Members of the City of Park Ridge Zoning Board of Appeals met Thursday, June 23.
"A seven-member board, appointed for overlapping terms of five years. Its responsibilities include hearing requests for variations and interpretations to the Zoning Ordinance. The ZBA has authority to approve certain variances in cases of hardship (authorized variance), while others must be approved by the City Council, after a recommended by the ZBA (unauthorized variance)."
Here are the meeting minutes as provided by the City of Park Ridge Zoning Board of Appeals:
CITY OF PARK RIDGE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
505 BUTLER PLACE
PARK RIDGE, IL 60068
THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2016 AT 7:30 PM
Commissioner Karkhanis called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.
I. Roll Call
Present
Garrick Bunting
Atul Karkhanis, Chairman
Missy Langan
Steven Nadler
Linda Nagle
Steve Schilling
Absent
Rebecca Leslie
City Council
Alderman John Moran
Staff
Howard Coppari, Zoning Coordinator
Brigid Madden, Administrative Assistant
Others Present
4 audience members
II. Approval of Minutes – May 26, 2016
Commissioner Nagle requested clarification on page two, third paragraph, line three, which read “encashment area,” and suggested that it just say “area.” Commissioner Bunting explained that a “catchment area” is an area that drains to a single sewer.
Commissioner Nadler distributed a revised copy of the Findings of Facts. He reviewed the changes and explained that the corrections clarify the intent of what the Board voted on. His suggested changes will be implemented in the final copy of the Findings of Fact for the case at 197 W Kathleen Drive.
On a motion by Commissioner Bunting, seconded by Commissioner Langan, the Board agreed to approve the minutes, subject to clarifications and corrections, from the May 26, 2016 meeting.
Vote on the motion as follows:
AYES 6 Chairman Karkhanis, Commissioners Bunting, Langan,
Nadler, Nagle and Schilling
NAYS 0 None
ABSTAIN 0 None
ABSENT 1 Commissioner Leslie
III. Appeals - None
IV. Variances
1. Variance at 1200 Elm Street - Case Number: V-16-07 (Major)
A. Per section 11.4.E.2.b.iii, the installation of a 10’ tall gray sound barrier fence of low density polyethylene material, which would run along the Union Pacific Railroad’s right-of-way and flare out at 10’ in length along North Delphia Avenue and North Green Wood Avenue.
B. Per section 11.4.E.6.d, the installation of a low density polyethylene sound barrier fence is not an allowed “type of fence material” in Park Ridge.
C. Per section 11.4.E.2.b, the installation of a 10’ tall gray sound barrier fence of linear low density polyethylene material, which would run along North Delphia Avenue for 10’ in length.
D. Per section 11.4.E.2.a, the installation of a 10’ tall gray sound barrier fence of linear low density polyethylene material, which would run along North Greenwood Avenue for 10’ in length and transition into a 5’ ornamental aluminum fence for the remainder of the lot length on North Greenwood Avenue.
Barry Ash of Ash, Anos, Freedman and Logan, LLC, 77 W Washington Street in Chicago is the attorney for the applicant, Park Ridge Pointe, LLC. Also present were Karl Krogstad from Krogstad Land Design Limited, 219 Pembrook Court in Crystal Lake and John Agenlian from Lexington Homes, 1731 N Marcey Street in Chicago. Chairman Karkhanis swore in Mr. Krogstad and Mr. Agenlian.
Mr. Ash explained that the applicant petitioned the City for a zoning map amendment to rezone the property from R2 to R4 to accommodate a 25 unit townhome development. He stated that the requested fences were made evident to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council at the time of the map amendment.
Mr. Krogstad explained the property runs along the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, which are elevated approximately 3 feet above the applicant’s property line, not including the height of the rails. He stated that the proposed ten foot fence along the tracks would provide a sound and visual barrier for the residents. The fence would be constructed from a polyethylene product with the appearance of concrete which Lexington Homes has used at different sites.
