Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/2011 P&Z Minutes 06-11 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-06-11 Hearing Date: April 28, 2011 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1115 Lavergne Drive PETITIONER : Alin Pirici PUBLICATION DATE: April 13, 2011 PIN NUMBER: 08-15-205-008-0000 REQUEST: Variation – Six (6) Foot Tall Fence 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 PARTIES : Alin Pirici, John Morez 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 one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-06-11, 1115 Lavergne Drive, at 7:48 p.m. Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property is located on the east side of Lavergne Drive between Palm Drive and Willow Lane, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residential and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. There is currently a chain link fence that is in the side and rear yard of the Subject Property, which measures three and a half (3.5) to four (4) feet tall. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner would like to replace the existing chain link fence that is located in the side and rear yard with a six (6) foot tall vinyl fence. The Zoning Ordinance limits the height of a fence between two residential lots to a maximum height of five (5) feet. Therefore, the Petitioner was seeking a Variation to install a six (6) foot tall fence. Ms. Andrade said per the Petitioner’s plans, the proposed six (6) foot tall fence would extend from the sides of the house and continue along the side and rear property lines. Ms. Andrade stated the Zoning Code allows for the construction of a six (6) foot fence when it is no longer than eighteen (18) linear feet and within the buildable area of the rear yard. A six (6) foot fence is also permitted along the rear or side lot line if either lot line abuts an arterial road or a non-residential use. The conditions at the Subject Property did not meet the criteria for a permitted six (6) foot fence. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-06-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 1 of 3 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. A 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 stated per the Petitioner’s application, a five (5) foot tall fence would not provide adequate privacy due to the slope of the yard, which places the house and a portion of the rear yard on higher ground than the neighbor to the east. The Petitioner notes that there are several houses in the area with six (6) foot tall fences. Staff did not find building permit or Variation records approving six (6) foot tall fences in the area. If six (6) foot tall fences exist, they are considered non-conforming and would be required to comply with Village Code requirements when replaced. Ms. Andrade showed pictures of the slope in the yard as submitted by the Petitioner. Ms. Andrade said the slope of the rear yard was not unique to this property. Adjacent properties to the north and south of the Subject Property also have the slope in the rear yard and do not appear to have six (6) foot tall fences. Therefore, there are no unique conditions on the Subject Property which would not exist elsewhere within the Village. The Petitioner can replace the existing chain link fence with a five (5) foot privacy fence and comply with Code. 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. Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the motion listed in the Staff report. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioner, Alin Pirici, 1115 Lavergne Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Pirici stated by increasing the fence to six (6) feet would give him additional privacy due to the slope. He said his house is located closer to the rear lot line than other homes in the area. Mr. Pirici said he discussed the proposed fence with neighbors who showed their verbal support for the fence height. He stated that he could obtain signatures if he needed to. Chairman Rogers asked if the existing four (4) foot chain-link fence belonged to the Petitioner. Mr. Pirici stated that one side of the house was his fence and the rear yard fence and other side yard belonged to his neighbors. He said the neighbor behind his house was in attendance and was excited about the proposal. Chairman Rogers confirmed with the Petitioner that the bushes surrounding the lot are on the Subject Property. Mr. Youngquist asked how the installation of a new fence would work with the steep slope on the Subject Property. Mr. Pirici stated there were two options available for the new fence. There is a stair type option or use the contour of the slope to lay out the fence. The Petitioner preferred the contour option. Mr. Pirici said if there were no limits to fence height, he would request an eight (8) foot tall fence. He stated the Variation request for six (6) feet gives him additional privacy. Mr. Youngquist stated both options the Petitioner presented may be difficult due to the slope. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-06-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 2 of 3 Mr. Floros asked the Petitioner why he thought the slope on his property was different than other homes in the area. Mr. Pirici stated every third house is located a bit further from the front lot line and closer to the rear lot line. He said his lot is the closest to the rear yard line and the angle for the slope in his yard is steeper than his neighbors. Mr. Floros was concerned that if the Petitioner was granted the Variation, other neighbors would request six (6) foot fence Variations as well. Mr. Pirici stated the slope was so big that six (6) feet does not make a big difference from five (5) feet on the Subject Property. He said there are other houses in the neighborhood that have six (6) foot fences. Mr. Floros asked Staff if there are six (6) foot fences in the neighborhood. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff researched the permit history for the area, but did not find any Variations granted for fence height. She said that Staff did not complete a site inspection on the six (6) foot high fences, but could conduct site visits and follow-up with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Youngquist asked what the required rear setback was for the Subject Property. Ms. Andrade said twenty-five (25) feet. Mr. Youngquist asked if the Petitioner’s porch (patio) was within the setback. Ms. Andrade stated that the patio did encroach into the rear yard setback. Chairman Rogers swore in John Morez, 1114 Oakwood Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Morez stated that his property is directly behind the Subject Property. He said that if he looked at the Subject Property, his site line is at the top of the existing fence. Mr. Morez said he sees an additional three (3) feet above the fence and then sees the Petitioner’s patio. He stated that a six (6) foot fence would be a big improvement for both properties. Mr. Morez confirmed that there are other six (6) foot fences in the neighborhood. 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 8:00 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Foggy to approve a Variation request to allow a six (6) foot tall fence in the side and rear yards as shown on the Petitioner’s plan for the residence at 1115 S. Lavergne Drive, Case No. PZ-06-11. 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-06-11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 28, 2011 Page 3 of 3