Village of Brookfield Planning and Zoning Commission Met May 20.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
I. Call to Order
Chairman Grund called the regular meeting of the Commission to order at 7:00 PM.
II. Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Miller, Benjamin, Svoboda, Straka, Weber, and Chairman Grund
Others Present: Trustee Jennifer Hendricks, Board Liaison; George Issakoo, Interim Director of Community & Economic Development; Kendra Kuehlem, Village Planner;
Adam Durkin, Village Attorney
III. Approval of Minutes
None.
IV. Public Comment
Chairman Grund reminds the public that if they have comments related to an item on the meeting agenda, they need to speak under that item. If they have general comments, this is the time to do so.
Aileen Piper-Simpson of 3515 Vernon Avenue expresses concern over recent developments in the Village. Specifically, 3704 Grand Boulevard stating that it doesn’t serve the community or Comprehensive Plan.
Barbara Dahm of 4513 Park Avenue comments that the variance process should be more difficult, especially for developers that are outsiders to the Brookfield Community. Ms. Dahm questions if the fire department and other departments review plans to ensure safety.
Kyle Whitehead of 9526 Congress Park Avenue comments that he and his family are newer Brookfield residents. The Village needs to welcome residents and business and stay competitive which can be done through responsible development. Asks that we consider the perspective of new young families and welcome change.
Marilyn Todd of 9406 Congress Park Avenue did not see the notice about the 3704 Grand Boulevard development until she went on social media to the Brookfield Connections Facebook group. Ms. Todd feels sorry for the neighbor who bought the single-family house next door, unaware of the future development, because she won’t be able to sell the house. Thinks that someone should have told the neighbor what was happening.
Paulette Delcourt of 3710 Grand Boulevard testifies that she has been terrorized the past few months because of the construction of the neighboring development at 3704 Grand Boulevard. Ms. Delcourt claims that it is dangerous for her to be at her home because of the construction materials and all the workers constantly around. She continues that she bought the property and started renovating and landscaping it and was unaware of the development. She says that she has been complaining for months about these conditions.
Laura Farrell of 4027 Oak Avenue comments that this past winter she experienced ice damning, having huge chunks of ice hanging off the eve of her home. She questions how this situation will affect Paulette Delcourt’s house from the neighboring development because it is so close. She further questions how fire and police will get access between the two structures. Ms. Farrell testifies that Ms. Delcourt’s property is dark and does not get sunlight in the middle of the day because the neighboring structure blocks it. She believes that there would have been a better place for the development than at this location.
Tish Bernhardt of 9031 Fairview Avenue agrees with Kyle Whitehead about the need to attract young families to the community, and states that there is a good and attractive way to do that. Ms. Bernhardt believes that the development at 3704 Grand is an utter failure. Whether the real estate agent or Ms. Delcourt knew or didn’t know about the development does not have merit in her mind. Ms. Bernhardt also expresses concern for the business Brennan Massage and Spa also located next to 3704 Grand Blvd. The Planning and Zoning Commission should hold developers to the same standards that any other homeowner is held to. Ms. Bernhardt doesn’t believe that Brookfield has the infrastructure to suggest that new people who move here won’t have cars. She urges everyone to come together and think about what we’d like to see next to us. John Frees of 9001 Sheridan Avenue has comments about the case for 8845 Burlington Avenue.
Chairman Grund reminds him that those comments need to be made during the public hearing for that case. Mr. Frees asks how the 3704 Grand Boulevard development got approved for 17 units with no setbacks and only 9 parking spaces when 11 units were originally presented at the public hearing. Mr. Frees comments that he and the community are frustrated.
The Village Attorney states that this is the time for public comments not a back-and-forth discussion.
Tom Galbraith of 3851 McCormick states that he is a real estate appraiser and believes that the Grand Boulevard development has destroyed neighbor Paulette Delcourt’s property value. Mr. Galbraith says that the school system is going to be overwhelmed with students because of the development and we don’t have the tax money to build up the schools again. Mr. Galbraith believes that the variance findings for the development were not met. Mr. Galbraith states that the town is being destroyed.
Colby Mecher of 3715 Sunnyside Avenue echoes some concerns previous residents spoke on, however, does not have an issue with the 3704 Grand building. He supports a growing economic base and other opportunities for people in terms of affordable housing. Mr. Mecher’s concerns are safety and traffic. He would like to see a plan for parking and asks the Commission to work with the developer on this. Mr. Mecher is interested in being solutions-based and invites anyone to reach out to him.
