Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 02/18/2010 - FENCE VARIATION 225 E. ELK GROVE BLVD /DOCKET 10-1 ELK GROVE VILLAGE Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes February 18. 2010 Present: P.Kaplan, Chairman J. Oliveto L. Dohrer G. Schumm J. Walz S. Carlson J. Meister, Sr. D. Childress Absent: T. Rodgers Staff: S. Trudan, Deputy Director, Community Development J. Polony, Plan Reviewer, Community Development Zoning Variation—Docket# 10-1 —225 E. Elk Grove Blvd. Chairman Kaplan 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, Valerie Gerdes Lemme was sworn in and asked to present her case. Ms. Lemme stated that the Park District wishes to construct a fence to enclose the playground area, field around the park,-and a section along the east side of the building adjacent to the parking lot. She indicated the existing two rail fence will be replaced with the proposed four foot (4')tall ornamental fence. Mr. Kaplan opened the meeting to questions from the board. Mr. .Childress asked the petitioner if the new fence location would cause any driver obstructions and if the fence would be the same height as the existing two rail fence. The petitioner replied that the new fence would not obstruct any driver visibility and would be mounted at the same height as the existing fence. Mr. Childress then asked if any future plans were proposed for widening the sidewalks adjacent to the newly proposed fence which may encroach the fence. The petitioner replied that no future plans were proposed for widening the sidewalk in the future. Mr. Childress suggested that the fence be angled at a forty five degree (45°) angle at the corner of Ridge Avenue and Elk Grove Boulevard to not obstruct travel along the sidewalk. The petitioner accepted his suggestion and stated the Park District would angle the fence if necessary. Mr. Dohrer stated his concern about the one foot (1') distance of the fence to the property line in respect to pedestrian travel and asked the petitioner for clarification on the location of the existing fence. The petitioner stated the exiting fence is approximately four feet (4') from the property line facing Elk Grove Blvd. and the new fence would be approximately five feet(5') from the property line. The petitioner also stated the new fence along Ridge Avenue would be approximately five feet(5') from the edge of the sidewalk. Mr. Dohrer then asked the petitioner if the existing trees along Ridge Avenue and Elk Grove Blvd. would be enclosed by the new fence and located within the playground area. The petitioner stated the fence would be constructed in a way as to box out the existing trees and allow the trees to remain outside of the proposed fence. Mr. Dohrer then asked the petitioner about the gates proposed within the new fence and the type of gates used. The petitioner stated the gates will self closing and swing toward the inside to not allow children to accidently push the gates open. Mr. Schumm asked the petitioner to state her hardship. The petitioner stated the reasoning.for the fence was to protect the children when playing in the field and the playground area from the adjacent roadways. Mr. Walz agreed with Mr. Childress's proposal for the forty five degree(45°) angle of the fence at the corner of Ridge Avenue and'Elk Grove Blvd. Mr. Walz then asked the petitioner if the proposed fence design would match the lift station fence located across the street on Elk Grove Blvd. The petitioner stated the proposed fence will be of the same design and construction of the lift station fence to display a consistency among fences. Mr. Kaplan then asked if there was anyone from the public who would like to speak. No one in attendance had any objections or statements. A motion to grant a variation for the installation of a four foot(4') high ornamental fence along Ridge Avenue, Elk Grove Blvd., and the parking lot to the east of the Shela Ray Center, constructed closer than one foot(1') to the property lines, and within the front yard was made by Mr. Schumm, and seconded by Mr. Walz. Upon voting (AYES—Dohrer, Oliveto, Childress, Kaplan, Carlson and Wester) the motion to grant the variance passed unanimously. Mr. Kaplan advised the petitioner, Ms. Lemme, she will be notified when to be present at the Village Board Meeting for the final decision on the variation. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jared Polony Plan Reviewer, Community Development C: Chairman and Members Zoafimeng Boards of Appeals, MAy6r and Board of-T-riu-stees, Village-Clerk, Village Attorney, Village Mager, Deputy Vi11age-lvlanager, Assiit Village Manager, Dire for�of the Engin eni5g-end Community Development,Director of Public oris, Fir�Chihi'ef, D puty�hief(2), Inspectional§ArVices Supervisor, Chairman and Members Plan Commission OFCARS c� _ th KNzu as 7 q 114 IN _ :•l1' = ��'✓ �� O_,.1��\♦ ��t iii j� ta�11 Il t •r �w�ry_ �,+l�l ,1' CCC ..' w _ ,'.r S' � /�-�',. ` SII; •i f• ``•' . i tr: