Plan Commission
Village of Lombard
Meeting Minutes
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Rocco Melarkey |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
7:30 PM
Village Hall
Monday, February 21, 2005
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Stephen Flint, Commissioner |
Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner Ruth Sweetser and Commissioner Martin Burke |
Present:
Commissioner Sondra Zorn and Commissioner Rocco Melarkey
Absent:
The following staff member was present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner.
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda.
Public Hearings
There were no public hearings.
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 7:31 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the January 24, 2005 Plan Commission meeting were approved by |
unanimous consent of the Plan Commission. |
Public Participation
There was no public participation.
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County Hearings.
Chairperson's Report
The Chairperson deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
The Senior Planner had nothing to report.
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
050082
SUB 05-01: 15-115 East St. Charles Road (Hammerschmidt Commuter Parking |
Lot) |
Requests approval of a two-lot major plat of resubdivision. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the plat will |
subdivide the portion of the subject property which is currently Village owned but will be |
sold as part of a future redevelopment project from the portion intended to remain as |
part of the Hammerschmidt commuter lot. This division is considered a major plat of |
subdivision as it is greater than one acre in size. Therefore, it must be reviewed and |
approved by the Plan Commission and Board of Trustees. |
Referencing the inter-departmental review comments, Private Engineering Services |
(PES) notes that the Village Board granted a stormwater detention variation for the |
commuter lot. Any future development on the proposed Lot 1 would require stormwater |
detention improvements as required by Village Code, unless a variation is granted by |
the Village Board. |
He then noted that the Village Board approved a conditional use for a planned |
development with a deviation to allow an accessory use to be located within twenty (20) |
feet of the right-of-way of a public street, a deviation to reduce the required number of |
accessible parking spaces from five to zero and a variation to reduce the required |
amount of parking lot landscaping. The Ordinance also granted approval of conditional |
uses for a parking lot, an accessory building, and for a Farmers (French) Market. A new |
113-stall parking lot was constructed on the subject property during the Summer of |
2004. |
Subsequent to this approval, the Village also acquired title to the property at 11 and 19 |
E. St. Charles Road, which was improved with two one-story office buildings. The |
existing structures have since been razed. The Village is seeking a developer to |
redevelop the vacant land west of the parking lot as well as the 11-19 East St. Charles |
Road properties. |
The proposed Lot 1 will be made available for resale associated with an approved |
redevelopment project. Lot 2 will remain as a Village-owned municipal commuter lot. |
The proposed lots meet the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and Zoning |
Ordinance provisions. |
To facilitate efficient traffic circulation and flow for the eventual development on Lot 1, |
the plat includes cross-access and parking provisions. This easement will ultimately |
provide for fewer access curb cuts onto St. Charles Road and will allow the Lot 1 |
development to tie into the Lot 2 parking lot. Additionally, the easement will also provide |
for cross-park arrangements for five parking stalls located on the west side of the |
existing parking lot within the designated easement area. The parking agreement with |
Metra designates that 108 commuter parking spaces on the subject property - the |
reduction of five stalls from the overall existing supply of 113 parking stalls will be in |
keeping with the agreement. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan |
Commission. There were no comments by the members. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, |
that this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Flint, Olbrysh, Sweetser and Burke
4 -
Absent:
Zorn and Melarkey
2 -
Workshops
William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that staff is seeking comments from the Plan |
Commission with respect to a new St. John's Elementary School. He displayed |
elevations and site plans and presented the workshop. |
The proposed school would be located on the west side of Lincoln Avenue, south of |
Maple Street and north of Ash Street and will be the subject of a public hearing in the |
near future. The petitioner has requested the Plan Commission's comments as part of a |
