Loading...
Minutes - 04/06/1999 - Zoning Board of AppealsA, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES April 6, 1999 L CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:39 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Members MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Director of Community Development A quorum was present. Richard Ascher Adam Butler George Mueller Manu Shah Louis Aldini Champ Davis Thomas Hawk Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Shah, to appoint Member Ascher as Acting Chairman. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. ll. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Shah, to waive the reading of the March 2, 1999, regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Acting Chairman Ascher advised the audience that the agenda items will be taken out of order. 111. SPRIESER - 3423 SPRING ROAD - VARIATION - REAR YARD SETBACK David Gooder, Attorney for the petitioner, John Sprieser, petitioner, and Mr. Mizani, of Mizani architects were sworn in. David Gooder reviewed the location of the property and surrounding zoning. The Forest Preserve District is to the north and west side of the property and there are no homes located in that area. He explained that they have requested to reduce the rear yard from sixty feet to fifty -six feet, for a four - foot variation. David Gooder reviewed Tom Hawk's memo (See page 10 in Petition File). ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes April 6,1999 A+� John Sprieser, petitioner residing at 3423 Spring Road, explained to the members that they are trying to increase the size of the kitchen to meet their current needs. Mr. Mizani, Mizani and Associates, Hinsdale, was the architect for the project and advised the members that this is a peculiar condition because of the way the house was set on the lot when it was originally built in 1939. The house was set close to the rear setback line with a slope to the roof design. (See page E of the petition file.) Due to the small rectangular shape of the rear yard, it would be impossible to do any kind of addition without going into the rear yard setback. They looked at a number of solutions and, without tearing .down over half of the existing home, this design works with a minimal amount,of encroachment. The Spriesers intend to live there but the house is old and they are attempting to bring the house up to today's standards by seeking a better updated kitchen and gathering area for the family. They are squeezed into this area due to the placement of the existing house, however using the chosen -design, only one end of the addition will encroach into the back yard. Because of the placement, the other end will not encroach into the rear. It was noted that the neighbor to the east had submitted a letter of support. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the requested variance. Acting Chairman Ascher noted that the testimony presented has proven that the requested variation will not be detrimental to the welfare of the surrounding properties and will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Unique circumstances exist for the property owner due to the position of the house when it was built in 1939 . Member Butler moved, seconded by Member Mueller that the petitioner has met the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and to recommend for approval the variation as requested. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Ascher, Butler, Mueller, and Shah. Nays: 0- Absent: 2 - Davis and Aldini. Motion Carried. IV. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK - TEXT AMENDMENT - PARKING OF CERTAIN VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT PROHIBITED Tom Hawk, Director of Community Development, was sworn in and provided a brief explanation of the proposed text amendment. The Village has not had much trouble in this area, but there have been a few instances in the past. Recently a resident occupying a rental property in Oak Brook brought a dump truck home from work. It then became 2 dump trucks. Village staff tried to rectify the situation using a soft approach trying to use every method available prior to issuing a citation. They were successful in rectifying the situation but became aware that the Ordinance left the Village relatively weak in this area. He reviewed the text intended to cover commercial vehicles that would be objectionable, adding that this applies to those vehicles that are not parked indoors under roof. There are provisions in the Ordinance dealing with trailers and motor homes, but none specifically for commercial vehicles. The intent of this text amendment is aimed at commercial vehicles. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes April 6,1999 2 4- He noted that the Plan Commission raised issues regarding a broader Ordinance that would include the number of vehicles that can be parked by a residence. Hawk said that the scope of the proposed amendment did not include controlling the number of permitted vehicles. He added that many communities wrestle with the number of cars parked in driveways. Typically in Oak Brook, many families with two adults may have two or more cars. If you add in 2 -4 adult children (past age 16 with a drivers license) each person in the household may have a vehicle. Some residences may have 6 or 7 automobiles, with only a 2 -car garage. One Plan Commission member said that if a number is established, it might be appropriate in an R -1 District where there are large lots and long driveways, however, in another district, another home having a minimal front yard and drive, there would be too many cars for the available area. This is not the intention of this issue. The requested text amendment is in accordance with the LaSalle Factors as set forth on page 6 -6a of the petition file. If approved, it will protect the character of the neighborhood and will enhance the property values. Many of the vehicles affected can be parked in a garage or could find reasonable parking to accommodate their needs. Member Butler questioned whether limousines were included in the list and would the property owner be in violation. Hawk responded that they would be included and would be in violation. Hawk added that motor homes are covered in a separate ordinance that permits them in the rear yard of structures and will not be affected by this ordinance. When asked how the Ordinance would be monitored, Hawk responded that the Village does not staff a level of enforcement as in many communities. Usually, a violation is checked out in response to a complaint from a neighbor. Spring brings in many complaints when boats and trailers are brought onto the driveway. Due process is then followed. Member Ascher questioned if this would relate to vehicles that are abandoned on peoples property. Hawk said that it would not. This is enforced through the Village Police Ordinance. Vehicles must be operable, carry current registration and be moved every 7 days. Hawk noted that Zoning is a set a rules that in essence the general public has to buy into. The expectation is that the general public embraces these rules. They can always find ways to play games with the rules and be successful for a period of time, however, most people are interested in maintaining their neighborhoods. Member Butler asked what procedure is followed when someone is found in violation of the Ordinance and if some properties will be in violation when the Ordinance would go into effect. Hawk said that first a note is left to contact the department, if there is no response a letter is written. They attempt to look for a solution to the problem, however sometimes it does not always set well with the complainant. The purpose of the Ordinance is to seek clear language for enforcement purposes. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the proposal. Member Mueller moved, seconded by Member Shah, that the petitioner having satisfied the requirements as required by Ordinance, to recommend approval of the Text Amendment as proposed. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 5- Nays: 0 - Absent: 1 - Motion Carried. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes Ascher, Butler, Mueller and Shah. Davis and Aldini. April 6,1999 #< V. ADJOURNMENT Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Ascher to adjourn. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m. / el, - z-1 Director of Community Development Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes FM ., � s Date Approved April 6,1999