Loading...
Minutes - 09/04/2001 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES September 4, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Champ Davis Members Paul Adrian Richard Ascher George Mueller Manu Shah Ayesha Zaheer Member Louis Aldini Village Trustee Alfred Savino Director of Community Development Robert Kallien Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Mueller, to waive the reading of the August 7, 2001 regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Ill. ZIMMERMAN — 74 TWIN OAKS DRIVE — VARIATION — REAR YARD SETBACK Chairman Davis swore in the petitioner, Fritz Zimmerman, property owner and Jim Peterson, Architect and Designer with Hasbrouck, Peterson, Zimoch, and Sirirattumrong. Fritz Zimmerman said that a variance is needed to provide access to a planned addition, where he intends to build two bedrooms, a playroom and a bathroom. The proposed access would be through the living room and hallway to the planned addition. Chairman Davis asked if access could be provided through the second floor. Mr. Zimmerman responded that an access could be made, but access would have to be through another bedroom to get to access to the new bedrooms. Jim Peterson said that the main purpose for the addition is to provide for additional bedroom space. The house has only three bedrooms and most of the homes in the area have more. Unless access is provided for as requested, they would have to destroy the master bedroom suite on the ground floor or break up the bedrooms that exist on the second floor, with the result of no net gain, because they would lose one of the planned bedrooms. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2001 -SEPT 1 VAX September 4, 2001 Chairman Davis asked what the nature of the addition is for, that a variation is needed? The request appears a little strange; and they have not had a matter like this before the Board seeking a variation for this reason. Mr. Zimmerman said this is the way he bought the house five years ago. The only thing that he has done to the home was to remove and replace an existing pool in the back. In order to get access to the new addition where the new bedrooms will be located, they need to come out the existing living room doors and build a brick covered hallway with windows that would run toward the addition. Mr. Peterson reviewed the photographs of the site (page 8) and stated that one of the hardships is that the petitioner cannot bring the house up to the standards of the other houses in the area, unless the addition can be built. Access to the addition cannot be provided without the variation being granted. The character of the area will not change. With landscape screening, the walkway /hallway would not be seen by passersby and the property located immediately to the south has a solid fenced in the area adjacent to the garage, so the neighbor will not have a view of the walkway. It would be only one story and will not impact their home. That property owner spends quite a bit of time in Florida, and the petitioner has tried to contact them regarding the plan. They did verbally indicate that they do not have a problem with the proposal. Chairman Davis said that the Board received a letter from that neighbor to the south, Mrs. Widholm 102 Twin Oaks Drive, and stated that she is unable to attend the hearing and requested an extension of time so that she can attend the hearing in person, meet with other neighbors and register an objection to the construction. There was also an e-mail sent to President Bushy from Ruth Schlesinger at 101 Twin Oaks Drive, directly across the street, and she noted that the matter had not been discussed with her or Mrs. Widholm and she is also registering an objection to the proposal. Mr. Zimmerman received a copy of these objections and stated that he had spoken with Mrs. Widholm regarding the proposal. However he had not spoken with Mr. Schlesinger, because she is in Florida most of the time. Mr. Peterson noted that the response to the standards are part of the file (page E) and addressed the standards to the Zoning Board of Appeals as follows: 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 house presently has three bedrooms which is fewer than other houses in the area. In order to add the additional bedrooms, this walkway addition would have to be built. In order to build it in a manner that does not subtract from the other bedrooms, the enclosed walkway is needed. The plight of the property owner is due to unique circumstance. In this particular case when the house was built under county zoning it was set back 50 feet from Twin Oaks Drive, because that was the zoning at the time. The setback is now 30 feet thus allowing the addition. The addition would not be as difficult to provide right now if the house had not been set back fifty feet. When it was constructed there was no contemplation by the previous owner for additional bedrooms to be built in that direction. Constructing the bedrooms within the setback is not the problem and does not require a variance; the problem is getting access to the new bedrooms. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The view from the property next door will be minimal because it abuts a solid wood fence and inside the fence is the neighbors attached garage, so there is no ability to see it. With respect to the view from Twin Oaks Drive, the projection is such that it will barely be seen once the landscaping has been completed. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 2 ZBA- MTG.2001 -SEPT September 4, 2001 The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out. The change from the county setback requirement has created the inability to get access to the additional bedrooms they are seeking to build. The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning classification. It is a unique situation in that they are able to construct an addition that meets the needs of the petitioner, but not they are not able to create access to it without variation approval to construct the covered walkway. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. With respect to the proposed walkway, it will not be noticed, so it will not be detrimental. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed addition is only one story high and the solid fence next door is right up to the property line so it will barely be noticed. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property. The Zimmerman's are not building the addition to enhance the value of their house for resale value. They are building the addition to accommodate their family so that they can stay in the house. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The difficulty was not created by the petitioner, the house was built in its present condition under county zoning. They are trying to find a way to provide for the extra bedrooms without creating a problem for their neighbors or the community. No one in the audience spoke in favor of the proposal. Barbara Clements, identified herself as one of the property owners of 102 Twin Oaks Drive, which is the property directly next door to the subject property. Her mother, Fay Widholm has lived in the home for 47 years. They vehemently oppose the walkway being constructed so close to their property. Their greatest concern is that it is too close to the lot line, a little over twelve feet. She supplied pictures of the site for the Zoning Board to review (page 11 of the petition file). Her concern is that if approved, there would be a standard set in the Village allowing people to have twelve -foot back yards. They already have issues with the construction of the pool, which was done a couple of years ago. They now have flooding in their backyard. The pool is slightly above the grade of their property, and although Mr. Zimmerman has tried to address it, in a heavy rainstorm they do have flooding. They are now concerned about having a building structure within twelve feet of their lot line that would cause more flooding in the front yard. The landscaping has not been restored, even though the pool has been for a couple of years. Timber Trails has small ranch brick homes. There are some larger homes that have been built, but their home is a three - bedroom home and two children were raised there. Another neighbor had four children in a three - bedroom home on a slab. Another neighbor has a two bedroom one -story home. The home on the other side of Mr. Zimmerman is a two -story home, however, the homeowner purchased the lot behind him so that he has a double lot. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 3 ZBA- MTG.2001 -SEPT September 4, 2001 They have a privacy fence on their property, and have always have had one, because there has always been a pool next door. It was built for safety and privacy for their family. This is not the original home on the subject property. The original home burned down in approximately 1987. It occurred late on Christmas Eve and the woman that lived there was crawling over their fence on fire. The night of that fire, firemen were in their home concerned that their house was going to catch on fire. It is frightening to think that property could come that much closer to their property. The issue is zoning; it is a newer property than most homes in Timber Trails. It is a two -story home with a swimming pool. The property will not decrease in value because he cannot add on or build the walkway as planned. All the current zoning requirements should apply to all lots in Timber Trails. There should be consistency. Some homes should not be allowed to have twelve -foot backyards and others with large yards. A variance is going to expand the built on portion of his property to larger than most of the homes in Timber Trails. She provided a bulleted sheet listing her objections to the members (page 12 of the petition file). She and her husband will be moving into the home to reside in a couple of years and object to it being built. John Clements, husband of Barbara Clements submitted a letter (page 13) addressing the standards that oppose the proposed variation. He summarized as follows: 1. The majority of the homes in the area have 3 bedrooms and 2 -3 bathrooms. There is only one other two -story home in the area, which is located west of the property, and that property owner also owns the lot behind it. The value of the property will not be diminished if the variation is denied. 2. There is nothing unique about the property other than when the home was rebuilt; the master bedroom was located at the end of the home. 3. It will alter the locality, because a building structure will be located twelve feet eight inches from another property. 4. The physical surrounding creates a mere inconvenience, not a hardship for the property owner because if you look at the plans, access could be made through the master bedroom and master bathroom. They are separated by an area that could be made into a hallway. Bedrooms could be created there for the children and a new master bedroom could be created in the new area without having this corridor that goes around the outside of the building. 