Loading...
Minutes - 02/11/2019 - Plan Commission1 2. 3 ri vILLACF Or MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 11, 2019 OAK BR SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON MARCH 18, 2019 CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Special Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Tropinski in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Marcia Tropinski, Members Richard DiBernardo, Thomas Doyle and Rahma Hasan ABSENT: Members Raju Iyer, Raj Lal and Kenneth Wilczak IN ATTENDANCE: Trustee Tiesenga, Development Services Director Tony Budzikowski, Planner Rebecca Von Drasek and Planning Technician Gail Polanek APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2018 NOVEMBER 19, 2018 Motion by Member Doyle, seconded by Member Hasan to waive the reading of the minutes and to approve the minutes of the November 19, 2018 Regular Plan Commission meetings as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. REGULAR PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 21, 2019 JANUARY 21, 2019 Motion by Member Doyle, seconded by Member Hasan to waive the reading of the minutes and to approve the minutes of the November 19, 2018 & January 21, 2019 Regular Plan Commission meetings as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion Carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — COMMERCIAL AREAS REVITALIZATION VOB - COMM'L AREAS REVITAL. PLAN -COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TO ORDINANCE S-1229 PLAN UPDATE To ORD. S-1229 Chairwoman Tropinski announced that this was the continuation of the public hearing from the last meeting. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 12 February 11, 2019 John Houseal, Houseal Lavigne, Village consultant noted that there were a few scriveners' errors and minor corrections made to the Plan and all requested changes were made per the Commissioners at the last meeting. Director Budzikowski noted the Plan had been modified per the Plan Commission's recommendation. All changes were highlighted on the Plan and were also noted in his memo to the Commission. However, as they review the document minor revisions may be made as needed as it goes to the Village Board Chairwoman Tropinski asked if any commissioners or audience members had comments or anything that needed further clarification. The Commissioners confirmed that they had nothing to add. No one in the audience had any additional comments. Trustee Baar raised a concern that there were only four members voting on the petition and that there were significant changes to Oakbrook Center with the addition of mixed-use residential. Chairwoman Tropinski responded that the Plan is meant as a guideline and that the majority of the members were not opposed to that change. Trustee Baar stated that from his experience on the Village Board that once the lawyers get involved wanting to do things they take the document much more seriously than a guideline. Director Budzikowski stated that the Plan is a guideline and the zoning regulations are used for bulk requirements, permitted uses, building heights, etc. He believed the Plan Commission was doing what they were charged with and as a matter of process a quorum was present and the process should not be delayed due to the number of plan commission members present and that making a recommendation should be their decision. Over the course of several meetings comments from the commissioners have been incorporated into the Plan as well as feedback from residents, building owners, and the Chamber of Commerce. The Plan Commission will provide a recommendation to the Village Board who will ultimately makes any modifications and final approval. Chairwoman Tropinski noted that the Jupiter residential project in the Oakbrook Center had been discussed. Planner Von Drasek referenced the 2007 Plan that always had some portion of Oakbrook Center designated for mixed-use. The changes to this new Plan expand the opportunity for mixed-use residential to the entire parcel as opposed to specified areas of the mall property as requested by Oakbrook Center. Member Hasan agreed and noted that on the first page of the Plan (under Planning VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 12 February 11, 2019 5. Process) states that "...we are establishing a "vision" for the corridor; developing plans and policies for land use..." so that it is not meant to be an actual document, it is a vision and the Commission intended to keep it that way to encourage development while retaining a level of control going forward. Chairwoman Tropinski agreed. Member Doyle believed mixed-use was discussed rather thoroughly and his impression was that as a board felt that the whole concept of mixed use being extended to the Windsor corridor that it was certainly appropriate for the shopping center. He noted he did not have a problem moving the Plan forward. Motioned by Chairwoman Tropinski, seconded by Member Hasan to recommend approval of the Commercial Areas Revitalization Plan Update draft dated February 7, 2019 along with any needed wordsmithing. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 4 — Members DiBernardo, Doyle, Hasan and Chairwoman Tropinski Nays: 0 — Absent 3 — Members Iyer, Lal and Wilczak. Motion Carried. The public hearing was concluded. NEW BUSINESS A. 3005 OAK BROOK HILLS ROAD — DARWEESH AND AL-DALLAL — MAP AMENDMENT — TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM R-1 TO R-2 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED ZONING DISTRICT Chairwoman Tropinski announced the petition. Mark Daniel, Daniel Law Office, P.C. 17W733 Butterfield Road, Unit F, Oakbrook Terrace, attorney for the applicants gave an overview of the petition. The applicants have been residents of Oak Brook for ten years. They purchased the property at 3005 Oak Brook Hills Road in 2018 at which time they demolished the existing home due to severe disrepair. They were seeking a map amendment to rezone the property from R -I to R-2. He clarified to any audience members that nothing they were seeking would alter any access over an existing easement over the property adjacent to and to the west of the site. Currently, there is a right of access for only one residential home and there was no plan to expand that. The property at 3005 was developed and then subdivided and sold preserving an easement for one home only with access to Oak Brook Hills Road and under Illinois law that cannot be changed. The property was annexed into the village in 1975 and its history was a part of a commercial corridor plan from 1920-1940. The area featured large lots due to that prior planning. There was a long history in trying to sell the property. The applicants purchased the 3.73 -acre property at auction in 2018. The proposed plan is VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 12 February 11, 2019 Ib NEW BUSINESS 3005 OAK BROOK HILLS ROAD — DARWEESH AND AGDALLAL — MAP AMEND — FROM R -I to R-2 to build their residence on the north lot and preserve space for two southerly residential lots. However, the applicants may also consider a 2 -lot subdivision if deemed necessary. The lot lies between an adjacent R-2 district to the north and an R-3 district to the south. Butterfield Country Club is to the east which is unincorporated DuPage County and is zoned R-3. To the west of the property are eight (8) R-1 single family zoning lots. All of those properties share road access or are on the same block. The subject property does not share any road frontage with properties in the R-1 district. The north lot would have access from Oak Brook Hills Road over the existing easement that has been in place since the 1970s. The two southerly lots would require DuPage County Department of Transportation's (DOT) approval to gain access to Oak Brook Road. He distributed copies and presented a PowerPoint which detailed information and photos of the property. • The property is 3.73 -acres which is 187% of the minimum size required for an R-1 lot. The R-2 district allows for one -acre lots and three lots would be possible for this parcel under the local codes. • The division of the property would meet all stormwater regulations. • Since the county has jurisdiction over Oak Brook Road, access to each lot is still undetermined. • Reclassification from R-1 to R-2 allows for feathering/buffering uses. He pointed out that there is no other parcel in Oak Brook that is situated in a similar fashion. The lot is adjacent to Butterfield Country Club which is an active recreational, non-residential use. The principal issue in this case is the lot area. The division of the lots can be done with access via a 20 -foot strip for the lots that do not have Oak Brook Road/31' Street frontage. Butterfield Country Club has approximately 5-6 holes on its golf course that impact the subject property. DuPage County regulates the golf course and is zoned R-3 which consists of a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet. The minimum lot width for R-3 is 100 feet and this parcel is 570 feet deep. The Midwest Club Subdivision (south of the property) was a golf course in 1978 and is currently an R-3 residential district. The general Ginger Creek area to the north of and abutting the property is zoned R-2, but many of the lots in that area are smaller than the R-2, one -acre minimum. The R-1 district on the west side of Oak Brook Hills Road consists of several homes that are approximately 199 feet wide. The existing homes on the east side of Oak Brook Hills Road (and just north of the property) are approximately 183 feet wide. Most homes along Oak Brook Hills Road in the R-1 district are approximately 565 feet deep. Dividing the parcel into three lots would be consistent with the homes in the area. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 12 February 11, 2019 He believed they would be able to meet the county engineering standards for an access point from Oak Brook Road in order to avoid burdening the private easement. The subject property's division would likely generate a traffic increase of approximately 28 trips, 14 per home per day for the two additional homes. A handout titled "The R-1 Market in Oak Brook" was distributed to all commissioners and is included in the case file. It outlined the existing R-1 areas and properties and identified his "excluded" R-1 properties and new construction activity in the R -I districts. It was discussed line by line in great detail. He did not believe adjacent or opposing R-2 one -acre lots have an impact on R -I development. The subject property is an outlier and does not share any frontage with any part of its particular R-1 district. The market performance slide was summarized as follows: • Buyers generally are not seeking the two -acre, R-1 living environment. • R-2 classification, one -acre is more in keeping with the market expectancies in the area • Transactions and property conditions over the past ten years reflect that R-1 single family zoning is excessively burdensome on the property owner. • Quality large homes are feasible on each of the three possible lots without disrupting expectations in the area. • The lots will be larger than 99% of the lots in Midwest Club and Ginger Creek. • Smaller lots at this location will avoid the peril that this property has seen since 2004. Mr. Daniel summarized the variation standards as follows and the complete standards are within the case file: (a) Neighborhood character. RESPONSE.