Loading...
Minutes - 08/07/2001 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES August 7, 2001 L CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis Members Paul Adrian Louis Aldini Arrived at 8:05 Richard Ascher George Mueller Ayesha Zaheer MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Manu Shah ALSO PRESENT: Village Trustee Alfred Savino Director of Community Development Robert Kallien A quorum was present. It. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Adrian, to waive the reading of the June 5, 2001 regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Ill. KOSOWSKI — 341 FOREST TRAIL — FLOODPLAIN SPECIAL USE AND VARIATION - TO ALLOW IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING HOME IN THE FLOOD PLAIN Chairman Davis swore in the petitioners, Tim Kral, Construction and Property Manager for the Petitioner and Bill Styczynski, Architect. Chairman Davis noted that the request is for a floodplain special use permit and certain variations from the Village Floodplain and Wetlands Regulations. The Zoning Board of Appeals is in receipt of the Plan Commission recommendation for approval on the floodplain special use issue subject to two conditions. 1) That the development be in substantial accordance with the plans as presented and that the rear porch addition conform to the 12' side yard restriction. 2) That the presenter address the issues raised in Village Engineer Durfey's two letters on page 18 and 13 of the petition file. There is an additional letter dated August 1, 2001 from the Village Engineer that may supersede conditions contained in the other memos. Tim Kral said that the entire area around the home is on the edge of the floodplain. The rear quarter of the home, on the northeast edge, just hits at the base flood elevation of 661. The top of foundation is at 662.45 and meets DuPage County's requirement to be at least one foot above the base flood ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 1 ZBA- MTG.2001 -AUG August 7, 2001 elevation. The Village Code requires 3 feet above the base flood elevation. The existing home does not meet the requirement and they are seeking to keep the additions at the same level as the existing home, which was built, in the late 1950's. It is a slab on grade and there is no basement or crawl space. One of the issues Village Engineer Durfey addressed was that the floor elevation of the garage was at 661 and DuPage County wanted it to be 662. They have met that requirement by raising the garage floor and the County is satisfied with the change. That takes it completely out of the flood elevation as far as the County is concerned. The project will consist of a garage, a new entryway and a library on the front of the building. On the back of the building there will be a screened porch. There was an oversight on the original plan, which showed that the porch encroached into the 12' foot side yard setback. The plan has been revised to show the correct location within the required setback. Chairman Davis said that the Floodplain Special Use is required for any construction in the floodplain area. Chairman Davis noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Oversight Committee for enforcing the DuPage County Ordinance. The file contains information regarding Section 15 -133.7 of the DuPage Ordinance. This portion of the variation request no longer applies because the petitioner has provided information that the proposed improvement based upon the assessed valuation and cost of proposed construction would not be considered a substantial improvement. Bill Styczynski reviewed the variation requests being sought as detailed on page 17 through 17b of the petition file. They are seeking relief to the following sections: 9 -1 -5:E — Freeboard; 9- 1- 6.A.1: — Alterations; 9 -1 -10: - Building Regulations B. Building Wall Openings; 9 -10 Building Regulations: C. Outer Walls and Basement Floors; 9 -1 -10: Building Regulations: D. Building Site; 9 -1 -10: Building Regulations E.1.a Residential; and 9 -1 -10: Building Regulations: EA. Service Facilities. Bill Styczynski also reviewed the standards required for approval of the floodplain special use as detailed on page 17c and 17d of the petition file, part of which is as follows: 1. The danger to life and property is not increased, as the compensatory storage will compensate for the fill area so the new construction as 1 '/2 to 1 ratio. Flood heights and velocities should not increase. 2. The new construction shall be designed to withstand hydrostatic pressures, including flotation, thereby minimizing the danger that materials may be swept onto other properties. 3. The proposed water supply and sanitary system shall be an extension of the current water supply and sanitary system. The proposed work creates no greater risk than currently exists to contaminate or create unsanitary conditions. 4. The new construction does not increase the susceptibility of the building or its contents to any greater risk of flooding that currently exists. The home at its current elevation has not been subjected to flooding, including the major flooding of 1987. No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal. Chairman Davis said that the petitioner has testified to the requirements by the Floodplain and Wetlands Regulations to allow construction in the floodplain. The petitioner has addressed the factors on page 17c and 17d as required to recommend approval. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Zaheer that the petitioner has addressed the factors as required by ordinance to recommend for approval the petitioner's request for the floodplain special use permit which would allow construction of the improvements as requested subject to the following conditions. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes August 7, 2001 2 ZBA- MTG.2001 -AUG �� That the construction be in substantial conformance with the plans number I and J and the most recent submission of the plans (page 23 of the petition file dated August 1, 2001) showing the raised garage and increased compensatory storage. 2. The comments in Village Engineer Durfey's memos dated August 1, July 12, and June 12, 2001 be satisfactorily addressed. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Aldini, Adrian, Mueller, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 2 - Ascher and Shah Motion Carried. Chairman Davis said that the petitioner has reviewed the variations requested in detail. Although there are several variations requested, the relief for all of them is from the three -foot requirement. The petitioner is seeking a variation to allow one -foot so that the addition and the house can be level, or it would be necessary to tear the house down and reconstruct it. The standards differ for a variation request to the Floodplain and Wetlands Regulations. Bill Styczynski reviewed the standards for variation as follows: 1. The property owner desires to improve the property with a more functional home including new amenities such as a larger garage, kitchen and family room, along with new bedrooms on the 2nd floor. The existing home is dated and in need of updates which other homeowners in the community find desirable. 2. A current hardship exists, as the existing home is located on a lot that includes a portion of the floodplain. The elevation of the existing home is not at the required three -foot above the floodplain. The existing home is a two - bedroom ranch with a small garage. Without approval of the variation, the home would be substandard in the current marketplace. 3. The revised site grading would not impact other neighboring properties. In reality it would actually provide additional relief as compensatory stormwater storage is provided at a ratio of 1 '/2 to 1 as required by the Village Engineer. With such grading, additional flood heights, increased flood velocities, threats to public safety and other nuisances should not be encountered or would not be at any level greater than where they are currently. They are not seeking any other variation, such as zoning issues relating to setback requirements and it does not conflict with any other ordinance. The proposal will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or nearby waterways. The applicant's circumstances are unique and do not represent a general condition or problem within the Village. Tim Kral said that several of the neighbors in the subject area have added three -car garages and second floor additions. They are moving in a similar condition. They are not exceeding or doing anything outrageous in the area. No one in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposal. Member Aldini moved, seconded by Member Zaheer that the petitioner has addressed the factors as required by ordinance to recommend for approval the petitioner's request for the floodplain variation which would allow construction of the improvements as requested subject to the following conditions. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes August 7, 2001 3 ZBA- MTG.2001 -AUG � 1. That the construction be in substantial conformance with the plans numbered I and J and the most recent submission of the plans (page 23 of the petition file dated August 1, 2001) showing the raised garage and increased compensatory storage. 2. The comments in Village Engineer Durfey's memos dated August 1, July 12, and June 12, 2001 be satisfactorily addressed. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 - Aldini, Adrian, Mueller, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 2 - Ascher and Shah Motion Carried. IV. ARIAS /RADDAWI — 10 LOCHINVAR LANE— VARIATION— SIDE YARD SETBACK Chairman Davis swore in the petitioners, Ada Arias and Hareth Raddawi, and the project architect, Matt Bolson, Normandy Architects. Mr. Raddawi said that their home is a ranch style, built around 1961. They have been living in the home for almost nine years. They are planning to build a second story on top of the existing home because of their desperate need for more space. They are requesting a variation to the side yard because the home was built long before the Village enacted the building regulations. The southern border of the home encroaches between 6 feet and 10.8 feet into the 18 -foot required side yard. The proposed second floor would have to follow the existing first floor plan. If it does not, the house would literally look deformed and would not be aesthetically pleasing. That is why they are requesting this variation. All of the neighbors