Mike Healy of 4517 Dubois states that he has worked in the community for the past 40 years and owns several properties in Brookfield, including next to Paulette Delcourt at 3714 Grand Boulevard. Mr. Healy is shocked at how angry people are at the 3704 Grand development. He mentions that he has spoken to Ms. Delcourt, and if he did not just buy 3714 Grand, he would buy Ms. Delcourt’s property. Mr. Healy rebuts some of the previous public comments and states that development helps communities, and that he does not have a problem with 3704 Grand in the heart of a downtown zoning district.
Rocio Baeza of 3644 Raymond Avenue felt the need to come to this meeting after learning about Paulette Delcourt’s situation, which she feels is a shame. Ms. Beaza thanks the Commission and staff for their service and encourages residents to get involved with the community.
V. Department Report
Chairman Grund informs everyone that there have been staffing changes with the Village and thanked and welcomed staff members George Issakoo and Kendra Kuehlem. Chairman Grund introduced Kendra Kuehlem as the new Village Planner.
George Issakoo introduced himself and announced that he is acting as the interim Community and Economic Development Director.
Ms. Kuehlem presented an update on previous PZC cases. The recent consolidation plat requests will go before the Village Board at the next meeting. Additionally, since the Landmark’s publication, there has been an increased interest in the Property Improvement Grant program that the Village is offering for TIF properties.
VI. Old Business
None.
VII. New Business
Case No. 21-11 – Variance for 3209 Oak Avenue
Commissioner Svoboda made a motion to open the public hearing for Case No. 21-11. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Straka.
AYES: Miller, Benjamin, Sbvoboda, Straka, Weber, Grund
NAYS: None.
Motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Kuehlem summarized the staff report explaining that the applicant, Joseph Veverka, is requesting a variance to expand on a non-conforming use of land in order to build a detached 20- feet by 22-feet garage on the property located at 3209 Oak Avenue.
Commissioner Sbvoboda asked if the applicant would have to remove the existing shed from the property. Ms. Kuehlem responded that he would not.
Commissioner Miller asks if there are other lots of this non-conforming size in the Village that have been in the same situation and were able to build garages. Ms. Kuehlem responds that there are several lots in the Village that are below the minimum allowable lot width, but each situation is unique because the size of the principle home structure which is used to calculate lot coverage.
Chairman Grund swears in the applicant. The applicant adds that he is a heart patient and had an operation last year. He and his wife are in their 70’s and cannot shovel snow. They currently have a gravel carport where they park their cars, and he has to shovel the snow. This past winter he was unable to shovel both of their cars out.
Commissioner Benjamin asked if the applicant considered constructing a two-car garage as opposed to a two-and-a-half car garage. Mr. Ververka responded that they did consider that size, but it wouldn’t match with the rest of the neighbor’s garages. Commissioner Benjamin mentions that he drove through the area and can attest to there being plenty of garages in the neighborhood.
Kathy Robson of 3217 Sunnyside Avenue speaks to the commission in support of the applicant’s request.
Commissioner Straka made a motion to close the public hearing for Case No. 21-11. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Benjamin.
AYES: Miller, Benjamin, Sbvoboda, Straka, Weber, Grund
NAYS: None.
Motion passed 6-0.
Commissioner discussion. Commissioner Straka states that he has driven down the alley adjacent to the applicant’s property, and the applicant’s property is the only one without a garage. He is in favor of the Village’s green space lot coverage regulation; however, this request is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Benjamin agrees.
Chairman Grund states that he understands the plight of the homeowners, but the commission has a responsibility to keep any future homeowners of this property in mind, and to make sure the approval would be consistent with the rest of the area.
Commissioner Benjamin made a motion to adopt findings of fact of staff as the findings of fact of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend approval of the variance to permit an expansion of a non-conforming use of land for the property located at 3209 Oak Avenue. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Straka.
AYES: Miller, Benjamin, Sbvoboda, Straka, Weber, Grund
NAYS: None.
Motion passed 6-0
Case No. 21-13 – Variance for 3209 Raymond Avenue
Commissioner Miller made a motion to open the public hearing for Case No. 21-13. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Svoboda.
AYES: Miller, Benjamin, Sbvoboda, Straka, Weber, Grund
NAYS: None.
Motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Kuehlem presents the staff report. The applicant, Suzanne Hirschboeck, is requesting a variation to expand on a non-conforming use of land and non-conforming structure, in order to build a front porch and back deck onto their home located at 3209 Raymond Avenue.
Ms. Kuehlem reads a written public comment that was submitted regarding this case. Maria Cassin of 3146 Madison Avenue is against the applicant’s variance request because of a concern for stormwater management and current flooding issues in the area.
Commissioner Svoboda asks if the applicant’s current deck has building permit. Ms. Kuehlem responds that it should.
