Loading...
Minutes - 05/02/2017 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BR92K� CALL TO ORDER: MINUTES OF THE MAY 2, 2017 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS AMENDED ON JUNE 6, 2017 The Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Champ Davis in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Jeffrey Bulin, Natalie Cappetta, Baker Nimry, Alfred Savino, Steven Young and Wayne Ziemer IN ATTENDANCE: Trustee Mark Moy, Development Services Director Robert L. Kallien, Planner Rebecca Von Drasek, and Planning Technician Gail Polanek. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR MINUTES OF THE APRIL 4 2017 MEETING APRIL 4, 2017 Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Nimry to approve the minutes of the April 4, 2017 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as amended. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNPUNISHED BUSINESS A. MIKE SAHLI — 3715 SPRING ROAD — VARIATION — ZONING SABLI -3715 ORDINANCE SECTION 13 -6C -3A — LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS SPRWG ROAD - SECTION 13- 6C -3A- LOT AREA Chairman Davis announced that the public hearing had been continued to this meeting. He explained that the motion failed at the meeting on April 4, 2017. He noted that he was absent at the last meeting and that the Rules of Procedure allow the matter to be continued and reviewed further and he stated for the record that he had watched the video of the April 4, 2017 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, read the minutes, reviewed the case file and inspected the site and prepared to add his consideration to the issue. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 11 May 2, 2017 Member Natalie Cappetta recused herself from participation in this agenda item due to her law firm's representation as attorney for the Petitioner. Frederick Cappetta, Attorney for the petitioner, Mike Sahli, the owner of the property located at 3715 Spring Road, stated that he did not have any further evidence or testimony to be included. He made a statement that he was a bit concerned when he received subsequently a listing agreement for the property, intended to be purported as an important document. He was concerned because we are all interested in due process. He wanted to point out that a listing agreement is a listing party's opinion. When they say something on there it is not law and does not bind you and had it said that land was divisible that would not change whether or not it was and if it was said it was not divisible that would not change the fact that it is or is not. It is or is not, depending upon the village's action. We have a natural tendency to say that we have rules and want to make sure that they are maintained, but he wanted to point out that we also have an obligation under the law to consider the possibility of change and cannot be arbitrary in denying change and that there are standards that have been established that were responded to and addressed. Chairman swore in all members of the audience that wished to provide testimony. Mary Lebbin, resident at 3815 Washington Street, which is just down the street from the proposed parcel. She thought about this all month and did not know what all was involved until today when she went to the Village Hall. She knows that there are some smaller and larger homes on Washington. As long as all of the homes meet the requirements of setbacks being 40 feet from their neighbor's properties, along Washington and Spring and 12 feet from the interior side yard, she sees no reason to object. Chairman Davis noted that it did not appear that they were seeking any changes to any of the setbacks as shown on the plans in the case file. Mr. Cappetta confirmed that was correct. Member Savino added that would not mean in the future that the owner of one of the lots could not come before this board and request a variation. Chairman Davis agreed that could be done. Patrick Rooney, resident at 3801 Washington, adjacent to the property and was opposed to the request and sent a letter to Mr. Kallien. He believes the property was designed for one lot. It is on one of the nicest streets in DuPage County. It cannot really have two houses on it and would not fit in his opinion. He spoke with Mr. Sahli's wife that he did not think it would be marketable abutting against a stable. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 11 May 2, 2017 The lot is undersized and too small to be subdivided. He spoke with a few neighbors and his office faces the property and it looks crowded on the lot as proposed. He said that what would be the difference from building one $2 million house versus two $1 million house. He thought that they were going to move into it with their brother. It changes the landscape and the look and feel of Oak Brook and crowds the neighbors to the east. It's a great piece of property with great neighbors but it's meant for one house not two. Chairman Davis asked if the property can be seen because when he drove there he noticed a lot of landscaping. Natasha Scarpiniti, resident at 3719 Spring said that the listing sheet was provided noting the property could not be subdivided since the attorney at the last meeting indicated that Mr. Sahli did not know the property was not subdividable. She added that he should have done more investigation before purchasing and it was noted on the listing in addition he acted as his