Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/2005 P&Z minutes 28-05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-28-05 Hearing Date: July 28, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1765 Cree Lane PETITIONER/OWNER: Beata Goodman 1765 Cree Lane, Mount Prospect, IL PUBLICATION DATE: July 13,2005 PIN#: 03-25-101-051-0000 REQUEST: Variation - 6- foot perimeter fence MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Clare Sloan, Neighborhood Planner Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Elizabeth Schuh, Planning Intern Christina Park, Planning Intern Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Beata and Stephen Goodman Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the June 23, 2005 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. At 9:05 PM Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-28-05 a request for Variance for a 6' Fence at 1765 Cree. She said that this case would be Planning & Zoning Final. Elizabeth Schuh, Planning Intern, summarized the case. She said that the Subject Property is located on the South side of Cree Lane between Peartree and Corktree Lanes, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the Rl District. The Petitioner recently purchased the Subject Property and installed a 6-foot wood fence along the west lot line without a permit. The Zoning Ordinance limits the height of a fence between two residential lots to a maximum height of 5 feet. The Petitioner states in the enclosed application that a six-foot fence already existed on the south and east lot lines of the property, and that the new fence is a continuation of the existing fence. In researching the property, Staff found that a permit for a five-foot fence had been granted for the Subject Property in 1991. During a site inspection, a Building Inspector found that the existing fence on the south and east lot lines is 6 feet in height, and determined that this portion of the fence had been built prior to the current owner's purchase of the house, but after the 1991 permit for a five foot fence was issued. Staff is classifying the two sections of fence installed by the previous owner as a Legal Nonconformity because the Staff cannot document exactly when the six-foot fence sections were installed. The Petitioner was not aware of the PZ-28-05 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 28, 2005 Page 2 requirement for a permit or the height restrictions for fences on residential lots, and had the final section on the west lot line built to the same height as the existing fence. After construction of the fence was complete, the Building Division was contacted because the fence was above the maximum height for a fence between two residential properties. The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner is requesting to keep a six-foot fence on the western lot line of the Subject Property. The Subject Property is regular in shape and is adjacent to residential properties. The subject six-foot fence has minimal visibility from the front of the property. A light-weight, wrought iron gate closes off the driveway on the east side of the Subject Property, and tall bushes and another light-weight iron gate screen the front on the west side. These factors minimize the impact of the fence on the neighborhood character. The Petitioner notes that the fence is needed for privacy and provides details in the attached application. Information in the application indicates that the neighbor directly to the west of the Petitioner supports the taller fence. However, both the need for privacy and the support of the neighbor are unique to this Petitioner, and not the Subject Property itself. Section 14.304.D.1.g of the Zoning Ordinance allows for the construction of a six- foot fence when it is no longer than 18 linear feet and within the buildable area of the rear yard, often to screen a patio. A six-foot fence is also permitted along the rear or side lot line if either lot line abuts an arterial road or a non-residential use. The conditions at the Subject Property do not meet the criteria for a permitted six-foot fence as listed in the Zoning Ordinance or meet the standards for a Variation or the definition for a hardship, as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Although the proposed fence does not adversely affect neighborhood character and it is unfortunate that the Petitioner was unaware of height restrictions for a fence, the proposed request does not meet the Variation standards contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation request to allow a 6-foot fence along the west lot line for the residence at 1765 Cree Lane, Case No. PZ-28-05." The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Richard Rogers asked which portions of the fence the variation request concerned. Elizabeth Schuh confirmed that staff had determined that the remainder of the fence is a legal nonconformity because it had been built by the previous owner. Richard Rogers and Arlene Juracek asked for further clarification on why the other portions of the fence can be considered a legal non-conformity. Clare Sloan, neighborhood planner, clarified that the nonconformity sections of the zoning ordinance can allow the fence because the age of the fence cannot be determined and the current owner