Loading...
Minutes - 09/02/2003 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES September 2, 2003 L CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Members Arrived 7:34 p.m MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Village President Trustee Plan Commission Chairwoman Plan Commission Member Director of Community Development Village Engineer A quorum was present. 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Champ Davis George Mueller Robert Sanford Manu Shah Steven Young Ayesha Zaheer Richard Ascher Kevin Quinlan Asif Yusuf Lexi Payovich Gerald Wolin Robert Kallien Dale Durfey Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Zaheer to waive the reading of the August 5, 2003 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Ill. WARNER — 26 BAYBROOK LANE VILLAGE CODE — CHAPTER 13 -3 -6B — ACCESSORY USES — CHAIN -LINK FENCE REGULATIONS Chairman Davis swore in all parties testifying. Scott Wehrs, represented the petitioner, Ty Warner, to request a variance to Section 13 -3 -4 to install driveway gates on private property with not less than one acre of land. The property located on 26 Baybrook Lane is not a one -acre parcel. There are unique circumstances affecting this owner, he is frequently out of town on extended business trips for lengthy periods of time. The owner is single and no one occupies the residence during these extended trips. The owner is a person of celebrity status; there are articles and websites dedicated to him personally as well as his company. Collectors seek his signature on his product because his signature can substantially increase an items value. His well -known support of various charities has given him celebrity status. He has good reason to have security and safety concerns. There have been a number of occasions in the past where trespassers have gained access to his property and have attempted to look into the windows. The residence does have a security ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -SEP September 2, 2003 system with both motion sensors and window break sensors, both of which have been triggered in the past by trespassers causing the alarms to be registered with the monitoring company and police department. The security system does not monitor activity in the driveway or exterior premises therefore; the installation of gates would help the frequency of such alarms and offer the owner added security. Chairman Davis said that this matter had been before the Zoning Board of Appeals some time ago and there was not final action at the Village Board level. One of the concerns raised was that the uniqueness ought to be something that relates to the property as well as the owner. The variation if granted runs with the property and Mr. Warner might not live there forever. He asked Mr. Wehrs to address the unique issues of the property that support the request for a variation. Mr. Wehrs responded that the Ginger Creek Homeowners Association sent a letter regarding a temporary right. The letter states that the Association desires the driveway gates not become a permanent improvement to the property. A stipulation should be that the existence of the gates as long as Mr. Warner resides at that location or owns the residence. In the event the residence is sold they have requested that the gates are to be removed. Chairman Davis said that is something that the Board could consider and if approved could be a condition. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that on page F of the case file, Number d2a. the applicant has attempted to address the physical characteristics of the property. Mr. Wehrs said that the property is unique as follows: • The property has an entrance and exit, which makes it easy for someone to drive through the driveway back out onto Baybrook Lane. Once a vehicle would be in the driveway, it would be difficult to see that vehicle in the driveway because of the existence of numerous white pine trees that block the driveway from the view of Baybrook Lane. • The property has an extended frontage, such that it appears to be at least an acre in size and tapers off in the rear. The frontage is approximately 249 feet; the lot is somewhat of an irregular pie shape, with the back of the property touching the lake. • The property is heavily landscaped with pine trees. • The public frequents the property by entering through one side of the driveway, driving up to the house and exiting out the other side onto Baybrook Lane. The requested gates will keep trespassers out of the driveway. Chairman Davis noted that after visiting the property, he noticed that it was heavily landscaped in the front with pine trees. He suggested that Mr. Warner might be wiling to propose as an additional condition, if approved that the landscaping remain there as long as the gates are present, because the gates would be very unobtrusive with the existing landscape. Mr. Wehrs responded that the landscaping would remain and added that the gates would barely be seen from Baybrook. They are proposing green gates that would blend in very nicely with the existing landscaping in the front. Along with the required setback for the gates, they will barely be seen. Chairman Davis added that this matter was continued at the last meeting, and the standards Mr. Wehrs addressed at that meeting are on page 9 of the case file. Chairman Davis swore in all witnesses providing testimony. Wally O'Brien, attorney for the Ginger Creek Homeowner Association, said that providing the gates are removed when Mr. Warner transfers ownership of the property, the Ginger Creek Homeowner Association has no objection to the proposal. Peter Huizenga, President of the Ginger Creek Homeowner Association confirmed the statement by Mr. O'Brien. