Loading...
Minutes - 01/15/2014 - Zoning Board of Appeals MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 15, 2014 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON APRIL 1, 2014 I. CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER 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 7:02 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Members Jeffrey Bulin, Natalie Cappetta, Steven Young, Wayne Ziemer and Acting Chairman Alfred Savino ABSENT: Member Baker Nimry and Chairman Champ Davis IN ATTENDANCE: Mark Moy, Trustee and Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Ziemer to approve the minutes of the December 3, 2013 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. E_LOAQ — 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 Acting Chairman Alfred Savino announced the public hearing and reviewed the request. He noted that all witnesses were sworn in at the last meeting. Joe Burnell, architect reviewed the history of the request. The original residence was approximately 6500 square feet. Although it is a .65 acre site in general, discounting the easements it is less than .5 acre. The property is surrounded by many lots that are 1 acre and more in size. He reviewed the original variances requested. They tried to address the issues raised by the Zoning Board at the last meeting. They moved the house further to the east, where they were trying to provide distance from the neighbor to the east by keeping the house an extra VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 7 January 15, 2014 lox four feet away. They did move the house as suggested by one of the members to take advantage of the four-feet available and will still maintain the required side yard setback of 18 feet. He noted that Member Cappetta was concerned with the amount of driveway along York Road, so they removed it and now have a visitor's drive in the front and a drive to access the garage off York Road. He added the Member Bulin was concerned about removal of the trees facing York and they are trying to maintain as many trees as possible. They were originally seeking the following relief: • 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 were 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 were 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 plan has been revised and the house has been reduced by about 1000 square feet and the relief they were now seeking was: • a reduction of the front yard setback (Canterberry) from 40 feet to 28.5 feet, by pushing the house back to maintain the setback for the existing house, which seemed to be acceptable by the board along Canterberry • a reduction of the corner size yard setback (York) from 40 feet and will maintain the 40 foot setback and will no longer request that variation. • They were seeking a reduction in the rear yard from 60 feet to an 18 foot setback for the poste cochere, which has been reduced in size (it is an open area attached to the house) a 31 foot setback for the attached garage. They used the side yard setback of 18 feet as suggested by the board. • They did not change the request for the height 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 felt like that had come a long way to meet the board's request. They have eliminated one variance and reduced the other two. They have reduced the overall size of the house, which is opposite the current housing trend. A lot of the houses in the surrounding area are much larger. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 7 January 15, 2014 VAk Acting Chairman Savino noted that they had addressed a lot of the issues and reduced the size of the house from 6500 to 5500 square feet. He complimented him on trying to address the board's concerns and believe the house has a lovely design. His only issue was the height and asked what unique difficulty they had with the height. Mr. Burnell responded that this property was the only substandard lot in the immediate area and all of the surrounding houses are all allowed to build to a height of 45 feet malting this the only lot that would not be able to, which is the unique condition of this particular lot. They believed that the character of the house is better with the current height and slopes of the roof; and makes it a nicer quality showpiece for York Road. Member Ziemer noted that based on all of the other homes in the area the height as requested actually keeps in the character and context with the rest of the neighborhood. Member Bulin noted that the bulk of the ridgeline for the house was under 40 feet. Mr.Burnell agreed and added that the bulk of the roof area in general, including the detail on top would be under 40 feet. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the applicant had gone to great lengths to make the revised home fit a very small substandard lot that in today's world the Village would not create. If the house had two chimneys and were located where the pinnacles would be, it would be allowed by right. In essence they are nothing more than architectural ornamental features. The ridgeline of the house is under the maximum permitted in the R-2 district. It is not substantial and does not establish a precedent, since it is a substandard lot. Member Cappetta noted that they did a great job in addressing the Board's issues, but she still had an issue that the rear yard reduction was almost 30 feet. She understood that it was a substandard lot, but that it requires a much smaller house. She said that a 5500 square foot house is too large for the lot. She had difficulty with it. Mr. Burnell noted that years from now when they try to sell the property the price would not be there anymore. He tried to show that they were much closer to the neighbor to the east and they are allowed to 18 feet. In the rear yard there would be 60-80 feet to the neighbor next door when they build. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 7 January 15, 2014 Member Ziemer said that there are two front yards facing Canterberry and York Road and given that the rear yard is not abutting the neighbors due to the driveway and it is a unique circumstance, and noted he would be okay with it. Member Bulin noted that there would still be 60 feet between the neighbors given the driveway and their setbacks. It is an unusual circumstance. Mr. Burnell noted that they showed the plans to the neighbors and had gotten their support generally. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the request. The members agreed to one motion that included all the variations requested, because if one failed,they would not be able to build the house as proposed. The Standards were addressed on page C-C.2 of the case tile. Motion by Member Ziemer, seconded by Member Bulin that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for a special use for an outdoor dining area and to recommend approval of the request subject to meeting the following conditions: 1. Front Yard (along Canterberry Lane)—reduce the required 40-foot front yard to approximately 28.5 feet. 2. Rear Yard — reduce the required 60-foot rear yard to approximately 18 feet to accommodate a proposed Porte cochere and to approximately 31 feet for the remainder of the single-family home. 3. Structure Height — increase the maximum building height from 40 feet to approximately 43' 6" and 42'6" to accommodate two architectural features. With the exception of the two architectural features the main roof line of the house will comply with the code requirements. 