Mr. Krogstad provided a sample of the product. He stated that the view of the fence would be appealing to the commercial properties to the north. Landscaping will also be utilized along the fence. Mr. Krogstad acknowledged that a seven foot fence is permitted along the railroad tracks but stated that the applicant is requesting the additional height to accommodate the height of the tracks above the subject property.
Mr. Krogstad reviewed the three remaining variance requests. The second variance would allow for the fence to be constructed of a nonstandard material. He explained that the materials allowed in the Zoning Ordinance do not provide sound protection. The polyethylene material is approved by IDOT for highway use and will provide additional sound protection. The product is also maintenance free.
The third variance would allow the ten foot fence to wrap around the corner at Delphia Avenue. Mr. Krogstad explained that the ten foot return at each corner would add additional protection to the residents especially from train headlights and it would also be more aesthetically appropriate to not end the ten foot fence at the corner.
Mr. Krogstad explained that the ten foot fence would also wrap the corner at Greenwood Avenue. The forth variance would allow this return as well as a five foot ornamental aluminum fence the remainder of the lot length on Greenwood Avenue. Mr. Krogstad explained that the City’s Zoning Ordinance defines a property’s font yard to be the side with the shortest frontage. By that definition, the front yard of the subject property is along Greenwood Avenue. Mr. Krogstad stated that it would not be advantageous to utilize Greenwood Avenue as the front yard and instead the property’s entrance is on Elm Street.
Constructing the fence along the property line will allow for a turn-around at the end of the parking as well as accommodate the detention pond. Mr. Krogstad indicated that a chainlink fence was in place along the property line when the subject property was owned by the City and used as its Public Works Service Center. This fence will be a five foot tall, black, ornamental aluminum fence. Mr. Krogstad provided a sample. Mr. Ash reviewed the criteria for variance.
Commissioner Bunting viewed the sample of the polyethylene material and asked if it was a sound absorbing material or reflecting. It is sound reflecting.
Commissioner Nadler asked if the material has a STC or NRC rating. Mr. Agenlian explained that the fence material is composite PVC. It is not sound absorbent and does not have an STC rating. Mr. Agenlian explained that it is an alternative to using a board on board wood fence. He stated that this material has a 30 to 50 year warranty and is a superior product.
Chairman Karkhanis requested clarification on the sound benefits of the product, as Mr. Agenlian had stated that it is not sound absorbing, but previous testimony indicated that it was. Mr. Agenlian explained that the fence will be a sound and safety barrier, creating a sense of separation from the railroad tracks.
Commissioner Nadler asked if the applicant has documentation of the material’s sound reflecting quality. He also inquired as to whether there were any additional benefits besides material’s warranty and lack of maintenance. Mr. Agenlian explained that a sound study was not preformed but it is as much of a sound barrier as a wood fence.
Commissioner Bunting asked if the fence would be at grade or if it would have a reveal at the bottom. He expressed concern with the grade sloping toward the subject property. Mr. Agenlian explained that the bottom of the fence would be at least two inches above grade, as to not block any drainage from the elevated railroad tracks. He stated that the intent is for the top of the fence to be level and straight.
Chairman Karkhanis entered the grading plan into the record as Exhibit 13 and the full scale survey as Exhibit 14.
Mr. Agenlian explained that the plans demonstrate the relationship of the railroad tracks to the property, specifically that the tracks are higher than the property.
Chairman Karkhanis explained that the grade of the subject property changes throughout the length of the railroad tracks. He asked how the applicant was measuring the ten foot height of the fence. Mr. Agenlian stated that the fence would be no more than ten feet from the existing grade at the property line and would be stepped if necessary. Chairman Karkhanis asked for clarification because it was previously stated that the top of the fence would be straight and even. Mr. Agenlian explained that if the west side of the property is two feet higher than the east, the fence will be “stepping.”
Commissioner Nadler inquired about the height of the townhome buildings. Mr. Agenlian stated that they will be three stories. Commissioner Nadler stated that because the living quarters are located above the fence line, whether the fence is seven feet or ten feet, it will not accomplish the goal of blocking noise from the tracks. Mr. Agenlian explained that the benefit to the fence would be at the ground level.
