North Cook News

The village of Glenview Zoning Board of Appeals met Feb. 6 to consider a privacy fence request.

Here are the meeting's minutes, as provided by the board:

"The Zoning Board of Appeals hears cases and holds public hearings regarding requested variations. Single-family residential variance decisions are final; commercial and multifamily residential variances must be approved by the Village Board of Trustees."

VILLAGE OF GLENVIEW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

February 6, 2017

M I N U T E S

Chairman Greco called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:05 PM.

1. ROLL CALL

Present: Chairman Greco, Commissioners Junia, Mullarkey, Perl, Siegel Also Present: Senior Planner Jeff Rogers Absent: Commissioner Jester

A quorum was present

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 16, 2017 Zoning Board meeting

Commissioner Perl motioned to approve as presented seconded by Commissioner Junia. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.

Commissioner Mullarkey abstained as she did not attend the January 16, 2017 meeting.

3. GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Rogers indicated that the agenda that was released to the commissioners indicated the date of the last meeting instead of today’s date. A new copy was distributed. The agenda with the correct date was posted on the website as well as on the door of Village Hall.

4. CALL OF CASES ON THE AGENDA

Chairman Greco announced the cases and advised the petitioners that this is a public hearing. All testimony is taken under oath and a variance is not a matter of right; the need must be proven. All six standards indicated on the application must be met and four positive votes from the Zoning Board are required in order to obtain approval of the variance request. If approval is given, the project must start within six months or the variance is rescinded. The Zoning Board can be petitioned for an extension if valid reasons are presented.

Petitioners can assume that the Commissioner s reviewed all material and visited the site. After the case has been presented, the Zoning Board asks questions of the petitioner. Objectors or others are given an opportunity to speak and the petitioner will have an opportunity to respond. After the public comment period is closed, the case will be discussed and a decision will be made. If a case needs to be continued, generally it will be heard again by the Zoning Board at the next scheduled meeting. Any requested information should be submitted by the Monday preceding the hearing date. All attendees wishing to speak were sworn in as a group.

5. CONSENT AGENDA

Z2016-030, 1700 Milwaukee Ave – Howard Plaza, for various signs 7 Mr. Rogers said that a request has been made to continue this case to the February 20

th

Zoning Board meeting to allow the applicant time to submit new designs for review and comment by the Appearance Commission prior to presenting them to the Zoning Board.

Z2017-001, 3616 Lawson Road – Hertz/Akiens Residence for impervious lot coverage

Commissioner Mullarkey motioned to continue both cases on the consent agenda to the February 20, 2017 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Siegel.

6. OLD BUSINESS

Z2016-048, 2145 McArthur Drive – Estrada Residence

Request: Fence Height and Design

This case was published in the November 17, 2016 Glenview Announcements.

Mr. Rogers said the applicant in this case is asking for approval of a six foot privacy fence comprised of a five foot solid panel with a one foot 50% open panel on top to be installed along the west lot line at Shermer Road and McArthur Drive. The subject property is opposite Shermer Road from Belmont Village, the Ismaili House of Worship and the Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church. It has an extended frontage adjacent to those religious institutions and the entrance to Belmont village. Initially this case was on the December 5, 2016 Zoning Board meeting agenda, but the applicant was unable to attend. Various exhibits were shown.

Applicant Thomas Estrada, 2145 MacArthur Drive, came forward. He said his property currently has a six foot wood fence on the west side, a five foot fence on the south side, and a four foot fence on the north side. He is concerned that his children can jump over a required four foot fence on Shermer Road due to the traffic.

Chairman Greco noted that the sidewalk along Shermer Road is 1.5’ to 2’ higher than the subject property, so a four foot fence would appear lower. The Zoning Board understands that the homeowners have young children, but the Board must consider future owners so they focus only on the property.

Commissioner Siegel preferred a five foot fence on the north side rather than a six foot fence to have continuity along the street, but she acknowledged that only the first ten feet of fence requires a variance.

Mr. Rogers indicated that the applicant has a six foot fence along the east lot line and would like to have a five foot solid fence with one foot 50% open panel on top along Shermer Road up to the corner. He asked Mr. Estrada to clarify the intent for the fence height from Shermer Road to the corner of the house, that is, would it be four feet, five feet or a combination of the two heights.

Mr. Estrada did not object to a fence height that is four foot plus one foot design fence as indicated since the grade is only one foot lower.

Mr. Estrada confirmed for Commissioner Perl that the proposed fencing would be made of PVC material and the design would look like the exhibit except it would be a tan color rather than white.

Commissioner Siegel prefers a four foot straight up fence on the north side rather than a four foot plus one design as discussed in order to have continuity along the street, but she was willing to be flexible.

Commissioner Mullarkey felt the four plus one fence on the north side was reasonable because there is a lot of existing landscaping at the corner. Mr. Estrada confirmed that none of the landscaping would change. Commissioner Mullarkey felt this would help to mitigate the impact to the street.

When Commissioner Siegel visited the property, she saw the shape and location of the existing fence along Shermer Road and the impact of the low sidewalk level.

Chairman Greco summarized that the Zoning Board is considering a five foot solid vinyl, tan colored fence with a one foot 50% open panel with vertical spindles along Shermer Road. The fence along McArthur (north side) would be the same material and design, but at a height of four feet with a one foot open panel on top.

No one from the audience came forward to speak to this petition.