have been notified and have been shown the proposed plans. All were in agreement and no one objected. The next door neighbor at 12 Lochinvar, mostly affected by the request, has submitted a letter supporting the request. Chairman Davis noted that the petitioner addressed the standards for the variation on page G and G1 of the petition file. No one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the request. Chairman Davis said that the petitioner has addressed the standards in great detail and it has been satisfied by the evidence presented. Member Adrian moved, seconded by Member Aldini that the petitioner has met the standards necessary to recommend approval of the proposed variation as requested and is to be developed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted marked as page J dated June 12, 2001, in the petition file. The testimony given has shown that a hardship exists because the original home was encroaches in the side yard because it was built prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and the variation if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 5- Nays: 0 - Abstain: 1 - Absent: 1 - Motion Carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2001 -AUG Aldini, Adrian, Mueller, Zaheer and Davis Ascher (noted that his vote was due to his late arrival) Shah 4 August 7, 2001 V. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT — TEXT AMENDMENT — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — REVISIONS to CHAPTER 12 OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING The petitioner in this case is the Village of Oak Brook. Director of Community Development, Robert Kallien reviewed the original Staff Report for Chapter 12 of the Off - Street Parking and Loading on page 9c -9e of the petition file. Throughout the text of Chapter 12 (Page 3 -3o) there is a general update of the text to include clarification of vague terminology and add or delete certain language to improve readability. The Plan Commission has had a series of meetings on this matter. On page 37, Chairman Aktipis has summarized their recommendation on each of the major points. Section 13- 12 -1 -a (page 9c) Scope of Regulations, recommends decreasing the maximum timeframe from six months to ninety (90) days to begin construction of required parking for permits issued prior to the adoption of this code. This is consistent with language found in other portions of the Village code that regulates the timeframe for building permits. Building permits are good for 90 days from date of issuance, the time can be extended, but this proposed change would make the timeframe consistent for permits issued. The Plan Commission approved this clarification. Section 12 -1 -D. The new language establishes the authority of the Village Engineer to approve new or modifications to existing parking and loading facilities. The way the chapter I was written, the Community Development Director really as the zoning administrator has the authority to interpret and enforce a number of provisions. However, several sections have been excerpted out and are still listed under the authority of the Village Engineer. It is the recommendation of the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC) that all of the administrative responsibilities be given to the Community Development Department. Any new structure or parking lot that would require engineering permits, the Village Engineer would have the full authority to review and approve those plans. This helps to clarify administration. Section 13 -12 -3. Damage or Destruction of Uses. It was recommended that this section be moved to the end of Chapter 12. Attorney Martens has stated that once the entire Ordinance update is completed, it may be deleted and moved to another chapter. It really applies to issues of nonconformance and noncompliance, and those issues are handled in other chapters of the Ordinance. The Plan Commission approved this item. Section 13- 12 -3 -B. Location. This language permits required off - street parking be located on adjacent property if the spaces are located within 300 feet walking distance. This is a provision that is similar to the one used by the new Residence Inn Hotel. As we redevelop and see more concentrated developments it makes sense to permit some required parking to be located on adjacent parcels. The Plan Commission had no issues with this item. Section 13- 12 -3 -C. Size and Aisles. Clarifies the parking space width for both office and hotel uses as eight -foot six - inches. In the original code, office uses had the ability to construct eight -foot six -inch wide spaces, while all other uses were required to be nine feet. In Oak Brook, office and hotels are complimentary to each other. The types of hotels are full service where people do not come and go all day long. The parking demand and utilization are quite similar as those required for office. The Village Engineer has no problems with this change. A utility vehicle will fit in an office space. Section 13- 12 -3 -D. Timing of Construction. This recommended language would permit with conditions, the construction of 75% of the required parking as a condition of occupancy, and the remaining spaces could set aside or landbanked and a written covenant against the property and constructed when the Village determines the spaces are needed. The reason this provision is proposed is in the event there is a large multi -phase development project that is brought in over time, it is not necessarily beneficial to build all of the parking spaces up front if they are not needed. The Plan Commission felt that this was a reasonable request, but felt that the proper triggering mechanism would be tied to the approval of future building or occupancy permits, so that it could be continually monitored. The Village Engineer would be involved in making the final determination as to when additional spaces are needed. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes August 7, 2001 5 ZBA- MTG.2001 -AUG Section 13- 12 -3 -J. Collective Provision. They are recommending additional language, which would clarify the concept of a collective parking arrangement. The excess parking from one parcel can be allocated to another parcel if it meets all of the other applicable requirements of the chapter. A comparison would be with Residence Inn there was a substantial amount of parking provided on the adjacent parcel the hotel the hotel is providing some parking of their own, but utilizing the adjacent parking under a shared arrangement. This concept may be used when we see additional redevelopment. Section 13- 12 -3 -M. Repair and Service. This language prohibits automotive repair and service work from being performed in an off - street parking area. The only exception here would be an emergency repair. Normally, we would not allow actual repair activities. Member Adrian questioned whether or not this would allow the garages to offer car washing. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it would not. In other communities, you may see vehicles that will pull into a parking area, drive the car into a detail /work truck and back the car out. Chairman Davis said that there is one that does oil changes, it pulls into a parking lot, the people will leave their keys and the car is repaired while they work. Member Aldini said that downtown Chicago has many lots that will do service on the vehicles during the day. Chairman Davis said that it is a value added service that some of the office buildings offer as long as the service does not clutter the parking lot. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the language reads, "that no motor vehicle repair work or service of any kind shall be permitted in an off - street parking area. No gasoline or motor oil shall be sold in conjunction with an accessory parking facility unless such facilities are located within a completely enclosed structure." The way it is being interpreted is that they would have to take the vehicle and place it inside something to do the work. Chairman Davis suggested that perhaps it should be controlled by the owner of the building or through a permit and several members agreed. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in the Ordinance there is a consistent interpretation that all commercial activities in the Village have to be conducted inside of a building. That is why there are no garden centers at Costco, because it has to conducted inside the building. If the activity were allowed to occur in a parking lot or deck, in view, it would be contradictory to the interpretation. When asked about other towns, Director of Community Development Kallien said that Naperville allowed it, providing the property owners approved it. It was common to have windshields repaired on site. Chairman Davis asked staff to find out what other communities do in regards to repair and simple services in off - street parking areas. Section 13- 12 -4 -A. Design and Maintenance. Surfacing. Recommends language that clarifies all new parking spaces be hard surface, except spaces in the R1 and R2 Districts. In Oak Brook, all the parking spaces are hard surfaced. In the R1 and R2 residential districts, there still are some developments that want to keep the more rural flavor and they choose to have gravel, or not hard surfaced driveways. This language just clarifies the norm in Oak Brook. The Plan Commission approved this item as submitted. Section 13- 12 -4 -B. Screening and Landscaping. Recommends language that requires parking lot landscaping to be maintained once it is installed. It is consistent with the Property Maintenance Code so that if something is planted they would be required to maintain it. The Plan Commission approved this item as submitted. Section 13- 12 -4 -C. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. This was not part of the original report, but came up during the Plan Commission review. Presently we require interior parking lot trees to be spaced at a minimum of every 75 feet. There was a concern by the Plan Commission that we require ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 6 ZBA- MTG.2001 -AUG August 7, 2001 very high levels of high levels of landscaping within our parking lots. There was a move to decrease the spacing from 75 to 40 feet and therefore decrease the number of parking spaces from 20 to 15, where a tree must be placed and require that the interior lot trees have a minimum caliper of 3 inches. This would only apply to developments where a new parking structure or parking lots are developed and was recommended to increase the level of landscaping. If anything, we may move toward the trend of more structured parking. Section 13- 12 -4 -D 1 -3 (old E.1 -3). Landscape Plans. Recommends language that suggests methods of landscaping treatment being eliminated from the Ordinance. There are other parts of the Ordinance and the Public Works Standards that have more than adequate standards to address parking lot landscaping. Section 13- 12 -4 -H. Striping and Traffic Circulation. This was not in the original staff report, but came up during the Plan Commission review. They had recommended to do away with the double white line delineation that are approximately 18 inches apart. Some parking lots have it while others do not. Village Engineer Durfey said that this is a difficult item to enforce, because it can be shown on the plans, but another company will come out and stripe and then they are gone. However, the Plan Commission would like this provision left in as originally written. Section 13- 12 -4 -J. Parking Structures. Recommends additional language that would require a higher standard for the architectural design and landscaping for future parking decks in the Village. In Oak Brook there are some parking decks that are pleasing and other are very bland aesthetically. A number of things have been proposed as follow: 1. The parking structure is going to be of the same design, character, architecture and physical materials as reasonably possible as the principal building. The two are to compliment each other. 2. The light standards on the top floor of the structure shall be placed in the center aisle of the deck and the light sources are screened from view from adjacent property. Low profile lighting should be used around the perimeter of the top floor so that the light is diffused onto the deck and not onto adjacent properties. The AT &T Building on 22nd Street use a very unique light standard, that literally cannot be seen from adjacent properties. 3. Within the parking deck all interior light sources be screened from view from adjacent property. 4. The landscaped area which screens the structure from adjacent property must be a minimum of ten feet, but must average fifteen foot in depth for all screening. Evergreen trees must be included in the final planting design. It was also discussed that an Arborist in the Public Works Department will review some of the landscape plans that are submitted to ensure that they are the right species. They have found out that some of the plants are susceptible to salt sprays and the environment. They are also going to require that a landscape architect prepare the final landscape plan. Section 13 -12 -5. Off - Street Parking Areas. Recommends changes in the ordinance, which either increases or decreases the required parking for specific land uses. For example, medical offices has a provision for one parking space for every fifty square feet of examination room which is very difficult to calculate. They are proposing using a standard that is consistent with the area, and using 5 spaces for every thousand square feet. The Plan Commission approved it as submitted. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2001 -AUG August 7, 2001 7 Section 13- 12- 6 -D -2. Handicap Parking Signs. The new law has increased the fine amount shown on handicap parking signs to be raised from $50 to $100, which is the amount adopted by the current ordinance. The only way the Police Department can enforce the fire lanes and no parking areas is if it is properly signed. If it is not properly signed, they cannot issue tickets. Additional language may be developed which provides better standards as to where the signs and number of signs need to be located. Section 13- 12 -7 -A. Off - Street Loading Berths. Recommends language that clarifies how loading berths are to be landscaped and screened. Oak Brook now has a very good standard. Plan Commission approved it as submitted. Chairman Davis noted that it appears the Plan Commission spent a lot of good time and attention to the details. He believes it is helpful to have the parking structure blend in with the principal building. Chairman Davis moved, seconded by Member Adrian, to continue the review of Chapter 12 of the Village Code. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Vl. OTHER BUSINESS There was a general discussion regarding the September 4, 2001 meeting date. At this time, it appears there will be a quorum and an alternate date will not be necessary. Chairman Davis had suggested picking an automatic alternate date, perhaps on the Wednesday the week after the regular meeting. This does not appear to be a problem that the Board encounters very often. The exception is the first meeting in January of 2002; the date for that meeting falls on the holiday, January 1, 2002. Everyone was in agreement to reschedule the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting from January 1, 2002 to the following Wednesday, January 9, 2001. Vll. ADJOURNMENT Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Zaheer to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2001 -AUG L Director of Community D F velop e Secretary September 4, 2001 Date Approved August 7, 2001