Commissioner Nagle followed up on the discussion of sound reflection. She stated that noise from the train would still affect Greenwood Avenue and perhaps the material should continue around the entire property. She also stated that she finds the material to be unattractive. Mr. Agenlian explained that the fence creates a sense of separation from the railroad and continuing the fence along Greenwood Avenue would close off the property and the smaller, ornamental fence will tie the development in with the community.
Commissioner Nadler asked if the material was used anywhere else in Park Ridge. Mr. Agenlian is not aware of any sites in the City but stated that Lexington Homes has used it for other projects.
Commissioner Nadler explained that many homes in Park Ridge have a front yard which functions as the side yard. He does not find it to be a unique situation and would like to see the fence along Greenwood in line with the building.
Mr. Krogstad explained that applicant is trying to create a gated community but having the fence in line with the building will interfere with a turnaround for parking as well as the detention area. He stated that it would be difficult to orient the property to Greenwood Avenue. The zoning regulations define Greenwood Avenue as the front yard but base on land use, the front yard of the property will face Elm Street.
Commissioner Bunting asked how far the front yard fence would be from the sidewalk. Mr. Krogstad responded and stated that it would be setback approximately 20 feet, approximately six inches from the property line.
Mr. Agenlian explained that the ornamental fence is intended to add a hardscape and character to the area.
Sylvia Jewgieniew, 417 N Lincoln Avenue, was sworn in by Chairman Karkhanis. She asked for clarification on the variance requests. Mr. Krogstad explained that the fence along the railroad tracks will span from property line to property line, plus the ten foot return on each corner. Ms. Jewgieniew asked whether the fence would close Delphia Avenue. Mr. Krogstad stated that it would not.
On a motion by Commissioner Nagle, seconded by Commissioner Langan, the Board agreed to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schilling researched transit noise and federal guidelines. He noted a line of site issue and explained that a barrier should be erected between where the noise is created and the person hearing it. He explained that because the living areas are on the second and third floor, the fence will not be effective at seven feet or ten feet. The train locomotive s the main source of noise; its blowers and exhaust are located at the very top. Due to line of site, Commissioner Schilling indicated that the fence have little or no affect as sound barrier. He stated that he is in favor of the proposed fence material as well as the ornamental fence along Greenwood Avenue.
Commissioner Langan thanked Commissioner Schilling for the clarity he provided on the sound barrier. She agreed that the fence should be seven feet along the railroad tracks. She does not agree with the fence in the front yard. Commissioner Langan stated that the applicant does not have a genuine hardship and the fence is merely for aesthetics. She does not have a problem with the material and finds that it would be less intrusive at seven feet than it would be at ten feet.
Chairman Karkhanis did not oppose to the height of the fence. He explained that he does, however, have concerns with the fence returns.
Commissioner Nadler agreed that the fence should not exceed seven feet. He stated that allowing the ten foot fence would be precedent setting. He is not opposed to the material, and suggested transiting the fence to five feet at the corners. Commissioner Nadler explained that he does have a concern with a fence in the front yard at Greenwood Avenue.
Commissioner Nagle stated that she would like to see more data on how effective the fence material is compared to the conventional materials. She indicated that she is not opposed to the height of the fence. She explained that she does not find the fence material to be attractive and noted other residential properties that back up to the railroad tracks that have used conventional fence materials.
Commissioner Bunting explained that he does not have a concern with the request for ten feet on the fence height due to the fact that the tracks are elevated two to three feet above grade. He stated that based on Commissioner Nagle’s comments regarding the material, he has not decided on his stance on that request. Commissioner Bunting explained that he did not think the request for the front yard fence would create a precedent. The subject property is unique because it is a 25 unit townhome development and zoned R4. He stated that he is in support of the front yard fence. Chairman Karkhanis questioned why he found it to be a unique situation. Commissioner Bunting explained that the size of the property and its location bordering three different rights of way, plus a railroad right of way, make it more unique.