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -SEP 2 �Z September 2, 2003 Director of Community Development Kallien said that page H of the case file, contains a diagram of the design and description of the gate. Member Young questioned where the manual override would be located on the gate to allow emergency access to the property. Mr. Wehrs said that the manual override is located on the actual opener, located on either side of the gate. Member Young asked how the gates are going to substantially protect the home, since there is no other fencing around the property or other systems associated with it on the outside perimeter of the property. Mr. Wehrs responded that he would not expect the gates to substantially protect the home. The gates are mainly to keep trespassers out of the driveway. Member Zaheer questioned that when variations are granted, they essentially run with the land, how is a condition imposed that is granted to the owner, not the property. Director of Community Development Kallien said that normally variances and special uses, and zoning changes run with the property. However, in this case the applicant has offered additional assurances that the gates would be removed, if the property is ever sold. This condition is not something the Village has requested or required, but the applicant has offered to address the concerns of the homeowners association. Director of Community Development Kallien said that with respect to Member Young's comments regarding the manual override, that when they come in for the building permit, we will make sure that the Fire Department and Building staff are satisfied with the mechanisms provided. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Sanford to recommend approval of the requested variation to install driveway gates as proposed, subject to the following conditions: 1. The gates will remain as long as Mr. Warner remains in possession of the property and resides on the premises. 2. The existing landscaping be maintained in its current condition. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6- Mueller, Sanford, Shah, Young, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Ascher Motion Carried. IV. UNITED FINANCIAL MORTGAGE /SURE LIGHT SIGN /PLUM TREE NATIONAL — 815 COMMERCE DRIVE — VARIATION — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — ZONING ORDINANCE — CHAPTER 13 -11 -11 — TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 55 SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN ON THE BUILDING Chairman Davis swore in all parties testifying. Kelly Alcock, Permit Coordinator for Sure Light Sign Company, acting as agent for Thomas McCracken said they are seeking a variation to allow United Financial Mortgage to identify its business. They are requesting a 55 square foot variation to the Sign Regulations. Currently there is a 55 square foot monument sign identifying the three tenants, Management Company and suites available. There is one existing skyline wall sign that is 64.8 square a feet reading Virtual Insourcing Center. These signs occupy the 100 square foot signage allowed for the building. They would like to exceed the allowable square footage. Adherence to the current requirements would reduce a reasonable ability to gain a fair rate of return for United Financial Mortgage. The proposal is in accordance with the intent of the regulations and the essential character of the neighborhood would not be damaged by such a proposed change. There would not be a negative impact nor would there be any alteration of the character of the area. It is an office -zoned area. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 3 ZBA- MTG.2003 -SEP September 2, 2003 The proposed sign would be an 18 -inch channel letters that would be internally illuminated. The length of the sign is 37 feet as shown on the photograph as part of their submittal. The existing signs use up all of the square footage allowed for the site. They do not have an opportunity to identify their business, Chairman Davis said that he drove by there and saw only one other sign. He said that there are a number of commercial buildings and asked if were being sought because of the number of vacancies. Ms. Alcock said that there is only one box sign on the opposite end of the building, which can barely be seen with the obstruction of the trees. They are working with the Ms. Sue Hosty of the building management to change the current sign to match the font and color to the proposed sign. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to the request. Sue Hosty, property manager of the building said that they support the variation as requested. She said that the sign is for United Financial, which is one of their new tenants. Chairman Davis asked how many tenants are in the building. Ms. Hosty responded that they have 4 tenants. She said that the sign presently there is for an old tenant. Half of that sign will go to a tenant that just renewed their lease. The other half would go to another new tenant. Member Mueller commented that driving by the property, which faces the tollway, no one in a residential area would see the sign. Chairman Davis said that one of the standards the Zoning Board of Appeals is always interested in is the essential character of the locality. Aside from the few houses in the area, they are not adjacent to the subject building, which is surrounded by other commercial buildings, so the character is not being altered. He noted that the applicant has addressed the standards, which are on pages G -G2 of the Case file. Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed the history of the Sign Ordinance and noted that it has be revised in the last 12 months. One of the things that came out during the process, was that there was a significant amount of comfort with the way the ordinance was written in terms of the amount of signage available to particular properties. Oak Brook sign regulations are somewhat restrictive compared to some of the neighboring communities. The result is that the signage is minimal, but effective. It does not create visual anarchy; such as down Ogden Avenue, where you do not necessarily see the buildings, all you see is the signs. There was a real effort put forth to limit the amount of signage so that the beautiful buildings can be seen and the signage is secondary. In this particular case, because the property has less than 100,000 square feet, the property is limited to 100 square feet of signage. That is how all office properties in Oak Brook are treated. In his 4 years in Oak