workshop session so that their comments can be incorporated into their submittal. In |
consideration of the workshop, Legat Architects prepared a report for the |
Commissioners, including the primary elements they propose to include as part of their |
application for a public hearing as well as project/site history and existing and proposed |
site plans. |
Staff has suggested that a planned development should be created for all properties |
under St. John's ownership. Staff believes this approach, which was used for First |
Church of Lombard, Sacred Heart and Christ the King developments, is an appropriate |
way to address the unique attributes of multiple-use church/school facilities. Within the |
planned development parameters, the Plan Commission can relax the bulk standards of |
the Zoning Ordinance in favor of development of a better site and building design. The |
petition will also consider an amendment to previous conditional uses for the existing |
religious institution and parochial school. |
He then noted that staff has met with their development team and has previously |
identified several areas of consideration. |
1. Impact on Adjacent Properties/Neighborhood |
The subject properties are located within an established neighborhood. While the |
church and school has been located on their property for decades, the development of |
the new school on the other side of Lincoln constitutes a substantial change. To |
minimize impacts on adjacent residential properties, staff suggested that the proposed |
school be shifted away from the west side of the school property and toward Lincoln |
Avenue. Staff notes that locating the building up to the Lincoln Avenue right-of-way line |
will make the building much more prominent along Ash and Maple. In consideration of |
the setback relief, staff suggests that additional detail should be given to the east |
elevation of the school and that greater architectural treatments consisting of a masonry |
exterior to break up the building mass should be incorporated into the final elevations. |
Lincoln Avenue is currently improved with diagonal parking primarily used for school and |
church purposes. During school days, the right-of-way functions primarily to serve St. |
John's activities. With the expansion, both sides of the right-of-way would be owned |
and developed for St. John's uses. As the right-of-way is encumbered with existing |
Village public utilities and since there is a substantial distance between Elizabeth Street |
and Main Streets (the adjacent parallel rights-of-way), the Village would not want to |
vacate the right-of-way. However, as part of the development proposal staff will seek |
the input of the Village's traffic consultant, KLOA, regarding access, loading, trip |
generation and circulation. Ultimately, staff will want to ensure that the proposal will not |
negatively impact affect the neighborhood. |
The new school will be considered a new development and stormwater detention will |
need to be provided on the property. They are proposing to construct a vault system |
underneath the playground area and west of the proposed school. The concept plan |
conceptually meets the Village's Stormwater Ordinance requirements. |
4. Use of Existing School Building |
Should the school be developed, St. John's will move all of their schooling operations |
into their new building. The existing building will be used for ancillary activities (i.e., |
meeting space, offices, etc.). Staff recommends that the future uses of the existing |
school be specifically defined so that the full impacts of the new school can be |
measured on the overall campus as well as the neighborhood. Additionally, staff wants |
to ensure that additional activities in the existing school building are consistent with the |
overall intent of the planned development and that additional traffic impacts are |
addressed. |
Opening the discussion among the Commissioners, Commissioner Olbrysh stated that |
the building was attractive but large. He wondered why the existing school building will |
be used for office and meeting space if it is in fact functionally obsolete and asked if |
anything will be done to make it useable. Joe Jaroski, representative for the church, |
stated that the existing building contains the physical plant that heats the church, so it |
cannot be demolished. They have no plans to renovate the building because it would be |
cost prohibitive, but they will mothball it as much as possible. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked what the space will be used for. Mr. Jaroski answered |
that it would be mostly storage, with some portions used for offices. |
Commissioner Burke stated that he had no problem with the zero setback along Lincoln |
Avenue and that he feels the building is attractive. He indicated that since the Lincoln |
Avenue right-of-way sees very little non-school traffic, it may be worth exploring the |
possibility of vacating the right-of-way with an easement for the existing utilities. This |