Based upon findings evidenced through testimony, discussion, and the petitioner’s application materials which demonstrate compliance with Chapter 98, Article II, Section 98-47(c) of the Municipal Code;

Commissioner Mullarkey moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a Variation in the case of Z2016-048, 2145 McArthur Drive, for the applicant, Tomas Estrada, from the provisions of Sections 98-105(b)(6) and 98- 213(b)(2) of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow the installation of a solid privacy fence in a side yard (west) setback abutting a street at a height of 6.00 feet (comprised of a 5.0 foot tall solid panel and a 1.0 foot tall open picket accent atop the panel) and a 5.0 foot tall fence on the north end (comprised of a 4.0 foot tall solid panel and 1.0 foot open picket accent atop the panel) instead of a fifty-percent (50%) open fence at a maximum height of 4.00 feet, both as allowed and required by said ordinance, provided that the proposed fencing be in substantial accordance with the plans and drawings as amended and consistent with the testimony and discussion provided during consideration of the petition.

Commissioner Perl seconded the motion.

On Roll Call: Ayes: Commissioners Junia, Mullarkey, Perl, Siegel Nays: None Absent: Commissioner Jester The motion carried

7. NEW BUSINESS

Z2017-003, 4136 Hampton Court, WK Building

Request: Front Yard (south) Setback

This case was published in the January 19, 2017 Glenview Announcements.

Mr. Rogers stated that the applicant requested a front yard south setback zoning variation for an undeveloped lot near the west end of Hampton Court. He recently acquired four lots at the end of the subdivision and wants to develop them. Through the design process the applicant identified an issue with the subject site that could be rectified with a zoning variation and subsequently allow the development of the remaining four lots. Various exhibits of the existing and proposed conditions under discussion were shown.

Mr. Rogers said the primary issue in the case is how the front yard setback is interpreted once 50% of the block has been improved, which occurred a few years ago when the house at 4130 Hampton Court was constructed. The infill front yard setback requirements must now be applied rather than those that are applicable to new subdivisions. When the 4130 Hampton Court home was developed on the north side of the street, a minimum 30 foot front yard setback is now required. Of the last four houses that were built, only one was built at a front setback much greater than 30 feet. With 50% of the block frontage improved, the next lot to be developed must match the two adjacent buildings, however there is only one building since the lot to the west is vacant. The home with the biggest setback skewed the average of 30 feet to a required setback of 37.88 feet.

The applicant wants to construct a two-story residence at a front yard setback of 30 feet. Mr. Rogers said the front yard setback was calculated with the setback of the house two doors down on the east which had a greater setback due to its increased lot depth. Typically this condition of the ordinance could be remedied with a zoning variation. If approved, a future residence constructed west of the subject property would match the 30 foot setback of the property at the corner. On the south side of Hampton Court, the applicant is not as limited because most of the homes have 30 foot front yard setbacks. The next home built on the south side would be required to match the average 30 foot front yard setback. The house on the corner would match the house adjacent to it and therefore have a required 30 foot front yard setback. If the variance is granted, the applicant would have the ability to develop the four remaining lots.

Comments in the Staff Report indicate that the applicant has been asked to widen the driveway to make sure that a car could get in and out of the third bay, whether or not a car was parked in the second bay. This would slightly increase the impervious lot coverage, but there is sufficient square footage to accommodate this driveway change. The driveway width would be allowed up to 24 feet at the sidewalk.

In response to Chairman Greco, Mr. Rogers clarified that the word “bloc” used in this comments referred to both the north side and the south side. Because the right of way dedication continues throughout the subdivision, blocks are considered separately. Chairman Greco noted that all the homes on both blocks have 30 foot front yard setbacks with the exception of one home.

Mr. Ken Struck, WK Building development, Schaumberg, came forward. He agreed with Mr. Rogers’ summary of the case and also confirmed that the driveway width requested by the Village would be accommodated.

Commissioner Perl saw a potential hardship in that the subject lot is only 102 feet deep. Going back further than 30 feet would create issues with the rear yard setback and the maximum yard requirements.

Chairman Greco noticed the lot depth as well as the commercial/industrial property directly to the north when he visited the property. Moving the house back would not be conducive to having a nice house or being able to enjoy the backyard and there is also a very tall mobile antenna east of the subject property. He felt the standards of the ordinance have been met.

No one from the audience came forward to speak to this petition.

Based upon findings evidenced through testimony, discussion, and the petitioner’s application materials which demonstrate compliance with Chapter 98, Article II, Section 98-47(c) of the Municipal Code;

Commissioner Siegel moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a Variation in the case of Z2017-003, 4136 Hampton Court, for the applicant, W.K. Building & Development Inc., represented by Ken Struck, from the provisions of Section 98-104(b)(5) of the Glenview Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a new single-family detached residence at a front yard (south) setback of 30.00 feet instead of a minimum front yard (south) setback of 37.88 feet, as allowed and required by said ordinance, provided that the residence be in

substantial accordance with the plans and drawings as submitted and consistent with the testimony and discussion provided during consideration of the petition.

Commissioner Mullarkey seconded the motion.

On Roll Call: Ayes: Commissioners Mullarkey, Perl, Siegel, Junia Nays: None Absent: Commissioner Jester The motion carried

8. OTHER BUSINESS: None.

9. ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Greco adjourned the meeting at 7:34 PM.