Brook this is the first request received to alter the amount of signage. He would caution that if this is found to be a reasonable request, there may be many others that feel their individual tenants need to be individually signed, and there could be an onslaught of requests. He urged the Zoning Board to maintain the big picture of minimal signage to support the office buildings. This particular building is over the amount of signage; it presently has approximately 119 square feet of signage and is only allowed 100 square feet. It is believed the amount of signage has existed for many years and is considered grandfathered. To alleviate the need to give signage for this particular tenant, they could modify the ground sign. He doubts that adding the requested signage to the building is going to make people quickly get off the interstate to find there way to this building. This is nothing more than a vanity branding to say that they are there, but he doubts it will draw people to the building off of the tollway. Chairman Davis said that he noticed quite a few vacancies while driving through the area, and one of the things that the Village should do, is everything is can to appease tenants and make the village suitable for tenants to want to come here and remain here, and he is concerned about some of the vacancies that he saw. There have been other signage matters, where the signage was going to be on 22nd Street, which can be an eyesore and could be objectionable. He views this as unique because the signage would be facing the East -West Tollway. He asked if there were others on other buildings. Chairman Davis questioned what the relationship was between the amount of signage permitted by the Ordinance and the square footage of the building. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -SEP 4 . 2z' September 2, 2003 was a graduated scale. Buildings up to 100,000 square feet are allowed 100 square feet of signage. As buildings get larger for each 1,000 square feet of additional floor space, they are given 1 additional square foot of signage. Chairman Davis asked what the theory was for tying that amount of signage to the square footage of the building. For example, a building with a single tenant may need only a single sign, whereas a building with similar size may have five tenants. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it appears when the Ordinance was put in place there was a philosophy that desired minimizing the amount of advertising to the exterior of the property. They were very cognizant of utilizing ground signs to list tenant names. Many buildings have done that well. Oak Brook has never wanted to draw attention upon itself, which seems to go back to that philosophy. Member Young said that there is no indication as to how many lumens will be put out by the sign. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the ordinance does have standards to control the brightness of illuminated signs. If the variance would be granted, they would have to comply with those standards. Chairman Davis asked the length of the tenants lease requesting this sign. Ms. Hosty answered, 7 years. Chairman Davis asked what would be the likely event that this tenant would leave. Ms. Alcock said that they would have to take the letters off the building. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that the variation if granted would stay with the building unless the applicant would agree to a sunset provision to remove the sign when they move out of the building and if anyone wanted to replace the sign would need to seek another variation. Ms. Alcock said that she would need to discuss the matter with the tenant. Ms. Hosty said that from management's point of view they would be agreeable, but the agreement would have to be with the tenant because they would be responsible for the expense of removing the sign. Chairman Davis said that he would like to see other information as to what other signage is along the East -West Tollway. He also requested that the question be posed to United Financial Mortgage as to what they would be willing to do, if they do not renew their lease in 7 years. Ms. Hosty noted that the tenant's name is on the ground sign in front of the building. Director of Community Development Kallien said that he would review the existing signage on the building so that we accurately know what is on the building. Member Young moved, seconded by Member Mueller to continue this hearing to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for October 7, 2003. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. V. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK - ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT - TEXT AMENDMENTS - TITLE 13 of the VILLAGE CODE - CHAPTER 6 RESIDENCE DISTRICTS, SECTIONS 13 -6A -D, 13- 6B -3 -D, 13- 6C -3 -D and 13- 6D -3 -D - STRUCTURE HEIGHT; SECTIONS 13- 6B- 3 -F -2, 13- 6C- 3 -F -2, and 13- 6D -3 -F -2 - SIDE LOAD GARAGE Director of Community Development Kallien said that there have been a number of amendments that we have proposed to our zoning ordinance and the attempt is to keep Oak Brook current. As part of this discussion, one of the key elements that has been brought to our attention is the issue of residential structure height. Oak Brook currently allows a 30 foot high maximum height for most single family homes. The only exception is to the R -1 and R -2 lots, being over an acre in size can build up to 40 feet. That amendment was approved around 1998 and required additional side yards may be imposed depending on ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 5 ZBA- MTG.2003 -SEP September 2, 2003 where the height was. Basically most of Oak Brook's existing homes are 30 feet in height from grade to the top of the peak, with a few houses that are up to 40 feet. As a result of that type of height restriction, there are a number of structures that utilize flat roofs, which are either entirely continuous flat roofs, or a significant portion of the upper roof structure is flat to maintain the 30 foot requirement. During the study on structure height, a number of communities were identified that had