HomeMy WebLinkAboutORDINANCE - 3351 - 9/24/2013 - VARIATION -1794 HAMPSHIREORDINANCE NO. 3351
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION OF SECTION 3-7:11)(3) OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR FOOT (4')
HIGH FENCE THAT WOULD EXTEND APPROXIMATELY TWENTY-SEVEN (27')
FEET BEYOND A LINE EXTENDED FROM THE NEAREST FRONT CORNER OF
THE ADJACENT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1794 HAMPSHIRE DRIVE
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Elk Grove Village, at a
public hearing duly called and held according to law, considered the question of granting a
variation of Section 3-7:1)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a four foot
(4') high fence extending approximately twenty-seven (27') feet beyond a line extended from the
nearest front comer of the principal building located on an adjacent single-family residential lot
for property located at 1794 Hampshire Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Elk Grove Village, after
having considered the recommendation and finding of said Zoning Board of Appeals, find and
believe that sufficient hardship exists so as to justify the granting of said variation.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, by the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the
Village of Elk Grove Village, Counties of Cook and DuPage Illinois as follows:
Section 1: That the Finding of Fact of the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding property
located at 1794 Hampshire Drive, Elk Grove Village, Illinois dated September 2, 2013 be and the
same are hereby incorporated into this Ordinance.
Section 2: That there be granted a variation of Section 3-7:1)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance
to permit a four foot (4) high fence extending approximately twenty-seven (27') feet beyond a
line extended from the nearest front corner of the principal building located on an adjacent
single-family residential lot for property located at 1794 Hampshire Drive.
Section 3: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage
and approval according to law.
VOTE: AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 0
PASSED this 24th day of September 2013.
APPROVED this 24th day of September 2013.
APPROVED:
Mayor Craie B. Johnson
Village of Elk Grove Village
ATTEST:
Judith M. Keegan, Village Clerk
Ord 17941 lampsh irefence
September 2, 2013
Honorable Mayor and Board of Trustees
RE: ZBA Finding of Fact Docket #13-4
1794 Hampshire Drive, Elk Grove Village, Illinois
(June 20, 2013 Original ZBA Meeting)
(Remanded Back to ZBA by Village Board Meeting on July. 16, 2013 --Continued to August 29, 2013)
Present: R. Bookler
S. Carlson
D. Childress
L. Dohrer
R. DeFrenza
J. Meister
P. Rettberg
D. Zinnel
Absent: M. Colgan
This meeting on August 29, 2013, was a continuation of the remanded meeting, held previously on
August 15, 2013. This ZBA docket item, was_originally discussed at a meeting held June 20, 2013, that
was subsequently remanded by the Mayor and Board of Trustees, back to the ZBA board, for further
discussion.
Chairman Childress called the hearing to order at approximately 7:32 pm, and read the legal notice of
the meeting.
Petitioners, Matthew D.Santeford and Julie, L. Santeford, were sworn in. Petitioners provided a packet
entitled "Additional Fence Information" consisting of text and three pages of photos of proposed layout
(Photos 1 to 5), two pages of sample fence type/material configuration (Photos 1&2), and one sheet,
showing Google aerial photograph with proposed compromised fence layout.
A summary of the, points of discussion that took place at this meeting and earlier meetings, are
presented below:
Hardships presented at the meetings August 29th, 15th, and June 20`h, 2013 meeting: The
Petitioner(s) desire to maximize side yard space, due to exiting small rear yard. Existing rear
yard fence along Vermont Drive is corroded, deteriorating and in need of replacement.
Existing fence is non-compliant with regard to -current zoning ordinance permitted locations
along Vermont Drive, and would require a variance iffe-installed in current location.
Petitioner(s) earlier requested a variation which would allow the construction of a fence that would
extend approximately twenty-nine feet (29') beyond a line extended from the nearest front corner of
the adjacent single-family residential lot, at 401 Vermont Drive. The petitioners are withdrawing their
desire to seek the second variation that would allow the construction of a privacy fence that would
extend approximately three feet (3') beyond the nearest front corner of the adjacent single-family
residential lot at 1792 Hampshire Drive.