Chairman Karkhanis stated that the proposed material is not attractive. He does not support the return of the fence along Delphia Avenue and Greenwood Avenue. The corner house on Delphia Avenue will look directly at the 10’ x 10’ panel of fencing. He is not opposed to the ornamental fence on Greenwood Avenue.
Chairman Karkhanis allowed the applicant to address the Board’s concerns. Mr. Agenlian explained that the property is unique due to the rights of way on all four sides. The property backs up to the railroad tracks and borders Greenwood Avenue which is heavily trafficked.
He stated that the development will improve the corner and the property. Mr. Agenlian stressed again that the tracks are two to three feet higher than the property. He explained that the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is unfortunate, in that it defines Greenwood Avenue as the front yard. He stated that an ornamental fence of that height is appropriate for the area.
Mr. Agenlian stated that the applicant would be open to reducing the height of the returns, but noted that the product is only available in even number height increments - eight foot, ten foot or 12 foot. If the Board did not approve the additional height of the fence, the applicant would install a seven foot wood fence. He emphasized the sense of separation a ten foot fence would create for the residents.
Alderman Moran suggested that the Board vote on the variance for the product first. If that passes the Board could then address the height of the fence. On a motion by Commissioner Bunting, seconded by Commissioner Langan, the Board agreed to recommend approval for a variance, per section 11.4.E.6.d, that will allow for the installation of a low density polyethylene fence, which is not an allowed “type of fence material” in Park Ridge, at 1200 Elm Street, Case Number V-16-07 (Major).
Vote on the motion as follows:
AYES 5 Chairman Karkhanis, Commissioners Bunting, Langan
Nadler and Schilling
NAYS 1 Commissioner Nagle
ABSTAIN 0 None
ABSENT 1 Commissioner Leslie
Commissioner Bunting asked if there was a consensus to approve the height of the fence at ten feet. Chairman Karkhanis addressed his concerns with the returns. Mr. Agenlian proposed amending the request to an eight foot fence along the tracks and an eight foot return at each corner. He stated that if the Board felt strongly about the returns they could be eliminated but stressed that he felt very strongly about the fence along Greenwood Avenue.
On a motion by Commissioner Bunting, seconded by Commissioner Langan, the Board agreed to recommend approval for a variance, per section 11.4.E.2.b.iii, that will allow for the installation of an 8’ tall gray fence of low density polyethylene material, which would run along the Union Pacific Railroad’s right-of-way, at 1200 Elm Street, Case Number V-16-07 (Major).
Vote on the motion as follows:
AYES 4 Chairman Karkhanis, Commissioners Bunting, Nagle and Schilling
NAYS 2 Commissioner Langan and Nadler
ABSTAIN 0 None
ABSENT 1 Commissioner Leslie
On a motion by Commissioner Bunting, seconded by Commissioner Langan, the Board denied the request for a variance, per section 11.4.E.2.b, that would allow for the installation of a 8’ tall gray sound barrier fence of linear low density polyethylene material, which would run along North Delphia Avenue for 10’ in length, at 1200 Elm Street, Case Number V-16-07 (Major).
Vote on the motion as follows:
AYES 0 None
NAYS 6 Chairman Karkhanis, Commissioners Bunting, Langan,
ABSTAIN 0 None
ABSENT 1 Commissioner Leslie
On a motion by Commissioner Bunting, seconded by Commissioner Nagle, the Board agreed to recommend approval for a variance, per section 11.4.E.2.a, that will allow for the installation of a 5’ ornamental aluminum fence, black in color, to run from the north corner of the lot, along Greenwood Avenue, to the corner of the building as shown in Exhibit 10, at 1200 Elm Street, Case Number V-16-07 (Major).
Vote on the motion as follows:
AYES 4 Chairman Karkhanis, Commissioners Bunting, Nagle and Schilling
NAYS 2 Commissioner Langan and Nadler
ABSTAIN 0 None
ABSENT 1 Commissioner Leslie
V. Other Items for Discussion and Updates
Commissioner Nadler suggested moving the meeting time to 7:00pm. Alderman Moran indicated that he and Brigid Madden both attend the Youth Commission meetings which begin at 6:00pm the same night as the ZBA.
