Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Member Anderson. Begy pardon. Has everyone had had the opportunity to read the uh We're going to do the roll call. Roll call. It says screen. Member Anderson here. Member Brown here. Member Houston here. Member Clyde here. Member Leovic here. Member Selixson here. Member Steinberg here. We have a quorum. Okay. All right. Well, now we can get to the approval of the minutes. Has everyone had that opportunity to read the minutes from the last meeting? Can we have an um an approval a motion to approve the meeting? I'll second it.

See, it's been properly moved and second that we approve the minutes from the last meeting. Can we have a roll call on the subject? Member Brown? Yes. Member Anderson? Yes. Member Leovit. Yes. Member Houston. Yes. Member Clyde. Yes. Member Steinberg. Yes. Member Selixson. Yes. Yes.

Okay. There are any uh communications? I guess there was one memo. Have we gotten any additional communications? I just we received two emails in support of uh case uh number 256 for the 1444 uh 1 Ver Avenue and just to enter them in the record and you have copies in front of you of the two emails. Okay. Is everyone had the opportunity to read the communications? Yes. Okay. Were there any old business? No.

No old business. Okay. So, we can get to the new business. Um, the first item of uh business is case number 256. It's submitted by Michael Gordon, architect on behalf of Rachel and Hershel of 1441 Vernon Avenue. Article three of the of uh division one general provision section 300 assembly buildings structures and uses requires the the detached garage structure to be set back a minimum of 10 ft from the principal dwelling. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow arch alterations to the existing principal building that resulted in in the setbacks from the existing detached garage structure of 7'3 in on the closest side and the overall setback 7'6 in from the principal building. So, who's uh representing? Um, if

you want to open the public hearing, if you want to open the public hearing for anyone to speak. Is there is there any is there any anyone from uh you know that that has any comments or additional input that we might take into consideration in when did when discussing the subject? That's nobody. Okay. All right. You're you're you are and your address. Good evening. I'm Michael representing the Els. Can you just hit your mic? There's a button. There you go. Now it works. Can you hear me? Is the green light on? Green light's on.

Okay, you're good. Okay.

All right. Sorry about that. Um, greeted. I'm Mike Gordon from Moyes Gordon Associates Architects. and here representing male shonens who are unfortunately are out of town at a family event. I spoke to them earlier today. Um any in your package you have two letters from neighbors that I just received this evening in support. First I just want to give a little bit of history and context to this project. We began working with the showons in April of 22 almost three and a half years ago. The project went through multiple design iterations including adding a second floor and budgets came in. Then we weren't adding a second floor. Then we're back to adding a second floor. Now the evolution also included an initial start with a different builder which continued into a demolition phase. Unfortunately, the builder stopped and was eventually terminated from the project. We returned to the drawing boards eventually ending up with another revised plan and a new contractor. So in all of this history and all of this change of people, I think that's where in lies some of the issues and uh unfortunately with so many changes and moving parts along with some misinformation from an old site plan, we ended up with today's situation recording very good news situation uh has been relieved in one direction. Um it's actually further away than it was originally. The dings were approved and construction started and it wasn't until there was a site inspection on the job that the the issue presented itself. Apparently, the previous builder had never called for an inspection or else the violation had not been noticed during any previous inspections. But we lost that history with the builder. So, we went back to the drawing board again and we looked to see if we could modify the garage or modify the structure to satisfy the homeowner's needs. The existing footprint would challenge the dietary needs of the kosher kitchen. We needed a certain amount of space and if we did shrink the garage, it would not

hold the car and it's a onecar garage. Further, we can't move the garage back because then it would open up other violations of setbacks to the rear. Further, if the garage could simply be attached, the fire separation, which is one of the issues, can it be achieved by in or drywalling the garage? And the homeowner has willing to drywall the garage to help secure a fire separation, which is part of the issue here. And several local communities, we looked into the 10-ft separation ordinance is unique to Oak Park. It's a a five foot in many other communities, and the national building code actually calls for a minimum of five foot separation. Um, we feel that given all the existing circumstances, the ability to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community is paramount. And we feel that what we're doing and also protecting the first responders, we feel that this is a reasonable request and that that safety is ensured. We hope you look favorably upon this and we'll answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.

Okay. Does anyone have any questions? Any comments? Can we have a motion on the subject? Yeah. Well, is there anyone else? Anyone else in the audience? I guess nobody was there. So, let me close of public hearings. Okay. So, there no questions. So, we can have a motion. Does anyone care to make a motion?

I'll make a motion. uh based based on the information presented in the staff report and additional findings of fact discussed during the review of case 25-06. I move to approve the request of Michael Gordon on behalf of Rachel and Hershel Khan uh 14441 Vernon Avenue second. Okay, it's been properly moved and second that the request be approved. Uh can we have a roll call on the subject? Commissioner Leovit, yes. Commissioner Steinberg, yes. Commissioner Anderson, yes. Vice Chair Brown, yes. Commissioner Clyde, yes.