allows the building to be pushed further east, away from the neighboring homes. He |
also said it would be helpful to know the comments that came out of the neighbors' |
meeting. |
Commissioner Flint noted that altering the site plan in that way would cause them to lose |
parking. Commissioner Burke noted that parking could be placed on the west side. |
Mr. Heniff stated that the Public Works Department would prefer to maintain ownership |
of the right-of-way. |
Commissioner Burke mentioned a change to more of a campus-type layout. He |
observed that the drive off Maple appears to be a delivery access drive that is only a few |
feet off the garage on the neighboring property. Mr. Jaroski stated that the drive would |
not be used for parking or long-term standing. |
Commissioner Burke recalled that in the recently approved Walgreens development |
deliveries were a major concern due to the proximity to the neighbor. Mr. Jaroski stated |
that he will bring that up at their next forum. He added that they had already had two |
meetings to educate the neighbors - one in November with conceptual plans, and one in |
February with elevations that received mixed reviews. There were no strenuous |
objections, though. |
Commissioner Burke asked if the neighbors had been notified of this workshop. Mr. |
Jaroski stated that they had not been told about the workshop, but they were informed |
about the upcoming March Plan Commission meeting. |
Commissioner Burke stated that reconfiguring the site could help the situation with the |
neighbors and improve emergency access, in addition to achieving a campus feel. |
Commissioner Flint asked if the project would be constructed in phases and if there |
were any plans for future additions or expansions. Mr. Jaroski stated that there would |
only be one phase. The current plans have three flex rooms to accommodate growth, |
but they do not have any expansion plans because they think they're at the right size |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that she was not sure about the parking being moved |
closer to the neighbors with a right-of-way vacation. With the exception of the access |
drive, there is no problem with the plans. The drive should be shielded with a fence |
and/or landscaping. She asked if the access drive could instead come off of Lincoln. |
Chairperson Ryan asked if deliveries would occur through the entry plaza. Mr. Jaroski |
stated that most deliveries would be hot lunches, which would come in near the kitchen |
area. |
Scott Czerkies of Legat Architects, architect for St. John's, stated that grade changes |
limit direct vehicle access off Lincoln. Deliveries would not be frequent, with one per day |
for hot lunches and one per week for trash pick-up. |
Chairperson Ryan had concerns regarding the fire truck turning radius. |
Commissioner Burke stated that he did not recall there being much of a grade issue on |
the property that would preclude the access drive coming off of Lincoln. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that masonry was always more attractive and added |
that it should maintain the two-color scheme. |
Commissioner Olbrysh stated that the building is very attractive and will go well in the |
neighborhood. |
Commissioner Burke stated that precast is much more cost effective and the section of |
masonry at the entrance will look nice without having masonry on the entire east side. |
Commission Flint suggested that banding could be added at the base of the building. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that she would like the church to work with Community |
Development to enhance the building. |
Mr. Czerkies estimated that it would cost an additional $700,000 to do the building |
entirely in masonry. Although only covering a portion of the building would cost less, if |
would still be over and beyond their current budget. |
Chairperson Ryan stated that they could minimize negative feelings from the neighbors |
without incurring prohibitive costs. He assumed the darker color on the elevations was |
masonry, which was pleasing to the eye. He suggested that they alter their color |
scheme as on the east side of the building, since the single color made the school |
appear like an office building. |
Commissioner Burke stated that the wall is a concern, as well as the lighting of the |
delivery area and the trash enclosure being located too close to the neighbors. Mr. |
Czerkies noted that a neighboring property owner had planted the trees at the edge of |
the property. The delivery area will be landscaped to screen it, possibly with evergreens |
or shrubbery. |
Chairperson Ryan noted that the plan only showed bushes along the property line where |
they usually talk about fencing. He stated that there should be some type of fence to |
both screen the area from the neighbors as well as provide screening and protection for |
children in the playground area. Commissioner Sweetser agreed that there should be |
