Village of Oak Brook Zoning Board of Appeals met Dec. 13.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Wayne Ziemer in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 6:59 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons: PRESENT: Chairman Wayne Ziemer, Members Jeffrey Bulin, Natalie Cappetta,
Baker Nimry, James Pontrelli and Alfred Savino ABSENT Member Steven Young IN ATTENDANCE: Trustee Asif Yusuf, Planner Rebecca Von Drasek and Planning Technician Gail Polanek
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Member Bulin, seconded by Member Nimry to approve the minutes of the October 1, 2019 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
NEW BUSINESS
A 27 YORKSHIRE WOODS - MICHAEL BLEKE - VARIATION - TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE TO LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK
Chairman Ziemer announced the commencement of the public hearing for the proposed variation and all witnesses testifying were sworn in.
Mike Bleke, owner of 27 Yorkshire Woods said he and his fiancé Nicole have worked in Oak Brook for several years and were excited to be future residents. They purchased 27 Yorkshire Woods in the summer of 2019 with plans to construct a new home on the property.
John Anstadt, JMB Architects, 180 W. Park Elmhurst, architect, stated that JMB had been in business for more than 20 years and has designed several homes in Oak Brook. The request is for a variation to reduce the required front yard setback from 40-feet to 35-feet. The existing survey shows a 35-foot front yard setback and the subdivision was annexed into the village in 1962. The lot is 14,094 square-feet,
ch is quite a bit smaller than the 25,000 square foot minimum requirement in the R-3 District. There may be a couple of lots in the subdivision that are small, but most of the lots are much larger. There were several challenges in designing the new home on the unique lot. A concern was the livability of the rear of the lot and the impact on the adjacent neighbors in order to be good neighbors by creating openness and sacrificing the view between the two since the lot is so small. Initially, they considered requesting a 10-foot setback, but decided against that in order to preserve several mature trees in the front yard. They also decided to keep the driveway in the same place in order to protect the trees.
A PowerPoint showed the requested variation on the site plan, the proposed new construction and several elevations reviewing the size and design of the house. The side yards were made larger from the allowed 12 feet to 13 feet on the east elevation and approximately 16 feet on the west, which will also provide a better view for both of the neighbors. They have pushed back the elevation of the two-car garage so that it meets the 40-foot setback and is staggered and the roof was lowered to keep the massing back from the front in consideration and to be sensitive of the neighbors.
Chairman Ziemer accepted the written variation standards contained in the case file into the record as provided in the case file.
Member Cappetta questioned the square-footage of the proposed residence.
Mr. Anstadt replied 4200 square feet. The houses constructed today are bigger than those that were built in the past as when the existing house was constructed in 1965.
Chairman Ziemer questioned if the lot was annexed into Oak Brook as an R-3 single family lot.
Planner Von Drasek responded that the subdivision was originally platted in 1947, annexed into Oak Brook in 1962 and the existing home was constructed in 1965, after the incorporation of the village.
Chairman Ziemer noted for a point of reference that the lot in the R-3 district was smaller than the minimum requirement for an R-4 zoned lot, which has a minimum lot area of 18,000 and would have a reduced front yard setback of 30 feet, which is more than they are requesting.
Member Cappetta noted that the house next door appears to be closer to the street probably at 35 feet and believed the request conformed to the character of the neighborhood. They have been cognizant of preserving the trees, which the Board always looks for. They are not trying to overbuild the lot, which will have a footprint of approximately 2,000 square feet. She supported the variation requested.
Member Savino asked if they would consider pushing the house back five (5') feet to be in conformance with the required front yard setback.
Mr. Anstadt responded that they were seeking to retain as much open backyard space as possible and designed the house to keep the space open.
Member Pontrelli noted that the case file contained comments from three neighbors in support of the requested variation.
Mr. Bleke said that he spoke to his next-door neighbor at 28 Yorkshire Woods regarding some of her initial concerns with preserving some of the trees. After their conversation and review of the plans, she indicated support of his request.
Member Bulin said that the ZBA appreciated the applicant making an effort to preserve the trees. He suggested fencing the perimeter of the tree roots in order to protect them during construction. Oak trees are extremely sensitive to compaction, which could happen if equipment is driven over the root system or materials are stored on them.
Mr. Anstadt responded that the trees were the reason the applicant fell in love with the property. She had hoped to have a circular driveway and they have nixed it because the trees are there and it would have been too impactful.
Chairman Ziemer noted that the Staff Report was on page 7-7.c of the case file and provides an analysis of the request.
The applicant's requested relief is subject to the variation standards that the applicant testified to at the hearing and were also submitted in writing on pages C-C.1 of the case file. The surrounding neighbors and homeowner association support the recommendation of the zoning board. It appeared that the applicant addressed the standards to recommend approval of the variation.
Motion by Member Nimry, seconded by Member Bulin to recommend approval of the requested variation to allow a 5-foot encroachment into the required front yard setback to allow the construction of a new residence on the property subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed single-family dwelling shall be constructed in substantial conformance to the approved plans as submitted. 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:
Ayes: 6 - Members Bulin, Cappetta, Nimry, Pontrelli, Savino and Chairman Ziemer. Absent: 1 - Member Young. Motion carried. Nays: 0 -
Chairman Ziemer announced that the public hearing was concluded.
OTHER BUSINESS
Planner Von Drasek reviewed an upcoming case. There was a short discussion regarding the Zoning Ordinance Update that will be reviewed in 2020.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Member Cappetta, seconded by Member Bulin to adjourn the meeting at 7:28 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried.
https://www.oak-brook.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2278
Alerts Sign-up