Loading...
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.