The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 07/30/2020 - 316 Castle Drive-Fence and Pool VariationPresent: Absent: ELK GROVE VILLAGE Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes July 30, 2020 Don Childress Michael Colgan Larry Dohrer Roberto Serrano (via teleconference) Gary Spragg Ryan Bookler Christine Kelley Wissam Jameel Rich Romarski Staff: B. Kozor, Plan Reviewer/Inspection Supervisor, Community Development Zoning Variation — Docket #20-5 — 316 Castle Drive The meeting was held at the Charles J. Zettek Municipal Building. Chairman Childress called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and read a statement describing the hearing notification procedure as well as the legal notice. The petitioner, Jason Steinke, (Owner of Record), was sworn in and asked to state his case for requesting multiple zoning variations. The petitioner explained the hardship is due to the triple frontage of the property, the small depth of the rear yard, and the location of the utility and drainage easement in the rear yard. Due to these limitations, the current Zoning Ordinance restricts where a pool can be placed in their yard. He would like to enclose the rear and side of the property with a five (5') foot open type fence to surround the pool. He feels this style fence will provide the ability to assist motorists with visibility at the intersection of Castle Drive and Ridge Avenue. Chairman Childress opened the meeting to questions from the board. Member Colgan stated that the proposed fence would cause some sight line obstruction at the intersection, but the open type fence would allow for visibility and had no objection to the variance requests. Member Spragg stated that he was concerned that the proposed fence would have a sight line obstruction due to the location of the stop sign even with the open type fence proposed. He had no objections to the remainder of the petitioner's variation requests. Member Serrano stated that he was also concerned with the sight line obstruction as he visits that intersection frequently, and a fence in the proposed location could increase the opportunity for an accident. Member Dohrer had a question about the size of the pool. The petitioner responded that the pool would be twelve (12') feet by twenty-four (24') feet. Member Dohrer asked how high the fence is required to be around a pool. Staff member Kozor responded that a fence is required to be four (4') feet in height. Member Dohrer asked about the drainage easement inlet, its requirement to be accessible, and that accessibility needs to be considered. Chairman Childress asked if the fence were proposed to be three (T) feet off of the sidewalk up to the inlet and cut across the inlet to allow for access to the inlet, would that improve the sight lines? Staff member Kozor responded that moving the fence minimally eight (8') to ten (10') feet away from the corner of the lot would improve the sightlines and accessibility to the inlet. Member Dohrer was concerned about the fence being located in the drainage and utility easement. The petitioner responded that there is a retention basin on the church property that collects a majority of the runoff storm water from the church parking lot. Member Dohrer proposed that the inlet be outside of the fence to maintain the drainage easement accessibility. The petitioner responded that he would be going around the inlet to allow it to be accessible. Chairman Childress asked if the fence were eight (8') feet from the corner would this allow the inlet to be outside of the fenced in yard. Staff member Kozor asked the board members how far away from the inlet should the fence to be located. Chairman Childress asked how far the fence needs to be from the inlet to allow access. Staff member Kozor responded that access to the inlet is not required. Any utility maintenance would necessitate the removal of any fence to work within the easement which is typical. Mr. Kozor asked the board members for further direction on where they felt the fence should be located. Member Dohrer asked how far the fence is required to be from the sidewalk. Chairman Childress responded that the fence is proposed to be located on the lot line which is typically one (1') foot offset from the sidewalk. Member Dohrer asked for verification as he thought the Zoning Ordinance required the fence to be four (4') feet from the lot line. Member Colgan responded that the petitioner is requesting that the fence be located one (1') foot from the sidewalk so the fence would be located on the lot line. Chairman Childress asked the petitioner what the spacing between the slats was proposed to be. The petitioner responded that the spacing is approximately four (4") inches between the upright posts. Chairman Childress asked how thick the upright posts for the fence were proposed to be. The petitioner responded that the upright posts are of differing styles. A decision on which type has not yet been made. The upright posts are approximately one and one quarter (11/4") of an inch thick and some are thinner. Chairman Childress clarified that he was trying to determine the percentage of openness that the proposed fence offered. Member Dohrer responded that he would still like to see the fence be located