fencing due to the safety issue. |
Highlands of Lombard/Amcore Bank Workshop |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, displayed elevations, site plans and presented the |
workshop. He stated that the subject property is the southern portion of the vacant lot |
along Highland Avenue, immediately north of the Pier One Center. This proposal |
includes a drive-through bank and a roughly 16,000 square foot strip retail building. |
The 5,505 sq. ft. bank on the eastern portion of the site will have 38 dedicated parking |
stalls, as well as five drive-up lanes that accommodate up to 22 vehicles. Drive-in and |
drive-through establishments are conditional uses within the B3 Community Shopping |
District. Amcore is requesting a freestanding sign to be installed at the existing curb cut |
on Highland Avenue. The retail building will have 61 parking stalls, permitting a |
maximum floor area of 15,250 square feet. It will be nearly identical to the dark brown |
Pier One portion of the existing retail center to the south. |
The petitioner has been working with staff to develop a proposal that will be compatible |
with the overall Highlands of Lombard Planned Development. The coloring of the bank |
building has been modified to better match existing buildings, and a drive aisle has been |
added south of the bank to create acceptable site circulation. A number of items still |
should be considered prior to a public hearing: |
To ensure the same ease of circulation achieved throughout the rest of the Highlands of |
Lombard, there should be a cross-access point with the Pier One Center. This issue |
would result in a modified plan and cross-access approvals would be required by the |
petitioner as well as the owner of the Pier One site. |
The site plan shows six parking stalls along the access drive. While staff does not |
prefer such an arrangement, the location of the lift station significantly constrains the |
site. Designating those six stalls for employee parking could reduce conflicts. |
The site plan shows a right-in, right-out pork chop at the entrance drive. This would |
require the existing curb cuts to be modified. Since there is a raised median that |
prevents traffic from turning left either into or out of the drive, the pork chop be replaced |
by a one-way sign in the median on Highland Avenue. |
The drive aisle on the southern side of the bank building will require the existing |
detention pond infrastructure (i.e., the well head and pump equipment) to be relocated. |
The encroachment of the drive aisle onto Lot 5 will require the approval of the Lot 5 |
owner as part of the petition. Staff suggests that prior to consideration of the plans by |
the Plan Commission that the revised engineering for Lot 5, as well as the area in which |
the proposed buildings are to be constructed, be submitted to the Village for |
consideration. |
3. Landscaping/Aesthetics |
Mr. Heniff noted other site plan modifications including a missing parking lot island |
immediately east of the retail building, trash enclosures should be integrated with their |
respective buildings and thoroughly screened, a landscape plan will also need to be |
submitted showing compatibility with the overall planned development, and the planned |
development requirements establish and encourage the use of up-lighting, paver bricks |
for sidewalks and uniform parking lot lighting. |
Freestanding signage is subject to site plan review by the Plan Commission. Past |
approvals were granted for the City View sign, the Great Indoors sign, and the Great |
Indoors "Indoor Parking" signs. Per the Highlands of Lombard development agreement, |
freestanding signs must be compatible with the existing City View and the Great Indoors |
signs, especially with regard to the stone sign supports. |
Mr. Heniff noted that for any site plan approval application, the petitioner must provide a |
statement of compatibility explaining how the proposed building fits into the overall |
design objectives of the planned development. Staff does have a concern with the |
proposed elevations of the bank building as well as many of the key design components |
which are dissimilar to the buildings and structures within the development. Of particular |
note, the planned development is characterized by the following design features such as |
varying brick massing consisting of differing masonry colors, decreased prominence of |
roof elements in favor of parapet walls; and textured watercourse block/brick at the |
building base. |
The proposed retail center will be nearly as long as the entire Pier One Center building. |
As such, the façade should reflect the vertical bands of contrasting colors that are found |
on every other building within the development. Special consideration must be given to |
the design of the rear of the retail center, which will be facing The Great Indoors along |
the development's central access drive. Staff notes that the Plan Commissioners |
