Loading...
O-46-02 07/08/02ORDINANCE NO. 0-46-o AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION OF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FENCE AT 1034 CHEROKEE PLACE, LEMONT, ILLINOIS (Camer Property) ADOPTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF LEMONT This 8th day of July, 2002. Published in pamphlet form by authority of the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Lemont, Cook, DuPage, and Will Counties, Illinois this 8th day of July, 2002. ORDINANCE NO. 0 -'bra o A, AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION OF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FENCE AT 1034 CHEROKEE PLACE, LEMONT, ILLINOIS (Camer Property) WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Nathan and Lauren Camer, in connection with a Request for Variation for the property legally described in Exhibit "A" and located at 1034 Cherokee Place in Lemont, Illinois; and WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking relief to the Lemont Zoning Ordinance to allow a variation in the maximum height of a fence, pursuant to Section XIV.D.3. of the Lemont Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Lemont, Illinois, in accordance with said Zoning Ordinance, conducted Public Hearings on the petition on June 4th and 18"' , 2002; and WHEREAS, a notice of the aforesaid Public Hearing was made in the manner provided by law and was published in the Lemont Reporter/Met Newspaper, a newspaper of general circulation within the Village; and WHEREAS, the Lemont Zoning Board of Appeals has recommended approval of the variation to the Village Board; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village have determined that the best interest of the Village will be served by the approval of this petition granting variation for the subject property. NOW, 'THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Lemont, that the petitioners, Nathan and Lauren Camer, be granted a variation on the maximum height of a fence to allow the construction of an 8' fence subject to the following conditions: 1. The height variation is only applicable to the rear yard of the property. 2. The fence will be seven feet (7') tall with4one foot (1') of lattice as shown in the attached photograph. 4 m r i,mo; m® a rn i n i m u ,m c( c.) 3. The fence at 1034 Cherokee Place will not be constructed until similar approval is granted to 1030 and 1032 Cherokee Place. 4. 1030, 1032, and 1034 Cherokee Place will all construct the identical fence, both in material and color, and will do so at the same time, else the variation is null and void. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF lH.E VILLAGE OF LEMONT, COUNTY OF COOK, ILLINOIS, on this 8th day of July, 2002. John Benik Deborah Blatzer Peter Coules Connie Markiewicz Steven Rosendahl Jeanette Virgilio AYES NAYS PASSED ABSENT f Approved by me this 8th day of July, 2002. Attest: v HARLENE SMOLLEN, Village Clerk x,wp,«,SIE.u.AGEERC„s oroRDmANcu WPD 3 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1034 CHEROKEE PLACE LOT 2 IN BLOCK 1 IN KEEPOTAW HEIGHTS, UNIT NUMBER 1, ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF LEMONT, A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JANUARY 3, 1956 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 16458646, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 4 June 4, 2002 ZBA Meeting Minutes B. A motion was made by Mr. Schubert and seconded by Mr. Stapleton to open the Public Hearing case number 22.10 Request for a fence variation at 1034 Cherokee Place. Motion carried 6 -0 by voice vote. Mr. Teddy said that the petition is a zoning variation request by Nathan and Lauren Camer to raise the fence height from six feet to eight feet for a portion of fence that abuts Lemon Tree. Mr. Teddy said that staff does not see a unique case for a standard of variation and if approved, would be hard pressed to deny other similar requests. There is no landscaping in Lemon Tree's 35 foot parking lot buffer area. Petitioner Nathan Camer said that he, his wife and child are new residents to Lemont and they have had unforeseen problems with the fence. The grade goes down for runoff and they are able to see Lemon Tree, Amoco and the shopping center. Lights shine into their house and there is noise from the traffic on State Street, the drive -thru and events at Lemon Tree. They can see Lemon Tree's garbage dumpster and rodents and can hear vulgarity from the bowling alley. Mr. Camer said that people would open their gate and walk through their yard, so they have since put a lock on it. A two -foot variance will just block out the light and noise. Mr. Camer said that it would be an on -board face cedar fence across the rear lot line. The fence will look better than the existing fence and will give them more privacy. Mr. Stapleton said that all the conditions Mr. Camer described were existing. Mr. Camer said that they did not realize how bad they were, especially the noise at night. Mr. Stapleton said that the neighbors have a picket fence and a cyclone fence. Mr. Camer said that they would like to change their fences. Mr. Stapleton asked if an eight -foot fence variance has been granted anywhere else in Lemont. Mr. Teddy said that he went through the fence variances of the last 12 years and none granted were for height. Mr. Stapleton said that the garage and three trees block a lot of the view and he does not think the request meets the three standards for a variance. Mr. Teddy read the three standards for a variance: 1. The property cannot yield a reasonable return under the conditions imposed by the ordinance. 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. 