own buyer's agent. She added that she had been told by the village the property could not be subdivided. The previous owner also told her that it was her impression that they had dedicated the land on Washington Street to the Village. Chairman Davis noted that from the Zoning Board's standpoint, the statement may be a correct statement that the lot is not subdividable, but it is always subject to a party coming before the Zoning Board and seeking a variation. If the variation is granted then it may be able to be subdivided. Ms. Scarpiniti said that then all of the residents in the area could also seek to subdivide their property. Chairman Davis agreed, adding that she would need to come before the Zoning Board and plead the case for the variation. As far as setting a precedent, each case is considered to be a unique situation. Ms. Scarpiniti said that if the Sahli's were allowed to do this, then they all could do it. Chairman Davis said that they would be free to seek the relief, but could not guarantee that the relief would be granted, but the opportunity exists to come before the Zoning Board to seek it. Mr. Cappetta responded to the comments as follows: That in Mr. Sahli's testimony he indicated that before he bought the property he went to the village and he did further due diligence and found that a 54,000 square foot lot could be divided. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 11 May 2, 2017 Unfortunately, no one at the Village or he realized that there was undedicated property. It does not appear in the Title policy or in any document. You would need to be pretty savvy to know what that dedication would cause. There is no fault to the Village or Mr. Sahli, but everyone presumes there was notice here and that is not true. He did his due diligence, unfortunately it was faulty, which is why there are variations and standards and he believed those were met. Chairman Davis questioned whether the properties along Washington Street have dedications. Director Kallien said that he went through the DuPage County Plat book today and he felt that we need to rely on that information, which is the most accurate information they have, short of someone providing an up to date plat of survey. With that said it appeared that the lots all went to the center of the road. Even with the dedication it appeared that all of them were over the 25,000 square foot threshold. Chairman Davis noted that when reviewing the file, the character of the neighborhood is important and there was not a reference to the church or the cemetery, located west of the subject property and little to no reference to Salt Creek being immediately to the north. Mr. Cappetta responded that it was absolutely part of the character of the neighborhood. He added that he has also resided in the area for 40 years. He passed the property many times over the years. The house is over 50 years old and needs to be redeveloped. Fullersburg needs the property to be redeveloped and the request is a reasonable proposal. It is also a redevelopment that the community could use. Chairman Davis noted that the standards had been addressed and included in the case file. Member Savino asked who Mr. Sahli spoke to in the village. Mr. Sahli responded that he really was not sure who he spoke to at the front desk. He was told that the minimum requirement for subdividing was 25,000 square feet. Member Savino questioned the square footage footprint for the property. He also said that Mr. Sahli indicated he would like to have a home for his brother in law, yet there was no testimony from anyone saying that they would have a desire to living there. He voted against it the first time and would not change his mind. Someone raised the issue that the neighbors could come in and request the same type of relief. Fullersburg was described as an area that was the most rural and meant to be that way. By adding more homes than the Zoning Ordinance allows detracts from that VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 11 May 2, 2017 V thought. In addition the character of the neighborhood was important and if subdivided there would be smaller lots and could continue further east down Spring Road. Member Nimry said that subtracting the setbacks there would be approximately 8- 9,000 square foot buildable area, not a small footprint. Member Ziemer questioned whether it was anticipated that the setbacks would be reduced further for the expansion of any roadways. Director Kallien responded that it was not anticipated. He added that we always go back to the Comprehensive Plan and the original plan really reflected the underlying zoning of the area. The Village has not made many zoning changes, especially in the Fullersburg Woods area. Templeton Woods actually went backwards to larger lots. There has not been a violation to the Comprehensive Plan. There are many different sized lots that have existed prior to the incorporation of Oak Brook. Along Wood Road there are many small lots and the zoning is more restrictive on the west side than on the east side of the street. There are also a number of very oddly shaped lots, reflecting the angles of the roadways. As far as compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, it calls for single family development, so it complies. It is a judgment call, which is why this requests come to the Zoning Board to make a recommendation and ultimately the Village Board will render a