Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/28/2010 P&Z minutes 15-10MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -15 -10 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: PIN NUMBER: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTIES: Hearing Date: October 28, 2010 804 E. Central Road Marty Shekleton October 13, 2010 03 -35- 305- 010 -0000 Variation — Six foot (6') tall fence Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Theo Foggy Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Marty Shekleton, Brian Rendon, Jim Adamek, Steve Haynes Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 23, 2010 meeting; Mr. Beattie seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 6 -0; with Mr. Youngquist abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 15 -10, 804 E. Central Road at 7:32 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for case number PZ -15 -10 requested a Variation to allow a six foot (6') high fence on the rear lot line of the property located at 804 E. Central Road. Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property is located on the north side of Central Road and contained a single - family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered by the R3 Low Density Residence to the north, and the RA Single Family Residence to the west, south, and east. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner installed a six foot tall chain link fence along the rear property line without a permit in the summer of 2010. As a result, a stop work order was issued. The zoning ordinance limits the height of a fence between two residential lots to a maximum of five feet (5'). Therefore, the Petitioner was seeking a Variation to allow a six -foot (6') high fence to permit the fence to remain as currently constructed. Ms. Andrade showed a picture of the six foot (6') tall chain link fence installed by the Petitioner. The fence ran along the property line adjacent to the parking lot belonging to a 24 unit townhome building. Ms. Andrade said the chain link fence included a wood gate that according to the Petitioner belonged to a 6 foot tall wood fence that he replaced with the chain link fence. The Petitioner intended to add privacy slats to the fence to gain privacy from the adjacent parking lot. Ms. Andrade stated the Zoning Code allowed for the construction of a six -foot (6') fence when it is no longer than 18 linear feet and within the buildable area of the rear yard. A six -foot (6') fence was also permitted along the Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -15 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 5 rear or side lot line if either lot line abuts an arterial road or a non - residential use. The conditions at the Subject Property do not meet the criteria for a permitted six -foot (6) fence Ms. Andrade said 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. Ms. Andrade summarized the Variation standards, which included: • 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 stated that the Petitioner said he replaced a six -foot (6) tall wooden fence with a six -foot (6) tall chain link fence. However, the necessary permit was not obtained and the fence as constructed did not comply with the Village Zoning Code. While the petitioner stated he replaced an existing six -foot fence, the previous fence if constructed to this height would be considered non - conforming and Village Code required any new structure /fence to comply with current Code requirements. The Petitioner submitted signatures from the adjacent condominium complex supporting the six foot (6) high fence. Ms. Andrade said the need for privacy and the support of the neighbors do not constitute as hardships per Village Code. The alleged hardship presented in this case was directly related to the property owner's own interest in the property and not by the zoning code. There were no unique conditions on the property which would not exist elsewhere within the Village. Ms. Andrade stated the Variation request for a six -foot (6) high fence does not meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on this analysis, Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the motion. The Planning and Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Mr. Donnelly asked if the property to the North of the subject property was a commercial zone, the Petitioner would be allowed a six -foot (6) high fence. Ms. Andrade confirmed that this was correct. Chairman Rogers swore in Marty Shekleton, 804 E. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Shekleton stated that he had a six foot wood fence that was hit by some of the tenants in the adjacent townhome building. The fence post deteriorated to where it needed to be repaired. Mr. Shekleton said he replaced the wood fence with six - foot chain link fence and was issued a stop work order by the Village for working without a permit. Mr. Shekleton disagreed with the Staff report stating that there were no unique conditions on his property. He stated that there are 18 feet between his house and the north property line. Mr. Shekleton said he utilizes his backyard space on a daily basis. The previous fence created the separation needed for his backyard and the parking lot. Mr. Shekleton stated there is narrowness in the shape of his lot compared to other lots in the Village. He asked what is the difference between a parking lot for a residential development to a parking lot for a commercial development. Chairman Rogers said that the Petitioner should have obtained a permit for the new fence. Mr. Shekleton agreed. Chairman Rogers stated that the chain link fence gave the Petitioner very little privacy; he questioned why a wood fence wasn't used. Mr. Shekleton said a chain link fence is sturdier and would not rot. He would then insert privacy slats on the chain link fence. There was general discussion on the size of the wood gate and the previous wood fence. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -15 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Beattie asked how long the Petitioner has lived at the subject address. Mr. Shekleton stated since 2000. The previous fence already existed when Mr. Shekleton moved into the home. Mr. Donnelly asked the Petitioner how many signatures he received from the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Shekleton said there were 24 owners in the complex north of the subject property; he obtained 18 signatures of support for the six foot fence. He stated none of the neighbors have complained about the fence. Mr. Floros asked if Mr. Shekleton's property was the only lot that bordered the adjacent parking lot to the north. Mr. Shekleton said two other homes border the parking lot; one to the East and one to the north of the west corner lot. Mr. Floros questioned what kind of fencing those neighbors had. One neighbor has a six foot fence and the other has a four foot fence with shrubbery. Chairman Rogers said it appeared that cars park right up to the fence. Mr. Shekleton stated that the cars use to come up to the fence post, but with the chain link fence they have been parking eight to ten inches away. Mr. Roberts discussed screening and landscaping between the complex to the north and the adjacent owners. Chairman Rogers said that the Petitioner could install eight foot high hedges along the north property line. Mr. Shekleton stated in the eighteen feet between the house and the north property line was his sewer line. He did not want to plant anything with big roots. Mr. Foggy asked what type of privacy issues that the Petitioner is dealing with. Mr. Shekleton stated light from the cars in the parking lot and people walking back and forth. Mr. Foggy asked if these same issues were happening with the previous fence, Mr. Shekleton said no. Mr. Youngquist asked what the complex to the north does for snow removal in the parking lot. Mr. Shekleton stated that snow removal has improved over the past couple of years. Mr. Youngquist believed there was a hardship due to the odd layout of the subject property's lot. Chairman Rogers swore in Brian Rendon, 34 N. Albert Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Rendon stated that he lives in one of the townhouses north of the subject property. Mr. Rendon discussed that the majority of the residents in the townhome complex are trying to improve their property. There was no association, but the owners were trying to develop one. Mr. Rendon stated that when the Petitioner removed the concrete from the old fence posts, the concrete was left on the townhome owners' property. He stated that he had pictures to show the Commission if needed. Mr. Roberts asked who cleaned up the concrete. Mr. Rendon said the Petitioner did after being told so by the Village. Mr. Rendon said there is still one piece of concrete left on the townhome owners' property. Mr. Foggy confirmed with Mr. Rendon that the Petitioner was in the middle of constructing the fence when a stop work order was issued by the Village. Mr. Rendon also discussed the Petitioner entering the private property of the townhomes. Chairman Rogers asked Mr. Rendon if he was recommending that the Petitioner take out the gate that opens up to the townhome property. He saw no reason for the gate needing to be there. Mr. Floros asked Mr. Rendon if he opposed a six foot fence. Mr. Rendon stated that the height of the fence did not bother him. He was more concerned with the property maintenance issue involving the concrete. Mr. Rendon discussed an additional issue regarding the Petitioner's sump pump. There was general discussion regarding where to legally place and drain the sump pump. Chairman Rogers swore in Jim Adamek, 369 Westgate Road, Des Plaines, Illinois. Mr. Adamek said that the residents of the townhome were trying to fix up their property. He stated that the residents may be back to the Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -15 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 5 Planning and Zoning Commission in the future to discuss overnight parking on Albert Street. Mr. Adamek understood Mr. Rendon's concern regarding the gate to the fence. Chairman Rogers swore in Steve Haynes, 808 E. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Haynes stated that his property is to the east of the subject property and partially lines up with the townhome parking lot. Mr. Haynes confirmed that the original fence and gate was six feet high. Mr. Haynes said he has a six foot fence and could sympathize with the Petitioner, especially since the Petitioner has such a shallow backyard. He stated the six foot fence was needed for privacy. Chairman Rogers asked if Mr. Haynes' fence was original. He said it was original with a few repairs that have been completed. Mr. Haynes stated that if the Petitioner was not granted a six foot fence, he would not repair his own when it degrades because he was not willing to have a five foot fence. He said the gate was not really an issue, even though they have been there for over 40 years. Mr. Haynes stated that if there was an issue regarding the gate, he would keep his shut. Mr. Beattie asked the Petitioner how important the gate is to him. Mr. Shekleton said when he first moved in, the gate was not there. Approximately five to six years ago, the Petitioner had a sewer problem. The conclusion was that there was a manhole about four feet underground at the property line where one of the fence posts once lied. Public Works recommended to the Petitioner that he could put the fence and the post back up, but if they had to gain access to the manhole, the fence would need to be taken down. Mr. Shekleton then decided to put a door in that area of the fence. He stated that Public Works eventually raised the manhole and put it on the parking lot side of the fence. Mr. Shekleton had no issues with the gate being locked all the time. Mr. Roberts said that since the manhole was no longer in the way of the fence, the gate was no longer needed. Mr. Shekleton discussed the concrete that was between the fence and the telephone pole. There are Comcast and AT &T lines buried under the Petitioner's property; the service comes from the telephone pole. The two wires go from the utility pole to the fence and remain above ground for about a foot and a half. Mr. Shekleton said he placed the piece of concrete over the wires to prevent children who run through the parking lot from falling. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 8:09 P.M. Mr. Beattie discussed whether the Commission wanted the Petitioner to remove the gate. Mr. Beattie believed the reason the gate was there was no longer an issue. Mr. Donnelly asked if the Petitioner could go without the gate. Mr. Shekleton stated it was not an issue. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to approve a Variation request to allow a six -foot (6) high fence without a gate along the north lot line for the residence at 804 E. Central Road, Case No. PZ- 15 -10. Mr. Beattie seconded the motion. Chairman Rogers stated if approved, the Petitioner would have to obtain a permit for the fence from the Village. Mr. Youngquist asked if there were any restrictions on placing the privacy slats in the chain link fence. Mr. Simmons said Village Code had no restrictions on the privacy slats. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Foggy, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist NAYS: None Motion was approved 7 -0. After hearing two additional cases, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Foggy to adjourn at 10:41 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -15 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 5 Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -15 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 5