Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 11/13/1998 - 98-10/SPRUCE MEADOWS U ELK GROVE VILLAGE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting Minutes November 13, 1998 Present: R. Phillips • R. Penley J. Oliveto E. Hauser T. Rogers J. Franke C. McClelland G. Schumm Staff: J. Zaucha, Plan Reviewer Zoning Variation - Docket 98-10 Chairman Robert Phillips called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. and read the legal notice. The petitioner Mr. Raymond Rummel and the project architect, Mr. Robert Kolosolski were sworn in and asked to present their case. Mr. Kolosolski began by explaining that due to the pie shaped lot and building setback requirements, a small and unusually shaped envelope is left for construction of a house. Mr. Kolosolski expressed the difficulty which has been encountered in his attempts to design a house at this location while still providing the amenities typically found in new homes. In particular. , Mr. Kolosolski stated that given the lot size, there is no room to construct a shed for storage of bicycles and yard equipment. Mr. Kolososki indicated that permission to maintain the prolosed size of the garage will allow for storage of such items. Mr. Kolosolski also pointed out that the subject lot is the smallest property in the subdivision and that mature spruce trees which currently exist along Arlington Heights Road, will shield the encroaching garage from surrounding properties. Mr. Phillips then requested clarification on the specific type and location of the proposed fence. Mr. Rummel clarified the location and explained that the proposed fence will be a 6 foot tall board- on-board cedar fence. Continued... Page 2 Mr. Phillips then asked Mr. Rummel to explain his need for the fence. Mr. Rummel explained that the configuration of Arlington Heights Road adjacent to the subject lot, creates a dangerous blind curve and that a barrier is needed to prevent his children and dog from venturing into the street. Mr. Rummel also explained that a fence will provide privacy for his family, shield the noise of traffic and allow his family to maximize the size of their rear yard. Mr. Rummel also stated that due to the proximity of the high school, students have a tendency of congregating in the area along Salt Creek. Mr. Rummel explained that the fence will discourage pedestrians from taking short-cuts through the private property and provide added security for his family. Participants of the meeting then gathered for further clarification of the proposed fence's location. At 8:00, Mr. Phillips asked each Board member if they had any questions or comments. Mr. Rogers asked if there would be any landscape berms. Mr. Kolososki responded, no. Mr. Hauser asked if there will be any drainage problems caused by the installation. Mr. Kolososki explained that drainage issues have been addressed by FEMA and by the Elk Grove Village Engineering Department. Mrs. McClelland asked Mr. Zaucha if the Building & Engineering Departments have, any a comments. Mr. Zaucha stated that drainage issues are being properly addressed in conjunction with efforts of the Elk Grove Village Engineering Department. Mr. Zaucha also explained that unlike most corner lot situations, the proposed fence would have no adverse effect on front yards of neighboring properties. Mr. Zaucha reminded the Zoning Board that lot #I of Spruce Meadows is currently undeveloped and indicated that the Building & Engineering Departments have no recommendation for the Board. Mrs. McClelland asked Mr. Rummel if he had considered a chain link fence. Mr. Rummel indicated that he did explore that option and found that a variation would be required regardless of the type of fence to be installed. Mr. Phillips then asked if the public had any questions or comments. Mr. Mary Schnabel, who resides at 653 Brantwood Avenue, addressed the Board by expressing his concern of how the fence would impact pedestrian traffic along Arlington Heights Road. Mr. Schnabel explained that he walks the public sidewalk along Arlington Heights Road almost daily, and that he has concerns that the fence would leave no room for pedestrians to get out of the way of motor vehicles which may lose control around the dangerous curve. Mr. Schnabel also pointed out that a large number of High school students also use the sidewalk and that he has concerns for their safety. Page 3 Mr. Kolososki was asked how much distance there will be between the fence and sidewalk to allow refuge for pedestrians. Mr. Kolososki indicated that there is between 1 foot and 