Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/28/2007 P&Z minutes 21-07 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-21-07 Hearing Date: June 28, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2 N. Elm Street PETITIONER: Dennis & Joyce Wietrecki PUBLICATION DATE: June 13,2007 PIN NUMBERS: 03-34-412-019-0000 REQUEST: Variation - Locate Fence in Front Yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Joyce Wietrecki, Dennis Wietrecki Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Marlys Haaland moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. After hearing four previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-21-07, a request for a Variation at 2 N. Elm Street at 8:10 p.m. Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the northwest comer of Elm Street and Central Road and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RI Single-Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by single-family residential. The side of the lot facing Central Road is considered the front yard because the Village Code defines the shorter lot line, separating a lot from the street, as the front lot line. The side of the lot facing Elm Street is therefore considered the exterior side yard. Mr. Zawila said the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a fence to encroach in the front yard setback ofthe Subject Property. He showed an exhibit indicating the location of the existing 5 foot fence, which complies with the Village regulations. The Petitioner proposes to remove the portion of the fence that is currently behind the front 30' setback line, parallel to Central Road. The proposed fence will originate from the southeast comer of the principal building and continue south, in the required front setback, to the south property line adjacent to the Central Road right-of-way. He said the Petitioner prepared an exhibit that shows the fence will be setback 19 feet from the public sidewalk located in the right-of-way. The fence would then continue west along the south property line and wrap along a portion of the west lot line for 30 linear feet and connect with the existing wood fence. The proposal also includes landscaping along the outside of the fence located on the south lot line. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-21-07 Page 2 Mr. Zawila stated that 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. He summarized 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 ofthe public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Mr. Zawila said the Petitioner notes that the fence is needed for privacy and safety from the heavy traffic of Central Road and provides details in the application. The Village Traffic Engineer reviewed the site plan and determined that the proposed fence would not create a sight obstruction for the driveway serving the single-family residence at 202 E. Central, located immediately west of the subject property. Therefore, the proposed fence would not be detrimental to the public welfare. Mr. Zawila stated that the proposed fence would also not alter the essential character ofthe neighborhood, as there are several properties that currently have fences installed along the south property line adjacent to Central Road, with landscaping along the outside of the fence. However, these fences are installed in what is considered the exterior side yard for these properties. Fences may be installed in an exterior side yard, provided that the fence is placed behind the front line of the principal building and set back one foot from the property line along the exterior side yard. The Petitioner's proposes to install the fence, in a similar manner to these properties, along the south property line of the subject property. Mr. Zawila said while Staff can appreciate the concern for safety expressed by the Petitioner, the location of the existing fence meets the zoning requirements in Chapter 14.304.D, and the location of the residence on the lot provides a reasonable amount of fenceable area. The residence is situated on the lot with the primary entrance of the house facing Elm Street, the exterior side yard of the property. The Petitioner considers Elm Street as the front yard, an expectation which is not unique to the Subject Property. There are several properties located in the Village on comer lots with similar conditions. The need for privacy is also unique to this Petitioner, and not the Subject Property itself. The Petitioner has the option of installing landscape to provide privacy and a buffer from Central Road. Mr. Zawila stated that although the proposed fence does not adversely affect neighborhood character nor is it detrimental to the public welfare, the location of the primary residence on the lot does not create a hardship necessary to expand the fence into the Code defined front yard. Therefore this proposal does not meet the Variation standards contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation request to allow a fence to encroach in the front yard setback of the Subject Property residence at 2 N. Elm, Case Number PZ-27-07." Mr. Zawila said the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers said as the way he sees it, the proposed fence would extend the existing fence to Central Road. Mr. Zawila stated that the proposed fence would stop 19 feet from the sidewalk on Central Road. Chairman Rogers asked if there are other, similar, fences in the area. Mr. Zawila said there are three other fences on that side of Central Road between Mt. Prospect Road and Elmhurst A venue. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioners Joyce and Dennis Wietrecki of 2 N. Elm Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Wietrecki stated that they have lived in the home for 17 years, and while they now understand how the front yard is determined, they were not aware of the unusual layout of their lot at the time of purchase. She Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-21-07 Page 3 gave a brief history of the property and the placement ofthe house. They would like to add the proposed fence for safety of their grandchildren and pets. Mr. Wietrecki showed several exhibits with the proposed fence virtually- installed on the property. He also showed exhibits comparing the proposed fencing versus using landscaping only. The Wietrecki's stated that they prefer installing the fence with low shrubbery and landscaping; not only because of aesthetics, but because fence with low shrubbery would not block the neighbor's view. Ms. Wietrecki stated that the neighbor at 202 E. Central Road also prefers the fence with low landscaping. Chairman Rogers states that he prefers using the taller landscaping versus the fencing and he is concerned about setting a precedent. Mr. Wietrecki said the landscaping will soften the appearance of the fence. Ronald Roberts asked if the 6-foot fence is permitted. Mr. Zawila stated the 6-foot fence is allowed along the Central Road frontage because it is on an arterial street. Leo Floros asked if any of the neighbors were here this evening to object. The Wietrecki's stated that none of the neighbors are present, but none of them had objection to the fence. Chairman Rogers called for additional comments or questions. Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:22 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-21-07, a request for a Variation, as presented by Staff, for 2 N. Elm Street. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. Mr. Roberts stated he is inclined to approve the request based on the frontage along an arterial street. He said this was a well designed, attractive option. Chairman Rogers stated he would prefer to see just landscaping versus a fence and landscaping. Mr. Roberts said the landscaping alone would not provide adequate fencing for animals or the children. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Floros, Haaland, McCabe, Roberts NAYS: Rogers Motion was approved 4-1. After hearing five additional cases, Ronald Roberts made a motion to adjourn at 11 :04 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documents and Scttings\kdewis\LocaI Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ.21-07 2 N Elm.doc