Minutes - 05/01/2012 - Zoning Board of Appeals MINUTES OF THE MAY 1,2012 REGULAR MEETING
OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED ON
NOVEMBER 5,2012
CALL TO ORDER
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Nimry to have Member
Savino serve as Acting Chairman in the absence of Chairman Davis. VOICE
VOTE: Motion carried.
The Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Acting
Chairman Alfred Savino in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler
Government Center at 7:03 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL
Gail Polanelc called the roll with the following persons
PRESENT: Members Jeffrey Bulin,Natalie Cappetta,Baker Nimry,Member
Steven Young, Wayne Ziemer. and Acting Chairman Alfred
Savino,
ABSENT: Chairman Champ Davis
IN ATTENDANCE: Mark Moy, Trustee and Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of
Community Development
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-
MINUTES
REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 6,
2012
Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry to approve the
minutes of the March 6, 2012 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as
written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried.
UNFINISI-1131)
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business to discuss.
5. NEW BUSINESS NEWBUSINESS
2
SHAH - 1
CHATHAM LANE A. SHAH — 12 CHATHAM LANE — VARIATION REDUCE REAR -
YARD (YORK ROAD) SETBACK TO 40 FEE TO ALLOW VARIATION
REDUCE YORK RD
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 20 May 1, 2012
-
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SETBACK TO
ALLOW A SINGLE
FAMILY HOME
Acting Chairman Savino swore in those that testified at this hearing.
Shivraj Solanki, Architect introduced SqJhal Shah as the property owner and
provided the background for the requested variation. They are seeking relief to
the rear yard setback adjacent to York Road,which is 100 feet. The property is
about 172 feet deep, with the rear yard setback and the 40 front yard setback
there is only about 30-32 foot area left to build a house. They would like to
have a 40 foot setback like the other R-3 properties in the area. The problem
with the shape of the lot is that it is narrow in the front and widens in the rear,
but there is not much that can be done in the front area, which adds to the
hardship. There are other properties that have the same problem, but many of
them are already located in the setback area. The lot coverage is only about
21.39 percent, so almost 80 percent would be open land. There is good
landscaping around the property and will be shielded from the other properties.
Pictures were shown of the existing landscaping.
Mr. Solanki addressed the required variation as follows:
1. a. 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.
RESPONSE: In order to develop the property with anew residence there is a
hardship due to the rear yard requirement and the size and shape of the lot.
1.b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances,
RESPONSE: As explained The property is about 172 feet deep, with the rear
yard setback of 100 feet and the 40 front yard setback there is only about 32
feet in depth left to build a house,which is the biggest hardship they are facing..
1. c. The variation, if granted, will actually help develop this property to be
more comparable in quality and appearance with the existing newer
homes and would enhance the surrounding area.
RESPONSE: The variation, if granted, will actually help develop this
property to be more comparable in quality and appearance with the existing
newer upscale homes and would enhance the surrounding area. There are quite
•few homes that are 4,000-7,000 square feet. If the property is developed with
•beautiful home it would also enhance the surrounding area
2. a. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 20 May 1, 2012
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.
RESPONSE; The size and shape of the existing lot presents unusual difficulty
and hardship to the homeowner in order to develop this property:
2.b. The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not
be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning
classification.
RESPONSE: Granting the variation would not be applicable generally to the
other property within the same zoning classification. The other properties may
not have the same unique and unusual situation as the subject property and may
not be applicable.
i
2 c. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the property is located.
RESPONSE The g ranting of the variation shall not affect others due to
existing landscape with tall trees, shrubs and the homeowner planning to plant
new landscape including tall evergreens near the rear lot line and both side lot
lines to restrict any views for privacy.
2. d. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and
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. I
RESPONSE: The property owner herby agrees to abide by all other
requirements of Zoning and Building codes and adopted ordinances of the
village. The proposed development of the existing property would appreciate
}
the values in the neighborhood..
2.,e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire
to make more money out of the property
RESPONSE: Absolutely not. The new homeowners are both doctors and a
family of four with two children. They want to reside in the community and
raise the children and be good citizens of Oak Brook and contribute to the local
community. Their interest is not in making money to sell it and leave. 1
2. f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any
person presently having an interest in the property.
RESPONSE, The said hardship and difficult is an existing unique situation of
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 20 May 1, 2012
i
the lot and the 100 foot setback requirement.
He said that they are allowing the variation as proposed will result in a distance
of 100 feet from the edge of pavement to the residence. The properties on York
Road south of 31't Street have setbacks that are measured 100 feet from the
centerline of York Road. The properties located north of York Road have this
problem.
No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the requested
variation.
Member Cappetta questioned whether variations had already been granted to
the existing home since it appears that the home was built outside the setbacks.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the house did not
have a previous variation granted.The provision of the code that created the
extraordinary setback runs along 22"d Street,York Road and 31St Street and was
created in 1971. York Woods was annexed into Oak Brook in 1958 and was
platted in the early 1960is. This house along with others may predate the Code.
There are some houses that are down York Road and it appears that there was
not a uniform enforcement of the code regarding this provision. On the plat
reap of York Road,two lots south of the subject property the actual right of way
of York Road juts in about 20-25 feet,which accommodates the bike path. This
lot versus the actual edge of pavement, it is still a significant distance because
there is not only the setback,but also the extraordinary setback to accommodate
the bike path. There are definitely some unique circumstances with this
particular parcel.
Member Cappetta noted that it appeared a lot of thought had been given to the
extraordinary setback.
Director of Community Development Kallien provided some of the history
regarding the extraordinary setback that applies to these streets. Some years
ago the area that had the greatest negative impact was that port ion south of 31St
on York Road where many of the lots actually run to the center of the road and
some actually have their lot line on the opposite side of the road. A number of
people carne in trying to improve their homes and it was found that most of
those homes were out of conformance with the code, so remedies were sought.
As a result, after the public hearing process that portion of York Road was
changed to measure the setback to the centerline of the road, which still
provided an adequate setback and made properties more usable.
i
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 20 May 1, 2012
i
The area north of 31"Street has a roadway has been fully widened to four lanes,
with widened turning lanes at the intersections so it is really at its ultimate size,
which was a provision as to why the extraordinary setback was created. Back
in those days no one knew for sure what the ultimate cross section would be at
22nd Street, 31't Street or York Road so they provided an ample area so that
there would not be a taking of property. Over the years people have requested
relief and staff trying to be proactive sought the authority of the Village Board
in 2007 to create a text amendment to find a way to be fairer and to treat these
parcels to make them more usable for redevelopment, teardowns, etc. An
extensive survey was done of those 3 major roadways and it was found that
there were several dozen homes that were impacted. Through the Plan
Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals process it was determined that since
the full cross section was provided to allow the lots to utilize the underlying
zoning district requirements. The Plan Commission and Zoning Board of
Appeals made unanimous recommendations. At the Village Board meeting a
motion and second was made to approve the recommendations. However,there
was additional discussion and two Trustees brought up questions and thought
that the setback change would result in less openness in these major corridors.
That resulted in a change in the motion to hold a future Committee of the
Whole meeting to discuss it further and that is where it is. A lot of work was
done and many people contributed to that recommendation.
Member Cappetta asked if the setback had always been there.
Director of Community Development Kallien said it had, but that the York
Road Plat easterly boundary of York Road is approximately where it exists
today. Some changes had been made where the road was widened to
accommodate the through lane. The right of way has not change,but the road
within the right of way has gotten bigger over time.
i
Member Ziemer noted that a letter was included in the file in support of the
request. He asked if any had been received in opposition.
Gail Polanek, Community Development Administrative Technician responded
that 16 calls had been received regarding the request and all supported the
proposal and the demolition of the house with the exception of one person,who
did not identify himself, but noted that the village did not need any more
McMansions.
Director of Community Development Kallien noted that in this particular area
the setback is measured from the actual property line,not the centerline of the
road and there is a significant right of way in this area..
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 20 May 1, 2012
{
i
I
Member Cappetta noted that the property line had never changed and the
neighbors knew when they moved in that the setback existed.
