Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/26/2015 P&Z Minutes 06-15 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-06-15 Hearing Date: March 26, 2015 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1702 W. Lonnquist Blvd. PETITIONER : John G. Prodromos PUBLICATION DATE: March 11, 2015 PIN NUMBER: 08-10-406-010-0000 REQUESTS: Variation to allow a fence to extend 41’ beyond the front of the building line into the front yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Sharon Otteman William Beattie Keith Youngquist Jeanne Keuter Joseph Donnelly, Chair MEMBERS ABSENT: Agostino Fillipone Thomas Fitzgerald Norbert Mizwicki STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Senior Planner Janet Saewert, Neighborhood Planner INTERESTED PARTIES : John G. Prodromos Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Beattie made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2015 meeting; Commissioner Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0 with one Commissioner abstaining. Chairman Donnelly introduced Case PZ-06-15, 1702 W. Lonnquist Boulevard and stated it was Planning and Zoning Commission final. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner is requesting a variation to allow a fence to extend forty-one feet (41’) in to the front yard. Subject Property is located at the northwest corner of Lonnquist Boulevard and Busse Road, and contains a new single-family residence with related improvements. She further explained the house on the Subject Property was built with a ninety-two foot (92’) setback from the east property line, which is along Busse Road.The Petitioner would like to install a 5’ high fence extending forty-one feet (41’) out into the front yard toward Busse Road, which requires a Variation as the Zoning Ordinance requires fences to be located behind the front line of the principal building. Ms. Andrade summarized the standards for a variation as the following: 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 Planning and Zoning- March 26, 2015 PZ-06-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 2 Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Andrade stated, per the Petitioner, the proposed fence line would diminish safety and welfare concerns, and allow for a larger fenced in yard that would provide a safe area for children and pets to play in. The house is adjacent to Busse Road, which is very busy road with greater air/noise pollution and vibrations from vehicles than local roads. For those reasons, the petitioner constructed the house further away from the required forty foot (40’) front building setback line. The house was setback ninety-two feet (92’) from the Busse Road lot line. The Petitioner further stated the fence would be setback more than the required front yard setback and would provide more exposure of the corner than if the house had been built at the building setback line. Ms. Andrade stated Staff reviewed the request and believes that it meets the Variation standards. The Subject Property’s physical characteristics are unique in that the house was constructed with a ninety-two foot (92’) setback from the Busse Road lot line when a minimum of forty-feet (40’) was required. A fence extending forty-one feet (41’) out from the east building wall would provide a fifty foot (50’) setback from the Busse Road lot line and would be in line with the existing front yard setbacks of the adjacent homes located to the north. She further explained the Zoning Ordinance permits fences in the side and rear yards provided the fence is placed behind the front line of the principal building. However, principal buildings are typically built up to the required building setback line, which was not the case for the Subject Property. The proposed fence line would exceed the minimum required front yard setback for the principal structure. Ms. Andrade stated Staff found that the standards for a Variation have been met, as set forth in the Petitioner’s responses to the standards. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff’s findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the following motion: “To approve A Variation allow a fence extend forty-one feet (41’) beyond the front building line into the front yard as shown in the site plan dated March 18, 2015.” The Planning & Zoning Commission’s decision is final for this case. Chairman Donnelly stated that in the past more open style fencing such as a chain link has been recommended. Ms. Andrade responded that has been the case for fences that encroach into required yards, such as fences in exterior side yards that stated the code was amended to abut the front yard of an adjacent lot. She provide setback regulations for fences in those situations. She explained a privacy type fence would be subject to a ten foot (10’) setback versus an open style fence would be subject to a one foot (1’) setback. The proposed fence on the Subject Property is a different scenario; the proposed fence would be placed outside of the required yard and would not project beyond the existing front yard setbacks of the adjacent homes located to the north. Ms. Andrade further explained that the Petitioner would like to use privacy PVC fencing material. Commissioner Youngquist commented that a portion of the fence will be on higher ground because the property goes on an incline. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner did not provide any grading information in the submittal. Planning and Zoning- March 26, 2015 PZ-06-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 3 Chairman Donnelly swore in John Prodromos 636 Amble Side Drive Deerfield, Illinois. Mr. Prodromos stated he is the builder/owner of the Subject Property and that the home was built for his son to live in. Mr. Prodromos addressed the Commissioner Youngquist’s comment regarding the elevation of the fence. He explained the fence will stay at the required five foot (5’) height all the way around the yard and the portion that is on higher ground will be adjusted to meet the five foot (5’) requirement. There was general discussion between the board and the Petitioner regarding the for-sale sign and if a hardship really exists for the homeowner. Mr. Prodromos explained he didn’t want to get into his family business but that the main hardship is to keep children and pets safe when playing in the yard. He further explained the house could have been built closer to Busse Road and have the fence on the adjacent side of the home; however, the noise pollution and vibration from the road would affect the structure of the home over time which is why he decided to build the home setback further from the street. Commissioner Otteman stated she understood the need for the fence and that it would be hard to sell the home without regardless. Chairman Donnelly asked the Petitoner what type of fencing material he planned on using. Mr. Prodromos stated that he wants to use white PVC privacy type fencing to help with noise and increase safety. Commissioner Youngquist stated the situation was unique and commented that other residents may see the fence and think they can do the same thing on their own property. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any plans on bringing the fence forward in to the front yard. Mr. Prodromos stated that is not an option. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any further comments from the public, hearing none, he brought the discussion back to the board. Commissioner Youngquist made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Beattie to approve the following motion: “To approve A Variation allow a fence extend forty-one feet (41’) beyond the front building line into the front yard as shown in the site plan dated March 18, 2015.” UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Otteman, Beattie, Younquist, Keuter, Donnelly NAYS: None The vote was approved 5-0. This case is Planning and Zoning final. After hearing three additional cases the Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Keuter and the meeting was adjourned. Planning and Zoning- March 26, 2015 PZ-06-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 4 _____________________________ Jenna Moder, Community Development Administrative Assistant Planning and Zoning- March 26, 2015 PZ-06-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chair