HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 04/21/1982 - PH DOCKET 82-2 Minutes
ELK GROVE VILLAGE PLAN COMMISSION
Wednesday, April 21, 1982
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Plan Commission was
called to order at 8:10 p.m. on Wednesday, April 21, 1982 in the Multi-
Purpose Room of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Glass, John R. , Chairman
Cummins, Leah, Secretary
Fulton, Clark
Geinosky, Frederick C.
Mullen, George E.
Paliganoff, David J.
Stangeland, Orrin J.
STAFF PRESENT:
Thomas F. Rettenbacher, Building Commissioner
Jon P. Wildenberg, Administrative Assistant
Public Hearing: Docket 82-2 Petition of the Village of Elk
Grove Village for Text and Definition Amend-
ments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the
installation of fences at double frontage
corner lots (triple frontage lots)
The Plan Commission, acting as a zoning commission, commenced
Public Hearing proceedings to consider the petition of the Village of
Elk Grove Village for Text and Definition amendments to the Elk Grove
Village Zoning Ordinance. The amendments requested would permit residents
bordered by three (3) streets (including one (1) major arterial and two (2)
interior streets) to erect a fence in the frontage along a major arterial
street.
Thomas Rettenbacher, Building Commissioner, was sworn in by Secretary
Cummins and presented information on behalf of the Village regarding the
amendment requests.
Rettenbacher began by stating that regulations dealing with fence
location have existed mainly to maintain lines of sight for automobile
and pedestrian traffic. in general, a 25 foot setback line (as measured
from the property line) is required for this purpose.
At various locations in the village there exist, or will exist (when
future development is complete) lots which front on three distinct streets:
one major arterial and two interior streets. As currently written, the
Zoning Ordinance does not allow fences to be constructed beyond the 25 foot
setback line on such lots in the frontage yard along a major arterial street.
To date, five residents have petitioned the Zoning Board of Appeals for
variations to construct a fence beyond the 25 foot setback line. In each
case a variation was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Rettenbacher also presented a map of lots in the Village which are
fronted on three sides.
Plan Commission Minutes - 2 - April 21, 1982
Public Hearing (continued)
The specific Text and Definition Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
requested by the Village were as follows:
(1) That Article 9, Section 9.12, DEFINITIONS, be amended
by adding thereto the following:
DOUBLE FRONTAGE CORNER LOT. A lot which abuts on
three streets.
MAJOR ARTERIAL STREET. Those streets designed for
heavier traffic volume and/or higher operating speed.
The following streets are deemed to be major arterial
streets:
Arlington Heights Road Nerge Road
Higgins Road Rohlwing Road
Busse Road Meacham Road
Elmhurst Road Plum Grove Road
Devon Avenue
(2) That Article 5, Section 5.23, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND
USES PERMITTED IN ALL RESIDENCE DISTRICTS, be amended
by adding thereto paragraph "F" as follows:
F. On double frontage corner lots where one yard fronts
on a major arterial street, fences shall be permitted
within that portion of the front yard which fronts
the major arterial street, but such fence shall not
be permitted within any other front yard or ahead of
any building setback line as extended to any lot line.
Glass then opened the Public Hearing to questions from Plan Commission
members.
Fulton noted that the term "double frontage corner lot" is confusing
and inquired as to why the term "triple frontage lot" is not used instead.
Rettenbacher replied that "double frontage corner lot" is consistent with
definitions in the Zoning Ordinance found on page 67. Glass added that
he had spoken to the Village Attorney regarding the definition and was
advised that "triple frontage lot" would be acceptable wording.
Fulton asked how the Village defines a "major arterial street".
Rettenbacher replied that certain streets are so designated on the Village's
Comprehensive Master Plan. Fulton inquired as to why certain streets, such
as Biesterfield Road, Tonne Road and Landmeier Road were not included in
the listing of major arterials. Glass suggested that specific street names
be deleted from the proposed amendment and that designation of major arterial
streets be handled through an update of the Comprehensive Plan.
Fulton observed that the proposed amendment "F" (above) include a
reference to the R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts so as to read consistently
with Section. 5.23(E) of the current ordinance.