Member Nimry said that under the provisions of Section 13-3-5, after the
setbacks are accounted for, totally 140 feet, one side would have about 37 feet
and the other side would have 47 feet, there is very little room left to build a
Douse and the current home already encroaches into the setback. The frontage
on the front is only 90 feet.
Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed existing York Road
encroachments of the surrounding houses. The house to the north also
encroaches into the setback,two houses to the south; well over half of the house
encroaches into the setback. On the southeast comer of Windsor and York 100
percent of the house encroaches into the I setback. The majority of the comments
received in the phone calls to the Village were desirable of having the existing
house removed.
Mr-Solanki said that the owner visited many of the surrounding neighbors and
they were all in support of the house being removed and a nice home being
built.
Director of Community Development Kallien noted that north of Windsor many
of the houses encroach into the setback. It is a significant setback requirement.
York Road is a County Road with speeds of 40 mph. The properties abutting
the road are burdened by the setback. Midwest and Meyer Road are also
County roads and many of those subdivision dates back around the same time,
but the setback requirements are dramatically different. Oak Brook Road,from
the Village Hall west to Midwest Road have homes that were permitted back in
the early 1970's would probably not be located where they are according to the
setback pro-visions. The text amendment as proposed would eliminate some
nonconformity that exist and would pave the way to allow for reasonable
redevelopment going forward.
Member Nimry said that some of the homes in Trinity Lakes do not meet the
requirement.
Member Cappetta noted that this lot had a unique shape and size,but maybe the
same size house cannot be built on the lot as a neighbor because the lot will not
fit it, so it might not be the right lot for this house. Fifty feet seemed to be a lot
to her and thought the house might appear to be in the neighbor's backyards.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 20 May 1, 2012
i
l
1
Acting Chairman Savno asked that the Director of Community Development
Kallien read the motion that came out of the Zoning Board regarding the text
amendment that had not been finalized.
Director of Community Development Kallien:read the recommendation from
the Zoning Board as follows: ['
"The Zoning Board of Appeals by a vote of 5 to 0 recommended approval of
Alternative One, as proposed... which was to revert to the setbacks imposed by
the underlying zoning district."
The Zoning Board and Plan Commission were given three options in 2007:
Alternative: 1. Revert to the underlying zoning district. t
2. Measure the distance for principal structures to the centerline
of the right of way(this would have been similar to what had
been approved for York Road,south of 31St Street). 3
3. Leave as is.
The third option did not receive any support during the public hearing process..
The Village Board meeting minutes reflected the motion as follows:
"Motion by Trustee Sanford, seconded by Trustee Kennedy was to
concur with the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals and
approve the requested text amendment what was referred to as
Alternative 1
There was support and then a discussion started that diverted away from the
motion and resulted in another motion to table. This applicant is seeking a
variation for one lot,the proposed text amendment related to 3 major roadways
i
and affects many homes..,
Acting Chairman Savino questioned the rear yard setbacks on the other major
roads Midwest Road,Meyers Road.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the cross sections
of those roads are similar to York Road with four lanes. The setbacks along
Midwest are 40 feet, along Ginger Creek at Meyers Road, there are front yards
that are also 40 feet. Saddle Brook along Meyers have rear yard setbacks of
30 feet. Along 31St Street by Brook Forest,many are 40-45 feet. Trinity Lakes
most are 40 feet.
Member Nimry said that from the edge of the house to the edge of pavement
was a minimum of 66 feet.
Member Ziemer said that if it were treated like it was south of 31St Street,from
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 20 May 1, 2012
i
i
the centerline of the road it would be approximately 130 feet with the new
setback; There are no side yard variations being sought that would directly
impact the neighbors,it will only impact the backyard.
Mr. Solanki noted that due to the shape of the lot the side yard setback ;gets
wider as you go toward York Road.
Acting Chairman Savino asked how long the house had been abandoned.
Dr. Shah said that they closed on the house yesterday and to his knowledge the
house has been vacant for about 2 years.