did not change the pre-existing fence in the process of building the new section. Staff and Commission Members discussed whether or not the pre-existing portion of the fence could qualify as a legal nonconformity. Ms. Juracek asked if a time limit or conditional use could apply in this case. Staff confirmed that only a Variation could be use to allow the fence to remain, and that variations remain in perpetuity. Beata Goodman and Stephen Goodman were sworn in. Beata Goodman explained that one of their reasons for purchasing the property the previous year was the six-foot fence around two thirds of the yard. The rest of the fence was installed to provide privacy during the weekly visits of her mentally ill Mother and brother in law. Ms. Goodman stated that she was unaware of the requirement for a permit for a fence, and that her father and husband ~__,_~__.,___.,___,_~~""""""""""=~;C"""T<I.'D'...-",."_"",."""",~,~_~=""""""""",,"~~,",,~""" PZ-28-05 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 28,2005 Page 3 had installed the fence. Mr. Goodman stated that there are many six-foot fences in the neighborhood, as wells as bushes used to screen yards that reach over six feet in height. Ms. Goodman stated that the fence was installed for both aesthetic and security reasons. Ms. Juracek noted that many of the yards in the area border Euclid Road or the railroad tracks, which would explain the number of six-foot fences in the neighborhood. Ms. Goodman replied that she was unaware of the height restriction on a fence, and was told when she applied for a permit after receiving a citation. She explained that the fence was necessary for privacy. Ms. Juracek stated that height restrictions in the code were meant to preserve a certain character. Ms. Goodman responded that she understood, but felt that the neighbors were happier with the new fence. Richard Rogers confirmed that the fence was built by the Petitioners father, and asked if Ms. Goodman's relatives resided with her all the time. Ms. Goodman replied that bother her Mother and Brother-in-law live in long-term care facilities, and that they stay with her on the weekends and some weeknights. Richard Rogers stated that he believed that the situation was a hardship. Ms. Goodman noted that Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, had advised her that her best course of action was to seek a variation for the fence. Marlys Haaland noted that the fence was difficult to see from the street, and did not detract from the neighborhood. Joseph Donnelly asked staff about the regulations concerning privacy fences. Staff confirmed that up to eighteen linear feet of a six-foot fence may be constructed within the buildable area of the lot as a privacy fence. Mr. Donnelly noted that the Petitioner may be able to gain the privacy they need by constructing a privacy fence. Ronald Roberts that eighteen linear feet is a short distance. Ms. Juracek noted that staff considered the preexisting fence to be a legal nonconformity, as well as stating that many other six-foot fences are in the neighborhood, that the fence is secluded, and that she believes a hardship exists in this case based on the condition of the property when the petitioner purchased it. Richard Rogers asked if the fence could be allowed for only a specific amount of time. Staff stated that variations run permanently with the land. Joseph Donnelly asked if a conditional use would apply in this case. Staff replied that there are no provisions in the code for a conditional use for a fence, and that only a variance could apply in this case. Ms. Juracek confirmed that the only options were to allow a variance, which would be permanent, or to require the Petitioner to remove the fence. Staff replied that this was correct, but that the Petitioner would also have the option of removing only the top foot ofthe fence if the variation request was denied. Ronald Roberts noted that removing only the top foot of the fence could lead to a very unattractive fence, and that no neighbors had appeared to oppose the fence. Further, the height of the fence in this case provided privacy for the family and protected the neighbors. He also noted that the variation request applied only to the west lot line, and that if the fence were ever replaced, only that section could be six feet in height if the variation were approved. Ms. Juracek noted that this was a good solution to the issue. _.__........_.~__<>.,.."~"__,~_..;.~~.,_.,.,,.~._.'""""'."'~_="''''''''''_<-,;",,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,,,:=,,,,~,,,"''''''m'',"''''''''_''''''''''''.''''''==-='''~''~"""""""~_......,----~- PZ-28-05 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 28, 2005 Page 4 Ms. Juracek asked if there were any questions from the audience. There were none and the Public Hearing was closed. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve a Variation request to allow a 6-foot fence along the west lot line for the residence at 1765 Cree Lane, Case No. PZ-28-05. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: Motion was approved 5-0. Elizabeth Schuh, Planning Intern /es C:\Documcnts and Scttings\kdcwis\Local Scuings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\PZ-2S-05 1765 Cree Lane - 6 foot fence 7-28-05.doc --_.._--_._.....--~~="--~~.."""""-