4. The proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance to the approved plans as submitted. 5. 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: 4—Members Bulin, Young, Ziemer and Acting Chairman Savino Nays: 1—Member Cappetta Absent 2 Chairman Davis and Member Nimry. Motion carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 7 January 15, 2014 rI 4. B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TEXT AMENDMENT — FENCE voB - TEXT AMENDMENT - REGULATIONS FENCE REGULATIONS Director of Community Development Kallien noted that this case has been before the Zoning Board and Plan Commission for quite some time. When the issue came from the Village Board the original intent was really to consider a change in the maximum height of fences from 42 to 48-inches, which was the main issue. While reviewing the fence regulations we felt it was time to improve the readability of the regulations. Through the process it appears that there is more comfort in maintaining the current 42-inch height. If someone has the need for a change in height, the variation process is in place. The staff memo on page 31 adds a definition to define a dog run, which is simple yet understandable definition. We reviewed ordinances from over 20 different municipalities and the vast majority does not specifically regulate dog runs. If it is the desire of the Zoning Board to create additional parameters to limit the size or height of dog runs, it should be handled as a separate case because it opens the zoning ordinance for another issue that falls outside the issue of fences. The Village does not have an issue with dog runs. The subdivisions have covenants in place to provide guidance to its homeowners. Chain link fencing would continue around subdivisions, with the caveat that they be landscaped on both sides and ensure that it is maintained. Sports courts were added to have them meet the ASTM standards. The fence height is proposed to remain at 42-inches. The housekeeping items are on pages 20-20.b and on page 31 of the case file. Acting Chairman Savino noted that the original proposal was leaning toward the increase to a 48-inch height. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that this matter was referred to the Zoning Board and was related to 2 fence variations that were approved in Forest Glen. At that time the Village Board said that a 42-inch high fence required a more expensive fence because it has to be custom made and a 48-inch fence can be purchased directly from the stores, so the Trustees questioned what the difference in 6 inches was and referred it to the boards for review and recommendation. During the ZBA discussion provided by a number of different people there appears to be a desire to stay at 42-inches. Acting Chairman. Savino noted that he would lean toward approving the 48- inches, since it is a very small difference and why would the Village want to penalize homeowners and create problems so that they could purchase a VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 7 January 15,2014 i standard 48-inch high fence, instead of purchasing a 48-inch high fence and having it cut down to 42-inches. Member Young noted that it was a retail standard not an industry standard. Member Bulin said that a 36-inch high fence was standard and would be compliant. He thought that the-42-inch height was meant to keep fences lower rather than higher. He questioned the height of subdivision fences. Director of Community Development Kallien responded that subdivision fences are 42 inches; however some older fences were taller when installed and are interwoven with landscape. Nonconforming taller fences can be maintained. Acting Chairman Savino swore in John Baar prior to testimony given. John Baar, 3 Brighton Lane, as President of York Woods said that the vast majority of homeowners in York Woods do not have fences, which is the preferred state of affairs.. For a long time people thought that fences were not allowed in York Woods. By maintaining the 42-inch height restriction makes people think twice about putting in a fence, so that they really do need it. The line of sight is very important and it does make a difference in terms of where the open space can be seen. The homes being built in York Woods are up to 40-feet in height and people have told him that it feels like the sky is cut off and they are being crowded in. To maintain the fence height would benefit the majority of the people. He would like to see no fences. He supported the 42- inch height restriction. Member Cappetta questioned sports courts and how it could be abused. Director of Community Development Kallien said that many large properties in town have fences around tennis and basketball courts. There are just a few places in Oak Brook that pursue this and there are subdivisions that regulate them in their covenants. In regulations, we kind of apply the `what if, but we need to look at what is the general rule of use in the development that has occurred or is expected to occur and apply some reasonable regulations. If we find that a situation arises and it would need to be tweaked, we would bring it back to the Board. If we applied what if, we might not end up with any regulations because you could never create something that could handle every situation and said that he felt comfortable with the changes proposed. The Zoning Board of Appeals was in receipt of the Plan Commission recommendation. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 7 January 15, 2014 Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Ziemer that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for a text amendment and to recommend approval that the current fence height regulations of 42-inches remain the same. ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: 5 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Young, Ziemer and Acting Chairman Savino Nays: 0— Absent: 2—Chairman Davis and Member Nimry. Motion carried. Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Ziemer that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for a text amendment and to recommend approval of the text amendments as proposed by Staff on pages 20-20.b and page 31, with the exception to the increase in fence height. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Young, Ziemer and Acting Chairman Savino Nays: 0— Absent: 2—Chairman Davis and Member Nimry. Motion carried. 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to discuss. 6. OTHER BUSINESS OTHER BUS MESS Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed possible upcoming cases. There was no other business to discuss. 7. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Young to adjourn the meeting at 8:04 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: /s/Robert L. Kallien, Jr. Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 7 January 15, 2014