Member Young asked if the owner planned on living in the new house, and
questioned the age of the existing home.
Dr. Shah responded that they plan to live there for a long time and Mr. Solanki
noted that the home was built in 1964.
Director of Community Development Kallien noted that any asbestos removal
would be part of the building permit process.
3
Acting Chairman Savino noted that there were two options being sought, to
either reduce the rear yard to 40 feet or to 46.6 feet to accommodate the
proposed structure.
Acting Chairman Savino said that the standards had been addressed in their
testimony and in writing on page D of the case file..
Motion by Member Nimry, seconded by Member Ziemer to recommend
approval of variation requested to reduce the rear yard (York Road) setback to
approximately 46.6 feet,subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed single-family home shall be constructed in substantial
conformance with the approved site plan dated March 19, 2012
depicting an approximate 46.6-foot rear yard setback along York Road.
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 VOTE:
Ayes: 5 — Members Bulin, Nimry, Young, Ziemer and Acting Chairman
Savino
Nays: 1 — Member Cappetta
Absent: l — Chairman Davis. Motion carried.
3
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 20 May 1, 2012
i
5. B. LAPINSKI AND RIOS 606 MIDWEST CLUB PARKWAY LAPINSKI AND RIOS
-606 MIDWEST
VARIATION — SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REAR YARD SETBACK CLUB VARIATION
OAK BROOK -
ROADIl TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN SETBACKS SIDE
1 AND OAK BROOK
ADDITION ROAD-TO ALLOW
AN ADDITION
Acting Chairman Savino swore in those that testified at this hearing.
John Stanton, Architect represented the homeowners, Drs. Lapinski and Rios,
who were unable to attend the meeting due to an emergency. He said that they
had been living in the home for 10 years, loved the area and do not intend to
move. They are seeking to make improvements to their home by adding an
addition in order to keep the cars off the driveway. In doing so, they were
looking to minimize the encroachment into the setbacks. They are seeking to
reduce the side yard setback from 12 to 10 feet and to reduce the rear yard(Oak
Brook Road) setback from 60 feet to 53 feet. Typically R-3 zoned properties
have a 40 foot rear yard setback. However, since their property backs up to
Oak Brook Road,the setback is I tO feet from the centerline of the road.
They reviewed many different options to be able to accommodate the garage
and worked closely with the Midwest Club Board and it's architectural review j
committee staff architect. What had been presented to the Zoning Board was
highly recommended by their homeowner:association board and were approved
and resulted in the encroachment of the setbacks. The idea of his client was to
keep the cars off the driveway and beautify the home.
Mr.Stanton addressed the required variation as follows;
i
1. a. 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.
RESPONSE: Due to the configuration of the house and lot, the fourth garage
hay addition is not possible with applied restrictions,however this improvement
would enhance the overall appearance of the neighborhood by storing the cars
off the driveway.
1.b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.
RESPONSE': The unusual shape of the house with the large overhang setting
on a complex lot shape will incur insurmountable costs to fit, the garage
addition with the required setbacks. Several options were evaluated and it was
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Pa e 9 of 20 May 1 2012
�� f
3,
was not feasible for the style integrity as well as the architectural continuity of
the home. Several options would have caused a garage teardown and rebuild,
which for a minimal request would be a huge offset in costs and for much more
improved addition with continuous harmony of the home.
1. c. The variation, if granted, will actually help develop this property to
be more comparable in quality and appearance with the existing
newer homes and would enhance the surrounding area.
RESPONSE:: The proposed addition will greatly minimize the plight of extra
cars overcrowding the driveway. The landscaped berm with trees and
shrubberies will not be altered and the unsightly parking pad on the east side of
the garage will be replaced with the newly enclosed garage. The trees to the
southeast comer will not be altered as well.
2. a. 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.
RESPONSE: Without tearing down the house there are no other physical
options to place the fourth car garage.:
2. b. The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would
not be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning
classification.
RESPONSE: The lot and the house are unique and with the complexity of
both,the house at the time of construction blended well with the site. Without
invading the originality of the home structure,the fourth garage bay is designed
to complement the symmetry of the three garage doors. This symmetry could
not be realized if they adhere to the setback restrictions.