- Effective ESPONSE. Effective widths along Oak Brook Road will be the as they are today and similar to the land to the north. • Densities to the north, east and south are all greater than one home per 3.73 - acres. • The subject property is the largest parcel in the district. Although the lot to the west looks larger, it is technically two parcels with each parcel being smaller than the subject property. (b) Limitation on land values RESPONSE. The subject property is an outlier and a prime example of the impact of zoning restrictions on the owners' determination to maintain improved land, or not. Large lot developments are not desirable for this type of parcel. The 2018 demolition of a single family residence on the subject property occurred because the residence fell into such disrepair that the owner could no longer justify expenditures on such a large tract. The R-1 single family zoning classification allows for the construction of VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 12 February 11, 2019 only one residence on the subject property, and this style of residence has not been common in recent trends of development in the area. The ability to construct two (or three) homes on the subject property will avoid the diminution in value that led to the prior owner's decision not to appropriately maintain the residence. (c) Impact of zoning change. RESPONSE. Under an R-2 single family zoning classification, the Subject Property offers a buffer and transition between Butterfield Country Club to the east and a handful of R-1 single family properties to the west. The R-2 single family zoning classification will not impact the land to the north which is uniformly zoned R-2 single family or the residences in the Midwest Club subdivision which sit on smaller lots in an R-3 single family district. The allowance of one -acre lots on the subject property (rather than allowing only one residence on a 3.7 -acre lot) will not depreciate the value (actual or perceived) of the lot west of the subject property inasmuch as this lot draws its character from the Oak Brook Hills Road frontage (the home faces southeast) that includes 2700 Oak Brook Road and 3000 Oak Brook Hills Road. Indeed, an abutting R-2 single family district has not provided any disincentive to development and maintenance of homes on R-1 single family lots west of 2712 31' Street and 3003 Oak Brook Drive. As a result, there should be no concern for an impact on values of properties in the area as a result of allowing one -acre lot development on the subject property. This parcel is isolated from the R-1 district inasmuch as access for the one or two new lots is concerned. The real change that would occur with a subdivision is an added driveway off of 3151 Street. (d) Suitability for R-2. RESPONSE. The subject property is generally flat at its north end, and the topography of the land allows for reasonable development of one acre lots without altering drainage in the area. In addition to the circumstances noted above, reasonable lot depths are available for three lots. In the event that the Village allows for one -acre lots, access is available for one lot to the north and the substantial 31' Street/Oakbrook Road frontage (285 feet) allows planning for access from the south. Appropriate rear or rear -to - side yard alignments are possible with R-2 single family zoning. Lastly, transitional zoning or buffering in planning at this particular location supports the reclassification of the Subject Property to R-2 single family use. (e) Existing zoning. RESPONSE. The existing use of all of property for any relevant distance north and south is for single family detached residential use with a density greater than that allowed under the R-1 single family residential classification. The territory east and northeast of the subject property is the Butterfield Country Club, and this nearly 200 -acre tract is planned under County R-3 zoning for lots smaller than those permitted in the Village's R-3 single family classification. There is a small, disconnected R-1 single family residential district situated west of the subject property, but the uses in this district face access challenges with the exception of lots along 31' Street/Oak VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 12 February 11, 2019 Brook Road. Due to these challenges, the larger part of this roughly 26 -acre district will not redevelop under standards other than R-1 single family unless there is a unified development. The predominant land classifications in the area allow for denser development rather than one residence for each 3.73 -acres. (n Length of underutilization. RESPONSE: As noted above, the subject property was improved with a single family home which, for a long period of time, was under -maintained and underutilized. The home was in such disrepair that it had to be demolished. (g) Relative gains and hardships. RESPONSE: • The subject property is the only one that suffers the impact of five holes at Butterfield Country Club. • The only property along the perimeter of Butterfield that is zoned R-1. • The subject property has frontage only on Oak Brook Road and is isolated from the Oak Brook Hills Road community. • The legal descriptions are still the historic descriptions. • Strict R-1 regulations have caused severe disincentives to maintenance of the property. • Due to the existing easement agreement, only ONE lot would be able to access Oak Brook Hills Road via the easement. Only the north lot would use that access drive. Options are available to provide access. • The village does not benefit from this property as an R -I single lot. (h) Heath, safety and welfare. RESPONSE: The home was placed to the north of the lot which created a large open space. The R-2 lots north of the property and the R-1 lots south of Ginger Creek that have frontage, have an apparent density of one home for every 1.6 -acres due to the location of the home on the lot. Looking north from Oak Brook Road and then west of Oak Brook Hills Road the apparent visible density is about one home for every 1.25 -acres. The subject property would be 1.24 -acres if subdivided into three lots. (i) The Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: R-2 zoning of the subject property is consistent with the planning