Loading...
1990-07-17 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , JULY 17 , 1990 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 08 P . M . on Tuesday , July 17 , 1990 at the Village Hall. , 50 Raupp Blvd . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : J . Paul , R . Lewandowski , H . Fields and B . Entman and R . Heinrich QUORUM . Commissioners Absent : M . Kearns and D . Stolman Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Ed Schar , $ousing and Zoning Inspector Village Board Liaison : Sid Mathias , Trustee Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey Com . Entman arrived after the roll was called , and therefore , Ch . Heinrich announced that in order for a variance to be granted , there must be 4 affirmative votes . Petitioners were advised that they may request a postponement , anytime during their hearing , and return when more commissioners are present . III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Postponed - See Item VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS . . IV . OLD BUSINESS A . 560 Checker Drive , Naoki and Leah Nakamura Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Purpose : Construction of a 4 foot , open-picket fence past the building line at the corner of Checker Dr . and Farrington Dr . Com . Lewandowski announced that Mr . Nakamura is an acquaintance , but this will not affect his decision . Item was Tabled on June 19 , 1990 . The Public Hearing Notice , published May 23 , 1990 , was read . Mr . Naoki Nakamura was sworn in . Motion to remove from Table was made by Com . Paul and seconded by Com . Entman . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously . Mr . Nakamura summarized his reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . The property is located on the corner of Checker Drive and Farrington Drive . Traffic at this intersection is very heavy . 2 . The fence will provide safety for the Nakamura ' s 2 year old son , and will confine their dog . . 3 . The building line is about 4 feet from the house and there are two trees growing along the building line . Rather than removing the trees , a variance of 8 feet is requested . This will provide sufficient space for the child to run and play . Mr . Nakamura said the distance between the house and proposed fence will be about 12 feet . The distance between the fence and the property line will be over 22 feet . He has spoken with his neighbors and none of them object to the proposed 4 foot , spaced open picket wood fence. It will not block the view from the street , or sidewalk. Some photographs were presented. The neighbor has the same fence and the neighbor to the East (facing South) plans to construct an identical fence . The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review dated May 30 , 1990 states : "No obstruction is created for the intersection by the proposed fence. The abutting property is near side driveway. " Comments from Commissioners : Com. Entman: No problem, considering the 4 foot height and open picket style fence. Com. Paul : No problem. Trees along the building line would be a hardship. Request is very reasonable . Com. Lewandowski : No problem. Com. Fields : No problem. Intersection is heavily traveled in summer because of people going to and from the pool on Farrington. Request is warranted. ,411 No questions or comments from the audience . Com. Paul made the following motion: I move that petitioners Naoki and Leah Nakamura, 560 Checker Drive , be granted a variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose constructing a 4 foot high, open picket fence , 8 feet south of the south building line. Said fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare ; and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Fields , Lewandowski , Paul , Entman and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 17 , 1990 - Page Two V. NEW BUSINESS A. 1140 Thompson Blvd. , Steven and Marla Sandler Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40.020 - Area, Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations. Purpose: Construction of an addition. The Public Hearing Notice was read. Steven Sandler was sworn in and summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . Their children are growing and the addition will provide a larger kitchen, as well as office/library space for study, etc. 2 . The family is extremely satisfied with the location and school system. They are active in the community. 3 . Moving to a larger house would cause a financial hardship at this time. Mr . Sandler said they have discussed the proposed addition with some of their neighbors and one of them recommended their architect . They have not talked to the neighbor directly to the rear . The variance will be 10 feet , and will extend approximately 2/3 of the width of the house . The addition will match the existing architecture and materials. The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated July 5 , 1990 states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern. " And: "the homeowner is to be advised that no alteration to the grade is allowed within 5 feet of any rear or side lot line. " Comments from Commissioners: Com. Entman: No problem, will be a nice addition to house. Com. Paul : No problem. Com. Lewandowski : Clarification - The required setback is 30 ' and with the 10 foot addition, the variance will be about 8 ' leaving a set- back of approximately 21 . 9' ? YES. Com. Fields : No problem. No questions or comments from the audience. Com. Fields made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Steven and Marla Sandler , 1140 Thompson Blvd. , for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 .020, pertaining to Area, Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing an addition at the rear of the house that would extend a distance of approximately 9 ' into the required rear yard setback . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 17 , 1990 - Page Three Hardship having demonstrated, the proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . The addition is to be consistent with the plans submitted and approved by the Building Department . Materials are to match the existing construction. Com. Lewandowski seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Paul , Lewandowski , Fields and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days. B. 218 Vintage Lane, Lawrence and Patricia Ybarra Fence Code, Section 15 . 20.040 - Residential Districts Purpose: Construction of a 5 foot , board-on-board fence that would extend past the building line at the corner of Vintage Lane and Claret Drive . The Public Hearing Notice was read. Lawrence Ybarra was sworn in and summarized the reasons for requesting a variance: 1 . They are expecting their third child and a fenced yard will provide safety of all their children. 2 . The corner of Vintage and Claret is the entrance to the subdivision and traffic is very heavy. 3 . The lot is an irregular shape and the rear lot line is only 78 . 11 feet in length. (Front is 105 . 39 ' ) 4. The required setback is 30 feet (R-4 Zoning District) and one corner of the house is at the building line, so a fence along the building would create a very small rear yard. 5 . A variance of 20' would leave 10' to the side lot line and would provide sufficient space for running and playing. 6 . Traffic would not be obstructed . The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review dated July 5 , 1990 states : "No obstruction is created for the intersection by the proposed fence . The abutting property is near the side driveway. " Mr . Ybarra said he has discussed the fence with some of the neighbors , and others have inquired because of the sign. One neighbor was present . Arseny Targovnik, 406 Claret Drive (neighbor directly to the rear of the subject property) said he and his wife are opposed to a wood fence , or any fence , because it will destroy the view of the neighborhood The fence will be in front of his house. (Reverse corner lot . ) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 17 , 1990 - Page Four Mr . Targovnik expressed the opinion that wood fences have dramatically changed the architectural view of the Vintage subdivision. Too many fences have been approved. He cannot change the ordinance , and he is not against planting bushes and trees , but he is opposed to wood fences . People do not maintain their yards behind fences. Ch. Heinrich responded that fences protect children, and bushes do not provide protection in the winter . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : The neighbor ' s driveway is not next to the petitioner ' s rear yard. The ZBA is always sympathetic with all parties concerned. Each situation is considered on its individual merit . The ZBA has always been very concerned about the neighbors and how the neighborhood would be affected. They have not knowingly created any eyesores that would be detrimental for people to look at . The petitioner ' s request is reason- able but the fence could be modified by pulling it farther away from the property line. The fence would have a very direct impact upon Mr . Torgovnik but his statement was not fair . Com. Lewandowski : No problem supporting the variance as it has been presented. He appreciates the concerns expressed by Mr . Torgovnik , which are aesthetic in nature. People are permitted to build fences within the ordinance, and there are unique circum- stances , they are given the opportunity to request variances . Each case is considered individually, and variances are granted , or denied , after discussion of the situation. This request warrants a variance, but if the distance from the property line was increased, it would be more desirable. Mr . Ybarra asked, considering that a fence could be put there , would moving it back another 5 feet make a difference? Ch. Heinrich responded that the ZBA considers what has been done in the past , and it has been consistent in keeping fences back more than 10 feet on a corner lot . If the distance was decreased another 5 feet (splitting the 30.47 ' distance) the yard would still be reasonably large, and the corner would be opened up more. Side yards are usually kept from 12 to 15 ft . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 17 , 1990 - Page Five Com. Fields: Because of the curve along Claret , Mr . Torgovnik house is set back considerably farther than usual.. He understands that a fence will change the open view. He agreed that the fence should be moved back an additional 5 feet , and proposed that it be changed from board-on-board to an open picket style. The petitioner has stated the fence is more for the safety of his children, than for privacy. Mr . Ybarra did not object , but said he chose the style because it would match all the other fences in the development . The corner is the entrance to the subdivision and he did not want his fence to be "different . " Ch. Heinrich said an open picket fence would blend in with other wood fences . Chain link would not . Com. Paul : Agreed that an open picket fence would be better , and would also be better for the neighbor . Com. Entman: Concurred 100% with Com. Fields . When he observed the property, he noticed how open the area was , and he understands the concerns with the neighbor . He did not observe any other fences with which to make a comparison. A wood fence at the proposed location would appear to be a wall , and he agreed that an open picket fence , moved back, would be much more desirable. The petitioner ' s stated concern is safety. The ZBA' s two purposes , safety and aesthetics , can be accomplished through a compromise. Ch. Heinrich: Agreed that the picket fence is equally as safe as a board-on-board. He asked Mr . Torgovnik if the proposed compromise - spaced picket , 5 feet farther back - would be acceptable to him? Mr . Torgovnik ' s response repeated his "no fences at all " position because they have destroyed the view of the Village. The traffic , at the intersection, is not heavy all day, only during rush hour . They chose the location of their house because of the open view. He reluctantly said that an open picket fence is better , than a solid wood fence. Ch. Heinrich listed Mr . Ybarra's options : 1 . A 5 foot board-on-board fence , per the ordinance , along the rear property line up to the building line. 2 . Amend the petition to a 5 foot open picket style fence and move it back 5 more feet . 3 . Ask for a vote on the petition as submitted. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 17 , 1990 - Page Six Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . Ybarra that if the ZBA denies the request as submitted, he has the right to appeal to the Village Board of Trustees . Li If the ZBA grants the request , as stated , Mr . Torgovnik also has the right to appeal to the Village Board of Trustees . Mr . Ybarra said would not want to make such an important decision without consulting his wife. He would also want to consult his other neighbor about the picket style fence. He requested a continuance until the next public hearing. Com. Entman made a motion pursuant to the petitioner 's request that the petition of Lawrence and Patricia Ybarra be Tabled until the August meeting of the ZBA for further consideration. Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Fields , Lewandowski , Paul , Entman and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0. Item will first on 8/21/90 agenda. Mr . Ybarra and Mr . Torgovnik will be notified by mail . C. 250 Navajo Trail , Thomas and Deborah Polinski Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040 - Residential Districts Purpose: Construction of a 6 foot fence , past the building line at the corner of Navajo Trail and Forest Place. The Public Hearing Notice was read. Mr . Thomas Polinski was sworn in and summarized the reasons for requesting a variance: 1 . There is an existing 6 foot fence around the yard and they would like to continue the fence an additional 30 feet south of the building line, 25 feet east , along the sidewalk , and back to the house. 2 . The fence will provide safety and protection for their 1-1/2 year daughter , and their expected new baby. The area would provide a secluded place for a swing set , sand box, etc . 3 . The traffic at the corner is heavy. Passing cars and motorcyclists often exceed the speed limit . 