3
2. c; The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the property is located.
RESPONSE: The addition is an improvement to the overall appearance of
having less cars parked on the driveway exposing to the easterly neighbor. The
extra open parking will be replaced with this new addition to house the cars
otherwise left out.
2.d. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light
and 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.
i
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 20 May 1, °2012
i
i
t
RESPONSE: The roof lines will be maintained and not impede the supply of
air not light from adjacent property. Also the new structure will not restrict the
required access for public safety nor will it impair property values.
2. e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a
desire to make more money out of the property
RESPONSE: This improved addition is actually benefitting the surrounding
neighbors so to improve the quality of having minimal cars parked exposed for
a period of time on the driveway.
2.f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any
person presently having an interest in the property.
RESPONSE: The nature of the house design was to capture the beautiful
view of the landscaped pond situated at the side yard facing East in place of the
planned rear yard. The rear yard buffering Oak Brook Road could not be
optimized due to the shape, so the house was shifted westerly to create more
usable back yard thus unknowingly restricting space for the proposed fourth
garage bay.
No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request.
Acting Chairman Savino asked if there was any correspondence from the
homeowner association regarding the cars being left out.
Mr. Stanton could not respond because he didn't have any knowledge whether
3
they had received any correspondence. E
Director of Community Development Kallien noted that in the case file there j
was a letter fiom the homeowner association approving the request and it was
noted that at no time is parking allowed in any of the cul de sac circles. If
there are guests they are required to park on the driveway. There are a number
of houses in the subdivision with very large driveways and an ample number of
garage spaces.
Member Cappetta asked whether anything had been heard from the next door
neighbor. E
Ms.Polanek responded that the Village did not receive any complaints or phone
calls regarding this request.:
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 20 May 1, '2012
Director of Community Development Kallien added that the homeowner
association takes their review process seriously and they adhere to very strict.
requirements. Midwest Club is one of the few subdivisions that actually
imposes a maximum buildable land area and requires a-specific amount of open
space that goes beyond Village requirements. l
Member Nimry noted that some subdivisions to not allow storing or parking of
cars on driveways for more than 3 days. Trinity Lakes does not allow it.
Mr. Stanton noted that the overhang is very large and the corner of the garage
on the west side actually goes over the setback just a few inches. They tried to
shorten the overhang and the architectural review committee required that the
overhang be uniform with the rest of the house. In the rear yard it was the
continuation of the garage in order to keep it uniform and overall consistent
with the design. A small portion of the garage sticks over the setback.: The
committee said that they were very strict on making sure that the homes in
Midwest Club are very uniform so that it does not look tacky when an addition
is added. They worked very diligently in order to get the 'homeowner
association approval
Acting Chairman Savino asked that by changing the overhang so that it did not
go over the setback would not have been approved by the architectural review
committee.
i
Mr. Stanton responded that they had offered that option to them;however,their
architect recognized the difference and said that did not conform to their
standards.
Acting Chairman Savino said that he struggled with the hardship of needing,a
fourth garage.
Member Young echoed the same sentiment. He noted that it would have been
helpful to have the homeowners present to make their case in person and
recommended they be present when the matter goes to the Village Board,
E
Member Ziemer asked if the proposed garage would affect the driveway
pavement so that it would go closer to the adjacent neighbor's house.
Mr. Stanton responded that it would be very slight and there would be some
adjustments to the pavement.
There was a discussion to continue the matter so that the homeowner could be
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 20 May 1, 2012
i
present to answer questions.
Director of Community Development Kallien asked what the setback of the
garage addition minus the peak. Because the footprint appears to be within the
current buildable area of the side yard. The rear yard does have the issue of the
extraordinary setback.
Mr. Stanton responded that it is roughly 3-6 inches, and is due to the spacing
between the garage doors and was required to have the same spacing as the
other doors. The overhang is about 36 inches.
Member Bulin noted that the actual peak is not the problem it is at the corner of
the garage.