objectives in the Village's Comprehensive Plan. The piece -meal annexation of the area and the historic creation of the lots is not cohesive with the Ginger Creek quadrant of town. The Ginger Creek area is generally planned for higher density residential of at least R-2. (j) Community need RESPONSE: The subject property fell into a horrible condition and could not be reasonably restored. Demolition in 2018 followed a long period of visible disrepair and vacancy. Reclassification to allow a reasonable collection of three lots zoned in the R-2 single family zoning classification not only increases the number of residential lots that will be more reasonably available, but it converts a lot with an immediate and clear history of obsolescence under the currently -applicable R-1 single family regulations. The Village and its residents need to avoid conditions that force properties into VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 12 February 11, 2019 I� a state of failed maintenance, particularly along major corridors. Slightly adjusting the density for the subject property will accomplish this inasmuch as no individual is likely to develop a single family home on 3.7 acres adjacent to an arterial road and a non-residential use when smaller acreage home sites are readily available in the adjoining R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. Preliminary engineering and stormwater has been reviewed to provide concept plans and identify water flows. All lots within an R-1 district were analyzed in great detail. He believed the subject property was isolated and not in the same position as the rest of the R -I district. Past subdivisions with similar circumstances were mentioned. Ray Paice, 2921 Oak Brook Hills Road said the property was part of 80 -acres of farmland that was originally owned by one person. The parcels were sold as large lots in order to be classified as recreational and there was a covenant of one house per lot. He opposed dividing the parcel into three lots and believed it would "ruin the community". Guljit Singh, 2917 Oak Brook Hills Road opposed dividing the parcel and believed it would change the character of the area. The current lot size is appropriate for the area. Member Doyle asked Director Budzikowski to comment on the accuracy of Mr. Daniel's presentation. He found it difficult that property along a golf course would be a negative for property values. Mr. Daniel commented that during golf season, the all -day activity from the golf course has a negative effect on outdoor activities for the homeowners given the lack of privacy. There is a benefit of privacy during the winter months. Director Budzikowski responded he was not sure about the historical information that was presented, but would be happy to do research. He agreed that this particular subdivision is piece -meal compared to Ginger Creek or Midwest Club which were planned communities. The lots in this area are much deeper with access to Oak Brook Road which is a county road. Subdivisions with cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, open space areas, common detention and a common subdivision entrances are preferred. This area consists of a combination of R-1 and R-2 lots. R-2 zoning would allow for three 1.24 -acre lots. Another alternative would be R-2 zoning with two 1.86 -acre lots. They are not bound by the preliminary site plan provided as it was given to staff as tool to ensure it meets minimum lot size and setbacks and to review the flag lot configuration and to determine the location of stormwater detention, which was appreciated by staff. There could also be two houses using the flag onto Oak Brook Road rather than three. He noted that a plat of subdivision could also be provided along with the map amendment which would seek approval of the lots to ensure future development. He noted that Oak Brook is unique in its development patterns with a significant number of flag lots. An additional lot would not be unreasonable. An exhibit was provided by Staff showing the various lot sizes in the area. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 12 February 11, 2019 Member Hasan lived in the area at one time and noted that she lived in Ginger Creek and was familiar with access onto Oak Brook Road. She also noted the following concerns: • Splitting the parcel into two lots would result in two families having privacy problems with the golf course. • The Midwest Club and Ginger Creek were not good comparisons for this lot and feels this lot is on its own more like others on Oak Brook Road. • A three -lot subdivision, and asked to see what a two -lot subdivision would look like before considering it. Member DiBemardo was concerned with the access to the property if it were subdivided and questioned if DuPage County would have to approve access. He thought they would have to prove a hardship for the approval and didn't see it as such since the owner created the hardship. Director Budzikowski believed DuPage County would be required to grant access to Oak Brook Road since the property has frontage. Prior to subdividing the property, the applicant and staff would have a discussion with DuPage DOT to confirm access. Member Hasan stated the owner knew what they bought and should have asked these questions prior to the purchase. She understood that it was a huge property. Mr. Daniel stated that whether or not you knew what you bought does not relate to the legislative decision they are asking the commission to recommend. From a policy perspective they are seeking R-2 zoning. The neighbors who spoke in opposition are both in the R-2 zoning district. The subject property is the only R-1 lot adjacent to active recreation. He was concerned about contract zoning. If the lot had to be subdivided into two they would likely make the north lot the larger of the two. They prefer not to have equal acreage. He mentioned that if they had a 2 -acre lot and a 1.7 -acre lot someone could later subdivide the 2 -acre lot if it were in an R-2 district. Member DiBernardo pointed out the R-2 properties north of the subject property and along the golf course are used much less densely than the way the petitioner plans to use his property. He believed a two -lot subdivision would be more appropriate than a three -lot. Perhaps they could make it a condition of approval to have the lots subdivide equally in order to prevent further subdivision of a 2 -acre lot. Mr. Daniel was not opposed to a two -lot subdivision, but mentioned that if the R-2 zoning is approved, they may be entitled to a three -lot subdivision. Member Hasan questioned any limitations or problems relating to the covenant mentioned by Mr. Paice that would limit one home to be built per lot in that area. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 12 February 11, 2019 Mr. Daniel stated that he had not seen any covenant that exists that states there could only be one home allowed per lot. Member Doyle noted that a letter was included in the file from the resident at 3001 Oak Brook Hills Road who grants access to 3005 via an easement. The neighbor was opposed to additional homes which would increase traffic and threatened to revoke the access. He questioned if the easement can be taken away once it was given. Director Budzikowski responded that he had a conversation with the neighbor, Mr. Veluchamy and noted his concerns. The presentation indicated that only one lot would be utilizing the easement. He did not have the specific language for the granting of the easement and whether or not it could be revoked. However, if the easement was for one home and it changed to two or three homes, the neighbor would likely have the ability to prevent that. Mr. Daniel emphasized there was no intention to burden the existing easement more than it is today, nor do they have any right to according to Illinois law. Mr. Veluchamy cannot terminate the easement, but he can go to court to restrict access. Chairwoman Tropinski noted that this particular area was not a planned R-1 district since there are different sized lots that are out of place. She would support dividing the property into two lots since it would not destroy the character of the area since there would be enough surrounding land. Member Doyle questioned if the discussion of the number of lots was irrelevant since the petition was only for a zoning change. Director Budzikowski felt it was appropriate to discuss the subdivision when deciding on the zoning change. They are not able condition the re -zoning, and recommending R-2 zoning would allow the applicant to subdivide into three -lots. Member Doyle agreed that the conditions cannot be placed on a request for rezoning and noted conditions could be placed on a subdivision, until a subdivision is before the Plan Commission. Director Budzikowski agreed that a condition cannot be placed on the rezoning of the property. The Commission could deny the rezoning or continue it to allow for a subdivision to be presented at the same time with the rezoning request. He suggested that perhaps the applicant would be willing to return with the re -zoning and a two -lot subdivision plat request. Mr. Daniel responded that the applicant's live on White Oak Lane and they have acquired this lot and started with the re -zoning due to subdivision regulations and their timeline for construction of the home and the expense of the preparation of documents for the subdivision. He offered to supply a two -lot subdivision application VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 12 February 11, 2019 31 7 along with the re -zoning petition. Member Hasan responded that she would support the matter be continued. Director Budzikowski noted the date of the next Plan Commission meeting and suggested staff have discussions regarding access with the county, historical information, the subdivision plat and any variations that may be necessary. Member Doyle stated that if the applicant would be comfortable with presenting a 2 - lot subdivision he would be comfortable with it moving along as quickly as possible. Chairwoman Tropinski noted that she did not need to see anything historic, but would like to see the two -lot subdivision. All members agreed that they would like to see two -lots as opposed to three. Mr. Daniel agreed to supply a two -lot subdivision plat with the larger lot being approximately 2.4 -acre on the north end of the property. Motioned by Member Doyle, seconded by Member Hasan to continue the request to the next Plan Commission meeting on March 18, 2019. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 4 — Members DiBemardo, Doyle, Hasan and Chairwoman Tropinski Nays: 0 — Absent 3 - Members Iyer, Lal and Wilczak. Motion Carried. OTHER BUSINESS OTHER BUSINESS A. ADOPTION OF THE 2019 VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK OFFICIAL ZONING ADOPTION OF THE 2019 MAP OFFICIAL ZONING MAP Motioned by Member Doyle; seconded by Member Hasan to approve the adoption of the Oak Brook Official 2019 Zoning Map and authorize the Corporate Authorities to sign the map and publish in accordance with the Illinois Municipal Code. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 4 — Members DiBernardo, Doyle, Hasan and Chairwoman Tropinski Nays: 0 — Absent 3 - Members Iyer, Lal and Wilczak. Motion Carried. There was no other business to be discussed. Director Budzikowski mentioned future business. PUBLIC COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 12 February 11, 2019 f6 ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Doyle, seconded by Member Hasan to adjourn the meeting at 8:49 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: /s/ Tony Budzikowski Tony Budzikowski Development Services Director Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Special Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 12 February 11, 2019 --�b