similarities to Oak Brook. The survey is on page 20 of the case file. The following communities were surveyed: Hinsdale, Elmhurst, Downers Grove, Oakbrook Terrace, Lombard, Naperville, Wheaton, Burr Ridge, Long Grove, Wilmette, Winnetka, Barrington, Lake Forest, Lake Bluff and Glencoe. Most communities have upscale and high profile housing. What was found, is that Oak Brook is at the bottom of the scale when comparing structure height. Most of the communities allow either a much higher level to the peak or measure height in a different way, which still permits taller homes. Hinsdale measures their height as between the mean distance between the eave and the peak. The top half of the roof structure is not counted in that calculation. Some of the largest houses in Hinsdale would allow a 42 -foot high house as measured to the mean. If a 12/12, 10/12 or 8/12 roof pitch is used, it could add an additional six to eight feet to the roof height. Instead of being 42 feet it could actually be 48 to 50 feet. Oak Brook is at 30 feet, which is potentially an 18 -foot difference. They also found that on average, the maximum sized home in many of the other communities can be constructed on lots that are significantly smaller than Oak Brook. Our R -1 district is 2+ acres, R -2 is 1 acre, R -3 is 25,000 square feet and R-4 is 18,0000 square feet. In Naperville, they can build a 42 -foot high structure on a lot with as little as 6,000 square feet. The same holds true in Elmhurst. The effect of the present structure height, results in very large homes, which have to be altered, structurally to accommodate the height of the home. Over time, houses that have flat roofs have maintenance problems in terms of the snow load and the amount of water that sits and seeps through the roof itself. One of the motives of this proposal is not only to look at better designs, but also minimize and limit some of the maintenance issues that come up over time. The Plan Commission did an extensive study on structure height. There were four meetings and all the homeowner associations were contacted to provide input. A number of residents also came to the meetings. We received a lot of good comments that are reflected in the recommendation from the Plan Commission. We did not receive any negative comments. The impact of this change in Oak Brook is going to be measured over time. Oak Brook is a rather developed community as there is only a scattering of vacant lots and as we continue our redevelopment scheme of teardowns and add -ons, the increased height provision will come to the forefront. The goal is not to negate the quality that Oak Brook provides, but we are trying to keep Oak Brook current and some of the magnificent homes that can be built in these other fine communities would be able to be built in Oak Brook. Chairman Davis noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals was in receipt of the Plan Commission recommendation. He asked Director of Community Development Kallien to review the recommendation. Director of Community Development Kallien said that a number of scenarios were developed and the Plan Commission felt that a hybrid of scenario five, which is predicated on a ladder or graded system would permit increased height in proportion to the size of the lot and was deemed the most appropriate way to permit taller homes. It was also felt that the current method of measuring the home to the peak should continue, as it is easier to understand and maintains the basic principles of how homes have been measured since Oak Brook's inception. The Plan Commission voted 7 to 0, to recommend approval of the text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance with respect to increasing the maximum height of single - family homes subject to the following conditions: 1. All structure heights for single - family homes will be measured to the peak of the roof. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes September 2, 2003 6 ZBA- MTG.2003 -SEP ,i-1 2. The structure height provision as defined in 13 -3 -10 of the Zoning Ordinance should be modified so that height of homes will be measured using one of the following methods: a. In engineered subdivisions, the height will be measured using the approved grading plan. Comment. revise language to read `7n engineered subdivisions, the height will be measured using the recommended first floor elevation as depicted on the approved grading plan. b. For lots improved with an existing single - family home, the existing floor elevation and /or foundation elevation can be maintained. c. For any other situation, the Village Engineer shall determine an elevation based on the existing grades and grades of adjacent properties. 3. The maximum structure height for single - family homes will be laddered by zoning district as follows; a. R -1 District — 50 feet b. R -2 District — 45 feet (lots one acre or larger) C. R -2 District (lots less than one acre) and R -3 District - 40 feet d. R -4 District - 35 feet 4. The maximum number of stories for any single - family home shall not be limited to 2.5 stories. Comment: Through the lengthy discussions on this issue, it was felt that really the height of the house was the determining factor and that someone should not be discriminated from using a unique design, that may result in 3 stories or 3% , so it was recommended that it be eliminated. One community that did that is Downers Grove, they have no reference to number of stories whatsoever. 5. The current required front, side and rear yard setbacks shall continue. However, it is recommended that the existing provision, which increases the required side, yard setback for any home built to a height of 40 feet in the R -1 and R -2 districts shall be eliminated. Comment: Basically, the amendment that took place in 1998 to possibly require additional setbacks, would no longer be required. As the provision was administered, it was found to be unnecessary because most of the height was put into the middle of the home, so it had no impact on the side yards. 