The applicant, Suzanne Hirschboeck, testifies that the front porch would be constructed in place of the existing landscaping in front of the house, basically up to the grass on the front lawn area. She wants to rebuild the back desk just as it is, just with a different wood type that requires less maintenance. Ms. Hirschboeck does not understand how this improvement would add to flooding.
Commissioner Miller asks if the footprint of the proposed back deck would be the same as the existing back deck. Ms. Hirschboeck confirms. Commissioner Miller asks if the front porch would be built the full width of the house and what materials it would be constructed with. Ms.
Hirschboeck responds that the front porch will not be wider than the house, and that she is unsure of materials since the cost of building materials has increased recently. Commissioner Miller clarifies that she would like to know if the porch will sit up off the ground or not. Ms. Hirschboeck explains that it would be even with the front door so you step out onto the porch and there would be steps going down from that. The steps would come out farther than the existing steps. Commissioner
Weber asks if that estimated projection dimension is about four feet. Ms. Hirschboeck explains that the landscaping extends about seven or eight feet from the house and if allowed, she would like to build to that size.
Commissioner Weber asks staff if a composite or cedar deck would be considered a semi permeable surface as compared to a concrete landing. Ms. Kuehlem responds that it would be semi permeable. Charmain Grund asks the applicant if thy are intending to build a roof over the porch. Ms. Hirschboeck confirms and adds that they would also like to add gutters that come down the front. Commissioner Svoboda asks if the roof will be asphalt like what you see on typical roofs in the Village. Ms. Hirschboeck states that they will use the same roofing material as the home because they want it to look like the porch has always been there. Commissioner Straka adds that the roof type would probably be low sloped because of the dimension.
Chairman Grund clarifies that once you add a roof to the porch, it becomes an impervious area despite the materials that it is constructed with. Staff should ensure the ratio of impervious surface area is followed. Commissioner Weber asks if these estimates would be based on an 8-foot projection or a different dimension and if they can stipulate that with their approval that staff would verify dimensions. Village Attorney say they can do that.
Commissioner Straka made a motion to close the public hearing for Case No. 21-13. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller.
AYES: Miller, Benjamin, Sbvoboda, Straka, Weber, Grund
NAYS: None.
Motion passed 6-0.
Commissioner Straka states that he is in support of the applicant’s request and that there are nearby properties with front porches and believes this request is consistent with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Miller made a motion to adopt findings of fact of staff as the findings of fact of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend approval of the variance to permit expansion of a non-conforming use of land and non-conforming structure for the property located at 3209
Raymond Avenue with a condition that the applicant work with staff on determining the appropriate dimension of the front porch keeping the appropriate amount of impervious area. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Straka.
AYES: Miller, Benjamin, Sbvoboda, Straka, Weber, Grund
NAYS: None.
Motion passed 6-0
Case No. 21-14 – Variance for 8845 Burlington Avenue
Commissioner Svoboda made a motion to open the public hearing for Case No. 21-14. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller.
AYES: Miller, Benjamin, Sbvoboda, Straka, Weber, Grund
NAYS: None.
Motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Kuehlem summarized the staff report explaining that the applicant comes before the Commission to request a variance of three zoning regulations. The first request is to reduce the primary frontage build-to-zone from 10-feet to 5-feet. The second request is to allow a hybrid building type, of a general building type that looks like row homes, (sec. 62-216 A2 and D1). The third is to allow for a 0-foot rear setback to allow for the parking lot (sec. 62-268). The applicant plans to demolish the existing structures on the property of 8845 Burlington Avenue in order to construct a new apartment building.
The property is located in the Station Area 6 zoning district which calls for row home residential building types to be built. However, due to the configuration of the property, and financial constraints of the applicant, he is proposing a general building type that looks like and has some features of a row home building type, like a more vertical appearance.
Commissioner Benjamin asks what overnight parking options are in this area for potential residents of this building. Ms. Kuehlem responds that she is new to the community, but to her knowledge there are vehicle parking stickers for residents that allow street parking.
Commissioner Miller asks if the proposed building is compliant with building material types. Ms. Kuehlem responds that it is, and the Station Area District Plan lists specific materials permitted.
She and the building inspector would also make sure of this during time of construction.
Commissioner Miller asks if there are requirements that all of the units have their own entrances. Ms. Kuehlem clarifies that this is where the request comes from. The SA 6 zoning district calls for row home building type and the applicant is proposing a building that looks like row homes.
Commissioner Benjamin asks how many parking spaces are under the building at grade level.
Chairman Grund responds that it looks like there are two spaces, an ADA space and adjacent space.
Commissioner Svoboda comments that there is a large number of bicycle spaces being provided and asks if the Zoning Code has limits for these credits/reductions. Ms. Kuehlem responds that the Zoning Code as it is currently written does not.
Chairman Grund states that he is perplexed at what station area district this building would be in if it gets approved. A hybrid building type has never been proposed like this before. He is concerned about this hybrid approach and how it might affect us going forward in terms of precedence. Chair Grund states that the materials satisfy the guidelines but that the design does not.
Chairman Grund swears in all those commenting on this case.
Ellen Raymond, attorney on behalf of the applicant, introduces the applicant and their team. Ms. Raymond explains that the applicant will be using modular building construction which will not disrupt the community. She explains that the applicant is interested in the Brookfield community and continuing to have a presence. She explains that the applicant and team had been working with the formerly employed Community and Economic Development Director, Michael Schwarz, and now with the new Village Planner, and have learned new things about the requirements.
Mike Mallon, land planner on behalf of the applicant, presents the project proposal and explains his personal credentials. Mr. Mallon testifies how the proposal aligns with the Station Area District
Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and goals of Brookfield.
Mario G. Cruz, architect on behalf of the applicant, states that the landscaping screening and modular construction of the proposed project won’t disrupt the neighborhood. Mr. Cruz also explains the vertical design of the building façade and that is it compliant with the requirements.
Chairman Grund asks the commission if they have any questions for the applicant and his team.
Commissioner Benjamin comments that 11 parking spaces seems a bit short for the site.
Mike Mallon responds to parking concerns. In other transit-oriented development sites in other communities in the region, it is not uncommon to require less than one parking space per dwelling unit. There is a market and statistics out there that demonstrate that younger people feel that they don’t need to own a car because of public transit and ride-share. The applicant wants to have a successful project without wasted space.
Ellen Raymond produces data on vehicle ownership explaining that younger people aren’t driving as much as older generations.
Chairman Grund brings up the fact that there isn’t a main building entrance on the primary building frontage of Burlington Avenue. He also states that on the first floor of the building, there is only one ADA compliant unit. As an architect he knows that they need one type-A unit which they have and three type- B units which require bigger bathrooms. He brings up the concern of ADA non compliance even thought it’s not part of the request, because bringing the units into compliance could change the size/area of the building. Chairman Grund does not believe that the building façades comply with the Station Area District guidelines because the building needs a base, middle, and top as well as verticality.
Mario Cruz responds that these are just preliminary drawings. He also explains that the row building type proposed looks similar to the example shown in the Station Area district plan on page 25. Mr. Cruz explains that this plan is environmentally conscious because it is pedestrian-oriented, has decreased vehicle parking, and will be modular built.
Aileen Piper- Simpson of 3515 Vernon Avenue welcomes the applicant and agrees that the goal is to transform Brookfield from a sleepy town. She continues that those downtown businesses across the railroad tracks will not have any parking spaces. Doesn’t believe that shrinking green space is appropriate. Mentions that it is Bike Brookfield month and that we are on board with that aspect of the proposal.
Karla Vargas of 8833 Burlington Avenue states that she is in awe that the applicant is proposing 14 units on this block. Ms. Vargas testifies that they have severe sewer backup and wonders if that has been taken into account. Ms. Vargas moved into Brookfield for the nice family setting, she doesn’t believe that other young adults are coming to Brookfield to commute. She is supportive of modernizing Brookfield but in a different way.
Jennifer Ford of 8828 Burlington is opposed to this development. When Irish Times is busy, there are cars parked along their streets, and in the winter cars park on the street to get on the Metra. She believes that this development will make Brookfield look like Oak Park.
Barbara Dahm of 4513 Park Avenue comments that there are not bicycles outside in the snow during the winter. Ms. Dahm believes that most developers claim a hardship in order to build exactly what they want. If there is a hardship at a property, then don’t build here. She is very concerned about the setbacks and about flooding. Ms. Dahm tells a story about living near an apartment building that had people who liked to party and the issues that came with it. Ms. Dahm believes that there will be a lot of complaints because of the rooftop deck of the proposed building.
Tadeusz Kowal of 8841 Burlington agrees with the other comments and opposes this development because it is too big and will bring many problems. He does not believe that it will positively affect nearby property values.
Tish Bernhardt of 9031 Fairview Avenue states that this proposal is not in her neighborhood but is still in her community. She does not want to see variances to remove setbacks because it is too large for the space. She states that it is a beautiful and attractive building, but that it doesn’t belong in this location. She states that parking is an issue and that it is unfortunate that it doesn’t require a variance. She believes that the Commission should revisit the parking regulations because having bicycle spaces is not a replacement for having vehicle spaces. She encourages the neighborhood to be vocal about their concerns. We should look at the lessons learned from 3704 Grand Boulevard and apply that to future development. Brookfield has been compared to other communities like Chicago, and understands that is the goal, but doesn’t believe we are there yet and that we might need to take smaller steps to get there.