identified this issue as a critical item in their consideration of the Pier One building. |
6. Conditional Use for the Drive-Through Facility |
He noted that staff's initial concern with the proposed five drive-through lanes is that it |
compromises the overall parking and access layout around the site. The plan results in |
an awkward configuration of drive lanes and parking stalls west of the site. A possible |
remedy would be to decrease the number of lanes to four, and shift the drive aisle and |
landscape island to the east and shift the parking stalls currently shown on the west side |
of the drive aisle accordingly. |
As with all developments within the Highlands of Lombard planned development, a peak |
hour trip generation analysis will need to be performed and the trip generation will be |
drawn down from the available trip back. The traffic analysis will also need to address |
access and flow around the site. |
Opening the discussion among the Commissioners, Commissioner Burke stated that the |
traffic flow is odd and a little bit confusing. He stated that the drive on the side of the |
bank would be better off as green space, since it would only convenience 13 vehicles. |
Chairperson Ryan noted that the drive created a conflict with the first drive-through lane, |
which could be dangerous. |
Chairperson Ryan stated that there should be access to the Pier One center. |
Commissioner Olbrysh noted that the Highlands of Lombard development is very unique |
in that there must be compatibility with all of the existing buildings. They would not want |
a blank wall on the west or south side of the retail building and would need a four-sided |
building. |
Commissioner Flint observed that the roof element on the bank is much more prominent |
than the roofs of the existing buildings. It should create some degree of verticality and |
pick up the motifs and accents found throughout the Highlands of Lombard. A |
representative from Amcore Bank stated that the cupola allows natural light into the |
bank and does not contain any mechanicals. The building is heated with residential |
furnaces. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked how we could get more verticality. Mr. Heniff suggested |
that there could be parapets in lieu of the EIFS. Commissioner Sweetser stated that we |
should respect the building that was presented because they do not want to create |
something that looks odd. The representative from Amcore stated that the bank has |
many horizontal lines with the banding and fascia. They could create verticality, but it |
would be difficult with the roof because it is so prominent. He also noted that they would |
work with staff to address their concerns. |
Chairperson Ryan stated that they wished to keep some elements of similarity within the |
Highlands of Lombard. With the plans presented, it is difficult to visualize the |
development as a whole. |
Commissioner Sweetser reiterated that the traffic configuration is really odd. Larry Debb |
of GVA Williams, property owner and co-representative, stated that the southern drive is |
not necessary because cars can turn around in the drive aisle of the front lot. He stated |
that Inland, which owns the Pier One center, was concerned with cut-through traffic. He |
believes that the actual flow works pretty well. He added that the retail building will have |
spandrel glass in the back and the same brick on all four sides of the building. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that the traffic volume will be important. |
17th & Main Subdivision Workshop |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, reintroduced a proposal for a new single family |
development to be located at 17th and Main Streets. He noted that at the November 21, |
2004 Plan Commission Workshop Session, staff presented the proposal. In |
consideration of the Commissioner's comments at that meeting, the developer has |
modified the plan. He is now requesting input of the Commissioners as to whether the |
modified plan more closely reflects their wishes. |
He then summarized the proposal. The petitioner intends to acquire four unincorporated |
properties and portions of two other residential properties currently improved with four |
single family residences, annex the properties into the Village and redevelop the site |
with 25 single family homes. This has not changed since November, 2004. |
The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area to be developed as Estate Residential. |
The developer's proposed lot size would meet the R2 minimum lot requirements. The |
subject property is bounded by single-family residences to the north, west and south. |
The properties to the south are likely subject to future redevelopment activity. As such, |
staff suggested to the developer that the subdivision should be designed to allow the |
collector street to be extended further south to 20th Street in the future. As the subject |
properties straddle a ridge line, stormwater detention would be provided in two outlots. |
One facility will be located along 17th Street. The second facility would be integrated |
into the existing Etz Chaim Synagogue facility east of the site. |
He then referenced the comments of the Commissioners at the last meeting, as follows: |
1. The Commissioners noted that they wanted the lots to be more in keeping with the |
intent of the Estate Residential Plan designation of 10,000 square foot lots. However, |
they suggested that an average lot size of 9,000 square feet could be supported. The |
modified plans reduced the lot sizes of the six westerly cul-de-sac lots and increase the |
lot size of Lots 19 through 25. He noted that if the Commissioners want larger lot sizes |
on Lots 2, 8 and 11 the interior lot lines for the cul-de-sac lots could be reduced, |
however, this may require a lot width variation. Staff points out that the westerly |
perimeter lots will abut residential lots of substantial size and width. By locating larger |
lots on the perimeter of the development, greater compatibility with the lots along Main |
Street is achieved. |
2. The Commissioners expressed concerns about the the lot's size of in the original |
plan, as they were 8,330 square feet in size. The revised plan adds ten additional feet |
to the depth of the lots, increasing the lot sizes to 9,030 square feet. This theoretically |
would push the dwellings further to the west and away from the Etz Chaim parking lot. |
3. The Commissioners wondered if the proposed north/south street could align with |
Norbury. The revised plan, while still requiring relief for the street jog (it is now proposed |
to be 140 feet off center, where a minimum of 200 feet is required) provides greater |
separation. Moreover, the street jog will prevent additional traffic generated by the |
development from utilizing Norbury. He also noted that the street shift can still provide |
for the future development of properties south of the proposed subdivision. If Norbury |
was extended straight south from its current terminus, the reconfigured subdivision |
would lose two buildable lots. Also the street would be aligned in a manner that would |
result in residences in proposed phase two to have rear yards immediately abutting the |
adjacent office properties. The petitioner's plan could provide for cul-de-sac lots off the |
main roadway. |
Opening the discussion among the Commissioners, Chairperson Ryan stated that this |
submittal is better than the previous one, especially in regard to the eastern lots. He |
mentioned that outlining the wetlands on the site plan gave a better overall view of the |
proposed subdivision. He stated that he still had concerns with lots 2, 8 and 11. He |
would like to see the property lines adjusted, but he realizes that it would not add that |
much extra square footage. He mentioned that lot two was still less than 9,000 square |
feet, but the increase in size was an improvement from the previous submittal. |
Commissioner Burke agreed that lots 2, 8, 11, and 18 needed more square footage. He |
stated that the Norbury Avenue alignment was still a legitimate concern. He noted that |
moving the access street ten feet (10') would not be a significant change. He would like |
staff to meet with Engineering and the Police Department to see if this layout made |
sense. |
Mr. Heniff noted that if the access street is off center with Norbury Avenue, it would |
force traffic to Main Street and Highland Avenue. He mentioned that aligning the streets |
could create more through traffic, but he could review this issue with Engineering staff. |
Commissioner Sweetser also noted that this submittal was an improvement from the |
previous one. She stated that if zoning relief would be required to allow some of the lots |
to be bigger, that it would worthwhile. She mentioned that lots 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, and 11 |
should split the difference in the lot width in order to even them out. |
Mr. Heniff noted that lots 1, 9, 10 and 18 are corner lots, and the twenty-foot (20') corner |
side yard setback must be taken into consideration when determining the size of these |
lots. Otherwise, there could potentially be a number of corner side yard variations going |
to the Zoning Board of Appeals. |
Referring to the exhibit showing the proposed subdivision to the south, Chairperson |
Ryan inquired about their average lot size. Mr. Heniff stated that the lots are 9,000 |
square feet or more - the actual lot sizes would be determined once there is a developer |
for the project. Chairperson Ryan asked what the frontage was for the four long lots |
along 20th Street. Mr. Heniff stated that they were sixty-six feet (66') wide. |
Commissioner Olbrysh mentioned that the proposed subdivision would still have to be |
tweaked a little, but overall, it was an improvement. |
Fences in Corner Side Yards |
Angela Clark, Planner II, gave a presentation on corner side yard fences. Ms. Clark |