6. The maximum height for any home constructed with a continuous flat roof shall be changed to; 35 feet in the R -1 and R -2 districts. Homes with a continuous flat roof in the R -3 and R -4 districts would be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. Comment: These heights include the parapet wall. In old Oak Brook there is a house on Natoma that has a flat roof that looks like a miniature version of the White House. This provision was offered up as a way to minimize the massing that a large flat roof home would have on the neighbors. 7. Any lot, which has been granted a variation to reduce any required yard, should be limited to the current maximum structure height of 30 feet. Any request to increase the structure height will require the approval of a variation by the Village. Comment: This issue came up due to the variation that was granted to the house at 1715 York Road that lost their home to the fire. They needed a substantial variation to both the front and the rear. The neighbors were very passionate about the size of the resulting home, because the original house was so small. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes Z13A- MTG.2003 -SEP 7 �Sf September 2, 2003 8. Regarding comments from the Fire Department, the Commission recommends the following language; Where residential building heights exceed 30 feet, the highest occupiable space must have an emergency escape and rescue opening at a maximum elevation of 32 feet above grade. Comment: The Fire Department said that they answer fire calls in Hinsdale and some adjacent communities and they are able to deal with the additional height. This language reaffirms a provision in our current building code and satisfies the Fire Departments concern of getting a ground ladder up to the access point. 9. The Commission discussed the issue of requiring additional fire suppression and detection devices as part of its deliberation to increase the maximum height of residential structures. It was recommended that the fire suppression /detection device issue be detached from this case and be addressed separately by the Village Board. Comment: This is really a building code issue. 10. The Commission recommends that the Village Board refer a case back to them to review the height of accessory structures in residential districts which are now limited to 15 feet. Comment: A resident suggested that we are significantly altering the size of the principal home, but have done nothing to the accessory structures. The findings made by the Plan Commission are to the point and that the amendment is really being made to allow Oak Brook to stay current and to allow people to further utilize their property not only to their benefit, but to the benefit of the community. It will enhance property values and was meant to have a positive impact on the community, not a negative. This is one of the key character issues that effects Oak Brook, but an issue that if approved would yield a significant benefit to the community. Chairman Davis swore in all parties providing testimony. Christine Potts, J. B. Architecture Group, Naperville, Illinois, said that she is familiar with many of the communities listed in the survey. Oak Brook is probably the most restrictive in this area in the western suburbs. Chairman Davis said that he is trying to determine, whether Oak Brook would end up being the least restrictive with the proposed changes. Ms. Potts responded that they would not, because many of the surrounding communities go by the mean. When it is measured by the mean, all kinds of things are opened to interpretation. Downers Grove, is restricted with Cape Cods, where surrounding communities like Naperville, is not. Oak Brook has a very distinctive style in residential, where you do not find that in surrounding communities. A lot of the newer communities have French Country, Tudor, etc., styles, where Oak Brook has tied the hands of designers to a certain style. One thing that has not been addressed is that different communities want to have a nicer pitch on the roof, but nowadays people are building homes, with higher wall heights, which is even more so important than the roof pitch. It is unheard of these days to build a first floor wall at 8 feet. Twenty years ago, that was the standard. A lot of the surrounding communities are building 10 -12 first floor wall heights, and 8, 9, and 10 foot second floor wall heights. The floor structure alone went from 2x8 twenty years ago, to floor juices that are 12, 14 16 inches. The wall and floor structure alone, without considering roof pitches, because where else can you make it up, but in the roof. The change will benefit Oak Brook in several ways. Barbara (Lexi) Payovich, Plan Commission Chairwoman, said that the Plan Commission reached the 50 foot determination, by looking at the size of the lots in the R -1 zoning district and the lot sizes in the comparable areas provided in the surveys. Over long discussions in 4 meetings, it was felt that the impact in the R -1 district would not be significant and would allow for the uniqueness of the structures that people are trying to build and put Oak Brook where it should be on the cutting edge. The reason the stepped approach was used because they were trying to allow for change to move ahead, and allow newcomers to build something unique, but also balance that with the existing residents, so that as things change over time, there is not that drastic divergence in each residential district. By using the stepped approach it ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 8 ZBA- MTG.2003 -SEP September 2, 2003 would allow the community to go forward and do it in a way that most of the residents in the Village would be pleased with. Gerald Wolin, Plan Commission member, said that the 50 feet is not that much different from Hinsdale, because of the question of the peak measurement versus the median. A typical 42 -foot roof in Hinsdale, would come out to 48 to 50 feet. There is no comparison to the size of the R -1 lots in Oak Brook, which are two acres. He doubts many homes would be built to the 50 feet. The Commission did not think it was a stretch at all, they felt it was consistent with the other communities and the size of the lots available. Member