Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/2012 P&Z Minutes 06-12CASE NO. PZ -06 -12 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: PIN NUMBER: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Hearing Date: April 26, 2012 1101 Linden Lane James E. Pearce April 11, 2012 03 -26 -322- 001 -0000 Variation — Locate Fence in Exterior Side Yard STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTY: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist Leo Floros Jacqueline Hinaber, Alternate None Consuelo Andrade, Senior Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development James Pearce Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Youngquist to approve the minutes of the March 22, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes Nvere approved 6 -0. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 06 -12, 1101 E. Linden Lane at 7:33 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ -06 -12 requested a Variation to allow a fence to encroach in the exterior side yard setback of the property located at 1101 Linden Lane. The Subject Property is located on the southeast corner of Linden Lane and Hemlock Lane, and contains a single - family residence Nvith related improvements. The north side of the lot, facing Linden Lane, is considered the front yard because the Village Code defines the shorter lot line separating a lot from the public right -of -N ay as the front lot line. Therefore, the yard facing Hemlock Lane is considered an exterior side yard. The Subject Property , s exterior side yard abuts the neighbor's front yard to the south. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner Nvould like to replace an existing five (5) foot tall Nvood fence Nvith a new five (5) foot tall board on board fence. Per the Petitioner's Plat of Survey, the existing Nvood fence is located in the exterior and interior side yards and rear yard of the Subject Property. The Nvood fence is considered non- conforming because it encroaches into the exterior side yard when the Village Code requires the fence to align Nvith the building line since the exterior yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot. Ms. Andrade shoNved a picture that illustrated the existing Nvood fence at the Subject Property looking south from Linden Lane. Ms. Andrade stated the fence extends fifteen (15) feet from the southeast corner of the house and continues along Hemlock for fort-,T -one (41) feet. The fence is setback approximately five (5) feet from the Nvest property line at the southNvest corner of the lot. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -06 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2012 Page 1 of 3 Ms. Andrade said since the exterior side yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot, the Village Zoning Code allows for the construction of a fence in the exterior side yard provided it is aligned Nvith the building line. HoNvever, the fence currentIv encroaches into the exterior side yard and is considered non - conforming. Removal of the non - conforming fence requires the new fence to be setback approximately twenty- one (21) feet from the Nvest property line to comply Nvith Village Code. Ms. Andrade showed an image where the fence could be installed to meet Code. 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 the 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 Nvelfare, other property*, and neighborhood character Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner noted in his application that the existing fence is in need of replacement as it has deteriorated over the Nears due to storms. The Petitioner stated that installing the new fence in accordance Nvith the current Village Code requirements Nvould have a negative impact on privacy* and safety*. The new fence Nvould have to be setback to be even Nvith the house, which Nvould abut the existing above ground pool in the rear yard making it difficult to service the pool. Ms. Andrade stated Staff appreciated the concern for privacy* and safety*. There Nvere no unique conditions that exist on the Subject Property* that Nvould not exist on other corner properties which are adjacent to the front yard of an adjacent lot. The presence of existing pool does not constitute a physical hardship unique to this property* to support a Variation. 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 five (5) feet from the exterior side yard lot line did not meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny* the motion listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioner, James Pearce, 1101 E. Linden Lane, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Pearce stated per his petition the existing fence Nvas installed via permit when the previous zoning Code allowed the fence to be located in the side yard. The pool Nvas added to the Subject Property* after the fence; it Nvas not alloNved to extend into the exterior side yard as it ends at the house line. Mr. Pearce said that the pool could not have been placed on the east side of the backyard due to a large Maple tree and underground electric. He stated the existing fence suffered some damage and found out the Village Code had changed when he applied for a permit. Mr. Pearce stated moving the fence to line up to the pool to conform to Code Nvas not practical. He said the pool Nvas still being used and he did not Nvant to remove it. The Petitioner stated if the fence Nvas moved in, it Nvould not allow for any privacy*. He also discussed other issues in regards to the fence conforming to Code. Mr. Pearce said his neighbors have never objected to the existing fence. He stated pending the ruling of the hearing; he Nvould either install a new fence where the existing fence is or repair up to fifth (50) percent of the fence that is alloNved by Village Code. Mr. Pearce said the best option for he and the neighbors Nvas the new fence in the existing location. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -06 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if he has spoken to the neighbor on Hemlock immediately behind the fence (which is their front yard). Mr. Pearce said he has not, but knows that the neighbor Nvas notified of the public hearing. There Nvas discussion regarding replacing up to fifty (50) percent of the existing fence. Ms. Hinaber confirmed Nvith the Petitioner that if the fence Nvas moved to conform to Code that it Nvould be touching the pool. Chairman Rogers asked if there Nvas anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 7:43 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. Floros believed the Petitioner's request Nvas reasonable under the circumstances presented. Mr. Donnelly stated that the Petitioner could replace the fence in phases, but appreciated the Petitioner's efforts in replacing the fence all at once. Mr. Youngquist agreed Nvith Mr. Donnelly's comments and said that there may be more issues like the Subject Case in the future where old Codes are up against new Codes. Mr. Floros made a motion, seconded by Mr. Donnelly to approve a Variation request to allow a fence setback five (5) feet from the exterior side yard lot line for the residence at 1101 Linden Lane, Case No. PZ -06- 12. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Hinaber, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None The motion Nvas approved 6 -0. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision Nvas final for this case. After hearing three (3) additional cases, Chairman Rogers asked if there Nvere any citizens in the audience waiting to be heard. Hearing none, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Ms. Hinaber to adjourn at 9:36 p.m. The motion Nvas approved by a voice vote and the meeting Nvas adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -06 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2012 Page 3 of 3