Plan Commission Minutes - 3 - April 21, 1982
Public Hearing (continued)
In response to Geinosky, Rettenbacher stated that no particular fence
style would pose any difficulties as long as the 25 foot setback requirement
is maintained.
Stangeland inquired if there were any State or County requirements
that would be applicable in the triple frontage situation. Rettenbacher
replied that he was not familiar with any such requirements and that fence
permits issued by the Village on County right-of-way have never been
challenged.
Glass noted that the five (5) variations granted by the Zoning Board
of Appeals have not caused any traffic accident problems.
Mullen questioned why frontage on a major arterial street must be
required for a fence. Rettenbacher responded that major arterial streets
present a greater exposure to risk for residents. The proposed text
amendment would allow residents to construct fences for protection along a
higher risk street. To date, no variations for a fence at a triple
frontage lot bordered by three interior streets has been presented before
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Paliganoff inquired as to the reason such a text and definition
amendment was requested by the Village. Rettenbacher responded that the
change is being proposed to accommodate the needs of citizens which have
been expressed through five variance petitions to the ZBA and through one
pending request currently with the Village.
A five-minute break ensued.
Glass opened the Public Hearing to comments from residents in attendance.
Mr. Marlin Bochantin, 922 Kentucky Lane, stated that he currently has
a request for a fence permit pending before the Village. His neighbors along
Nerge Road have fences to the sidewalk and since he is on the corner he may
not build a similar fence. He has received, however, a letter from the
Building Commissioner granting him a permit conditioned upon approval of
the Text and Definition Amendment.
Glass informed Mr. Bochantin that the Plan Commission is an advisory
body only and that final action and approval of the Text and Definition
Amendments must come from the Village Board.
Geinosky asked Mr. Bochantin if the amendments as proposed were
acceptable to him. Mr. Bochantin replied that they were.
Janice Bochantin, 922 Kentucky Lane, advised the Plan Commission that
she believes there is nothing in the current ordinance that would not
permit her to construct a fence on her lot bordered by Nerge, Kentucky, and
Arkansas.
Mr. Richard Ruzecki, 1633 Gibson Drive, questioned how the Text and
Definition Amendments would affect his lot bordered by Meacham, Gibson,
and California. (Mr. Ruzecki presented a diagram of the area on a chalkboard.)
Tom Rettenbacher demonstrated where fences would be allowed on Mr. Ruzecki 's
lot under the proposed amendments.
The Public Hearing was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Mullen moved to recommend adoption of Text and Definition Amendments
to the Elk Grove Village Zoning Ordinance as follows:
(1) That Article 9, Section 9.12, DEFINITIONS, be amended by adding
thereto the following:
Plan Commission Minutes - 4 - April 21, 1982
(1) (continued)
TRIPLE FRONTAGE LOT. A lot which abuts on three streets.
MAJOR ARTERIAL STREET. Those streets designed for heavier
traffic volume and/or higher operating speed.
(2) That Article 5, Section 5.23, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES
PERMITTED IN ALL RESIDENCE DISTRICTS, be amended by adding
thereto paragraph "F" as follows:
F. On triple frontage lots where one yard fronts on a major
arterial street, fences shall be permitted within that
portion of the front yard which fronts the major arterial
street, but such fence shall not be permitted within any
other front yard or ahead of any building setback line
as extended to any lot line in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts.
Fulton seconded the motion, whereupon Secretary Cummins called the
role with the following answering AYE: Fulton, Geinosky, Mullen, Stangeland,
Paliganoff, Glass, and Cummins. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote.
Parking Regulations
Stangeland called a meeting for April 28, 1982 at 11:30 in the Municipal
Building. Members from the Greater O'Hare Association of Industry and
Commerce were invited to attend.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Submitted by:
7 '
Jon P. Wildenberg
Administrative Assistant
ms
c: Chairman & Members of Plan Commission, Village President & Board of
Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant village Manager,
Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Building Commissioner,
Village Engineer, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Director of
Parks and Recreation, Centex, NWMC.