs up behind the Siddiqi property. He said that he was at the meeting last month. He said that he brought up the statement about a "for rent' sign on the Siddiqi property that is still there. He said that Mr. Siddiqi testified that the sign was for a different property. Mr. Vasquez questioned that if he has another property where is the hardship he is ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes July 1, 2003 2 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUL claiming. Chairman Davis responded that the hardship is not necessarily a financial hardship. Hardship can be the way something is located on a piece of property that cannot be built upon. Mr. Siddiqi said that he is facing the hardship of the loss of the Oak Brook home that he has been living in for eleven years and he wants to continue living there. He said that he has a right to apply based on the hardship. Chairman Davis said that the other property is not at issue with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Vasquez said that he was under the impression that hardship meant that you had nowhere to go. Chairman Davis reviewed one of the standards for Mr. Vasquez. One of the standards is that the particular physical surroundings, shape or conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship on the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. It does not have anything to do with the owners finances or other properties owned by the applicant. The issue is with this particular piece of property. Mr. Siddiqi has testified that the property was not conforming to begin with. He wants to build a new structure since the other one burned. The lot lines will be even greater with the new structure because he has taken into account comments from the neighbors. He has submitted new plans and has moved the footprint. The Board will make a determination as to whether the standards have been satisfied. It has nothing to do with his personal finances. This Board will make a recommendation to the V Village Board. If the Village Board were to approve them, the other house would have to be torn down and then the new construction would begin. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he has had several conversations with the insurance company about getting the house demolished. Mr. Siddiqi did pick up the necessary paperwork and they have had a few discussions. There has been some confusion with the insurance, which is why the demolition has not occurred. There were some technical issues with the insurance company in establishing value and in terms what the insurance come would claim as a total loss versus the Village's nonconforming language. They were under the impression that it could be repaired, and the Village had to convince that it could not because of the nonconforming status. Judy Beto, 3 Meadowood Drive, said that it is a very tiny house less than 700 square feet on a very tiny lot. Whenever you try to build something new it will have to require some variances. They realize that there is a compromise and they appreciate the Zoning Boards concern for that and for the trees. They would hope that if the variance is granted that they would be asked to stay and build as they say they are doing as opposed to selling the property to someone else that might have different ideas. She sees the whole picture as being part of the whole hardship family issue. She would hope that if the variances were granted, that it is a whole concept. Chairman Davis said that they cannot put any restrictions on what they can do with their home, but Mr. Siddiqi has stated under oath that he intends to occupy the house as his principal residence. Mr. Siddiqi said that he does not have an intention to sell. Mr. Vasquez said that just last year the house was up for sale and he could not sell it. He said that he offered to buy the house so that he could knock it down and enjoy the view. He does not want to build on the land, that is what Oak Brook is all about. He said that if Mr. Siddiqi does get a variance, then his view would be blocked, less sun, less air, and a huge monstrosity to look at. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if the Zoning Board would recommend and the Village Board would concur to grant a variation, the variation stays with the property. It does not go to Mr. Siddiqi; it stays with 1715 York Road. They must live by the rules and as it is approved. The house that he is requesting, would meet the building code and zoning code in terms of height. The only noncompliance that exists is the setback. The setback goes back to the beginning of that house originally being placed on a lot prior to Oak Brook being a community. In today's world, if we were presented with this case to create a lot with these dimensions, it would be his recommendation that the lot not be ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes July 1, 2003 3 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUL approved, because it does not meet the minimum lot size and it is a very awkward shape and is very limiting. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a recommending body, and their recommendation ultimately would go to the Village Board for a final decision. Aqa Siddigi, son of Zamir Siddiqi said that Mr. Vasquez stated that the house would block his sun, etc. He said that the distance between the houses is at least 60 feet. He said that it is very far and they are moving an additional 25 feet. He said that he does not understand Mr. Vasquez's concerns. He said that they are preserving every tree. They are going to lose a lot of frontage, but they are doing everything that was requested. In regards to selling the property, he said that his father wants to build a house, however, they should not have any obligation that they would have to live there or that the house could not be sold. Things happen and change in life. Chairman Davis responded that the Zoning Board cannot impose any restrictions on who lives there or whether or not it is sold. Chairman Davis said that the standards were addressed at the last meeting. Changes were made to the plans and the standards were readdressed at this meeting and contained in the file as item G. In view of the testimony given as to the changes and the standards he requested a motion. Member Zaheer moved, seconded by Member Shah that based upon the configuration of the lot, and the previous nonconforming status of the property that the standards have been satisfied to recommend for approval the variation as revised by the applicant. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7- Ascher, Mueller, Sanford, Shah, Young, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 0 - Motion Carried. IV. BARATH — 3 HAMPTON DRIVE— VARIATION— FRONT YARD SETBACK Chairman Davis swore in all parties testifying. Nevin Hedlund, architect on the project with an office 7985 Lake Street, River Forest along with Judith Barath appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Hedlund said that the variation request is to gain relief for an existing condition on the site. The existing house was built over the required 40 -foot setback by 2.21 feet. They were adding a second story to the garage to allow for a room addition to the house. They have included a diagram of the site showing the setback as well as some photographs of the mode showing the relief they are requesting to be granted. He showed a model of the structure to the board members. Chairman Davis asked what was the reason for the original breach of the setback. Mr. Hedlund said that they did not know. It was not revealed until they were going through the permit process. It was done when the house was built and has existed for a substantial period of time. Mr. Hedlund said that it was not discovered when the house was built. If they were to comply with the exact setback they would have to cut the roofline that would be out of character to the existing home and the surrounding neighborhood. It is literally like taking a knife and taking a corner of an elegant hip roof situation. The goal of the process is to allow them to do a very conventional and handsome solution that would be very typical to the neighborhood and to the rest of the home. Chairman Davis asked the petitioner to address the standards, which are on page F of the case file. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUL 4L -0L July 1, 2003 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 granting of the variation will enhance the quality of the architecture and add value to the building. The addition without the variation will look out of place with the surrounding homes. 1 -b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. The existing condition has the corner of the existing garage 2.21 feet over the 40 -foot front yard setback. The request for this variance is to have a roof overhang into the setback. This is an existing condition not caused by the current owner of the home. The roof condition on the proposed second floor addition would require a non - conventional detail to comply with the setback requirement. 1 -c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the area. If fact, the granting of the variation will help make the addition more compatible with the existing architecture and the surrounding homes. Without the variation, the addition will look incomplete and out of character with the area. 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. He asked the members to refer to the photographs contained in the file. The roof condition without the variation would look like an incomplete structure. This will reflect on the long -term value of the home and the overall character of the neighborhood. 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. Other property owners do not have homes that overlap the required setback regulations. This is a unique issue with just this home. 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 granting of this variation will help the overall welfare of the other property owners by having a home that fits into the neighborhood. 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. This variation will not impair the adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property and is not a safety hazard and will add value to the building. 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 request is based on the desire to make this addition look complete and compatible with the surrounding buildings. 2 -f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The existing hardship was created by the original owner of the building and not the current owner. Mr. Hedlund noted that the applicants have contacted individual neighbors regarding the project and they have not objected to the request. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 5 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUL July 1, 2003 Chairman Davis noted that there is an extensive list of neighbors notified of this proceeding. Mr. Hedlund said that they are not trying to do anything unusual, they want to do something very typical and in keeping with the entire neighborhood. Member Sanford said that he viewed the property and found it very attractive. He said that the roofline would look very odd if the variation were not granted. Member Zaheer said that she is an architect and spent quite some time trying to figure out if there was another way to do adjust the roofline, and there is not. She appreciates the fact that the notches under the roof could be retained. They took a challenge and made a feature out of it on the home., They are seeking relief only to the roofline where it becomes a detriment to the property and she expressed her appreciation in the efforts in trying to do that. Member Ascher said that he went by the property and does not have any disagreement with the comments made as to the justification of the variation request, except that it appeared to him that the roof is already in place. Mr. Hedlund said that it is a timeline issue. Originally they thought they were within the setback requirements. Given the geometry of the curving property line, it did not become apparent until they submitted for permit. They thought they could make a successful design decision to meet all of the requirements. In the end, they realized that it was not a successful solution, which is when they started the variation process. Because it was determined that it would not look right, they started the variation process. They fully intended to the meet the criteria. Mr. Ascher said that it seems to him that the request is after the fact as opposed to before the fact, that is his problem with it. He agrees with the aesthetics part of it, but cannot agree with the fact that they are asking for permission after the fact. Mr. Hedlund said that it was their intention, if the variation were rejected, they would immediately remove that portion of the roof the same day. They understand and have no intention of not complying with all of the requirements. Chairman Davis said that the standards have been addressed and are set forth in the file. Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Zaheer, that the petitioner has satisfied the standards required by Ordinance to recommend approval of the variation as requested ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7- Ascher, Mueller, Sanford, Shah, Young, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 0 - Motion Carried. V. 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 at the June meeting, there were a number of items that were raised as issues and are listed on page 14 of the case file. The findings are as follows: Fencing surrounding swimming pools. Of the last 16 pool fence permits issued it was found that 10 were wrought iron, 6 were aluminum and there were no chain link. If appears that people are looking for alternate fencing materials. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 6 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUL July 1, 2003 2. Permitting chain -link fences around subdivisions, subject to landscaping on both sides. Many of the larger subdivisions have chain -link fences that surround the development. Over time there has been extensive plantings that have been placed. In some areas such as Midwest Club and Hunter Trails, you cannot see that there is a chain -link fence. With respect to Forest Gate, over time that fence may be hidden. It could also be required that at the time of application the plan be submitted. Afterwards it could be enforced by the Property Maintenance Code. 3. The types of vegetation to screen chain -link fences. Originally it was recommended that year round vegetation be used as the principal means of landscaping. For clarification, seasonal vegetation can be used to enhance it as long as that is not the only means of landscaping. There really needs to be a combination. 4. Sport Courts has been defined as fields that can be used for basketball, tennis, and hockey and fields for baseball. They would not be required to have chain link, but according to the language they would be allowed to. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it is the recommendation of staff that all existing chain -link fences (30+ square miles) would be allowed to be continued, and if there were an issue of maintenance, they would be allowed to rebuild in accordance with the zoning ordinance. If these proposed provisions were enacted and someone did not have a chain -link fence previously, their only relief would be to go through the variation process. Chairman Davis asked how the standards are addressed in this matter. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are the theoretic concept as to how the regulations will work in the future. There is a general character in Oak Brook that the Village is known for its lack of fencing. Many of our subdivisions do not allow any fencing within the interior yards of the subdivision. There is fencing that goes around the perimeter of the subdivisions, but there is not an overuse of fencing. The proposed concept really is in keeping with the original intention of keeping Oak Brook open. The analysis of swimming pools has shown that there are alternate materials for fences and people are choosing those types of fences for their needs. He believes there would be little hardship to residents who currently do not have chain -link because alternate materials are available. If someone feels they are in need of using a chain -link fence material, the variation process exists to deal with that on a case -by -case basis. There are provisions in the Ordinance to allow existing chain -link fences to be maintained and replaced, so we are looking out for the best interest of the citizenry. In terms of community need, the Comprehensive Plan suggests limiting the use, type and height of fencing, and this provision is in keeping with that concept. Member Sanford said that he is concerned with allowing fencing around subdivisions where there is open land between the boundaries of the subdivisions. Although, the proposed text may improve things, it does not solve all the problems. Specifically, he mentioned the boundary between Brook Forest and Briarwood is open land. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that a fence could be installed under the current regulations; however, the proposed language requires that should it be installed, landscaping would be required on both sides. The immediate impact would be minimized so the proposal is looking out for the residents' interest to improve a situation that could occur tomorrow. Almost all of the other large subdivisions have fencing around them. Chairman Davis said that in that specific example, the fence could be built right now, regardless of what the Zoning Board of Appeals does tonight. The proposed change in the text amendment would temper the view. Member Ascher questioned that if someone wanted to replace part of a chain -link fence would landscape then be required on the part that was replaced. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if more than 50% were replaced at a single time, then they would have to conform to the new regulations. If they replaced 10% at a time, they would not be required to adhere to the requirements because it is not based on a cumulative basis. Most people that have fencing probably have sections that need to be maintained, but it is usually not a case where the entire structure needs to be replaced. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 7 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUL O;aG L July 1, 2003 Chairman Davis noted that this matter has been carefully considered before the Zoning Board of Appeals on more than one occasion, as well as before the Plan Commission. There is a letter in the file from the Plan Commission Chairwoman stating that the Plan Commission voted unanimously by a vote of 5 to 0 to recommend approval of the text amendment, subject to clarification of the term "sports courts and field ", which has been done by Director of Community Development Kallien at this meeting. The Plan Commission also said that any use of chain -link fencing in conflict with the new provisions would require a variation. Member Young asked what type of pool permits were reviewed. Director of Community Development Kallien said that they were all residential. It was also found that the average pool in Oak Brook costs approximately $80,000, which reflects the significant investment people make. Member Young questioned whether the type of vegetation required around a chain -link fence would be meant to mask the fence. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the intention is to mask the fence itself and that whatever vegetation is used should safely and reasonably screen the fencing is what they are seeking. If there are any questions in regards to any types of vegetation, they do have the ability to use a Forester retained through the Public Works Department that could provide some comments regarding appropriate types of plantings. Chairman Davis said that in part these proposed changes are in reaction to the chain -link fence at Forest Gate. Sometime has passed now and the planting does have a masking effect. Director of Community Development Kallien said that had some type of landscaping been added to the exterior of the fence, the fence would not be noticeable at all. Chairman Davis asked if it was necessary to detail any standards. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it was not necessary, as in his previous comments, he identified the basis for the request. Chairman Davis said that the Plan Commission has reviewed the proposed text amendment and they unanimously recommended approval. The proposed text amendment is on page 12 of the case file. Frank Trombetta, 36 Meadowood Drive, said that he has a pie shaped lot. He said that his neighbor in the rear has an existing wood fence and he has a chain -link fence. He passed out pictures of his property. He thinks that it is logical and understandable that they be allowed to finish the fence when needed. Lynn Trombetta, 36 Meadowood Drive, said that she believes they are the exception. At some point in time he has the option of removing and not maintaining his fence, at which point they want to finish their existing cyclone fence. She sees no logic in forcing them to put in wrought iron in the backyard. She is looking for logic and the ability for them to be able to be continual in the look in their yard. Right now they are looking to remove a $2,000 dead oak tree, so this is not a real good time for them to arbitrarily place $1500 worth of fencing in the backyard that they do not need right now. They are planning ahead for the future, at which point they are told that they have the right to apply for a variance for $750. They were told that it might be denied. They believe the board members are to maintain their property values. They are appearing now to say that they are planning ahead. They would love to have someone tell them where they would be denigrating anyone's property by continuing their chain -link fence in a few years, after this proposal passes. She does not see the logic in denying them the right to do it, other than village officials saying because they said so. Chairman Davis thanked them for the comments and viewing the pictures to see their circumstances and right now their matter is a hypothetical matter. He asked if the objection in general is to the changes in the ordinance. Mr. Trombetta responded that he objects to the fact when his neighbors fence comes down, he would not be able to continue the look of his fence. He said obviously he would put up a green cyclone fence. Mr. Trombetta asked if this whole idea is an over reaction to the Forest Gate fence that is unsightly. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if the rules would pass in the future anyone from that point forward has to live within the letter of the regulations. He said that they could apply now for a ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUL July 1, 2003 building permit, get it approved and issue it. Perhaps a couple of extensions could be applied for to wait until the situation they are waiting for arises, but it is not a forever situation. The code allows extensions to building permits to be issued in 180 -day increments. When they review the history they can find a few situations where a couple have been issued for consecutive time periods. Hypothetically, someone could get a year extension of a permit. Mrs. Trombetta said that a year ago, a one million - dollar home was built next door to them, they put in a green chain -link fence, and they have dogs as well. Their big concern is to let them maintain the continuity when they need to. Chairman Davis said that their concern is that the aesthetics would not match. He said that it would strike him that should there be an existing chain -link fence around 3/4 of their property and there was a portion of a fence that needed to be replaced, it would strike him that it would be a good situation to obtain a variance. There where be a hardship and a unique situation, he clarified that he was speaking from his standpoint on the board and that this is advisory only on a hypothetical situation. Mrs. Trombetta asked if the fee to apply for a variance is $750. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that she was correct. She said that the Village would be forcing them to expend monies needlessly, and she is asking that not be done. She is surprised that they would not be determined to be a pre- existing situation. Director of Community Development Kallien said that anyone can request a waiver of fees that is subject to Village Board approval. As Community Development Director for the Village, if the proposed regulations are approved, and the Trombetta's come to the Village and want a permit for a chain -link fence, he has to either approve or deny their request. If he would deny it, the Trombetta's would have the right to file an appeal with the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board would review the case and his decision could be overturned by the Board. The Zoning Board's decision would be final. He added that he does not know what staff person they talked to as to whether a variation would be approved or denied, but no one talked to him and variances are recommended for approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals and are reviewed against the standards of the ordinance, not the opinions of a particular staff person. Chairman Davis added that the main factors are whether your situation is unique, that a hardship exists, and will the change you are seeking alter the character of the neighborhood. It strikes him that the standards could be satisfied in that case. Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Young, that the Zoning Board is in receipt of the Plan Commission recommendation and that the petitioner has satisfied the standards required by Ordinance to recommend approval of the text amendment as presented on page 12 of the case file. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7- Ascher, Mueller, Sanford, Shah, Young, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 0 - Motion Carried. A VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENTS — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE — CHAPTER 10 OFFICE- RESEARCH - ASSEMBLY DISTRICT — SPECIAL USES — PARKS AND OPEN FIELD RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES Director of Community Development Kallien said that the next item in the continuing comprehensive Zoning Ordinance review is Chapter 10 -A -2, in the Office - Research - Assembly District. The Village is proposing to add, as a special use, "Parks and open field recreational activities." The proposal is for the addition of this language to the special uses in the ORA -1 District. If anyone would want to utilize this language, they would have to then apply for a special use for specific property in question. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUL July 1, 2003 This amendment has been motivated primarily by the existence of a substantial piece of property in the ORA -1 District. It is located south of Kensington north of the Park District, the property is known as Autumn Oaks and is owned by McDonald's Corporation. They do not have any immediate plans for the property. However, since it is adjacent to Park District property, it does have some possible use for open space use. Over the years, there have been a couple of entities that have contacted the Village trying to pursue low -key recreational activities. Under the current zoning ordinance, it is not allowed because there is no recreational element in the ORA -1 District. This amendment is really a precursor to an upcoming case. There is someone who is interested in utilizing the property as long as McDonald's would give the party the okay and that a special use can be obtained, if the text is approved. Chairman Davis said the text amendment is not for any specific use, it is for an open field type activity and does not recommend approval of a specific special use. Member Mueller asked about a time limit and parking concerns. Director of Community Development Kallien said that those issues would be addressed as part of any special use that would utilize this provision if adopted. Member Ascher asked about any liability issues on the property. Director of Community Development Kallien said that issue would also be part of any special use approval and would be included in an agreement between effected parties. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the proposed special use is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, would not be out of character with existing land use, and if utilized would be a positive benefit to the community. Chairman Davis noted that the Plan Commission report found that the applicant satisfied the standards required for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and recommended it for approval. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Zaheer, that in making this motion, the Zoning Board of Appeals found that the applicant satisfied the standards required for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and to recommend for approval the text amendment as proposed by the Village and to amend the existing text as follows: Section 13- 10A -2: Special Uses: Parks and open field recreational activities ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7- Ascher, Mueller, Sanford, Shah, Young, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 0 - Motion Carried. VII. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENTS — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE — CHAPTER 2 NATURAL GROUND LEVEL AND CHAPTER 3 STRUCTURE HEIGHT AND DRIVEWAY GATES Natural Ground Level: Director of Community Development Kallien said the first item in the continuing comprehensive Zoning Ordinance review relates to Chapter 2, Definitions, Natural Ground Level. The purpose for the text amendment is to refine a language that relates to natural ground level. As Oak Brook is building out, they are finding isolated tracts of property that were not part of subdivisions or lots where a grading plan was not approved. What happens is that in applying for a permit they are forced without some type of grade established to use the natural grade. The elevation by which the home is measured is done in one of two ways. If it is in an engineered subdivision, such as Hunter Trails, Brook Forest, etc., the subdivision has been approved by the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes July 1, 2003 10 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUL �� Village Board. Over the years, it has been found that some scattered lots were not part of these larger subdivisions and the elevation was never determined, so then you use the natural ground level to establish the elevation. Since Oak Brook is a rather well developed community, the natural ground level on either side of the vacant lot may have been modified. This change in the definition, allows the Village Engineer to establish a natural ground level for that lot, which may be different from the actual ground. It will only impact a few lots in Oak Brook that do not have houses on them. This will give the Village Engineer some latitude rather than requiring someone to go through the variation process just to establish a first floor elevation. They have had a couple of situations where the resulting house would be really out of character by being too low or too high. The proposed language is that the natural elevation could be