Commissioner Selson, Chairperson Houston, yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Okay. The next um item on the on the agenda is case number 25-07 and it's submitted by Mr. Anthony J. Roco of 25 23511 Senica and uh this motion has to do with the uh uh to with the article 2 division to on residential districts uh schedule of uh regulations requires the minimum lot size to be 50 ft. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a parcel with a lot width of 92.67 ft to be split into two uh child parcels. And parcel A will have a lot width of 46.33 ft and parcel 13 will have a lot width of 46.34 feet. Um, is uh anyone here out, you know, that has an has any input on the subject before we get started? Any neighbors or

Yes. Um, yeah, I have a number of questions actually. Okay. Hi, I'm Ellen Finn. I live um four four houses down. And your address? Sorry. Your address? Your address? Address. I'm so sorry. 23581 Senica. Thank you.

And I own the house. Um yeah, I have a number of questions. I I a little bit more information on the um case number here. Um, so the the lot is 96 and change uh 92 um feet wide and they're asking to split it into 46 and basically 46 and 46 feet. Um so my question is what is it? Uh homes, is it duplexes? Is it rentals? Is it um two houses for purchase or rental?

Purchase. Okay. And uh I would assume you're going to show us a little bit of graphics, that sort of stuff, but some representations of what would be there. We have current pictures of the houses already built in other location. Oh, gotcha. Very nice. Um so we had a fire there back around the first of the year. That was that was something. it kind of melted some of the other neighbors homes which was pretty astounding actually to watch. Um so I'm just the question I guess the biggest question I have is that um the um

buildings I believe that the house was purchased out of a foreclosure sale on that and and it was the house itself had many issues that you were correcting which was kind of nice. Uh it was a little disappointing to see the the fire that destroyed that that structure. That was terrible. But prior to and since then, uh that lot has been very very poorly maintained by the owner. And I think that's you. And because right now there's weeds out there that are as tall as me. Um so I'm wondering um can we rely on you to make a good showing of this whole thing?

Well, You can just ask the questions and they they'll answer after, but ask all your questions. Uh, yes, indeed. Um, let's see. Did I have another one here? Um, and will any of the the trees um they're kind of in the way. Will the trees be removed that are still there? So, yeah, just ask all your questions and they'll answer them when they talk.

Yes. Thank you so much. I've never been to one of these things, so thank you for correcting me. So, I'm just uh wondering um if the uh the existing trees and vegetation uh that's there if that will remain. Um so, I guess that's about it. Um somebody else have something to say? Yeah. A point of order. Uh no, no matter what we do here, the lot split issue has to go to city council anyway. Uh yes, correct.

Doesn't it make more sense for this to go to the city council first? Se even if they will entertain a lot split before it comes here to see if we will give a variance on the issue. But they have to have the variance before going to the city council. They can submit to the assessing department. But if there is a variance, that's that's the way it works. That's the way it works. Ma'am, did you speak at that? I own the property. It's in probate right now with my brother. I grew up in that house. I'm sorry. What's your name? Your name and address. My name is Jan. Speaking of the microphone, please.

Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Jan Wharton. I live at 234. Well, I don't live there, but it's in probate right now with my brother. 23471 Sonica. Ever since that I I remember when I was a kid um old family that took care of it really took care of a lot ever since I don't know I'm my um house like I said has been on probate for years and I go over there and take care of it cut the grass and stuff like that but this property has always been horrible every time I've driven by it and I know the lady that lives to the north of it and Um I'm sure she's I she's not here so I cannot speak for her but um it's just been an eyesore for years and years and I don't understand for the aesthetics in the neighborhood why would you approve to split the lot and have them put you know two separate structures in there that just changes the whole neighborhood and it's a really nice

street and I totally I think well nobody else is here except for you but um yeah like I said the property is not maintain so that's all I have to say of course I'm against it all right thank you does anyone else have any input on the subject more question just for

uh the question I forgot about I was hoping to see a representation of what those two houses uh would look like on those on that lot in conjunction with the other houses. Um I'm actually a little excited about having some new houses in our neighborhood, but uh just want to make sure that we're not squeezing houses in there uh to the detriment of the new owners and the uh aesthetic of the the neighborhood. Okay. So, who's who's presenting the you name? Can you give your name and address and who you represent? Uh good evening. I'm Anthony Rockar. I reside at 206 Russet Drive in Troy, but I am responsible