Jim Mann of 3639 Morton Avenue questions the process and how it was determined that the proposal would need variations. Mr. Mann asks if there are land coverage regulations and if the proposal meets them. Ms. Kuehlem clarifies that there is a lot coverage and green space regulation in the Zoning Code, and that the proposal was over the maximum allowed, but the applicant requested approval of this minor exception and was granted administrative approval. Mr. Mann asks about occupancy requirements and what the unit types are being proposed.
Aileen Piper-Simpson speaks on the building type and population of the school districts. She believes that the minor exception of green space that was administratively approved, was not a minor change.
Linda Andrys of 3838 Forest Avenue states that she has been a resident of Brookfield since 1949. She states that the proposed building is beautiful, but it is too dense for the area its in. She is also concerned about storm drainage and the sewer system.
There are no more public comments. Chairman Grund welcomes the applicant and his team to rebut the comments heard.
Mike Mallon thanks everyone for their time spent reviewing this project. Mr. Mallon suggests decreasing the lot size requirement for planned unit developments. He reminds the Commission and audience what the variance requests are. The applicant team wants to work with the Village for a successful project. He addresses the comments related to storm water and property values. This proposal aligns with the goals of the Comprehensive Plans and should increase property values.
Ellen Raymond asks for clarification on Chairman Grund’s questions on if 39 bike spaces fit in the development, if they are covered, and if the proposal is compliant with ADA type B bathrooms.
Chairman Grund directs the applicant and his team to work with Staff to ensure compliance with the design guidelines.
Commissioner Benjamin made a motion to close the public hearing for Case No. 21-14. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller.
AYES: Miller, Benjamin, Sbvoboda, Straka, Weber, Grund
NAYS: None.
Motion passed 6-0.
Commissioner discussion begins. Commissioner Benjamin thanks the applicant for investing in our community and thanks the public. He encourages the applicant to work with staff to address the public’s concerns.
Commissioner Straka concurs with Commissioner Benjamin. He is a fan of transit-oriented development and believes that this project suits that.
Commissioner Weber would like to believe that the Village would benefit from property taxes and an increased number of customers in businesses from a project like this.
Commissioner Svoboda agrees with fellow commissioners, he thinks that the proposal is close but not there yet. He is concerned about the setback on Burlington Avenue and would like to see that moved back to be more compliant with the 10-foot requirement. Commissioner Svoboda asks staff to look into the vehicle credit regulation and maybe having a limit for it.
Commissioner Miller appreciates the comments from the Chairman regarding the design of the building because that is her greatest concern. She does not believe putting up a façade of row housing is adequate. She does not have a problem with the setbacks.
Chairman Grund asks staff about the variance request to allow parking in the rear yard because another project was permitted to do that. He acknowledges that there might be a conflict with the Station Area District Plan regulations and other provisions of the Zoning Code. Chairman Grund agrees with fellow commissioners. The Village’s requirements for stormwater of new construction are stricter that the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District’s requirements. Engineers will ensure plans comply with these regulations. He believes applicant took advantage of the way the code was written, without a limit for vehicle parking credits, by providing 39 bicycle spaces and reducing number of parking spaces. Chairman Grund states that the density of this project is perfectly legal. He thinks project should be tweaked a little with Staff. Chairman Grund questions if the applicant has had conversations with the Village about using some of the parking spaces next to the church on Prairie, and if not, maybe they should.
Commissioner Benjamin asks if the Commission continues the case, will it need to be for a specific date. The Village Attorney clarified that the case would just be continued to the next meeting of the Commission.
Commissioner Benjamin made a motion to continue Case No. 21-14 to the next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Straka.
AYES: Miller, Benjamin, Sbvoboda, Straka, Weber, Grund
NAYS: None.
Motion passed 6-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission Record of Minutes Meeting: May 20, 2021
VIII. Announcements and Reminders
Chairman Grund announced that the next regular meeting of the Commission is on May 20, 2021, and the next meeting of the Village Board is Monday, May 24, 2021.
IX. Adjournment
Commissioner Straka made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Svoboda seconded the motion.
AYES: Miller, Benjamin, Svoboda, Straka, Weber, Grund
NAYS: None.
Motion passed 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 9:54 PM.
https://brookfieldil.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/PZC-2021-06-24-Packet.pdf
Alerts Sign-up