Mr. Stanton said that he was not speaking for the homeowner, but Dr. Rios
races cars as a hobby and wants to store it there. They also mentioned that with
the four children, one day they would be having cars as well and knew they
were going to have car and storage problems as the family grows.
Member Bulin said that variations have been granted previously due to eave
problems in the past and this appears to be insignificant compared to others. In
that the Midwest Club architectural review committee has already approved it,
they are much more stringent on their requirements.
There was a discussion and review of the setback area shown on page I of the
case file.
Acting Chairman Savino said that the standards had been addressed in their
testimony and in writing on page C of the case file.
Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by member Nimry to recommend approval
of requested variation to allow to allow a two (2) foot encroachment into the
required 12 foot side yard setback and a seven (7) foot encroachment into the
required 60 foot rear yard setback subject to the following conditions:
1. That the proposed addition shall be constructed in substantial
conformation to the approved plans dated March 23,2012.:
2. 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 VOTE:
Ayes: 5— Members Bulin,Cappetta,Nimry,Young and Ziemer
Nays: 1 — Acting Chairman Savino Member
Absent: 1 — Chairman Davis. Motion carried'.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 20 May 1, 2012
yARD
5. C. APPLEYARD -- 506 WOOD ROAD—VARIATION TO FRONT WOOD APPLEYARD 506
ROAD -
AND SIDE YARD (WOOD ROAD) SETBACKS — TO ALLOW THE VARIATION-FRONT
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AND DETACHED GARAGE AND SIDE YARD
SETBACKS - TO
ALLOW ADDITION
AND GARAGE
Acting Chairman Savino swore in those that testified at this hearing.
Susan Appleyard, 5604 Laurel Avenue, LaGrange, the property owner said that
the property she and her husband purchased was built somewhere around 1920
and was annexed into the Village in 1962 and zoned R-2. Under the R-2
standards the minimum lot is 43,560 square feet. This lot is only 15,369 square
feet,which is well under the minimum R-2 standard. Under the R-2 guidelines
there is a minimum 40-foot setback from any street and a 60-foot rear yard
setback. The property is located on the comer of Wood and Washington so
there are two street frontages creating an additional hardship. The buildable
area is further limited because there is an easement running through the west
end of the property that was granted so that the neighbor to the north could
access their garage at Wood Road.
There were two previously granted variations on this property. One in 1993,
which was constructed and another in 2006 for the construction of a new
structure,however, that never occurred. Their intention is to rehab it and make
it their personal residence. The house has been vacant for about 4-5 years. It
was vacant when they purchased the house in 2009. The house is in serious
disrepair, is an eyesore and detracts from the neighborhood. It does have some
historical value and they would like to keep what they can of the house,remove
a section and rebuild a two-story addition for a kitchen and master bedroom.
They also -need to construct a two-car garage to the west of the house. The
hardship is that the lot is only one-third of the minimum size requirement for an
R-2 lot,plus there are 2 street frontages and an easement running through it. It
is very difficult,if not impossible,to redevelop the property without a variation.
The plans that have been submitted call for the addition to be located 22,75 feet
from Wood Road instead of the 40-foot requirement. The house will not
encroach any further than the existing house already does. The variation that
was granted in 2006 was larger than what they plan to build. The plan shows
an existing driveway and a new driveway; however the existing driveway on
the east side of the property will be removed. Currently,there is a garage under
the house that will eventually be converted into a room and the only driveway
that will be on the west side of the property.
Mrs.Appleyard responded to the Variation Standards as follows:
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 20 May 1, 2012
i
1. a. 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.
RESPONSE: The zoning requirements{R-2}would unduly restrict the size of
any structure that would be built upon it. Lot area is 15,600 square feet,but R-
2 applies to lots of 43,560 square feet. As such,there are required setbacks that
severely limit the buildable area on this lot. In addition,there are two street'
frontages that also require a 40-foot building setback to the front and side yards.
This further restricts the undersized lot.
1. b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.
