Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/14/2000 ZBA minutes 33-2000 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-33-2000 [-Iearing Date: September 14, 2000 PETITIONER: William T. Lindahl, for Moose Heart International (Prospect Moose Lodge) PUBLICATION DATE: August 30, 2000 JOURNAL TOPICS REQUEST: Variation to allow a six-foot perimeter fence and to locate a fence off the property line MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Hal Ettinger Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Wm. J. Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: C.D. Cairns John DiGrassi Tom Kinsella William Lindahl Roger Van Dyke Chairperson Arlene Juraeek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Minutes of the August 24, 2000 meeting were approved with one correction to Case ZBA-28-2000. At 8:30, Ms. Juracek opened Case ZBA-33-2000, a request for a Variation to allow a six-foot perimeter fence and to locate a fence offthe property line William Cooney, Director of Community Development, stated that public notice had been had been provided in the newspaper, mailed notices sent to property owners within 250' of the subject property, and a sign placed on the property. Mr. Cooney introduced the staff memorandum for the item, Variations to allow a six-foot perimeter fence and to locate a fence off the property line. Mr. Cooney announced that the case would be Zoning Board final. Mr. Cooney said the subject property is the Prospect Moose Lodge, located along Route 83, adjacent to a commercial use, multi-family townhomes, and a Village lift station. He said the petitioner applied for and received a permit to install a five-foot wooden fence along the north property line only. The contractor did not install the fence as approved by the Village and the petitioner is seeking a variation to allow the fence to remain as installed. Mr. Cooney pointed out that the fence can be considered in four sections: l) The portion of the fence that is adjacent to the commercial use along the north lot line and is six-feet in height - the Zoning Ordinance only allows fences up to six-feet in height where residential and non-residential uses are adjacent to each other; 2) The height of the fence decreases to five-feet where the subject property is adjacent to the townhomes; 3) A ten-foot long section of fence, at five-feet in height, was installed along the rear lot line; and an existing chain link fence along a portion of the rear lot line creates a double fence situation, not permitted per the Zoning Ordinance; and 4) the contractor installed a 30-foot section of fence adjacent to the parking lot - perimeter fences must be located along lot lines and the petitioner's fence is approximately 60-feet offthe lot line. Mr. Cooney explained that items l, 3, and 4 require variations for a six-foot fence between commercial uses, a double-fence for a three-foot span, and a fence that is not on the lot line. Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA_33.2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Mr. Cooney said the petitioner stated that the fence installer is a member of the lodge and installed a taller fence, and the additional fence along the east and south lot lines, as a means to improve the property. There is a sandbox in close proximity to the parking lot and the fence ,,vas intended to Provide a barrier from the parking lot and the children using the sandbox. In addition, based on conversations with the petitioner, the taller fence may have been installed to provide additional screening because the grades differ in that area. Mr. Cooney said staffreviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan and visited the site. They found the subject parcel is similar to other lots in the Village, and it is not unique in its surroundings, shape, or topography although it is used for club meetings and social events. He said the rationale for the proposed variation is related to convenience - the fence installer installed the fence incorrectly and the Lodge does not want to remove the fence. Mr. Cooney reminded the Board of conditions necessary to approve a variation-- These Zoning Code standards relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions ora 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; intent of variation is not to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Mr. Cooney said that, although the proposed fence height and location would not have a significant effect on public welfare or neighborhood character, no real hardship related to the unique conditions of the site exists as outlined by the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends denial of a variation from Sec. 14.304.D.l.d (more than one fence along a lot line) Section 14.304.D. 1.e (height of fence), and Section 14.304.D. 1.e.2 (located along the lot line) at 601 N. Main Street, Case No. ZBA-33-2000. Arlene Juracek asked about the "double" fence situation. Mr. Cooney explained that there was a chain link fence around the lift station and Code does not allow fences to abut because of maintenance issues. He said the overlap occurs on 10' on the east side of the property. William Lindahl, administrator at the Moose Lodge, and John DiGrassi, a Moose Lodge officer, were sworn in. Mr. Lindahl said he had asked a Village Building Division staff person if it was possible to replace their existing cyclone fence with a 6' fence and was/told he had to have a 5' fence on residential property. He stated the Village staff person suggested they put a 