4. The abutting property to the west , 94 Forest Place, is very unsightly and the fence would block the view from the Polinski ' s house. (The Village is aware of the situation at 94 Forest Place and is in the process of having it cleaned up. ) Mr . Polinski has not spoken directly to the owners of the house at 94 Forest Place , but he has informed his other neighbors of the fence. There have been no objections. �•/ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 17 , 1990 - Page Seven The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated may 30 , 1990, states : "No obstruction is created for the intersection by the proposed fence. The abutting property is near the side driveway and the fence should be set back 10 feet from the sidewalk . " Mr . Polinski agreed with the Village Engineer ' s setback recom- mendation for the safety of individuals backing out of the driveway. Ch. Heinrich said he would prefer a setback closer to 15 feet and asked where the swing set would be located. Mr . Polinski replied that it would be located in the southwest corner that he wants to enclose. A 10 foot setback would be much better . Com. Paul : Said he did not object to the 10 foot setback , because the rear yard is small and the extra 5 ft . would have an impact on the usable area. There are no objectors present and no letters have been submitted. Com. Lewandowski : The.proposed fence would block the near side driveway at 94 Forest Place , so he could not support the request for a 30 ft . extension, but would agree with the Village Engineer 's recommended 10 foot setback from the sidewalk. Com. Fields: Would support the 10 foot setback and a 6 foot fence along the rear lot line, but suggested tapering down from 6 feet to 5 feet for the enclosure along Navajo Trail and across the front . Com. Entman: The lot is small and the houses do seem very close. It is possible that the neighbor or the petitioner may move , or the Village may be successful in its efforts to clean up the property, and the 6 foot fence would remain. He would prefer to have the extended portion 5 feet all the way around. The existing 6 foot fence is acceptable. Mr . Mathias affirmed that the Village is continue to pursue the clean-up of 94 Forest Place. Ch. Heinrich agreed a fence 10 feet from the sidewalk is a reasonable compromise, and the 5 foot height is standard under the ordinance. He asked Mr . Polinski if he would so amend the petition on its face? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 17 , 1990 - Page Eight Mr . Polinski considered this proposal and agreed to the 10 ft . setback and 5 f t . height , if he could taper the fence from 6 ft . to 5 ft . Com. Lewandowski made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Thomas and Deborah Polinski , 250 Navajo Trail , for a variance of the Fence Code, Sec. 15. 20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a wood stockade fence , that will extend past the building line at the corner of Navajo Trail and Forest Place . Said fence to come no closer than 10 feet to the sidewalk, tapering from 6 feet in height , at the building line, to 5 feet in height , within the first 4 feet . Unique circumstances having been evidenced, the fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Paul seconded the motion. Mr . Dempsey commented that he had visited the site, and observed that the posts on the existing fence are on the outside of Mr. Polinski ' s property. The Fence Code requires that the posts to be on the inside of the owner ' s property. Com. Lewandowski amended his motion to include the condition that the fence posts are to be on the inside of the petitioner ' s property. Com. Paul seconded the amendment . Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Paul , Lewandowski , Fields and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days . VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS Ch. Heinrich announced that the Village Board has referred a zoning text amendment to the ZBA for a public hearing. Mr . Dempsey distributed copies of a proposed zoning ordinance text amendment to Section 17. 52 .050.A. (Attached. ) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 17 , 1990 - Page Nine Trustee Mathias explained that the purpose of the amendment is to give the Village Board of Trustees the authority to grant variances of up to 50% of the required distance between a principal building and an accessory building. The current ordinance, gives the ZBA variance power of 33-1/3 per cent . A resident has requested a variance of Section 17 . 52 .050 A. for the purpose of constructing an addition, for his disabled wife, that would leave 5 feet between the house and the garage. The Zoning Board and the Village only have the authority to grant a variance of 33-1/3%. of the required 10 foot distance. If the text amendment is adopted , the ZBA would make a recommenda- tion to the Village Board for a variance by ordinance. Trustee Mathias asked the ZBA Commissioners if they wanted to limit the public hearing discussion to the one specific section, or to consider making the same amendment to all 6 sub-sections of the ordinance? The amount is to be limited to 50% because the Corporate Authorities do not have the time to adequately make a determination, if a large number of similar petitions are submitted. After discussion, it was decided to hold a Special Public Hearing at 7 : 30 P.M. on Tuesday, August 21 , 1990, before the regular ZBA meeting scheduled at 8 :00 P.M. The ZBA Commissioners also agreed, after discussion, to limit the text amendment to the one sub-section that is pertinent to the specific request , because if the entire section is opened up, there could be a great number of requests for larger additions to the rear of the house, etc. Mr . Dempsey commented that the Village Board does not want to hear a large number of zoning recommendations for ordinance changes . The public hearing notice will have to be published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 19 , 1990 Com. Lewandowski noted slight typo errors on pages 6 , 8 & 11 . Com. Fields made a motion to approve the minutes of June 19 , 1990 as amended. Com. Entman seconded the motion. The minutes of June 19 , 1990 were approved as amended and will be placed on file. VII . ADJOURNMENT Com. Paul made a motion to adjourn. Com. Lewandowski seconded. Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 9 : 35 P.M. Respectfully submitted , Shirley Bates , Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS sb July 17 , 1990 - Page Ten Mr . Nakamura said the distance between the house and proposed fence will be about 12 feet . The distance between the fence and the property line will be over 22 feet . He has spoken with his neighbors and none of them object to the proposed 4 foot , spaced open picket wood fence. It will not block the view from the street , or sidewalk. Some photographs were presented. The neighbor has the same fence and the neighbor to the East (facing South) plans to construct an identical fence . The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review dated May 30 , 1990 states : "No obstruction is created for the intersection by the proposed fence. The abutting property is near side driveway. " Comments from Commissioners : Com. Entman: No problem, considering the 4 foot height and open picket style fence. Com. Paul : No problem. Trees along the building line would be a hardship. Request is very reasonable. Com. Lewandowski : No problem. Com. Fields : No problem. Intersection is heavily traveled in summer because of people going to and from the pool on Farrington. Request is warranted. No questions or comments from the audience. Com. Paul made the following motion: I move that petitioners Naoki and Leah Nakamura, 560 Checker Drive, be granted a variance of Fence Code , Section 15 .20. 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose constructing a 4 foot high, open picket fence , 8 feet south of the south building line. Said fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare ; and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Fields , Lewandowski , Paul , Entman and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 17 , 1990 - Page Two • V. NEW BUSINESS A. 1140 Thompson Blvd. , Steven and Maria Sandler Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40.020 - Area, Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations . Purpose: Construction of an addition. - The Public Hearing Notice was read. Steven. Sandler was sworn in and summarized the reasons for requesting a variance: 1 . Their children are growing and the addition will provide a larger kitchen, as well as office/library space for study, etc. 2 . The family is extremely satisfied with the location and school system. They are active in the community. 3 . Moving to a larger house would cause a financial hardship at this time. Mr . Sandler said they have discussed the proposed addition with some of their neighbors and one of them recommended their architect . They have not talked to the neighbor directly to the rear . The variance will be 10 feet , and will extend approximately 2/3 of the width of the house. The addition will match the existing architecture and materials . The Village Engineer 's Review, dated July 5 , 1990 states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern. " And: "the homeowner is to be advised that no alteration to the grade is allowed within 5 feet of any rear or side lot line. " Comments from Commissioners: Com. Entman: No problem, will be a nice addition to house. Com. Paul : No problem. Com. Lewandowski : Clarification - The required setback is 30 ' and with the 10 foot addition, the variance will be about 8 ' leaving a set- back of approximately 21 .9'? YES. Com. Fields : No problem. No questions or comments from the audience. Com. Fields made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Steven and Marla Sandler , 1140 Thompson Blvd. , for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 . 40.020, pertaining to Area, Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing an addition at the rear of the house that would extend a distance of approximately 9 ' into the required rear yard setback. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 17 , 1990 - Page Three Hardship having demonstrated, the proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The addition is to be consistent with the plans submitted and approved by the Building Department . Materials are • to match the existing construction. • Com. Lewandowski seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Paul , Lewandowski , Fields and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. . Permit may be issued in 15 days. B. 218 Vintage Lane, Lawrence and Patricia Ybarra Fence Code, Section 15. 20.040 - Residential Districts Purpose: Construction of a 5 foot , board-on-board fence that would extend past the building line at the corner of Vintage Lane and Claret Drive. The Public Hearing Notice was read. Lawrence Ybarra was sworn in and summarized the reasons for requesting a variance: 1 . They are expecting their third child and a fenced yard will provide safety of all their children. 2. The corner of Vintage and Claret is the entrance to the subdivision and traffic is very heavy. 3 . The lot is an irregular shape and the rear lot line is only 78 . 11 feet in length. (Front is 105. 39 ' ) 4. The. required setback is 30 feet (R-4 Zoning District) and one corner of the house is at the building line, • so a fence along the building would create a very small rear yard. 5. A variance of 20 ' would leave 10 ' to the side lot line and would provide sufficient space for running and playing. 6 .. Traffic would not be obstructed . The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review dated July 5 , 1990 states : "No obstruction is created for the intersection by the proposed fence. The abutting property is near the side driveway. " Mr . Ybarra said he has discussed the fence with some of the neighbors , and others have inquired because of the sign. One neighbor was present . Arseny Targovnik, 406 Claret Drive (neighbor directly to the rear of the subject property) said he and his wife are opposed to a wood fence , or any fence, because it will destroy the view of the neighborhood The fence will be in front of his house. (Reverse corner lot . ) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 17 , 1990 - Page Four Mr . Targovnik expressed the opinion that wood fences have dramatically changed the architectural view of the Vintage subdivision. Too many fences have been approved. He cannot change the ordinance, and he is not against planting bushes and trees , but he is opposed to wood fences . People do not maintain their yards behind fences. Ch. Heinrich responded that fences protect children, and bushes do not provide protection in the winter. Comments from Commissioners: Com. Paul : The neighbor 's driveway is not next to the petitioner ' s rear yard. The ZBA is always sympathetic with all parties concerned. Each situation is considered on its individual merit . The ZBA has always been very concerned about the neighbors and how the neighborhood would be affected. They have not knowingly created any eyesores that would be detrimental for people to look at . The petitioner's request is reason- able but the fence could be modified by pulling it farther away from the property line. The fence would have a very direct impact upon Mr. Torgovnik but his statement was not fair . Com. Lewandowski : No problem supporting the variance as it has been presented. He appreciates the concerns expressed by Mr. Torgovnik, which are aesthetic in nature. People are permitted to build fences within the ordinance, and there are unique circum- stances , they are given the opportunity to request variances . Each case is considered individually, and variances are granted, or denied , after discussion of the situation. This request warrants a variance, but if the distance from the property line was increased , it would be more desirable. Mr . Ybarra asked , considering that a fence could be put there, would moving it back another 5 feet make a difference? Ch. Heinrich responded that the ZBA considers what has been done in the past , and it has been consistent in keeping fences back more than 10 feet on a corner lot . If the distance was decreased another 5 feet (splitting the 30.47' distance) the yard would still be reasonably large, and the corner would be opened up more. Side yards are usually kept from 12 to 15 ft . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 17 , 1990 - Page Five Com. Fields: Because of the curve along Claret , Mr . Torgovnik ' s house is set back considerably farther than usual . He understands that a fence will change the open view. He agreed that the fence should be moved back an additional 5 feet , and proposed that it be changed from board-on-board to an open picket style. The petitioner has stated the fence is more for the safety of his children, than for privacy. Mr . Ybarra did not object , but said he chose the style because it would match all the other fences in the development . The corner is the entrance to the subdivision and he did not want his fence to be "different . " Ch. Heinrich said an open picket fence would blend in with other wood fences . Chain link would not . Com. Paul : Agreed that an open picket fence would be better , and would also be better for the neighbor . Com. Entman: Concurred 100% with Com. Fields. When he observed the property, he noticed how open the area was , and he understands the concerns with the neighbor . He did not observe any other fences with which to make a comparison. A wood fence at the proposed location would appear to be a wall , and he agreed that an open picket fence , moved back, would be much more desirable. The petitioner ' s stated concern is safety. The ZBA' s two purposes , safety and aesthetics , can be accomplished through a compromise . Ch. Heinrich: Agreed that the picket fence is equally as safe as a board-on-board. He asked Mr . Torgovnik if the proposed compromise - spaced picket , 5 feet farther back - would be acceptable to him? Mr . Torgovnik's repeated his "no fences at all " position because the fences have destroyed the view of the Village . The traffic at the intersection is not heavy all day, only during rush hour . They chose the location of their house because of the open view. He reluctantly said that an open picket fence is better than a solid wood fence. Ch. Heinrich listed Mr . Ybarra' s options : 1 . A 5 foot board-on-board fence , per the ordinance , along the rear property line up to the building line . 2 . Amend the petition to a 5 foot open picket style fence and move it back 5 more feet . 3 . Ask for a vote on the petition as submitted. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 17 , 1990 - Page Six Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . Ybarra that if the ZBA denies the request as submitted, he has the right to appeal to the Village Board of Trustees. If the ZBA grants the request , as stated, Mr. Torgovnik also has the right to appeal to the Village Board of Trustees. Mr . Ybarra said would not want to make such an important decision without consulting his wife. He would also want to consult his other neighbor about the picket style fence. He requested a continuance until the next public hearing. Com. Entman made a motion pursuant to the petitioner 's request that the petition of Lawrence and Patricia Ybarra be Tabled . until the August meeting of the ZBA for further consideration. Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Fields , Lewandowski , Paul, Entman and Heinrich NAY - None • Motion Passed - 5 to 0. Item will first on 8/21/90 agenda. Mr . Ybarra and Mr. Torgovnik will be notified by mail . C. 250 Navajo Trail , Thomas and Deborah Polinski Fence Code , Section 15.20.040 - Residential Districts Purpose: Construction of a 6 foot fence, past the building line at the corner of Navajo Trail and Forest Place. The Public Hearing Notice was read. Mr . Thomas Polinski was sworn in and summarized the reasons for requesting a variance: 1 . There is an existing 6 foot fence around the yard and they would like to continue the fence an additional 30 feet south of the building line, 25 feet east , along the sidewalk , and back to the house. 2 . The fence will provide safety and protection for their 1-1/2 year daughter , and their expected new baby. The area would provide a secluded place for a swing set , sand box, etc. 3 . The traffic at the corner is heavy. Passing cars and motorcyclists often exceed the speed limit . 4. The abutting property to the west , 94 Forest Place, is very unsightly and the fence would block the view from the Polinski ' s house. (The Village is aware of the situation at 94 Forest Place and is in the process of having it cleaned up. ) Mr . Polinski has not spoken directly to the owners of the house at 94 Forest Place , but he has informed his other neighbors of the fence. There have been no objections. • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 17 , 1990 - Page Seven The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated may 30 , 1990, states : "No obstruction is created for the intersection by the proposed fence . The abutting property is near the side driveway and the fence should be set back 10 feet from the sidewalk. " Mr . Polinski agreed with the Village Engineer ' s setback recom- mendation for the safety of individuals backing out of the driveway. Ch. Heinrich said he would prefer a setback closer to 15 feet and asked where the swing set would be located. Mr . Polinski replied that it would be located in the southwest corner that he wants to enclose. A 10 foot setback would be much better . Com. Paul : Said he did not object to the 10 foot setback, because the rear yard is small and the extra 5 ft . would have an impact on the usable area. There are no objectors present and no letters have been submitted. Com. Lewandowski : The proposed fence would block the near side driveway at 94 Forest Place , so he could not support the request for a 30 ft . extension, but would agree with the Village Engineer ' s recommended 10 foot setback from the sidewalk. Com. Fields : Would support the 