3 feet of space between the—peroperty line and the sidewalk. After further discussion of pedestrian safety along Arlington Heights Road, Mr. Phillips asked Mr. Rummel if he had any objections to installing the fence as far from the sidewalk as possible without causing damage to the existing spruce trees. Mr. Rummel stated that he has no objection. However, Mr. Rummel did indicate that he has concern that what he may consider to be damage to the spruce trees may differ from that which the Elk Grove Engineering Department may construe as damage. Mr. Zaucha stated that the Director of Engineering would likely be involved in meeting the developer at the site to establish an agreeable fence layout which will not adversely effect the spruce trees. With no further questions, Mr. Phillips read a letter submitted by Village resident, Mrs. Irene Omelusik who currently resides at 606 S. Arlington Heights Road. In the letter, Mrs. Omelusik expressed her objections to granting the variance. At 8:32, Mr. Penely motioned to grant the variance for the garage and was seconded by Mr. Hauser. A vote was taken which was unanimously in favor of granting the variation. At 8:35, Mr. Penely motioned to grant the fence variation with the condition that the fence be located as far away from the sidewalk as possible without causing damage to the existing spruce trees. The motion was seconded by Mrs. McClelland and a vote was taken unan4mously in favor of granting the variance. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, C -- . ti -- .--`�. aures S. Zaucha Plan Reviewer c: Chairman and Members Zoning Board of Appeals, President and Board of Trustees, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Assistant to the Village Manager, Administrative Intern, Director of Engineering and Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy--Fire Chief(2) , Assistant Fire Chief, Chairman and Members of Plan Commission November 13, 1998 Honorable President and Board of Trustees Re: Docket No. 98-9 Variation to Permit Structure in Rear Yard 1055 Susan Court Dear Honorable President and Board of Trustees: On November 11, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. the meeting was called to order by Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Robert E. Phillips. The petition was read. Robert and Kimber Bellis, owners of record, were sworn in and asked to present their case. Mrs. Kimber Bellis explained that the deck was built in 1986 with a variance to encroach into 20 ft. of rear yard (Docket#86-16). She would like to enclose the deck with a vinyl- tech screen room. Petitioner stated that she has allergies and a screened/windowed area would help her. She also has an invalid mother-in-law who would be very comfortable in ., the screened area. Chairman Phillips asked the Zoning Board of Appeals members if they had any questions or comments. The petitioners were asked about the roof of the screen room. Our exhibit shows it as a flat roof but the petitioners' contractor shows a gable roof. Contractor said it is a gable roof, capped into the house roof. The top of the cap will be about 3-1/2 to 5 ft. onto the house roof. Contractor was asked about the weight of the gablen-oof and siding onto existing foundation. Contractor feels this foundation will support the sunroom as windows are vinyl plastic and not very heavy and frames are aluminum. Village engineer, James Zaucha was asked for his opinion. He said that before this is - constructed, they will look into this problem and make any recommendations necessary. The Bellis' were asked if they might have internal changes (electric/heat) and have this become an extra room to the main house. They plan no changes to make this into a complete room. Questioning completed, Chairman Phillips asked for a motion. Mr. Gilbert Schumm made a motion of DO GRANT. Mr. Jeffrey Franke seconded the motion. Chairman Phillips asked for a vote. Motion was passed unanimously. Chairman Phillips explained that this case will now be sent to the Village Board. If they pass it an Ordinance will be drawn up allowing them to proceed. Vote: Aye: J. Franke, E. Hauser, C. McCelland, J. Oliveto, R. Penley, T. Rodgers, G. Schumm Nay: None Absent: P. Kaplan Respectfully submitted, Robert E. Phillips Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals REP/as c: President and Board of Trustees, Chairman and Members Zoning Board of Appeals, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Assistant to the Village Manager, Administrative Intern, Director of Engineering and Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief(2), Assistant Fire Chief, Chairman and Members Plan Commission z November 13, 1998 Honorable President and Board of Trustees Re: Docket No. 98-10 Variation to Permit Fence on Side Lot Line and Garage Encroachment Spruce Meadow Lot # 1 Dear Honorable President and Board of Trustees: On November 11, 1998 at 7:30 p.m. the meeting was called to order by Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Robert E. Phillips. The petition was read. Robert Kolososki, owner of record and Raymond Rummel, contract purchaser, were sworn in and asked to present their case. Mr. Kolososki presented their case on variation one, attached garage encroachment to twenty-five (25) ft. setback space. Due to lthe odd shape of lot, the northwest comer of two (2) car garage will extend approximately five and one half(5-1/2) ft. into side yard space. Mr. Kolososki said this will not encroach on neighbors or hinder traffic in any way. A two (2) car garage is needed to give owner storage space. z Variation two, construction of a solid fence located directly on the side of lot line fronting a major arterial street. Mr. Rummel said fence is needed from the northwest corner of the house to the lot line of the east side of Arlington Heights Road, then north to the corner of lot two (2). Lot two (2)) will have solid fence on its backyard. This will screen off Arlington Heights Road. The fence is needed because his two (2) children and dog need protection from Arlington Heights Road. Odd shape of lot gives him very little backyard, needs side yard for usable yard space. Petitioner commented that the line of vision for traffic from egress of Meadows Court and Arlington Heights Road, will not be hindered. Chairman Phillips asked the Zoning Board of Appeals members if they had any questions or comments. Spruce trees on property came into discussion. Three of the six trees on the property will not be behind the fence and the other three, if variance is granted, will be behind the fence and not disturbed. The question of berms was asked. Mr. Kolososki answered that these berms were just the raising of the land level and a retention pond behind lot three(3). Petitioner was asked about a chain link open fence. Mr. Rummel answered it had to be three (3) ft. off property line and would damage spruce trees. Also there would be no sound barrier. The actual type of fence was brought up for discussion. Petitioner stated it would be a six (6) ft. board on board cedar fence. James Zaucha was asked if he had any questions. He had none. The yudience was asked if they had any questions or comments. Mr. Marve Schnable of 653 Brantwood Drive, Elk Grove Village, questioned the distance from sidewalk to fence. It was about one(1) ft. on the south end to three (3) ft. on the north end. He then commented that automobiles often come up on the sidewalk at that area and pedestrians really have nowhere else to go. After some discussion on this element, a change in the word of the petition was offered and accepted by both sides. A letter from Mrs. Irene R. Omelusik, 606 S. Arlington Heights Road, Elk Grove Village was read and will be placed in folder for this case. Mrs. Omelusik was against putting up a fence for several reasons; will not beautify area, not good for security or safety of family. Rewording of the petition was discussed and came out this way: Petition to build a six (6) ft. board on board fence as far back from the sidewalk as possible but not to damage spruce trees. Chairman Phillips asked for a motion on the fence variation. Mr. Richard Penley made a motion of DO GRANT. Ms. Corrine McCelland seconded the motion. Motion was passed unanimously. Chairman Phillips asked for a motion on the garage variation. Mr. Richard Penley made a motion of DO GRANT. Mr. Edward Hauser seconded the motion. Motion was passed unanimously. Chairman Phillips explained that this case will now be sent to the Village Board. If they pass it an Ordinance will be drawn up allowing them to proceed. Vote: Aye: J. Franke, E. Hauser, C. McCelland, J. Oliveto, R. Penley, _ T. Rodgers, G. Schumm Nay: None Absent: P. Kaplan Respectfully submitted, Robert E. Phillips Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals REP/as c:_ , President and Board of Trustees, Chairman and Members Zoning Board of Appeals, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Assistant to the Village Manager, Administrative Intern, Director of Engineering and Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief(2) Assistant Fire Chief, Chairman and Members Plan Commission z