determined through the grading plan approved by the Village and the second item, Section13 -3 -8, for lots that have not had natural elevation established, that the natural ground level is to be established by the Village Engineer so that he could use his expertise to determine where the building should be placed relative to the adjacent properties. This provision may only apply to several houses, but they have run into a few issues and this will clarify that. Driveway Gates: Director of Director of Community Development Kallien said that up to a couple of years ago, driveway gates were limited to only those parcels that have two acres or more of land. There was also a provision for people that fronted on major thoroughfares. An individual in Ginger Creek, Mr. Stade proposed an amendment that would reduce the minimum size requirement from two acres down to one. The Village approved the amendment and Mr. Stade installed his gates. Since that time, there have been a couple of residents in Ginger Creek and other subdivisions that want to put in driveway gates, but they run up against one of the basic principals of this provision, which is that they did not have one acre of land. In two of the cases, the properties were zoned R -2. The R -2 zoning standards say that the minimum lot size is one acre and have a 40 foot front yard, 60 foot rear yard, and 18 foot side yards, but for whatever reason there area a couple of subdivisions zoned R -2 that have a significant number of lots that do not meet the minimum standard for lot size. However, there would be a difficulty in identifying those lots as far as noncompliance because they are not as deep as what is necessary to get that one -acre size. Most of the lots have adequate width; the houses are of similar character, style, and size. They also meet the side and front yards, but they do not have the depth and it is not noticeable. It was felt that something was needed to help clarify the intent of the ordinance in terms of being fair to extend the driveway gates provisions to all R -2 lots. The Plan Commission, as a concept, felt that it was reasonable and recommended approval. However, since the recommendation has been made, staff has received a number of calls from the public concerning this issue. It is a very emotional issue. There are people that love driveway gates and there are others that feel they do not quite fit into the neighborhood. They have had items brought up that questioned if design criteria could be put in place that would determine a maximum height or bulk across the front yard. The way the text is now stated in the ordinance, that protection is not in place. There are lots in Ginger Creek, that may have .95 acres, but because they are on a cul de sac they may only have 50 -60 feet of frontage, so it could basically hide the house. In Oak Brook, there is a certain amount of openness that one wants to accomplish through all the subdivisions. There may be a need to create a minimum standard for a lot to have a certain amount of frontage or should there be a standard for lots that abut two streets. A number of subdivisions have architectural control so should they be part of the process. These are some things that the Plan Commission should look at. Perhaps additional language could be added that clarifies some standards. Chairman Davis commented that the issues raised are good and more appropriate for the Plan Commission. The Zoning Board would rather hear the Plan Commissions views, rather then the Zoning Board, because this is what the Plan Commission is for. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Plan Commission looked at it in terms of the concept and asked whether it was reasonable and does it make sense. The ordinance defines a driveway gate as a structure that is placed at the end of a driveway. The ordinance states that if it is on a thoroughfare, the gate has to open inward, has to be at least 30 feet from a pavement, if is on a ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUL 11 �t July 1, 2003 major thoroughfare. If it is on a local street, it has to be at least 20 feet back from the pavement. The reason for this is so that a car could pull in without being hit by traffic. Wally O'Brien, 11 Heather Lane, is also the attorney representing the Ginger Creek Homeowners Association. He has been a resident since 1967. He has seen a lot of changes over the years. He referred to the area on the zoning map that would be allowed to have driveway gates. He believes that the Plan Commission needs to study this issue more and not be the result of reacting to one individuals request. It should be defined, thought out, minimum criteria, an aesthetic standpoint and a safety standpoint. He does not think that it is a good idea. He knows that Mr. Warner feels strongly about his request and they want to be fair with him and that there are ways to deal with him and he would request that the Zoning Board to what they are proposing, which is to refer it back to the Plan Commission and they could appear and provide further input. Peter Huizenga, 44 Baybrook Lane, President of the Ginger Creek Homeowners Association, and they are representing all of Ginger Creek and the unanimous consent of the board that they are in objection to the driveway gates being proposed. They are an open community. They do not have gates at the entrance, and never had an issue with gates until a couple of years ago, which was because the Village ordinance prohibited gates in Ginger Creek, except for those lots that were on Meyers Road and for obvious reasons they were accepted. When Mr. Stade applied for the text amendment that started this issue by reducing the size requirement for driveway gates from two acres to one acre. Ginger Creek does not have two -acre lots. Since this started, they have had two requests for driveway gates, if a further allowance is made for gates it could change the character for the community. It also adds to road and safety problems because you have emergency vehicles that need access to the properties. Oak Book is a community without fences, and it gives concern to them if gates are allowed, but we do not allow fences. Why would you have gates without fences, so the logical conclusion would be that there would next be a request for a zoning amendment to allow fences as well. Without any standards