I'm sorry. Can you repeat that just one more time? I live at 21106 Russet Drive in Troy, but I own the property of 23511 Senica. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Okay. So, what I would like to do, if it's okay, I'd like to write read a statement of hardship. And I apologize. I did bring my glasses case, but the C glasses weren't in there. So, if I squint, I apologize. I'd like to read a statement I wrote from a hardship standpoint and then talk about the staffing report that was issued. So, in regards to the hardship, the original property and dwelling were acquired with the intention of um completing refurbishment project. Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances, the scope is shifted. We are now evaluating the uh viability of a new construction on the site. However, constructing a single dwelling on the existing lot would not be financially would be financially infeasible due to market constraints, but it would also fail to reflect the evolving character of the comm community. A single high-cost custom home would be significantly overpriced for the area, and as a result, the project would most likely not move forward, leaving the property vacant and undeveloped. Conversely, splitting the lot to two modest custom homes would provide a more contextually appropriate and economically viable solution. This approach would better align with the neighborhood scale and fabric, promote increased housing density, and reflect the type and thoughtful infill development seen in communities such as Ferndale and Royal Oak. Moreover, this proposal could serve as a model for smart growth and community revitalization and may even support the city's long-term zoning goals by encouraging uh attainable design conscious new housing um in established neighborhoods. We respectfully request the zoning board consider this variance uh favorably as a means to preserve the vitality of the neighborhood, maximize land use, and stimulate future development in alignment with community values and urban planning trends. So, that's from a from a hardship standpoint. From a from a staffing report standpoint, I had a

couple points I just wanted to bring up because I didn't necessarily understand or agree with them. Um the assessing department on page two talks about review of the um proposal based upon city and um community harmony. I'm not sure how you evaluate harmony based pure purely on lot size without considering the dwelling on said lot. You can have a 100 foot lot with an outhouse or a shed on it or you can have a 50- foot lot with a very nice customuilt home. So ignoring the dwelling is hard evaluation for harmony. And the same falls in line with um throughout this report they talked about uh talk about neighborhood character. I'm not sure how you can evaluate neighborhood character based strictly on size without considering the dwelling. I really believe that two customuilt homes that are right here, which are the model that we would be putting up, would be much better harmony and character than a vacant lot. Now, these happen to be in New Baltimore on 40 foot lots, not 46 like we would put these on. Not to mention that there there are several uh lots on the same street. Granted, they're supposedly in a different subdivision, but they're so close I could hit a golf ball to them, and I'm not a very good golfer, so I don't understand how these are a different subdivision, but apparently they are according to the assessment. Also in the staffing report, there are two opposing letters which one of them I don't necessarily consider opposing because the gentleman talks about um he would be in favor of new construction with stricter oversight and that Senica needs development and improvement. We offer both of those. We would not be using the same contractors that were doing the refurbishment that he took um

issue with. we would be using brand new construction um people that we've used on previous uh jobs. And then lastly, there is a precedent case that has been uh cited that the ZBA granted a request in the past splitting one lot into two of less than 50. I would just ask the ZBA to look at that case in part particular to say what is that case looking like now? Was it worthwhile and it was a good thing to do then? Because if it was a good thing to do then, why wouldn't it be a good thing to do now? Because I don't see a whole lot of new construction going on in the city of Oak Park, but the opportunity to build two brand new houses would certainly be something that would be worthwhile. So, I thank you for your consideration. And then, if I may, in response to the the the grass cutting, we had a service that was lined up and they must have fell through and not been doing it. we will reach out to them to make sure that we know that we are responsible for that lot and if if the weeds get out of hand, we're going to get a bill from the city and it's much more than us doing it ourselves. So, we'll take care of that tomorrow. I apologize. So, if there's any questions from the board, I will gladly entertain them.

Okay. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Ro? I have a question for you. This is to Yeah. Uh just now the the board is the one who now can have a questions. Okay. Does anyone have any questions for him? Just a quick question. Mr. Rocka, if um if we ultimately deny this, are there any plans like for what the alternative would be on that site? I would probably sit back and wait to see what happens in the future to see if you relax the zoning requirements to do something in the future there. So, the the lot will probably sit vacant for a while.

Thank you. Any more questions from the board? Okay. And if there are any more there aren't any questions, can does anyone want to make a motion on the subject?

I'll do it. Based on the information presented in the staff report and additional findings of fact discussed during the review of case number 25-07, I move to deny the request of Anthony J. Rocka 23511 Senica Avenue for a waiver to reduce the lot width of two child parcels parcel A to 46.33 ft. Parcel B to 46.34 uh feet. Article 2, Division 2, Section 214, requires a minimum lot width of 50 feet in the R1 single family residential district. The waiver will allow the applicant to split an existing parcel into two child parcels with lot widths that are less than 50 ft.

Second. Okay. It's been is there are there any questions? It's been properly moved and second or his request be denied. Any questions? It's not that. Can we have a a vote on the subject, please? Chairperson Houston. Yes. Commissioner Selixson. No. And just for Yes. Support. To deny, right? Yes. Is to deny. Okay. Commissioner Clyde. Yes. Commissioner Level. Yes. Commissioner Steinberg, yes.

Commissioner Anderson, yes. Commissioner Brown, yes. All right. The motion has been carried to deny that. Okay. So, it's been properly moved and second in second that the motion be denied. So, so if there aren't any more issues to be brought before the commission and we can prop move the meeting is adjourned. I second. Thank you. That one. The second you did it, I was like that's why I like