The following is a summary of the information presented at the hearing:
1. Petitioner's proposed compromise packet, entitled "Additional fence Information"
summary is as follows:
a) Proposed fence location change, from 29' to 27' beyond a line extended from the nearest
front corner of the adjacent single-family residential lot, at 401 Vermont Drive (see Sheet 6
of above mentioned packet and earlier Plat of Survey);
b) Proposed fence location change from 4' to 6' off of west property line and sidewalk along
Vermont Drive;
c) Proposed fence measurement change from exterior of fence to northwest corner of
home (23.06' minus 4' offset = 19.06' fence offset) to (23.06' minus 6'= 17.06' fence offset)
at 1794 Hampshire Drive residence;
d) Proposed fence corner pull-back realignment, beginning at 10' distance east of west lot
line/sidewalk at north property line adjacent to 401 Vermont Drive, and extending to a
point, measured 7' southerly, along the proposed fence location at 6' off of the west
property line;
e) Proposed fence type to be 4' tall, wrought iron type, with open pickets, as pictured in
Photos 1 and 2, on sheets 4 and 5, of the above mentioned packet.
2. Petitioner (M. Santeford) reported that he had laid out potential fence locations at 4', 6', 8'
and 10' off of west lot line/sidewalk along Vermont Drive. He reported that they preferred
the 6' offset as the most useable, considering board members earlier sight -line comments
on fence location, height and degree of sight limitation. Sidewalk at 6' offset also improves a
bicyclist's safety if a rider on sidewalk, potentially fell inward toward property.
3. Usable side yard space between Vermont/west side of home and proposed fence at 6' offset
from lot line/sidewalk edge is approximately 17 feet, of which approximately 4' is existing
landscaping adjacent to the home.
4. Petitioner's proposed fence corner realignment, creates a sight triangle (clear distance 16'
from edge of pavement to back of sidewalk plus 16' measured up driveway = 32' by
approximately 47' wheeled off along edge of pavement) 32'x 47' adjacent to the south edge
of the driveway at 401 Vermont Drive, as compared to the minimum 25'-0" x 25'-0" sight
triangle, required at the intersection of adjacent streets, as required by Section 3.7:A.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance 2410. Proposed corner fence realignment, also provides a sight
triangle of approximately 16' measured up driveway by 30' along exterior of sidewalk.
5. Petitioner's compromise fence location of 6' off of west property line/edge of sidewalk
places fence on the interior side of the existing tree. Tree is located at 4'-10" clear distance
from edge of sidewalk to face of tree. Minimum distance from lowest existing branch of
tree to ground is four feet. (4'-0").
6. As discussed during the prior June 20th; 2013 ZBA meeting, a six feet (6) high privacy fence is
proposed to extend from the existing west fence limit, around the rear yard, and square off
with the south west corner of the home, adjacent to 1792 Hampshire Drive.
7. Petitioners have young children, ages one (1) and three (3). Mrs. Santeford explained that
she and the children often play in southerly front yard, due to 13' clear distance from rear of
deck to rear lot line. Existing large deck and kitchen addition reduce useable grass area of
existing fenced -in yard area. Maximized rear and side yard areas are desired to have safe
play area for children.
8. Home was purchased during September 2012. Issue of potential fence modifications, were
explored by Petitioners with Engineering/Community Development Dept, prior to purchase
of home, as reported by Mr. Santeford. Potential for a Variance request need was
understood by the potential property owners prior to purchase of the property.
9. Chairman Childress reported that his employer and Mr. Santeford'semployer worked jointly
on an IDOT project together.
10. Petitioner's neighbor, at 401 Vermont Drive, Mr. Henry George, did not attend this meeting
held 8/29/2013. At prior meetings, he was in favor of petitioners' proposed fence location.
11. Since prior meetings, Mr. George has removed the bush along common north property line
separating 401 Vermont Drive, and rear of home at 1794 Hampshire Drive. This bush was
viewed by Board members previously, to have more significant impact on sight lines
towards the street intersection of Hampshire Drive and Vermont Drive, than a potential
open type fence design from the neighbor's driveway line -of -sight.
12. Mr. George has no objections to a four foot (4'-0") fence height proposed along Vermont
Drive.
13. Board Members P. Rettberg, J. Meister Sr., and R. Bookler, inquired if Petitioners would be
willing to increase corner fence realignment adjacent to 401 Vermont Drive, to realign fence
from starting at 10' or 16' offset east of northwest property corner and extend to tree along
Vermont Drive. Petitioners were not willing to further compromise on the fence corner
realignment between the tree and neighbor's home at 401 Vermont Drive as alignment
already accepted includes an open -type fence design, 4' proposed height, and an increased
offset of 6' as proposed to 4' discussed in the earlier meetings on June 20th and August
15th. Some board members still felt that a wrought iron type picket fence still was not 100%
non -obscuring, even though it is much preferred over a wooden or composite picket fence
type design earlier discussed at the August 15th, 2013 meeting.