Zaheer said that she concurred with the comments from the architect in Naperville. In her experience, there are increased floor heights and floor to floor heights, and while it may alter the idea of what the essential character of Oak Brook it, she thinks it will be an improved altered character, and offer a variety of different types of structure, and will keep Oak Brook on the cutting edge. No one wants 8 foot first floors anymore. She asked where the top of foundation is measured. Village Engineer Durfey said that typically we measure from a top of foundation, which is six inches above the grade. On an engineered subdivision on the grading plan there is suggested tops of foundation elevation so that the grade and the ground is somewhat in tune with the neighbors, pavement, drainage ditches, etc. He questioned what happens if a resident wants to build a basement on the ground instead of in the ground and build his foundation 9 feet up above the grade level, make that the first floor and then go up the second and third floor and still be in the height determination, and then fill in eight feet around the extended foundation height. Should that be restricted, or is that okay if they meet the height. Member Zaheer said that she knows that it is critical, as a developer they try to get around that all the time, with walk out basements and top of foundations that stick up 7 to 8 feet out of the ground. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the language should be modified as follows: 2.a. should reference the approved grading plan and the recommended first floor elevation contained on the approved grading plan. 2.b. For lots improved with an existing single family home, would have the option of confirming what the first floor elevation is and continue it with their new home, or 2.c. For the other items referred to by Village Engineer shall determine and elevation based on the existing grades and the grades of the adjacent property. Member Shah asked what happens when the grade is different all around the house. Village Engineer Durfey said that for subdivisions that come in for review and approval, some lots are flat and others have a lot of steepness across them. For the flat lots a number is picked for a suggested TF. (top of foundation). For lots with a lot of slope, there is a suggested front TF and back TF, or side to side, however the grade works in anticipation of the architect for the home working within some reasonableness. A note is also added to the grading plan that state the elevations are suggested and the exact elevations of the top foundation and grades plans will be determined at the building permit stage, which gives the individual lot owner, homeowner and architect some freedom within relative limits to design a I house with a special concept rather than everything being a cookie cutter. Director of Community Development Kallien said that with the three proposed ways of measuring height, the goal is to move away from the five - corner method used. People who really have some topography on their property were penalized using that method. To accommodate a walkout lowered the home, because it had to be built to a lower level. Village Engineer Durfey said that if there is just a height item from the ground to the top of the roof, and there is no restriction as to where the ground is going to be, there could a condition where the foundation gets built six feet out of the ground, the dirt gets filled up that high and slopes everything away to the neighbor to the neighbors detriment. Rather than ground being at a reasonable elevation in relation to the neighbors and the drainage being accommodated in a reasonable fashion. Member Zaheer said that other municipalities say that the top of foundation has to be the average of the adjacent lots, so that drainage is controlled. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 9 ZBA- MTG.2003 -SEP / -] September 2, 2003 Director of Community Development Kallien said that additional language could be crafted to address Village Engineer Durfey's comments. However, he noted that there are probably less than 100 vacant lots in Oak Brook and the significant majority of the time when people are going to utilize additional height are going to come more so from teardowns rather than the existing vacant lots. By allowing people to use that recommended first floor elevation or the elevation of the previous home is really going to be the determining factor. All of the other grading has been done within the major subdivisions. The large subdivisions are engineered as a single unit and there has to be an accommodation for stormwater runoff, etc. and if a building permit would be issued that would be contrary to that concept, it would not be issued, because you have to maintain the integrity of the water flow. Member Sanford asked when the current height restriction were put into effect. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the current 30 foot structure height was in the very first zoning ordinance of Oak Brook in 1959 -1960. Member Sanford said that the value of homes in Oak Brook is not increasing as quickly as home in adjacent communities. If the proposed amendment would put the Village in a more competitive position, and attracting homes it increases the value of the land. The major objective of this is to increase the value, keep Oak Brook current and competitive with adjacent communities. Director of Community Development Kallien commented that when you look at all the neighboring communities, Oak Brook's minimum lot size is significant. We have large lots with significant value and we then constrain the size and type of the home that can be placed on the lot. It minimizes the choice of the design of the home, and when choice is minimized, it would have an impact on value and resale. Joe Perri, 137 Saddle Brook, commented that on the vacant lots, it might be considered that prior to any developed they should be required to get a TOPO. Once there is an existing TOPO, the grades cannot be changed. The grades are set and the contours are there. The top of foundation would be set based on the TOPO, that would eliminate anyone from coming in and putting a foundation on top of an existing grad and then piling up dirt on the sides of it. That is part of the procedure in Hinsdale. Chairman Davis asked Director of Community Development Kallien to address the standards. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Plan Commission made a number of findings on page 22 -b and -22c of the case file. He said that the Village has satisfied the applicable standards required for a text amendment finding that: 1. The request to increase the structure height of single - family homes is based on a substantial analysis of how other similar communities regulate height. 2. The maximum structure height of a single - family home presently allowed in Oak Brook is significantly less than what is permitted in other similar communities. 3. The Plan Commission concurs with the concept that by permitting taller homes, it will have a positive impact in Oak Brook regarding keeping the community current, offering a variety of housing styles and creating an environment which increases home and property values. 4. The proposed structure heights are deemed reasonable and in line with the survey information from other similar communities. 5. The Plan Commission considered the input provided by a number of residents and local architects who support the concept of permitting taller homes. 6. Although Oak Brook has very large homes, the 30 -foot height restriction limits the type of roof structure that can be built and often results in the use of flat roofs for all or a significant portion of the home. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2003 -SEP 90 y� September 2, 2003 7. The fact that Oak Brook already requires larger lot sizes and side yard setbacks mitigates the potential impact of allowing taller residential structures. 8. The recommendation to allow the tallest homes on R -1 and R -2 zoned properties is consistent with the current Village policy to permit 40 -foot high homes on the R -1 and R -2 zoned parcels. 9. The recommendation to no longer limit residential structures to 2.5 stories is based on principal that the design of homes should be controlled by structure height, not number of stories. 10. The current setbacks are adequate to support increased structures heights. 11. The recommendation to increase the maximum height of homes with continuous flat roofs to 35 feet for R -1 and R -2 properties and 30 feet in the R -3 and R -4 properties is reasonable. Chairman Davis said that based upon the testimony, the text amendment will protect the public health, safety and welfare of the residents and in particular will not have a negative impact, but a positive impact on the community. Member Young said that from a fire protection standpoint, besides the 40 -foot ground ladder, there are hook and ladders and other equipment that can easily handle additional structure height. Director of Community Development Kallien said that we have solicited the input from the Fire Department and they have indicated they are comfortable with the recommendation. Director of Community Development Kallien said that at the last Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, a variation was granted to the Trilla's for their home at 59 Baybrook Lane. There is an existing house on the property that encroached on the two side yards. They would like to build a new house that encroaches less than the existing encroachments. The new house would still be nonconforming to a degree, but far better situation than currently exists. They feel that the provision # 7, on page 22 -b is a concern to them. Ms. Potts, architect for the Trilla's, 59 Baybrook Lane, said that they feel that variances such as theirs should not be considered under the old regulations. The whole point of the new home is to get the higher wall heights and deeper floor construction and a nicer roof pitch. The current roof pitch is 3/12 and they want to modernize the home. By restricting the building height requirements because of the timing of their variance they would be working backward and not be able to do the nicest home that could be built on that lot. Director of Community Development Kallien said that when the provision was put forth to the Plan Commission, it was not the intention of variations, such as the Trilla property and other properties that require only minor variations. The focus was on the property at 1715 York Road where the setbacks were cut in half. It was a difficult situation to place a reasonably sized home on the property. They were held to the site plan they provided with a 30 -foot elevation. Any other approved variance that may be out there, including the Trilla's, we could offer that, if the Zoning Board of Appeals feels comfortable with this type of language being carried forward; perhaps it could be modified. The modification would say that this provision would apply upon the adoption of these restrictions and the few variances that have been approved could take advantage of any changes to the height ordinance. If anyone requests a variation in the future, and they want to build a taller home they would have to package a request for increased structure height as part of the variation request. Member Zaheer added that what it would tell future applicants, that if they request a variation, it would affect the height. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 11 ZBA- MTG.2003 -SEP September 2, 2003 Director of Community Development Kallien said that the proposed changes to the structure height allow a substantial improvement to the property within the existing setbacks, would need to seek a variation to the height over 30 feet as well. The intention is reasonable. Plan Commission Chairwoman Payovich, said that the Plan Commission discussion on this particular item, was intended to effect someone seeking a variance in the future would have to bundle in the request for structure height in their request. She can understand that the Trilla's would not understand that this was coming forward. The Zoning Board of Appeals accepted and agreed with this modification. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to the requested text amendment. Chairman Davis moved, seconded by Member Shah to recommend approval of the text amendment to increase structure height based on the petitioner having satisfied the applicable standards and to incorporate all conditions as follows: 1. All structure heights for single - family homes will be measured to the peak of the roof. 2. The structure height provision as defined in 13 -3 -10 of the Zoning Ordinance should be modified so that height of homes will be measured using one of the following methods: a. In engineered subdivisions, the height will be measured using recommended first floor elevation that is part of the approved grading plan. b. For lots improved with an existing single - family home, the existing floor elevation and /or foundation elevation can be maintained. C. For any other situation, the Village Engineer shall determine an elevation based on the existing grades and grades of adjacent properties. 3. The maximum structure height for single - family homes will be laddered by zoning district as follows; a. R -1 District — 50 feet b. R -2 District — 45 feet (lots one acre or larger) C. R -2 District (lots less than one acre) and R -3 District - 40 feet d. R -4 District - 35 feet 4. The maximum number of stories for any single - family home shall not be limited to 2.5 stories. 5. The current required front, side and rear yard setbacks shall continue. However, it is recommended that the existing provision, which increases the required side yard setback for any home, built to a height of 40 feet in the R -1 and R -2 districts shall be eliminated. 6. The maximum height for any home constructed with a continuous flat roof shall be changed to; 35 feet in the R -1 and R -2 districts. Homes with a continuous flat roof in the R -3 and R -4 districts would be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. These heights include the parapet wall. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 12 ZBA- MTG.2003 -SEP September 2, 2003 7. Any lot, which has been granted a variation after the adoption of the amendments which increase the maximum height of single - family homes which seeks approval of a variation to reduce any required yard should be limited to the maximum structure height of 30 feet. Any request to increase the structure height will require the approval of a variation by the Village. 8. Regarding comments from the Fire Department, the Commission recommends the following language; Where residential building heights exceed 30 feet, the highest occupiable space must have an emergency escape and rescue opening at a maximum elevation of 32 feet above grade." 9. The Commission discussed the issue of requiring additional fire suppression and detection devices as part of its deliberation to increase the maximum height of residential structures. It was recommended that the fire suppression /detection device issue be detached from this case and be addressed separately by the Village Board. 10. The Zoning Board of Appeals concurs with the Plane Commission recommendation that the Village Board refer a case back to them to review the height of accessory structures in residential districts which are now limited to 15 feet. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6- Mueller, Sanford, Shah, Young, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Ascher Motion Carried. Side Load Garages Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Engineering Department had a standard that said there had to be 28 feet of side yard and pavement to support a side load garage. The standard was nowhere in any of the ordinances. It was decided that this needed to be confirmed and affirmed in writing. Through the years it was felt that it could be reduced to 23 feet to provide safe egress and ingress in the driveway. Village Engineer Durfey said that when the process started, he believed the 23 -foot requirement would work and would work fine on a flat surface. However, on a sloping or steep lot, where there is a lot of grade from the garage down and a retaining wall is required, which is not permitted on an easement, would leave only 17 feet from the garage door to the retaining wall. He suggested modifying the proposed language to clarify that 23 feet of "driveway opposite the garage doors for maneuverability." . No one spoke in opposition or in support of the proposed text amendment. Director of Community Development Kallien said that side yard has to be at least 23 feet and the size of the driveway opposite of the garage door, must be a minimum of 23 feet in width. The Plan Commission recommended approval of the side load garage provision by a vote of 7 to 0 Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Village has satisfied the applicable standards required for a text amendment as follows: 1. The amendment for side load garages is consistent with accepted engineering standards, 2. The amendment will protect the public health, safety and welfare of the residents, and 3. The amendment will not have a negative impact on the community. Member Sanford moved, seconded by Member Mueller that the petitioner has satisfied the requirements as required by ordinance to recommend for approval the proposed text amendment to side load garage ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 13 ZBA- MTG.2003 -SEP 7 September 2, 2003 requirements as requested, subject to the condition that the language be modified that the side yard has to be at least 23 feet and also the size of the driveway opposite of the garage door, must be a minimum of 23 feet in width. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6- Nays: 0 - Absent: 1 - Motion Carried. Vl. OTHER BUSINESS Mueller, Sanford, Shah, Young, Zaheer and Davis Ascher Member Young acknowledged the receipt of a Thank you note from the Siddiqi family with respect to the variation request at 1715 York Road. There was no other business discussed. V11. ADJOURNMENT Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Shah to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 14 ZBA- MTG.2003 -SEP Director of Com evelopment Secretary r7, Z v Q Z� Date Approved September 2, 2003