6' fence on the lot line of the adjoining commercial property and drop down to 5' thereafter. Mr. Lindahl said he thought he had received a permit to do what had been suggested by the Village. He said they have only 3' of the fence they built against the Mount Prospect Lift Station that would be against Code. He said that portion was not on the prints they had submitted for the permit. He said they would cut-offthe 3' and connect the fence with cyclone fencing to be up to Code. He said the 6' fence between their property and the commercial property is 2' below grade and consequently just 4' high. He said Village staffcommented that the fence looked nice but still recommended denial. Mr. Lindahl said he thinks the fence looks good, too, but is willing to make changes to follow Code. He stated the fence is an improvement over the old fence because garbage would accumulate at the fence and did not look good from the sandbox area. John DiGrassi was sworn in and said that they are hoping to move the dumpster away from the building to a location further east near the sandbox. The fence along the sandbox would separate it from the dumpster. They are asking that the Village allow that portion of the fence to remain. They also would like to keep the fence at 6' next to commercial property and will move 3' of the overlap at the lift station. Mr. DiGrassi said the Moose Lodge will pay any fees and/or penalties involved. Hal Ettinger said this was procedural matter; what was submitted and what was installed are two different things. Richard Rogers would agree with allowing the fence to remain between the commercial property due to the grade difference but not the rest offence. Keith Youngquist agreed. Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-33-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Mr. DiGrassi said this was not a willt'ul act, the workers had the best intentions. If the Board does not accept the t'ence as it is, they will take down the entire fence. Ms. Juracek said they did understand this was not a willful act but they did put up exactly the opposite of'what the permit allowed. Mr. DiGrassi said, if Board members allow the 6' fence on the commercial side, consistency would dictate they should also be allowed to leave the portion offence connecting that to their property. Mr. Cooney said the 6' high stub from the building to the north property line is allowed by Code because it is adjacent to an arterial roadway. Roger VanDyke, 523 N. Main St., said he lives south of the Moose Lodge. He thought tonight's request was for a variation to build a 6' fence east and west along Highland, to which he would be opposed. Ms. Juracek asked if he objected to the fence as it was. Mr. VanDyke said no, the Moose Lodge is a good neighbor. J'uraeek said the fence was attractive and well made, it was just the placement and size that presented a problem. Mr. Ettinger said the 30' orS' high fence on the south should be removed or placed on the property line. Mr. Rogers said he thought that south fence should be removed.. He did not have an objection to the fence on the commercial side or the fence connecting it to their property. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the request for Variation. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. At 8:57, Chairperson .luracek closed the Public Hearing and asked for discussion from the Board. At 9:10, the roll call was taken on the motion. Ms. Juraeek summarized that the 6' fence abutting the building and going to the north property line is legal; the 6' fence that extends between the Moose Lodge and commercial prope/~ff which is really 4' on one side; the 5' fence between the Moose Lodge and the property to the north which is legal; a 5' high fence on the east side which is legal but for the 3' overlap with the chain link fence; and 30' of the 5' fence not on the property line and installed backwards, with the smooth side inside. Ms~ Juraeek said she would like the 30' fence along the parking lot removed. Elizabeth Luxem said she did not approve of petitioner getting a permit and building something else and staff does not feel a hardship exists. She said, due to the topography, the fence along the commercial side could probably remain. Ms. ,luracek said, that allowing the fence to remain between the commercial property due to the change in topography, and removing the 30' fence along the parking lot, the only issue remaining is the 3' overlap. At 9:05, Ms. Juraeek re-opened the hearing to hear comments from the petitioner. Mr. Lindahl said they were willing to take down the whole back fence on the south, leaving just the north fence and adjoining 6' fence. Mr. Cooney said the topography would be a reasonable hardship for that portion of the fence. Richard Rogers made a motion to allow the 6' fence along the entire north property line based on the fact that on the backside it is just a 4' high fence, but the south and east fences be removed. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. The motion and second cover denial of the other two variations. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Ettinger, Flores, Luxem, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None oning Board of Appeals ZBA-33-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4 Motion was approved 7-0. At 9:15 p.m., Elizabeth Luxem made motion to adjourn seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the tneeting was adjourned. '¢arbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ~!om~r ~ f~°o°mn emY~! o~ m e n t