RESPONSE The lot size is unusually small for an R-2 zoning district,at only
1/3 the size of conforming lots. In addition,there was an easement granted on
the west side of the property so that the neighbor to the north can access a E
detached garage from Wood Road. Furthermore, it is a corner lot, so the
setbacks apply to two sides of the house rather than just one front yard.
1. c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality.
RESPONSE: The variation will allow the property owners to update a house
that has been vacant for a number of years, is in serious disrepair, and detracts
from the upscale character of the neighborhood. The results will improve the
essential character of the locality.
2.a. 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.
RESPONSE: The lot is long and narrow, and located on a corner, which
means that there are two frontage setbacks that must be adhered to.
f
2.b. The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would
not be applicable generally to the other property within the same
zoning classification.
RESPONSE: Most of the lots within the same zoning classification are much
larger and would not face the same restrictions.
2. c The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the property is located.
a
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 15 of 20 May 1, 2012
..vim✓
I
RESPONSE:The granting of the variation will allow the property to become
consistent with the character of surrounding properties. It will in no way be
injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. The current
state of the property is detrimental to other properties in the area, and if the
variation is granted,the updated and improved home will help to enhance
surrounding property values in the neighborhood.
2. d, The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light
and 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.
RESPONSE: The proposed variation will in no way impair the supply of light
and air to the adjacent property. The neighbor located closest to the property
has submitted written approval of the proposed site plans to the Village of Oak
Brook.
2.e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a
desire to make more money out of the property.
RESPONSE: The purpose of the variation is based upon the owners' desire to
rehab a historic home and use it as their primary residence.
2. f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any
person presently having an interest in the property.
RESPONSE: The existing hardship has not been created by any person having
an interest in the property, but rather was present at the time the property was
purchased.
Mrs. Appleyard said that they tried to talk to many of the neighbors in the area
and showed them the elevation plans of what they plan to do and they received
very positive responses.
Acting Chairman Savino asked for those who were in favor of the proposal and
all were sworn in.,
Mary Lebbin, 3815 Washington Street and lives down the street from this
property. She was very much in favor of the project an d noted that the house is
in terrible disrepair and an eyesore in the neighborhood. The plans are beautiful
and they are really in support of it.
MKke Flannery, 521 Wood Road said that they were not able to meet with them
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 16 of 20 May 1, 2012
i
because they were out of time, however they had a chance to speak with the
other neighbors and were able to see the plans of what was being proposed and
they agree with Mrs. Lebbin that the house has been in disrepair for many years
and detracts from the property values and they have been anxious to see
something happen. They are very much in support of the project that was
proposed as a way to enhance the property and do it in a way that the character
of the proposed home is consistent to what is in the neighborhood.
Member Bulin applauded their willingness to take on this type of project. It is
commendable that they are going to restore it. With the proximity to the
Historic Gateway Area,it is appropriate.
i
Member`Cappetta asked what the elevation would be on the Washington side,
John Beard,the architect stated that they are using the existing ridgeline. They
wanted to maintain the character of the existing home. The westernmost
portion of the house had been falling apart, and that is the portion that they
would tear away and would save the portion of the house to the east and would
add the addition on the west end and the detached garage further to the west.
The encroachments requested do not go beyond any part of the existing home
right now. They are asking to utilize those same .setbacks that are there
currently.
t
Member Ziemer noted that the only thing really different was the detached
garage and that the alignment would go along the setback on Wood Road. He
noted that the lower garage would be removed.
Mr. Beard agreed and responded that it would be turned into a habitable space
at some point.
Member Nimry said that there is less encroachment along the back of the house !
than what exists.
Acting Chairman Savino said that the standards had been addressed in their
testimony and in writing on page C of the case file.
Acting Chairman Savino noted that the variations being requested were as
follows:
1. Variation to Section 13-6B-3F.1 which reduces the front yard on
Washington Street by 11.46 feet. The resulting setback would 28.54
feet instead of the required 40-feet.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 17 of 20 May 1 2012
I
2. Variation to Section 13-0-317.2(a) to reduce the corner side abutting
Wood Road by 18.25 feet.. The resulting setback would be 21.75 feet
for both the addition to the home as well as construction of the new
detached garage. This setback along Wood Road is one (1) foot more
than granted to the property in 2006.
