Loading...
Minutes - 12/03/2013 - Zoning Board of Appeals MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON JANUARY 15, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER 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 7:02 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Members Jeffrey Bulin, Natalie Cappetta, Alfred Savino, Steven Young, Wayne Ziemer and Chairman Champ Davis ABSENT: Member Baker Nimry IN ATTENDANCE: Mark Moy, Trustee and Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES There were no minutes available for approval. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TEXT AMENDMENT — FENCE VOB - TEXT REGULATIONS AMENDMENT - FENCE REGULATIONS Chairman Davis stated that the applicant had requested a continuance of the hearing on this matter. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Zoning Board had indicated at its last meeting to move forward with the housekeeping issues, however, the definition of dog runs as it relates to Oak Brook has been a challenge. Most definitions refer to a cage type and with the varying residential lot sizes, some residents seek larger areas. The current regulations do not define dog runs and it has not been an issue since not many are requested. Motion by Chairman Davis, seconded by Member Ziemer to continue the hearing on the amendment to the Fence Regulations to the next regular meeting. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 10 December 3, 2013 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. ELQAQ — 424 CANTERBERRY LANE — VARIATIONS TO ELQAQ - 424 CANTERBERRY - SETBACKS AND STRUCTURE HEIGHT — TO ALLOW VARIATIONS TO CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SETBACKS AND STRUCTURE HT Chairman Davis announced the public hearing and reviewed the request. All witnesses were sworn in. All witness testifying were sworn in by Chairman Davis. Ehab Elqaq, owner of the property introduced his family. Joe Burnell, architect thanked staff stating that they were fantastic, very organized and thorough. The property is located along the northeast corner of York Road and Canterberry Lane and was deeded as a larger lot, 176 x 165 feet, which would have yielded an approximate 2/3 acre. However, the property line on the west is along the center line of York Road and along the center line of Canterberry Lane, which necessitates a 33 foot easement along both roads and reduces the usable lot to 143 x 132 feet and results in a .43 acre lot size. The property is zoned R-2 and has significant setbacks since the properties in that district are typically I acre minimum. The front yard setback is 40 feet, the side yard abutting the street is 40 feet, the interior side yard is 18 feet and the rear yard is 60 feet. When the setbacks are applied to the lot, the buildable area of the lot is 74 feet by 43 feet or approximately 3200 square feet, which is a significant reduction in the actual buildable area, for what they believed was a 2/3 acre lot. The existing house on the lot does not meet the current zoning requirements, which is setback about 28.5 feet from Canterberry Road. The existing detached garage actually encroaches approximately 2 feet over the north property line. An exhibit was provided showing the lot sizes of the properties in the area, which is surrounded by much larger properties that are 1 - 1.5 acre, which is keeping with the R-2 zoning. The current development trend surrounding the property has 4 houses under construction that are estimated to be 8-12,000 square feet,which are large structures. They are trying to build in-kind and to a scale with the property as well. The proposed structure is approximately 6500 square feet above grade. It is diminished somewhat from the trend, but is in- keeping with the property size and they have tried not to over build. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 10 December 3, 2013 They are seeking a reduction of the front yard setback from 40 feet to 18 feet, a reduction of the corner size yard setback from 40 feet to 25 feet. They are seeking a reduction in the rear yard from 60 feet to a 5 foot setback for the porte cochere, an open area attached to the house and 25 foot setback for the attached garage. They are also seeking a variance for an additional 2-2.5 feet for two architectural features from the maximum 40 feet allowed to the structure height for properties that are up to an acre. They have attempted to stay as far away from the neighbors as possible. The neighbor's property to the east is the most impacted so they have maintained the required 18-foot setback so that it does not get overwhelmed by the structure. He reviewed the different elevations of the proposed structure and noted that the applicant was not developing it as a return on investment, but as the family dream house. If developed smaller, it would be difficult to sell otherwise in the future. They are not impairing sight lines or air movement. Mr. Burnell reviewed the standards, which were also submitted in writing. 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: Given the nature of the trend of the property as well as around the property, to develop a diminutive house would devalue the property. They have tried not to overdevelop the property and provide a more demure house so they are keeping in kind with the neighbors and surrounding community. 1. b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: The buildable area of the lot is tiny. The surrounding neighboring properties are an acre or in excess of an acre and those properties are able to absorb the required setbacks. 1. c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: It will not diminish the character of the community. They believe it is a beautiful French Provincial style house made with high quality materials with cast and natural stone products that will add to the character and is in-keeping with the other houses developed over the last few years. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 10 December 3,2013 i 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 fiom a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out. RESPONSE: The setbacks make it very difficult if not impossible to develop anything within the buildable area. 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: All of the surrounding properties are an acre or in excess of an acre. This lot is less than a half-acre. 2. e. 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: It will not be detrimental or injurious to the other properties in the neighborhood. They have tried to maintain the distance from the other neighboring properties and structures to maintain privacy, light and air flow. 