further than one (1') foot from the sidewalk. Member Dohrer asked staff member Kozor what the Zoning Ordinance was for the distance from the sidewalk that the fence was required to be. Staff member Kozor responded that the fence can be located on the property line. Chairman Childress asked the petitioner if the fence were located three (3') feet from the property line, if that would be agreeable and if that would provide sufficient space. Member Colgan asked how much maintenance and drainage occurs at the storm inlet in the corner of the property. The petitioner responded that not much water makes it to the corner inlet, as there are multiple inlets closer than the corner inlet in question that receive more storm water in the neighboring yards closer to the church. Member Spragg asked if the angled fence not enclosing the inlet would be acceptable, as it would improve the sight lines at the intersection and the location would be a compromise between the allowed location and the initially proposed location. Chairman Childress proposed that having the fence angled near the inlet, in combination with a seventy (70%) percent open fence, would provide for better sight line visibility at the intersection. Member Dohrer responded that he would like to see the fence more than one (1') foot off of the sidewalk. Member Spragg asked how much of an impact would it make if the fence was more than one (1') foot off of the sidewalk. The petitioner responded that the fence being located eight (8') feet from the lot line and having a three (3') foot concrete patio around the pool would place the pool closer to the fence than he would prefer if it were not located on the lot line. The petitioner would be receptive to allow the fence to not enclose the inlet to allow for better sight line visibility. Board members discussed an acceptable location of the fence to limit sight line concerns. The proposed fence location was drawn on a plat of survey and shown to the petitioner for comment and approval. The petitioner approved the compromised location for the southwest corner of the fence to improve the sight line visibility concerns. Chairman Childress called for the motion. A Motion to DO GRANT a variation to permit the installation of a pool located approximately eight (8') feet from the south property line and approximately fifteen (15') feet from the west property line. Additionally, a variation to permit the installation of a five (5') foot high open type fence which will extend approximately thirty-two (32') feet from the southeast corner of the principal structure to the south property line, will be located within the twenty five (25') foot sight line triangle at the southwest corner of the property, and will be located on the south property line from the front edge of the house to the rear edge of the house per dimensions and locations specified on the originally submitted site plan. The original variation request was modified to require the fence to be located approximately twelve (12') feet east and approximately ten (10') feet north of the southwest lot corner as referenced in Exhibit A (attached). This Motion was made by Member Colgan which was seconded by Member Spragg. Upon voting (AYES —Childress, Colgan, Dohrer, Serrano, and Spragg.) (NAYES- None.) (ABSENT — Bookler, Jameel, Kelley, and Romanski.) The motion carried. Mr. Childress advised the petitioner to contact the Village Clerk and be available for the subsequent Village Board Meeting that will hear the request. The meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bryan Kozor Plan Reviewer/Inspection Supervisor, Community Development C: Chairman and Members Zoning Boards of Appeals, Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Attorney, Village Manager, Deputy Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Director of Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief (2), Inspectional Services Supervisor, Chairman and Members of Plan Commission IMVVlS ac UNITED SURVEY SERVICE, LLC coNsraucTloIE ANT ,ME suREPARK. 3415 NORTH AVFJVUE UNIT O. MELROSE PARK, li 6016p-107z RECEIVED TI=L : i847) 2"_ - 1010 FAX: (34T) 2rA - _ W7 E-"ILUSSURVEYQCOMCAST.NET PLAT cSURVE3�T O t07 2 iti CASTLETOWN SUBDIVISION OF THE SOUTH%VEST 114 OF THEN I { �v�' ViLI-/�i iE OF SECTEON 28, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH. RANGE11. EAST OF THE TIMRD MERIDIAN IN COOK COUNTY. ILUNOSS �" j"jNG AND OPMEtJT * 7Trq AS. 316 CASTLE P&WE, ELKG8QV£ VILLAGE lLpPiCHS Exhibit A 171_Iu7.,= 11 / I f f —0 / �l ""Ic 41 r .7 1►� rl f' / y 4 r A 1 / r t 1 IIIVA7P�2! iJ P` t; }� 1 n � o.w µ nut r •M I.iDFAM.;, ls:4 -Nil i C � r iG IE ��wssow�no.{ ON *rtr.:a►oFrw: iKR. MlitMt'C.PiS AIIptAa�WR1s AIIS L]M,W •AIyI�TEv Aqt ap tAjtia �E?OR>/QwTrE+M'S T�lrlwaE'l.iA�C+:twudlCTyS1,Cr t"3Aact L JYR AE•"e T_1aMFi ir+YwY A.I•A. 'PICjA}IY j ss �OU�r74 OF CoO'r ROY G LAW16fCZAK. to'r War KG-. m, TI.Ar. i.ur ," 11:H!!t4H11", CA^Y of-_-ck �. RaY G, tAWNfCUJ(. Du MEREaT c wmf Tw r. wtvc S,#tiWvp0 r4E AOOV[ DWI"= PROPME AM'TMT Te RAT HEREON ORM*W 'S A CORRECT AGPREWWftTOn OF a--- SUPYEV DlmrNAIQM ME SI.OWt' N A3Er AM0 DEC %0A'.S k n ME CORRECTED TO A TENPEPAYiJR[ OF sa• •AwLh!r T aEot ►W.AESMf L SERVICi .:OlinRAat rO TWI CURMM7 &Ll• x$ taAPr+W 9TA?4?AR(rS ?,]R 9C ,CKAV SVIN6,