3. Variation to Sections 13-3-6A.3(b) and 13-3-6A.3(h) to permit the
detached garage to be located as proposed, which is in the 40-foot
required corner side abutting a street.
Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Young to recommend
approval of variations as requested above, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the proposed addition shall be constructed in substantial
conformation to the approved plans dated March 23,2012.
2. 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 VOTE:
Ayes: 6 — Members Bulin,Cappetta, Nimry, Savino,Young and Ziemer
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 --- Chairman Davis. Motion carried.
6. OTHER BUSINESS oTHERBUSINESS
Acting Chairman Savino noted that the first case this evening,which required a
100-foot building setback, is a problem for a number of the residents in York
Woods with properties along York Road. The setback has also made a number
of those homes nonconforming. He asked that the Zoning Board recommend
that the:extraordinary setback case be sent back to the Plan Commission and
Zoning Board to review in order to help solve this problem for these residents.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the case dates back to t
March of 2008 and suggested that there may be a better understanding of the
positives and potential negatives. It appeared that the Village Board was on the
road to make a decision back in 2008, but it was never finalized, but continued
for a review at a Committee of the Whole meeting.
Acting Chairman Savino said that within the Village Code he recalled that, if
requested variations apply to many homeowners as this issue does, then the
ordinance should be changed.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that there are well over 100
k
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 18 of 20 May 1, 2012
{
i
1
4
I
properties that abut these major roadways affected by the extraordinary setback.
There is nothing in the record that shows the setback is warranted. The former
Village Engineer's best recollections were that in 1973 it was created to make
sure that the new homes were not impacted by an expanded roadway, which
was a good goal. Now all of these roadways have been expanded to their
maximum and they are what they are. If there would be any expansion it would
be done at an intersection to accommodate turning movements.
Member Cappetta commented that someone had some kind of reasoning to
leave those big setbacks along the big corridors through Oak Brook. The look
could change over time with the houses coming closer to the roads.
Member Young agreed and noted that there could be safety concerns too.
Member Nimry noted with the example of the first case this evening, some of
these lots are being rendered as useless due to the setback.
Member Cappetta noted that a house was already on the property and although
they could not build a 50,000 square foot house,:a house could be built.
Member Nimry added that no one would move into Oak Brook and only be
able to build a home that was 2140 square feet.
l
Director of Community Development Kallien said that Oak Brook Road has a
higher volume of traffic than York Road, however, the setback on Oak Brook
Road is 60 feet(110 feet from the centerline of the road),versus the 100 feet for
the setback along York Road. There is a 40 foot difference in the application of
the setback. Brook Forest and York Woods were developed before the setback
provision was adopted.
i
There was a discussion among the members regarding the impact of the
extraordinary setback on properties trying to redevelop.
Actin g Chairman Savino said that if someone would try to turn over a house in
that area, they would be looking for a variation and the ordinance is the
hardship,but you cannot approve a variation if the ordinance is the hardship.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that 13 homes exist in York
Woods that back up to York Road and 11 of those are in conflict, which is 80
percent of the homes. There were many houses in Brook Forest. He noted that
Oak Brook Road is not a straight line and meanders. The preparation of these
case files noted the support of the previous request for the text amendment.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 19 of 20 May 1, 2012
t
i
When asked, Trustee -Moy responded that it seems to be a problem and the
Village Board either would need to pass what was previously tabled or look at
it again. He would recommend that it goes forward.
i
Member Bulin noted that so much effort had already put into this issue by the [,
Zoning Board and that the Village Board should address it at the Board level.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that it would be included as
part of the Zoning Board recommendation.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that a text amendment for
cemeteries would be on an upcoming agenda.
There was no other business to discuss
7. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Ziemer to adjourn the j
meeting at 9.05 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried
ATTEST:
i
Isl Robert L.Kallien,Jr.
Robert Kallien,Director of Community Development
Secretary
i
{
i
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 20 of 20 May 1, 2012
i