decision. Member Nimry questioned whether the setbacks shown on the plan could be made a condition of approval and not come back to seek a variance? Director Kallien responded that in the recommendation reasonable conditions can be included. Since this matter must go through the subdivision process, the plat should match what is shown on the exhibits. Motion by Member Nimry, seconded by Member Young to recommend approval of the variation to Section 13 -6C -3A of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the reduction of the minimum lot area requirements for the property at 3715 Spring Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The reduced lot area is to be in substantial conformance to the Area Exhibit B and C on pages J and K of the case file. 2. Approval of the Final Plat of Subdivision with the condition that all of the setbacks remain as proposed by the owner and shown on the Washington Spring Final Plat of Subdivision dated March 17, 2017 in the case file. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 11 May 2, 2017 3. Add the condition "Notwithstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all Village Ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically varied or waived." ROLL CALL: Ayes: 4 — Members Nimry, Young, Ziemer and Chairman Davis Nays: 2 — Members Bulin and Savino Recused: 1 — Member Cappetta Absent: 0 — Motion Carried. 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. DANIELIDES — 3001 GRANT STREET — VARIATION — ZONING DANIELIDES -3001 GRANT STREET — ORDINANCE SECTION 13- 6C -3F -3 AND SECTION 13- 6C -3F -2a — REAR SECTION 13- 6C -3F -3 YARD AND SIDE YARD ABUTTING A STREET SETBACKS and 13- 6C- 3F -2a- SETBACKS Chairman Davis announced the public hearing. All witnesses providing testimony were sworn in. Leo Danielides, property owner of the property located at 3001 Grant, currently resides at 20 Kimberley Circle in Oak Brook reviewed the requested variations as follows: • To reduce the rear yard setback from forty feet (40') to twenty feet (20') to comply with the submitted site plan. • To reduce the side yard setback from forty feet (40') to twelve feet (12'), which would be consistent with the requirement for a side yard not abutting a street Mr. Danielides reviewed the history of the property noting that the house had been constructed in 1958. He and his wife purchased the property in 2015 and are now in a financial position to proceed with the home. He noted that there are many different sized lots in the Westchester Park Subdivision area. Having researched the area he found that in 1929 the lots were subdivided in the size shown for 3008 Grant with alleys and over the years has been transformed into its current state. When the Village vacated 30`E Street to the north, those sections became part of those properties abutting it. The subject property is very unique as the road on Grant Street goes about 20 feet along the property and then the road dead ends and pavement has never been there since 1958. The proposed residence faces south and if the street were there it would be a forty foot setback. If it would be considered that the street did not exist then a 12 foot VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 11 May 2, 2017 setback would be required and it would be in compliance. In the rear yard there is a covered deck where a 40 foot setback is required. The foundation for the home is located within the setback, but because the deck is covered it is then required to be counted as part of the home and requires the variation. All other setbacks are in compliance with the required setbacks. There is only one neighbor located south and east of the property. Chairman Davis questioned the requested side yard variation request when there is no improved roadway. Director Kallien responded that the road still exists as an easement for a potential Grant Street. The Village has no intent of ever improving the street. The applicant had provided information earlier in the process and he approached the Village Board about buying the piece of land and they had wanted more information regarding value. The applicant had also provided a document from a Title search showing that the land may in fact be part of his lot, yet the Village has retained an easement over it for a road, but does not have ownership of the land. It is a remnant of the past and the safest thing to do is to request the variation. Mr. Danielides resumed his presentation making the following points: • The Westchester Park Subdivision has a unique layout of lots • The subject lot is zoned R -3 with a minimum requirement of 25,000 square feet. The lot is 20,682 square feet, which is less than the minimum requirement. They have tried to position the house as best they could on the property to be considerate of the only neighbor whose property is southeast of the property. • This is the last lot on Grant Street and dead ends at the property and there is only one other residence on the street. All other lots on Grant Street are actually backyards containing garages and shed to the properties on Lincoln Road. • The property to the north is the golf course and to the west is the Sports Core property with the soccer fields. The setbacks requested are located against the perpetually open areas, not against any residential neighbor. • The only two neighbors are located within 250 feet of the property. • The variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or