14. Board members appreciated the several compromises in the name of improved safety and
sight lines that the petitioners afforded in the latest packet of "Additional Fence
Information".
15. Proposed work does not present any drainage issues.
16. Petitioners gave a verbal commitment to Ms. DeFrenza's question that they understood that
for safety reasons that they would not add any additional landscaping or structures within
the sight lines of the fence that would have potential to obscure or partially obscure
visibility of the intersection.
Chairman Childress asked for a motion from the floor. Mr S. Carlson, made a motion to Do Grant
in favor of the amended motion," A variation which would allow the construction of a fence that
would extend approximately twenty-seven feet (27') beyond a line extended from the nearest front
corner of the adjacent single-family residential lot, at 401 Vermont Drive, described visually by page
six, of the latest packet, entitled "Additional Fence Information".
The motion was seconded by Mr. D. Zinnel .
Board members voting in favor of the motion to "Do Grant", were S. Carlson, D. Zinnel, R. DeFrenza, L.
Dohrer, and D. Childress. Members voting against the motion were: R. Bookler, P. Rettberg, and J.
Meister, Sr.
Board member absent was: M. Colgan
Chairman Childress inquired of Mr. Polony, when the next scheduled meeting of the Village Board would
take place. He replied that it was Tuesday, September 10th, 2013. Chairman Childress advised the
Petitioners that the ZBA board's vote was advisory in nature to the Board of Trustees, of Elk Grove
Village.
It was suggested that the petitioners contact the Village Clerk, to confirm whether the Variance Request
would be on the Board agenda of the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Village. The petitioners
were asked to attend the Village Board meeting, in case Board Members had any questions relative to
the proposed variation request.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:15pm.
Submitted respectfully by:
Donald G. Childress,
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
C: Mayor and Board of Trustees, Chairman and Members - Zoning Board of Appeals,
Village Clerk, Village Manager, Village Attorney, Deputy Village Manager, Assistant to Village
Manager, Director E/CD, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chiefs, Inspectional
Services Supervisor, Chairman and Members -Plan Commission
u. {� 4 F
Q� � - �\-8� �r�"'..�,tJ..,.-fir t�z+
SANTEFORD 1794 HAMPSHIRE DRIVE FENCE VARIANCE REQUEST
Additional Fence Information
The proposed fence has been modified to be set at an offset of 6' from the edge of the sidewalk. The fence will be
set at a 10' offset at the north property line, adjacent to the driveway at 401 Vermont Drive. This 10' offset will taper
back towards the sidewalk southward over a distance of 7'.
This 10' offset at the north property line allows for an additional sight distance from the driveway of approximately 30'
down the sidewalk looking south. The fence will also have a wrought iron look with thin, vertical pickets. This fence
type allows for a more open look through the fence, which will provide sight distance well in excess of 30'.
The 6' offset sets the fence behind the tree located in the northwest corner of the property. The owner of 401
Vermont Drive has removed the bush that was adjacent to the driveway, in order to provide a clearer sightline from
his driveway.
The attached exhibit shows an aerial view of the proposed fence as well as the dimensions described above. The
following are photos of the fence laid out with lathe and string.
Photo 1: Looking South from 401 Vermont Drive Driveway
Y j
s
r
4>)J
i £ o•
� �
VI
w
rt
�:
64r}- ,
r
o�
F
,.....
• -
, . 5
Y
S
v�
,
Y j
s
r
4>)J
i £ o•
� �
_
w
rt
�:
rt
�:
X
- �1. •C� Pte/
"" s: yWIUWHI r:.._r ...mn111EI IIIHH• 911 11110.- wl
911 11111111
., nyinlp 111111 u'i�lll f. oi(IGG�N F1.._.'�:f I GIJ��I�PI
. . n��urnn��l!ll Iff�flilllh! illl�l!�°
161 x,101
,� p, w 't-i-� ', � s tr y �� �r�f^fi �-+�+#.t✓ »V'2h 4k v +'�- y�
SANTEFORD 1794 HAMPSHIRE DRIVE FENCE VARIANCE REQUEST
Photo 2: View from Driveway Looking West. Note the location of the fence relative to the sidewalk.
v
r
*
vrs
F
a
�y
r
*
vrs
F
a
' a
*
vrs
F
a
' a
5
*
vrs
F
a
' a