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: They will not impact any air or light to surrounding properties. 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 requested variances are not based on a desire to make more money out of the property. They plan to live in the house for many years. The only increase would be based on property value. They are excited about living in Oak Brook and having the children go to school in Oak Brook. 2. f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. RESPONSE: The lot location and size created this hardship. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 10 December 3, 2013 Summarizing the request for the height variances, he said that it was in-keeping with the style of the house and provides a finial that adds an architectural feature to the house. Part of the roof line is above the 40 feet. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that spires/architectural point's/features on a house are not normally counted as part of the height. However, a portion of the cone exceeds the 40 foot height. Member Savino provided a sample of how the scope of the angles could be changed in order to meet the requirement. Mr. Burnell responded that part of the French Provincial style is the varying roof lines and if the angles are brought down (spread out lower) it becomes similar to the other roof angles and becomes less distinguishable. Member Savino understood the need for the variations to the length and width of the structure, but did not see it in regards to the height. The length and width were due to possible takings of land by the Village and County, but not the height of the structure. He also found the 5-foot setback for the porte cochere to be extreme. Mr. Burnell said that it was being sought for several reasons. There is a 20-foot easement on the property to the north, plus the existing 18-foot setback. The porte cochere helps to bring the scale of the house down so that the house does not appear to be blocky or stout. Mr. Savino agreed and thought it was a wonderful design. He did have a problem with a couple of the variations, the height and the 5-foot setback. He could not recall having such a narrow setback anywhere else. Director of Community Development referenced a house on Wood Road that requested setbacks for additions, which was an extreme case. Driving south down York Road at Luthin and Wennes there are three houses that are located approximately 15-20 feet from the street. As the older houses are replaced the question would be if there would be enough room to set them back or would they need to establish a new front yard. Member Savino noted that there was no way to know what would happen in the future. Member Bulin said that it would be good to know what the average setback was along York Road to Spring. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 10 December 3,2013 Director of Community Development Kallien said that he could provide that information. Over the years there were always issues along York Road, especially in the Fullersburg area south of 31st. The properties are zoned R-2 and should be R-3. Ten years ago there was a meeting with about 50 of the homeowners in the area and it was explained that very few met the R-2 minimum requirements and R-3 would allow for some greater usability without the need for a variance, but at that point they did not feel comfortable with the initiation of a zoning case. This lot and almost all of the lots in Robin Hood Ranch and along York near Luthin are undersized. The properties are remnants of the past with the way houses were built, 50, 60 70 years ago and they really do not conform. So you have a situation where someone wants to do something with their property and they want to do something that is similar to what is happening. The aerial photo shows some of the magnificent structures being built and it seems like that is the trend. The house directly to the south, received variations, and the house is very boxy, it is larger than the house proposed, but the lot is also larger, but it is set back farther from York. Member Bulin said that in Robin Hood Ranch they did not want the houses to be over built. He suggested that in previous requests they have given lots, two front and two side setbacks that would allow for greater usage of the lot. Director of Community Development Kallien said that some lots, depending upon its shape such as a triangle, a curve is created. Member Bulin noted that sometimes the lot dictates would the house should be rather than the house dictating the lot. Mr. Burnell said that they tried to honor. that and that the style of the house would be significantly changed by that. Member Cappetta noted that even if the lot was zoned R-3, or R-4, two of the requirements would not be met and would still need variations. She noted that it was a beautiful house, but it's a one acre house on a half acre parcel. Mr. Burnell noted that they did look at options; they tried to mininlize the request as much as possible. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that the original plan requested much more relief than presented and they modified it to something VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 10 December 3, 2013 that was more reasonable. Member Burin said that on a previous case, it was given 40-40-18-18, which significantly added to the buildable area. Many of the properties were deeded to the center line of the roads throughout old Oak Brook along Spring Road and it is something you have to live with when the property gets resurveyed. With new construction you need to deal with the current right-of-way, which is a fact of life. He said that the curb appeal may be different, but would be able to get the square footage desired. He did not see a problem with the height request, due to the desired pitches. His issue was the ground coverage and variance to three setbacks. Mr. Burnell said that they are trying to develop in kind, with other properties in the area. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that R-2 allows for a 45 foot structure height, but there is a caveat for properties which are less than an acre are 40 feet. Member Ziemer noted that he was sympathetic to the nonconforming lot for the existing zoning, but if you would apply what would be appropriate for an R-4 lot, which would reduce the front yard to 30 feet, it would still not be conforming. The same thing would apply to the side and sear yard. The area that is the buildable area is not utilized and everything proposed is outside the buildable area. He did not think they were trying to conform. Given it is a nonconforming lot; he would be more sympathetic if they tried to hold the existing nonconforming front yard on Canterberry, which is 28 feet. If they tried to keep that it would be the essence of what already exists for the character. He did not have an issue with the height. The main issue was the encroachment along York Road. All the new homes along York Road do not appear to violate that. The request is beyond the limits for the undersized lot. Mr. Burnell responded that he understood, but that the style of the house is what is in the region and what they were going for. If they put up a big blocky house, it would be a mirror image of across the street. Director of Community Development Kallien offered to review the existing setbacks of the houses along York Road for the Zoning Board_ Based on what seems to be reluctance by the board, he suggested that the applicant look at making some adjustments. He noted that due to the right of way the house is setback farther than 25 feet VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 10 December 3,2013 PAAV from York. He suggested that the bay window that protrudes to the west may be able to be setback farther from York Road. Although they are being sensitive to the neighbor, to the east, they have a legal right to move the house four feet going east and would be within the allowed 18-foot setback. Member Cappetta asked if there was anything controlling impervious surface in the zoning ordinance. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that we did not. He noted that in Westchester Park, the house that is known as the `castle' actually uses the maximum use of the lot. They used every inch of the area (R-3) and the only thing remaining is the setbacks. There are some subdivisions that actually impose a maximum. Rosemary Okmark, 416 Canterberry Lane, located just east of the property said that they have been in the village for 50 years and are surrounded by the large homes that are being built. The proposed home is lovely and the homes throughout the village have become very large. They have seen all the construction north of their property, which is unbelievable including the heights of the homes, which are 45 feet; they had no idea the village was allowing that. She will not be in the area very long and the proposed home is very pretty and they are wonderful people. She feels the village would do the right thing. It is a large home, but if the Village would approve it, they would be okay with it. They have seen all the changes throughout the village, she does not like it, but that is progress. Member Young asked if she had seen the plan presented to the Zoning Board. She did see it and it looked very beautiful to them. They are very nice people and she would like to have them for neighbors. Member Young asked if they received a response from any of the other neighbors. Mr. Eqaq said that they did share it with Rose Okmark and some of the neighbors, which is why they pushed the house further west and they were trying to keep and preserve some of the large trees along the east of the property. They could push the house closer to the east, but out of respect to the neighbors they moved it toward York. He also showed it to BJ Bohne across the street (3305 York Road) and he helped to explain some of the public hearing process. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 10 December 3, 2013 He said that they were attempting to come up with something that was similar to what was going on in the neighborhood and when they bought the land they saw all of the beautiful houses and wanted to bring character and some history and so they did not go with a modern style home. They worked with the neighbors and tried to accommodate the restrictions. Member Savino asked why this particular lot was chosen rather than looking for a bigger lot. Mr. Eqaq said that they wanted a nice house but not too big. They thought that the lot size was the right size; they also liked the area along York Road and it was also quiet. The minute they looked at this lot they liked it. Mr. Burnell noted that corner lots have a little more cache than an interior lot, which is nice to have a little more openness. Right across York Road it is wooded, which affected their decision as well. They also looked at lots in Burr Ridge as well as other communities and chose Oak Brook because they thought it was a fantastic place. Member Savino questioned the two different dimensions shown for the lot. Mr. Burnell said that it was marketed as a lot of 176 x 165 (feet), but there was not an understanding of the easements that were required until the property closed and they received the actual survey,unfortunately. Chairman Davis suggested that the matter be continued on the representation that Mr. Kallien would provide data and the applicant would have further discussions with the Village. Director of Community Development Kallien noted that previous adjustments had been made to the house once before and based on the discussion at the hearing, additional modifications could be made. Motion by Member Savino, seconded by Member Young to continue the hearing on the variations requested to the next regular meeting. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 10 December 3, 2013 6. OTHER BUSINESS OTHER BUSINESS A. CONFIRMATION OF 2013 MEETING SCHEDULE CONFIRMATION OF 2013 MEETING SCHEDULE Gail Polanek reviewed the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting date schedule for 2014. She advised that the notice for all commissions and boards for the Village must review and confirm its meeting schedule yearly for the Village Clerk's office, which publishes the schedule annually at the beginning of each year. She asked for confirmation by the Zoning Board of Appeals that it would retain its regular meeting date on the first Tuesday of each month, and to begin the meetings at 7:00 p.m. After a brief discussion, there was a consensus to maintain the current schedule for 2014. Motion by Chairman Davis, seconded by Member Young to confirm the Zoning Board of Appeals 2014 meeting date schedule to retain and meet on the first Tuesday of each month and to begin the meeting at 7:00 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. Director of Community Development Kallien provided an update to the Oak Brook Park District lights. The Village Board is waiting for the light consultant to finish the final test and prepare and submit a_report. The Park District has purchased and installed shields on the lights. There was no other business to discuss. 7. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Ziemer to adjourn the meeting at 8:08 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: /s/Robert L.Kallien, Jr. Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 10 December 3, 2013