5. It is detrimental to public welfare due to the flooding issue that already exists and could be increased by allowing this structure to be constructed. In summary, the value of the existing property will not be decreased if the variance is denied. The existing home is already larger and newer than most of the homes in close proximity. Building the addition as proposed could increase flooding on adjacent properties. The proposed corridor addition is requested so that the property owner is not inconvenienced. The variance if granted could alter the essential character of the neighborhood. He noted that Mrs. Widholm, his mother -in -law had never been contacted by Mr. Zimmerman regarding the addition. Cheryl Widholm, wife of co- trustee Roger Widholm, represented him and is in total agreement with the previous statements. While Mr. Zimmerman is convinced the addition will not alter the character of the neighborhood, as design goes, the proposed addition lacks any architectural integrity. The house is a French country style and the addition is proposed in another style. It will not blend with the existing home. In response, Mr. Zimmerman said that the pool has only been in for one year. He said that there are some weeds, but the rest of the house looks very good. The reason the pool area has not been ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 4 ZBA- MTG.2001 -SEPT September 4, 2001 completed is because he planned on building the addition and planned to finish the sod after the work was completed. As far as the pool flooding, at the very beginning there was some however, that was not from the pool, but rather it was a sump pump line from the crawl space that ran out and had been piped along Mrs. Widholm's fence. That was removed and the problem was taken care of. The pool was built to code and was approved by the Village. He does not understand their current complaint, because as far as he was aware it was taken care of. In regards to the objection to the hallway, he does not feel that it will interfere with anything from the neighbor's perspective. The garage will face that part of the addition and they will not see it, because the garage and their fence will block the view. Chairman Davis said that the Board notes that setback requirements are not necessarily for viewing, it is more so for location and structure placement. It appears that the neighbors objection is that it will be located twelve feet from the lot line. Normally, he does not like to hear that it will set a precedent, because a variation is not to be granted unless the circumstances are truly unique. If the circumstances were truly unique a precedent would not be created. This situation might create a precedent. The petitioner's argument for uniqueness is that the house was built according to code, which at the time was fifty feet, but yet there is still room to construct the bedrooms on east side of the house. The uniqueness does not prohibit the construction, the uniqueness is that the petitioner wants to obtain access into an encroachment through a particular structure rather than going through the master bedroom. There are other alternatives as to what could be put in the proposed structure that does not need a variation. Mr. Zimmerman responded that is not the way he has it set up. He already has a master bath. Chairman Davis said that what he is trying to overcome is not having to change something else in order to permit the new structure. Mr. Zimmerman acknowledged that was true. Member Zaheer said that the issue is the access to the new structure, and with all due respect to the architect, she is also an architect, and as one of the neighbors mentioned, there is a way to go right through the existing home by losing part of linen closest and part of a master closet to access the new structure. It is great that the petitioner wants to add bedrooms, but there are other alternatives to get to the addition without having to encroach into the setback. She does not believe that a hardship exists, but rather that other alternatives have not been explored. Not much would be sacrificed to accomplish what he wants without granting a variation. Mr. Zimmerman said that it is not feasible to go through a hallway and master bedroom and bath to come out into the proposed addition. Member Ascher responded that he agrees with Chairman Davis and Member Zaheer. The construction of the hallway is seen as an encroachment onto the property that is not called for. He is personally aware of the property, it is beautiful and a benefit to the community and neighborhood. He believes this would go along the line of being precedent setting. He would hate to see many of the neighbors coming back and using this situation as an example to grant other variations when other alternatives exist. He believes it would be a detriment to the community, and the next door neighbor has identified that it could be a problem for them and their home. He hopes that the petitioner would find another way to put the bedrooms on the house because he does not believe the variation should be granted. Member Mueller said that he believes the addition would be too close to the neighbor's property. Chairman Davis said that two of the standards to recommend approval of a variation have not been met. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2001 -SEPT 5 'ear September 4, 2001 1. He believes the variation will alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances, it is due to desire. They do not fault him for his desire to want to do the addition in this fashion, however, the need for the variation is not due to the home being set back fifty feet. It appears that there are other alternatives to access the proposed addition that would alleviate the problem and that have nothing to do with the fifty -foot setback. No motion was made to support the proposal. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Zaheer to recommend denial of the request for a variation to the rear yard setback. The petitioner has not met the standards as required by ordinance for granting the variation as requested. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 - Ascher Adrian, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Aldini Motion Carried. IV. BRIARWOOD LAKES SUBDIVISION — SPECIAL USE AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE G -68 Chairman Davis swore in the petitioners, Constantine Xinos, President of the Briarwood Lakes Community Association, Patricia McGreevy, Vice - President, and Dick Bartel, Secretary. The petitioner, Constantine Xinos, reviewed the request to seek an amendment to Special Use Ordinance G -68 from 1968. The petition was filed by the Association with the support of almost 98% of the property owners. They are trying to correct an inequity created by the two developers of Briarwood Lakes, who unwittingly and unintentionally created an inequitable situation. When the property was divided into 199 lots in the late 1960's, they conveyed only a portion of the real estate that was under each townhouse. As time progressed, they started conveying more property, including sidewalks, driveways and more rear and side yards. Eventually, in the early 1980's when they last of the development was conveyed, the people with property on the island and facing the water, own from the curb and in some cases, all the way into the lake. The problem arises, because the special use from 1968 states that there can be no private structure or improvement on common property. That part of all of the lots that was not conveyed to the first purchasers from the developer was quit claimed some time ago to the association and is interpreted as common property. Some property owners can have a patio, some can have a deck, some can have a small or larger balcony, but there is no uniformity. Some people cannot step out of their home without stepping onto common property. Several years ago a resident reviewed the Ordinance, took his neighbor to court, and forced the removal of a deck, which the Association had no objection to being built. The lawsuit began consideration of trying to develop language that would allow the Briarwood Lakes residents some equality in the right to ask the Association permission to build decks onto their house. The language was developed which they asked to be inserted as an amendment to Ordinance G -68, which would only allow a brick patio, concrete patio, or an elevated uncovered deck with a railing. It took almost two years before the language was agreeable to all parties, the Village Attorney, Community Development Director and Briarwood Lakes. They believe the language is fair and puts everyone in the same position. It does not mean that everyone will be able to build that sized patio or deck. The ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2001 -SEPT i September 4, 2001 Briarwood Architectural Committee must first approve and take into account the input of not only the neighbors on either side, but also in the back of the unit that can see it. This amendment will not effect anyone outside of Briarwood Lakes. Briarwood Lakes is bordered by Route 83 to the east and the lakes and trees to the west and north. The Village will not issue a building permit on anything that encroaches over common property because of the way the Ordinance is written. This problem would have been solved by the developer giving the same amount of open area when the lots were conveyed, but they did not. As time progressed they may have realized that people like to enjoy the outdoors. Some people cannot even put a chair outside, without being on common property. Chairman Davis said that the reason this is needed is because the special use refers to the common areas. The proposed language allows the issuance of permits from the Village for decks. Member Adrian asked once a deck is built on someone's property, does that then become their property. Mr. Xinos responded that it does not because the provision in the covenants is that if you are encroaching, you are deemed to have a revocable license, so there is not an adverse possession problem. The association has insurance in case of any injury. Chairman Davis said that the file indicates that the Plan Commission recommended unanimous approval. Mr. Xinos testified to the standards as follows: The special use amendment they are seeking is private in nature and will have a positive effect on the public health safety and welfare. It does not effect any property outside of Briarwood. People like to enjoy the outdoors and they want to do so without violating an ordinance. When it was brought to everyone's attention because of the one problem between neighbors, they all agreed. They do not want someone building a deck on a weekend without a permit that would not be inspected. They want things to be done right and safe. 2. This will allow people to upgrade their villas and enhance the value of the entire community, rather than only some of the properties. It will not cause any injury to the value of any non - Briarwood property. 3. The residents of Briarwood recognize the individual and collective benefits of the proposal, without any negative effects, by the overwhelming support of the signed petitions. Chairman Davis questioned that the 20 -foot restrictions will not constitute any interference with access on the common areas. Patricia McGreevy noted that the amendment does not mean that the association has to allow a deck for everyone. If it does not meet neighbors wishes, or if it would restrict the common areas it can be denied. Andrew Browar, 28 Regent Drive said that he is one of the few non - Briarwood homeowners that is located close to the development. His property is at the thinnest part of the creek across from the island. Directly across from his home is a two and a three unit villa. Decks were recently built on the end units. They are very attractive and he has no objection to them. He questioned whether the language proposed in this special use amendment would allow them to be made larger. Mr. Xinos responded that it does not allow the upper level deck to be extended any further than the 16 feet. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 7 ZBA- MTG.2001 -SEPT September 4, 2001 Mr. Bartel also responded that the villa with the new decks is his, and the property he owns goes all the way into the water and the deck cannot be made any larger than it presently is. 