10 foot setback and a 6 foot fence along the rear lot line , but suggested tapering down from 6 feet to 5 feet for the enclosure along Navajo Trail and across the front . Com. Entman: The lot is small and the houses do seem very close . It is possible that the neighbor or the petitioner may move , or the Village may be successful in its efforts to clean up the property, and the 6 foot fence would remain. He would prefer to have the extended portion 5 feet all the way around. The existing 6 foot fence is acceptable . Mr Macias affirmed that the Village is contining to pursue the clean-up of 94 Forest Place. Ch. Heinrich agreed a fence 10 feet from the sidewalk is a reasonable compromise , and the 5 foot height is standard under the ordinance. He asked Mr . Polinski if he would so amend the petition on its face? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 17 , 1990 - Page Eight Mr. Polinski considered this proposal and agreed to the 10 ft . setback and 5 ft. height , if he could taper the fence from 6 ft . to 5 ft . Com. Lewandowski made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Thomas and Deborah Polinski , 250 Navajo Trail , for a variance of the Fence Code , Sec. 15. 20.040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a wood stockade fence , that will extend past the building line at the corner of Navajo Trail and Forest Place. Said fence to come no closer than 10 feet to the sidewalk, tapering from 6 feet in height , at the building line , to 5 feet in height , within the first 4 feet . Unique circumstances having been evidenced , the fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Paul seconded the motion. Mr . Dempsey commented that he had visited the site , and observed that the posts on the existing fence are on the outside of Mr . Polinski ' s property. The Fence Code requires that the posts to be on the inside of the owner 's property. Com. Lewandowski amended his motion to include the condition that the fence posts are to be on the inside of the petitioner ' s property. Com. Paul seconded the amendment . Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Paul , Lewandowski , Fields and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days. • VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS Ch. Heinrich announced that the Village Board has referred a zoning text amendment to the ZBA for a public hearing. Mr . Dempsey distributed copies of a proposed zoning ordinance text amendment to Section 17 . 52.050.A. (Attached. ) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS • July 17 , 1990 - Page Nine Trustee Mathias explained that the purpose of the amendment is to give the Village Board of Trustees the authority to grant variances of up to 50% of the required distance between a principal building and an accessory building. The current ordinance, gives the ZBA variance power of 33-1/3 per cent . A resident has requested a variance of Section. 17 .52.050 A. for the purpose of constructing an addition, for his disabled wife, that would leave 5 feet between the house and the garage. The Zoning Board and the Village only have the authority to grant a variance of 33-1/3%. of the required 10 foot distance. If the text amendment is adopted, the ZBA would make. a recommenda- tion to the Village Board for a variance by ordinance. Trustee Mathias asked the ZBA Commissioners if they wanted to limit the public hearing discussion to the one specific section, or to consider making the same amendment to all 6 sub-sections of the ordinance? - The amount is to be limited to 50% because the Corporate Authorities do not have the time to adequately make a determination, if a large number of similar petitions are submitted. After discussion, it was decided to hold a Special Public Hearing at 7 : 30 P.M. on Tuesday, August 21 , 1990, before the regular ZBA meeting scheduled at 8:00 P.M. The ZBA Commissioners also agreed, after discussion, to limit the L, text amendment to the one sub-section that is pertinent to the specific request , because if the entire section is opened up, there could be a great number of requests for larger additions to the rear of the house , etc. -- Mr . Dempsey commented that the Village Board does not want to hear a large number of zoning recommendations for ordinance changes. The public hearing notice will have to be published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 19 , 1990 Com. Lewandowski noted slight typo errors on pages 6 , 8 & 11 . Com. Fields made a motion to approve the minutes of June 19 , 1990 as amended. Com. Entman seconded the motion. The minutes of, June 19 , 1990 were approved as amended and will be placed on file. • VII . ADJOURNMENT Com. Paul made a motion to adjourn: Com. Lewandowski seconded. Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 9 : 35 F.M. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Bate , _ Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS sb July 17 , 1990 - Page Ten