discussed the current fence regulations. She explained the differences between reverse |
corner side yards and abutting corner side yards. Ms. Clark noted the number of |
nonconforming fences in the Village and the number of fence variation requests in |
previous years. She noted pictures of previous fence violations and the subsequent |
alterations. She ended the presentation with discussion questions. Ms. Clark noted that |
the Zoning Board recommended that the regulations for corner side yard fences less |
than four feet in height remain the same and that fences greater than four feet in height |
be permitted provided that they consisted of open construction and ornate materials. |
Chairperson Ryan asked what was the height of the fence pictured on Ahrens. Ms. |
Clark replied that the fence was six feet tall. Chairperson Ryan asked if the bushes |
were legal. Ms. Clark stated that the bushes might not be legal. Chairperson Ryan |
asked about the restrictions for hedges on corner lots. William Heniff, Senior Planner, |
stated that hedgerows should be two feet in height since the area in question is a line of |
sight area. He stated that this could be identified within the petition. Chairperson Ryan |
noted that there are several corner lots within the Village with bushes on corner lots that |
create dangerous situations. |
Commissioner Burke asked to see the discussion questions again. Chairperson Ryan |
read the questions. |
Mr. Heniff stated that the Commissioners could decide whether fences should be |
evaluated on a case by case basis or look at the reverse corner side yard scenario. He |
stated that reverse corner side yards present a unique situation since they have visual |
impacts in terms of what the neighboring residents see out of their front window. He |
stated that the abutting corner side yard might not be as critical. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that her suggestion would be similar to the ZBA |
recommendation. She stated that she would prefer that the regulations remain |
unchanged, however if a fence has to be six feet in height on a corner lot it should |
consist of open construction. She asked if the ZBA distinguished between types of |
corner lots. |
Ms. Clark stated that the ZBA did not distinguish between the type of corner side yards. |
She stated that the ZBA recommendation was that if any fence on a corner lot were over |
four feet it should be open and consist of wrought iron or comparable materials. |
Chairperson Ryan stated that he would like to see the regulations remain at four feet. |
He stated that if the fence were taller than four feet it must be open. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated that should be for both situations. |
Ms. Clark asked for clarification that the entire fence consist of open construction as |
opposed to a portion of the fence being open. Chairperson Ryan stated the entire fence |
should be open. |
Commissioner Burke asked if that was what the ZBA suggested. |
Chairperson Ryan asked what the ZBA said about four feet. |
Ms. Clark stated that the ZBA stated the entire fence should be at least 75% open and |
that referred to the spacing of the fence. |
Chairperson Ryan reiterated that if the fence were six feet the entire fence should be |
open and chain link should be excluded. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated this should be for both abutting and reverse corner side |
yards. Chairperson Ryan agreed. |
Commissioner Burke referenced the third discussion question and said the answer |
should be no. |
Mr. Heniff clarified that if the Plan Commission is conceptually supportive of a text |
amendment it would allow fences up to six feet in both reverse and abutting corner side |
yards provided that they were open and ornate with no further distinctions. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked about the reference of "up to six feet." Mr. Heniff replied |
that would include a fence that were five and a half feet or other variations less than six |
feet in height. He stated that if a property owner wanted to provide a screening function |
they would be capped at four feet. |
Chairperson Ryan stated that if an owner had a dog they could do a wood fence. |
Commissioner Sweetser stated unless it was a large dog. Mr. Heniff stated they could |
then go to six feet. |
Chairperson Ryan stated that people would have an option. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked if the amendment were prompted due to three variation |
requests. |
Chairperson Ryan asked if the 125 fences referenced in Ms. Clark's presentation were |
all residential fences. He stated that he thought they were residential until she |
referenced an industrial fence. |
Ms. Clark stated that all of the fences noted were residential fences. |
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m. |
__________________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
__________________________________ |
William Heniff, ACIP, Senior Planner |