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 has been satisfied by the evidence presented. Member Zaheer moved, seconded by Member Shah that the petitioner has met the standards necessary to recommend approval of the special use as requested. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 - Adrian, Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Aldini Motion Carried. 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. At the last meeting the Plan Commission's recommendations were presented and reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Section 13- 12 -3 -M, relating to Repair and Service was the only item the board had an issue with. This section relates to activity occurring in off street parking lots or freestanding parking decks. The proposed language that was developed reads, "no motor vehicle repair work or service of any kind shall be permitted in off - street parking areas. 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, in which case gasoline and motor oil may be sold within such structure to the users of such facilities, provided that no sign thereto is visible from outside the structure and provided further that all gasoline pumps shall be effectively screened from view of streets and residence districts." The issue the board had was to the first part, which reads that "no motor vehicle repair work will be provided for "; we researched several other ordinances and only two were found that addressed this issue. The Village's of Downers Grove and Schaumburg had language that was similar in intent as our language except that they stated that vehicle repair and service work would be permitted for emergency service only. Chairman Davis said that the board was concerned more with the issue of parking facilities that may want to offer the service, and there are mobile oil change businesses that drive a car up into a truck and change the oil out of view. It is a perk offered by the office parks. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if the truck were brought into an enclosed building that would be allowed, because it would be located within an enclosed structure. Oak Brook has a longstanding policy that all commercial business be conducted within the building. That is why there is never any outdoor sales of garden supplies and bushes, as is seen in other communities. Member Adrian said that most of the garages in Oak Brook are level and opened. If you are inside that structure, does that constitute inside an enclosed area, or does it have to be an area inside the garage that cannot be accessed from the outside. That could possibly offer any of the services being discussed. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2001 -SEPT September 4, 2001 Director of Community Development Kallien said that most of the decks and parking lots are designed only for the parking of vehicles and the movement in and out of the spaces. If we would now allow these other activities, what kinds of conflicts would we be encouraging. If someone had a deck and wanted to pursue some type of activity or service like this, it would be preferred to have them come to the Village and have it reviewed to see if it would work, by way of a text amendment or special use permit. It is not something that we are aware that someone wants to do today. Chairman Davis asked how a car wash would fit into the language. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it would almost have to be within an enclosed structure. Chairman Davis said that he agrees with other members that it may be something that building owners may want to offer at some point in time. They will not offer it, if it would interfere with parking. Member Mueller said that downtown parking garages are much different than those in the Village Chairman Davis suggested and the members agreed, to add the following to the proposed text, which would open the door for car washes for the users of the facility. "Except in cases of emergency, no motor vehicle repair work or service of any kind shall be permitted in off - street parking areas. No gasoline or motor oil shall be sold or services performed in conjunction with an accessory parking facility unless such facilities are located within a completely enclosed structure, in which case gasoline and motor oil may be sold within such structure to the users of such facilities, provided that no sign thereto is visible from outside the structure and provided further that all gasoline pumps shall be effectively screened from view of streets and residence districts." Director of Community Development Kallien said that there were extensive language changes made with the goal of enhancing parking decks and structures. The Plan Commission recommended that the parking structure look and feel like the principal building. Chairman Davis said that he agrees with other members that it may be something that building owners may want to offer at some point in time and that they would not offer it, if it interfered with parking. Trustee Savino provided the Zoning Board of Appeals with pictures of additional parking decks that were passed around. Chairman Davis moved, seconded by Member Mueller, to recommend for approval the proposed language of Chapter 12 of the Village Code, as recommended by the Plan Commission and along with the minor change to the text of Section 13- 12 -3 -M, relating to Repair and Service. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 - Adrian, Ascher, Mueller, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Nays: 0- Absent: 1 - Aldini Motion Carried. V11. ADJOURNMENT Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Adrian to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes E ZBA- MTG.2001 -SEPT ` Director of Communi elopment Secretary February 5, 2002 Date Approved September 4, 2001