Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/2011 P&Z Minutes 07-11 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-07-11 Hearing Date: April 28, 2011 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 820 Dresser Drive PETITIONER : William Latourette PUBLICATION DATE: April 13, 2011 PIN NUMBER: 08-11-223-015-0000 REQUEST: Variation – Locate Fence in Exterior Side Yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Theo Foggy Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: William Beattie Ronald Roberts STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTY : Bill Latourette Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The minutes of the March 24, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved 4-0 with Mr. Donnelly abstaining. After hearing three previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-07-11, 820 Dresser Drive, at 8:02 p.m. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner for PZ-07-11 requested a Variation to allow a fence encroach in the exterior side yard setback of the property located at 820 W. Dresser Dr. Ms. Andrade stated the Subject Property is located on the southeast corner of Busse Avenue and Dresser Drive, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zone R1 Single- Family Residential and is bordered on all sides by single-family residential. The west side of the lot facing Dresser Drive is considered the front yard and the yard facing Busse Avenue is considered an exterior side yard. The Subject Property’s exterior side yard abuts the neighbor’s front yard to the east. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner would like to replace an existing five (5) foot tall wood fence with four (4) foot tall aluminum fence. Per the Petitioner’s Plat of Survey, the existing wood fence is setback one (1) foot from the north property line within the exterior side yard. The wood fence is considered non-conforming because it encroaches into the exterior side yard when the Village Code requires the fence to align with the building line since the exterior yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot. Ms. Andrade showed pictures of the Subject Property with the existing wood fence. She stated the Petitioner would like to install a fence constructed out of aluminum and showed pictures of similar fences to the proposal. Ms. Andrade stated in instances when the exterior side yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot, the Village Zoning Code allows for the construction of fence in the exterior side yards provided it is aligned with the building line. Removal of the non-conforming fence requires the new fence to comply with Code, thus requiring the fence Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-07-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 1 of 3 line to be setback approximately twenty-two and one half (22.5) feet from the north property line to comply with Village Code. The Petitioner is allowed to repair the existing fence as long as the fence is not damaged or destroyed by more than fifty (50) percent of the replacement value. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner noted four corner properties that have fences that encroach into the exterior side yard. Staff researched the corner properties the Petitioner referenced in his application and found that the exterior side yards abut the exterior side yards of adjacent lots; not the front yard. The properties the Petitioner referenced are examples of corner properties which have their exterior side yard next to another exterior side yard. Ms. Andrade showed an example comparing the corner properties. Ms. Andrade stated in cases such as these, the Village Code permits fences in the exterior side yard provided the fence is setback one (1) foot from the lot line. The Subject Property is an example of a corner property, where the exterior side yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot. The fence in the exterior side yard is required to be aligned with the building line. Ms. Andrade stated the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The summary of these findings include: 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 Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner noted in his application that the existing fence is in need of repair/replacement. Per the applicant, installing the fence in accordance with the current Village Code requirement would reduce the usable space and will negatively impact the market value of the property. Additionally, the Petitioner notes that installing a fence in compliance with the Village Code would not provide adequate space for their dog to run in the yard and would require a change in the landscaping to fit with the new fence. Ms. Andrade stated Staff appreciated the concern for market value and usable space; there are no unique conditions that exist on the Subject Property that would not exist in other corner properties which are adjacent to the front yard of an adjacent lot. Therefore, the alleged hardships presented in this case are directly related to the property owner’s own interest in the property and not by the Village Code. Ms. Andrade said the Variation request to install a fence setback one (1) foot from the exterior side yard lot line does not meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on deny this analysis, Staff recommended that the P&Z the motion listed in the Staff report. Mr. Donnelly asked if the Variation was granted, could a condition be placed to only allow the type of fence that was being proposed. Ms. Andrade stated that the Commission could place a condition limiting the type of fence. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioner, Bill Latourette, 820 Dresser Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Latourette said that he was trying to replace an existing fence that has been there as long as he has owned the house. He stated based on the way the property is laid out, moving the fence twenty-two (22) feet would eliminate twenty-five (25) percent of his yard that has been used for the past fourteen (14) years. Mr. Latourette said there is currently a five (5) foot shadowbox fence. He would like to replace this with a four (4) foot, less obtrusive aluminum fence. The Petitioner stated the neighbor behind him would prefer the proposed fence because this would allow her to see more easily to the corner of Busse and Dresser. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-07-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 2 of 3 Mr. Latourette discussed how he searched through Mount Prospect and found that his property along with his neighbors’ properties where the only lots that had two corner houses with a house in between. He said the lots that Staff mentioned were corner to corner lots, but the corner lots did not have an additional house in between them. Mr. Latourette stated that the neighbor behind him would have attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting if he proposed to install a wood fence. Since he decided to propose the four (4) foot aluminum fence, his neighbor was in support. Chairman Rogers said he would have objections if the Petitioner proposed a wood fence, but he did not have many objections with the proposed aluminum fence. He said his concerns were with the neighbor at 803 W. Busse. The Petitioner clarified that the owner of 803 W. Busse is the neighbor behind his property who was in support of the aluminum fence. Mr. Latourette was okay if the Commission placed a condition in the motion regarding the type of fence. Chairman Rogers stated the aluminum fence does open up the area and would add character. The Petitioner stated that he could have repaired the existing fence without a Variation since it was under fifty (50) percent, but he said he wanted something that would look nice without giving up twenty-five (25) percent of his yard. Chairman Rogers asked if there was anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 8:12 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. a Variation request to allow a fence Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Youngquist to approve setback one (1) foot from the exterior side yard lot line for the residence at 820 Dresser Drive, Case No. PZ-07-11; subject to the condition that the Petitioner installs an open design fence that is constructed out of aluminum or metal, and obtains a permit from the Community Development Department. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Foggy, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision was final for this case. After hearing three additional cases, Mr. Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 9:14 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ________________________________________ Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-07-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 3 of 3