other properties in the area. He noted that the neighbor to the southeast had written a letter stating that she did not want the house to be located closer to her property. She also noted that when the lot was cleaned it had impacted her fence, which he would fix and they would also seek her input when they plant vegetation that would be around the border to her VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 77oof 11 May 2, 2017 - ;e7►- property by the split rail fence. He felt a little responsible to give some consideration to her existing plantings that were impacted when he cleared the brush and ash trees creating full sun on the foliage. He showed elevations depicting the areas of the variations and photographs of the property. He requested that the Zoning Board recommend approval of the variations requested. Member Young noted that there was a nice letter from Linda Lojewski, the neighbor whose property abuts the subject property and questioned whether landscaping would be added to prevent foot traffic to the golf course because she had mentioned the issues over the 4h of July and Taste of Oak Brook traffic. Mr. Danielides responded that it does bother him as well. They cannot do it from Lincoln, but they can from Grant. Currently, it is the Village's road and he cannot keep someone from looking and not go down there. The bigger issue is those that play soccer and actually park on the road and his driveway. The one event a year barricades can be added, but the soccer field is another issue. Member Savino questioned who owned the chain link fence by the property that is intertwined in vegetation and part of it is down along the west property line. Mr. Danielides responded, the Village owns it, although he did clean quite a bit of it. Director Kallien noted that many of the older subdivisions had chain link fences around the subdivisions. The way the Code is currently written, chain link fences are allowed around subdivisions. Hunter Trails and Midwest Club has one with vegetation. Member Savino noted that the fence is in very bad shape and if the Village is responsible for it, then it should be taken care of Director Kallien responded that he would get in touch with Sean Creed to take care of it. Another issue is that the street does not have a turn around and emergency vehicles need to back up down the road. Mr. Danielides said that he had approached the Village about doing something with it, but he cannot do anything with the Village easement on it, it would need to be the Village. He was told by the Fire Department that if he had an emergency the ambulance would come first and the fire truck would be behind it and would need to back up to leave before the ambulance could get out. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of I 1 May 2, 2017 Jon Green, President, Engineering Resource Associates, land surveyor and civil engineer said that they prepared the plans presented. He noted that the lot was unique and that they had a choice as to how the home should face. By taking advantage of the view to the golf course, it made sense for the house to face south, providing a 40 -foot front yard setback. The side yard to the west was required to be 40 feet because it was determined to be a corner side yard, but there is no street to be setback from. With a standard side yard setback it could be 12 feet on the east, but they are at almost 30 feet. The house was shifted to the west to be sensitive to the neighbor to the east. The covered deck in the rear yard would be an allowable structure by Code in the setback if covering were not attached to the house. Per the Village Code, it would be feasible to construct a structure 99 percent similar to what was present, but there would need to be a "gap" between the covered structure and the house, which doesn't make sense from a construction standpoint. There would be doubled foundations and footings and a gap where rain could enter. They like the plan and it has wonderful views with open space to the west and north. He did not know of another lot like this with a rectilinear lot without a full street on either point of frontage. Given the views and character of the neighborhood they requested the support from the Zoning Board. Member Bulin questioned whether the deck had a full foundation and whether there was access from the second floor to the roof. Mr. Green responded that it would be level with the house so there would be a concrete footing to hold it. It is a deck by today's standards with a hard surface. He said there was access to the roof. Member Bulin noted it was part of the house. Chairman Davis noted that the standards were submitted in writing and were in the case file on pages C -C.2 and were covered within the presentation. Member Bulin noted that the front yard is created and questioned if any front yard could be rotated. Director Kallien responded that in a typical subdivision the front yard faces the street. However, in this case the street literally ends at the driveway. The unique Member Cappetta noted that should the easement for the street be vacated it would go to the property and then there would not be a setback issue on the side yard. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 11 May 2, 2017 Jon Green, President, Engineering Resource Associates, land surveyor and civil engineer said that they prepared the plans presented. He noted that the lot was unique and that they had a choice as to how the home should face. By taking advantage of the view to the golf course, it made sense for the house to face south, providing a 40 -foot front yard setback. The side yard to the west was required to be 40 feet because it was determined to be a corner side yard, but there is no street to be setback from. With a standard side yard setback it could be 12 feet on the east, but they are at almost 30 feet. The house was shifted to the west to be sensitive to the neighbor to the east. The covered deck in the rear yard would be an allowable structure by Code in the setback if covering were not attached to the house. Per the Village Code, it would be feasible to construct a structure 99 percent similar to what was present, but there would need to be a "gap" between the covered structure and the house, which doesn't make sense from a construction standpoint. There would be doubled foundations and footings and a gap where rain could enter. They like the plan and it has wonderful views with open space to the west and north. He did not know of another lot like this with a rectilinear lot without a full street on either point of frontage. Given the views and character of the neighborhood they requested the support from the Zoning Board. Member Bulin questioned whether the deck had a full foundation and whether there was access from the second floor to the roof. Mr. Green responded that it would be level with the house so there would be a concrete footing to hold it. It is a deck by today's standards with a hard surface. He said there was access to the roof. Member Bulin noted it was part of the house. Chairman Davis noted that the standards were submitted in writing and were in the case file on pages C -C.2 and were covered within the presentation. Member Bulin noted that the front yard is created and questioned if any front yard could be rotated. Director Kallien responded that in a typical subdivision the front yard faces the street. However, in this case the paved street literally ends at the driveway. Member Cappetta noted that should the easement for the street be vacated it would go to the property and then there would not be a setback issue on the side yard. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 11 May 2, 2017 Director Kallien agreed that by right it would go to the property owner. Originally there was a 30`h Street along the north property and was vacated many years ago. Mr. Danielides noted that there was a Washington Street that was vacated along with 30`h Street. When vacated those streets were incorporated into the adjoining residential lots. He provided additional history regarding the area, but believed that If that section of the street was vacated it would go to his property that adjoins it since it is located within the boundary of the Westchester Park Subdivision. This is a modest size home where they want to raise their children and retire in some day. Member Young questioned whether there was enough room at the end of the street to create a turnaround for emergency vehicles. Director Kallien responded that a comment could be made by this body or staff can include it in their report. The Zoning Board agreed that Staff should include in its report about providing room for emergency vehicles. Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Ziemer to recommend approval of the variation to Section 13- 6C -3F.3 (rear yard) from 40 feet to approximately 21 feet and to Section 13- 6C- 3F.2.a (side yard abutting a street) from 40 feet to approximately 12 feet, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance to the approved plans submitted on pages K and L of the case file. 2. Add the condition "Notwithstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all Village Ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically varied or waived." ROLL CALL: Ayes: 7 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Nimry, Savino, Young, Ziemer and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 — Motion Carried. 6. OTHER BUSINESS OTHER BUSINESS A. SCHEDULE A SPECIAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING DUE SPECIAL MEETING TO THE INDEPENDENCE DAY HOLIDAY ON JULY 4.2017 JUNE 27, 2017 Planning Technician Polanek informed the Board that the Regular July meeting falls on July 4, 2017 this year, which is the Independence Day holiday and that the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 11 May 2, 2017 meeting would be canceled. She suggested that the Board reserve a date to schedule a Special Meeting on June 27, 2017 in case there would be a need for a meeting for any agenda items that would be unable to be delayed to the next month. If not, then a meeting would not be called. The Members discussed it briefly and agreed. Motion by Member Savino, seconded by Member Ziemer to schedule a Special Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for June 27, 2017, if one is needed. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried There was no other business to discuss. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no additional comments from the public. 8. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Ninny to adjourn the meeting at 8:18 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: /s/ Robert L. Kallien Jr. Robert Kallien, Jr. Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Pagee I I of 11 YitS" May 2, 2017 PUBLIC COMMENT ADJOURNMENT