3. The variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Mr. Camer said that Ms. Dudek said they had a good chance and she believed they met the three criteria. Mr. Camer said that there is a grade difference on the property. They don't like the existing bushes and trees and are considering removing them. Mr. Erber asked if they have considered planting evergreens. Mr. Camer said that they have considered it, but would take a long time to grow. Mr. Camer said that there is a sewer problem on Cherokee Place and because of the grade and elevation of the property, everything falls to the corner of the house. Mr. Camer wouldn't want the tress to ruin the pipes and thinks the resale value of the house would be better with the eight -foot fence. Mr. Schubert said that the reasons given not very good. With a 12 foot fence, they would still have all of the stated problems. Mr. Schubert lived on State Street and had similar problems. The Commission is not big on fences to start with. The resident at 1033 Cherokee Place lives three houses from the corner, across the street from the petitioner. The resident directly across from her, and next to the petitioner, removed their attached garage and is building a new garage. With the garage down she can hear the noise from State Street more. She doesn't object to the fence 8 height and sees why the Camer's need it. The grade is a consideration and she knows about the noise. Mr. Camer said that the neighbors are willing to match the fence height for uniformity. Chairman Buettner asked about commercial screening for Lemon Tree. Mr. Teddy said that there is a 35 -foot setback, but no landscaping was shown on their approved plan. Mr. Teddy suggested pressuring Lemon Tree to put in landscaping, but can't require them to; however the dumpster is required to be enclosed. Mr. Camer said that he wouldn't want the plantings to affect the sewer and feels like he has a four -foot high fence because of the slope. Mr. Stapleton said that he took pictures and didn't see a problem. Mr. Camer said that the three neighbors to the north are interested and would all pull a permit. A fourth neighbor to the north is potentially interested and the neighbor on the corner is not interested. Ms. Murphy said that it doesn't look like a six -foot fence and she traditionally doesn't like unevenness. She can appreciate the noise and light concerns abutting commercial. Ms. Murphy likes the lattice look on top. If granted, the fence will be larger than anything else around. Mr. Camer said that the fence would be cedar and the neighbors agreed on uniformity, plus the fence wouldn't be seen from State Street. Mr. Teddy remembered an example of a fence height variance at Jewel because of the loading area abutting Emerald Acres. A resident said that Lemon Tree has two green unscreened dumpsters with the tops wide open. Jeanette Daubaras, of 13490 Derby Road, asked what is Lemon Tree zoned. Mr. Teddy said it is zoned B -3. Mr. Camer said that the drive -thru speaker was put in within the last 10 years. Ms. Daubaras said that there is an intense B use with a Special Use for a drive -thru abutting residential and the request is incumbent of the neighbors doing something. Mr. Schubert asked with the three interested neighbors, plus the one Mr. Camer is waiting for a response, how far north would the fence be. Mr. Camer said the fence would be past the bowling alley. Mr. Schubert suggested continuing the petition and granting the variances as a Special Use. Chairman Buettner said that he wants to stand in Mr. Camer's yard at night and during 9 the day. Mr. Teddy suggested granting a month continuance to give Mr. Camer time to get the neighbors together and have them give proper notice. A motion was made by Mr. Stapleton and seconded by Ms. Murphy to continue the Public Hearing to June 18, 2002. Motion carried 6 -0 by voice vote. AGENDA June 18 506 Illinois St. 1034 Cherokee Continued July 2 Jet Sonic at Archer & McCarthy Pending Klabacha Limestone PUD O'Malley Condos on Talcott Ave. A motion was made by Mr. Stapleton and seconded by Mr. Erber to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6 -0 by voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Lisa Friedley Recording Secretary 10 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ROUGH DRAFT JUNE 18, 2002 The meeting of the Lemont Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Lemont was held on Tuesday, June 18, 2002, at the Village Hall. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairman Buettner called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The following Commissioners were present: Kerry Erber, Clifford Miklos, Katherine Murphy, Jan Predey and Dennis Schubert. Ron Stapleton arrived at 7:12 p.m. The following staff was also present: Christina Anderson, Lisa Friedley and Tim Teddy. A motion was made by Mr. Schubert and seconded by Ms. Predey to approve the minutes from April 16, 2002, May 21, 2002 and June 4, 2002. Motion carried 6 -0 by roll call vote. Chairman Buettner swore in petitioners and audience members wishing to speak under oath. OLD BUSINESS B. A motion was made by Ms. Murphy and seconded by Mr. Miklos to hear the continued case number 22.10 Request for a fence variance at 1034 Cherokee Place first on the agenda. Motion carried 6 -0 by roll call vote. The case is continued from the June 4, 2002 meeting. Mr. Teddy said that he did not go on the property, but did an inspection from the street and adjacent commercial property. The petitioner is requesting a fence variance from six feet to eight feet to eliminate the line of site of things they find objectionable, such as Lemon Tree, Amoco and the bowling alley. The eight foot section of fence will only be erected along the rear, or west, property; the remaining sections of fence will be six feet. Mr. Teddy said that it is not a unique case, but the petitioner indicated that there is a downward slope to the rear of the property. There is no landscape screening on the adjacent commercial property. The petitioner commented that he may be able to get the neighbors interested in erecting a similar continuous fence. Mr. Erber said that he visited the property, and there is a slope, however he is concerned about setting a precedent and about the fence really resolving the noise issue. Mr. Erber thinks that bushes would be a better alternative and would look better aesthetically. Mr. Miklos said that he agreed with some of the things Mr. Erber said but understands that some of the neighbors are also interested in putting up an eight -foot fence. With uniformity across the back yards, Mr. Miklos would be in favor of the request. Ms. Murphy said that she is not normally in favor of fence variances but it is a unique case because there is no landscape buffer on the commercial property. There was previous discussion about the fences extending to the corner of bowling alley. From an aesthetic point of view from State Street, that would clean up the back yards and look better. Despite the fact that it may not block all the noise, it may offer a psychological barrier. Ms. Murphy would view the variance favorably with the condition that the neighbors build the same fence. Mr. Schubert said that he is concerned with setting a precedent. He looked over the fence from the backyard and could see the speaker at Lemon Tree. Mr. Schubert does not think the fence will take care of the noise and is not sure if it will extend all the way to the bowling alley. The commercial property was not required to put in landscaping at the time it was built. Mr. Schubert would be in favor of the variance if done with uniformity. (Mr. Stapleton arrived.) Ms. Predey agreed with Ms. Murphy and looked at the property from State Street. Ms. Predey said that a uniform fence would do nothing but enhance the area if everyone agrees to put in the same fence and maintain it. Mr. Stapleton said that he has the same concerns he expressed at the last meeting — that the request doesn't meet the three criteria for a variance and is concerned with setting a precedent. Mr. Stapleton said that because of a swale at the rear property line, the fence is lower than the rest of the property. Petitioner Lauren Camer said that her husband was unable to attend tonight's meeting. She believes that the fence will help with noise and will act as a psychological barrier. Ms. Camer is also worried about the aesthetic value of the property. Ms. Camer talked to her neighbors and both are present tonight. Werner Schulz, of 1032 Cherokee Place, said that he looks directly into Amoco and headlights swing into his property. Mr. Schultz said that two feet would help cut out the headlights. Ryan O'Cooley, of 1030 Cherokee Place, said that he has a degree in sound engineering and his chain Zink fence does nothing for sound absorption. A double -sided wood fence would create an air base and would make a huge difference. When his window is open, Mr. O'Cooley can hear drunk, noisy people from the bowling alley and can hear the speaker at Lemon Tree. The fence would greatly reduce the sound barrier. Lights from Amoco shine into his back window. 2 Regarding sound, Chairman Buettner asked Mr. O'Cooley to explain the difference between a six foot fence and an eight foot fence. Mr. O'Cooley said that frequency travels directionally from the source and out. When it hits the source it will refract up and then refract down, dispersing the sound, therefore the two feet will make a difference. Mr. O'Cooley constantly has to keep his blinds down to block the lights from Amoco and the Plaza. Mr. O'Cooley said that he would like an eight foot fence the same height, color and type as the petitioner. Chairman Buettner said that he lives at 1230 Arbor Drive, six houses west of State Street, and the first three townhomes in his subdivision look at Burger King, but they have landscaping, a detention pond and then a street in between. Chairman Buettner asked if this will set a precedent and answered that he is not sure - not everyone lives behind a bowling alley or a Lemon Tree that has a car event on Monday nights. Mr. Teddy said that the neighbors would have to give notice. Ms. Anderson said that a condition could be made that the fence at 1032 Cherokee couldn't be built until the other two are approved. Chairman Buettner suggested having all three requests come in, then take it to the Village Board with the type of cedar fence shown. Approval of 1032 Cherokee would be contingent upon the Board approving the other two fences before it could be built. Mr. Schubert asked about the cedar color. Ms. Camer said that it is stained cedar. Mr. Schubert asked if she will maintain the fence so it is adequately pleasing. Ms. Camer said yes. Ms. Murphy asked if it could be part of the ordinance that the fences have to be maintained the same color. Mr. Teddy said that the encumbrances would have to be weighed with that type of condition. Ms. Murphy said that State Street is a gateway through Lemont. Mr. Teddy said that it is a question of practicality; approval of a variance is a right, not an obligation. Ms. Camer said that she submitted two pictures for the ZBA to decide what to allow — a seven foot fence with a one foot lattice and an eight foot dog -eared fence. Ms. Camer said that the board on board is not available in an eight foot fence. A motion was made by Mr. Stapleton and seconded by Ms. Murphy to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 7 -0 by roll call vote. A motion was made by Ms. Murphy and seconded by Mr. Miklos to approve case number 22.10 Request for a fence variation at 1034 Cherokee Place, along with the following two Commission and staff recommendations: 1. Each property owner will do the same fence as shown - a seven foot fence with a one foot lattice and neutral stain. 2. The fence at 1034 Cherokee Place will not be constructed until same approvals are given to 1030 and 1032 Cherokee Place. 3 Motion carried 5 -2 by roll call vote. Mr. Erber voted no because he doesn't think a seven foot fence with a one foot lattice will make a difference and is concerned with setting a precedent. 4