for gates there probably wouldn't be any standards for fences, so then you get walls built. They like the character of the community. Ginger Creek has not had a problem since its covenants were filed in 1960. For over 40 years they have gone without a problem, and now they are addressing. They would like to see the text go back to the two acres. They may make a proposal to the Village for a text amendment to increase the acreage size to two acres, because the current ordinance is out of character with the historic appearance of Ginger Creek. Member Young said that he would agree from a standpoint of safety he has had a lot of concerns with it, especially in Saddlebrook where they structures at the end of driveways getting knocked over by snow plows all the time. He would rather have some consideration done on the back end, rather than vote on something that has not had the detail to be considered yet. Member Sanford commented that one of his concerns is that if you have gates, how much frontage would you need, and how many gates can you have. You do not need a fence variance if you can have all gates. There are lots of things that need to be addressed. As long as Oak Brook maintains the openness that it has, which is its appeal, you can go to a gated community if you are looking for security. If someone is of particular note, they have a hardship and he has no problem with that. The idea that it is a logical progression, R -2, if it is less than one acre, he disagrees, because you are changing the character and the characteristics of the community. Gates beget fences, so you are going down a road that may change the characteristics of the community. Those are things that really need to be addressed. Director of Community Development Kallien said that was not the intention to change the character, he believes it was a perception by some that driveway gate could be a positive amenity to the neighborhood, but now we are hearing to the contrary. We need to really look at that issue. We need the Plan Commission to craft some language that really deals with all issues, similarly to the review done on chain -link fence where it was looked at across the board to see how it was handled in all situations. Mr. O'Brien said that he does not want to insult anyone's intelligence, but the founder of this tremendous village was quite vocal about keeping it open and rural in appearance. We do not have ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 12 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUL July 1, 2003 sidewalks, streetlights and it was done by design. To make it look more urban and protective goes against the very basic foundation on which the village was created. Mr. Huizenga asked how this came about without any input from Ginger Creek or if there was any input from of any of the other communities. He was curious as to how the proposed text amendment was initiated in the village. Director of Community Development Kallien said that text amendments could be initiated in a number of ways. Primarily a majority of the text amendments come from the public, such as how Mr. Stade approached the village. It goes through the process and ultimately the board approves or disapproves it. Amendment can come from the Zoning Board, Plan Commission, the Village Board or from staff. This request is probably a combination of staff and the Village Administration. There were some discussion and a concept that was put forward and the only way to really get public input is to have it go through the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Huizenga asked if there was a particular individual that initiated it; that it just didn't pop up by itself and landed on his desk? Mr. Kallien responded that there had been some discussion within the context of the administration and there were a number of text amendments that were presented. Mr. Huizenga said that trying to find the source of this particular amendment has been a very difficult search on their part, because no one will admit to it. For some strange reason there is no admission, and there is ducking and weaving as to how this came about. There must be a basic reason why this came up in the first place, and if there is not, why don't we drop it. Director of Community Development Kallien said that what we need to do know is to see it through, one way or another. Member Ascher asked if at some time in the past, there was a gate that had already been constructed. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there were two. One individual put in a gate without a permit that was stopped, they applied for a variance and when it went to the Village Board it was withdrawn. There was no final decision made on it, at 26 Baybrook. There was another gate that was approved in error, and a stop work order was placed on the property and the gate was not constructed. Natural Ground Level. Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Shah, that in making this motion, the Zoning Board of Appeals found that the applicant satisfied the standards required for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and to recommend for approval the text amendment as proposed by the Village to the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance - Sections 13 -2 -2, Definitions, Natural Ground Level and 13 -3 -8, General Zoning Provisions. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 7- Ascher, Mueller, Sanford, Shah, Young, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 0 - Motion Carried. Driveway Gates. Member Young moved, seconded by Member Sanford to refer for further review the proposed text amendment for driveway gates back to the Plan Commission agenda for hearing at the July 21, 2003 Plan Commission Meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Member Ascher commented to the audience that he would hope they would appear at the Plan Commission meeting to discuss the matter as they have at this meeting. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUL July 1, 2003 Vlll. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business discussed. IX. ADJOURNMENT Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Shah to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 14 ZBA- MTG.2003 -JUL 4�)60;0;0 r Director of Congsakl5evelopment Secretary August 5, 2003 Date Approved July 1, 2003