VI. Citizens Wishing to be Heard on Non-Agenda Items
VII. City Council Liaison Report
Alderman Moran explained the discussion at the last City Council meeting about permitting the final reading for a variance before the meeting minutes and findings of facts have been approved by the Board or Commission. The topic will be discussed at the next Procedures and Regulations Committee of the Whole meeting.
VIII. Adjournment
On a motion by Commissioner Bunting, seconded by Commissioner Nadler, the Board agreed to adjourn the meeting.
Vote on the motion as follows:
AYES 6 Chairman Karkhanis, Commissioners Bunting, Langan,
Nadler, Nagle and Schilling
NAYS 0 None
ABSTAIN 0 None
ABSENT 1 Commissioner Leslie
The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 PM.
These minutes are not a verbatim record of the meeting but a summary of the proceedings.
BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE CITY OF PARK RIDGE, ILLINOIS
In the Matter of )
) Case No. V-16-07
1200 Elm Street )
FINDINGS OF FACT
This matter having come before the Board for hearing at the request of Park Ridge Pointe, LLC, 1731 N Marcey Street, Suite 200, Chicago, for a Major Variance per section 11.4.E.6.d of the City of Park Ridge Zoning Ordinance that will allow for the installation of a low density polyethylene fence, which is not an allowed “type of fence material” in Park Ridge, per section 11.4.E.2.b.iii that will allow for the installation of a 8’ tall gray fence of low density polyethylene material, which would run along the Union Pacific Railroad’s right-of-way, and per section 11.4.E.2.a that will allow for the installation of a 5’ ornamental aluminum fence, black in color, to run from the north corner of the lot, along Greenwood Avenue, to the corner of the building as shown in Exhibit 10.
The Board having held a public hearing as required by law on June 23, 2016, and having heard evidence on the matter, based on the evidence presented, as reflected in the minutes of these proceedings, and for the reasons indicated in the minutes of this Board in this case.
The Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the following facts have been established:
1. The subject property is located next to the Union Pacific Railroad infrastructure and Greenwood Avenue, which are both heavily trafficked. The proposed eight foot (8’) polyethylene fence along the railroad tracks and the five foot (5’) ornamental aluminum fence along Greenwood Avenue will create a sense of separation and safety for residents.
Therefore, the application of the terms of this Zoning Ordinance would result in undue hardship.
2. The subject property is residential, zoned R4 Multifamily, and is surrounded on four sides by rights of way, three vehicular and one railroad.
Therefore, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.
3. The proposed fences will not alter the character of the area. The property will preserve the residential aspects of the surrounding area.
Therefore, the Variance would not have an adverse impact on the locality.
Therefore, the Board recommends that the City Council approve of the Variance, as amended,
Zoning Case Number V-16-07 A, B and D, on the terms and conditions set forth in the minutes of the meeting of June 23, 2016.
This matter having come before the Board for hearing at the request of Park Ridge Pointe, LLC, 1731 N Marcey Street, Suite 200, Chicago, for a Major Variance per section 11.4.E.2.b, that would allow for the installation of a 10’ tall gray sound barrier fence of linear low density polyethylene material, which would run along North Delphia Avenue for 10’ in length.
The Board having held a public hearing as required by law on June 23, 2016, and having heard evidence on the matter, based on the evidence presented, as reflected in the minutes of these proceedings, and for the reasons indicated in the minutes of this Board in this case.
The Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the following facts have been established:
1. The proposed ten foot (10’) tall polyethylene fence will not protect the living quarters of the townhome development from noise and light from railroad traffic, as they are located above the fence line.
Therefore, the application of the terms of this Zoning Ordinance would not result in undue hardship.
2. The proposed ten foot (10’) fence return along Delphia Avenue is too imposing on the neighboring homes.
Therefore, the Variance would have an adverse impact on the locality.
Therefore, the Board denied the Variance, Zoning Case Number V-16-07 C, on the terms and
conditions set forth in the minutes of the meeting of June 23, 2016.
____________ _________________________________
Date Atul Karkhanis, Chairman
Alerts Sign-up