Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/27/2011 P&Z Minutes 24-11 (Part 2 or 2)MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -24 -11 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: PIN NUMBER: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT INTERESTED PARTY: Hearing Date: October 27, 2011 900 Westgate Road Mario Torres September 7, 2011 03 -26- 322 -038 -0000 Variation — Locate Fence in Exterior Side Yard Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Keith Youngquist Jacqueline Hinaber, Alternate Theo Foggy Ronald Roberts Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development Mario Torres Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2011 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes Nvere approved 4 -0 Nvith Mr. Floros and Mr. Youngquist abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 24 -11, 900 Westgate Road at 7:33 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ -24 -11 requested a Variation to allow a fence to encroach in the exterior side yard setback of the property located at 900 Westgate Road. Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property is located on the northwest corner of Westgate Road and Ironwood Drive, and contains a single - family residence Nvith related improvements. The east side of the lot faces Westgate Road and 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 Iron -, ood Drive is considered an exterior side yard. The Subject Property , s exterior side yard abuts the neighbor's front yard to the Nvest. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner currently has a five (5) foot tall Nvood fence in the exterior and rear yard of the Subject Property. The fence is setback approximately nine (9) feet from the south property line Nvithin the exterior side yard. 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. Since the existing Nvood fence is non - conforming, removal of the fence required the new fence to conform to current Village Code requirements. Ms. Andrade showed a picture that illustrated the Subject Property and the existing Nvood fence. Part of the fence is missing due to the damage caused by a June 2011 storm. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -24 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 27, 2011 Page 1 of 4 Ms. Andrade referenced another picture that showed the portion of the fence Nvithin the exterior side yard. The fence comes out N, -elve (12) feet from the corner of the house into the exterior side yard. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner Nvould like to replace the Nvood fence Nvith a vinyl fence. Per the Petitioner, the fence height Nvould remain at five (5) feet. Ms. Andrade stated 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. The fence currentIv encroaches into the exterior side yard and is considered non - conforming. Removal of the non- conforming fence required the new fence to comply Nvith Code; requiring the fence line to be setback approximately twenty -one (2 1) feet from the south property line to comply Nvith Village Code. Ms. Andrade showed N,-o (2) examples of corner properties. In instances where corner properties Nvith exterior side �Tards abut exterior side yards of adjacent lots, the Village Code permitted fences in the exterior side yard provided the fence is setback one (1) foot from the lot line. The Subject Property is an example of a corner property*, where the exterior side yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot. The fence in the exterior side yard is required to be aligned Nvith the building line. Ms. Andrade said the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven (7) 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 stated the Petitioner noted in his application that installing the fence in accordance Nvith the current Village Code requirement Nvould reduce the private area on the property* and that there is more than enough parkway* area Nvith the fence in its present location. The Petitioner obtained and submitted signatures from five (5) neighbors who have no issues Nvith a fence in the present location. Ms. Andrade said Staff appreciated the concern for private space. There are 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. 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 stated the Variation request to install a fence setback nine (9) 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 recommended that the P &Z deny* the motion listed in the Staff Report. The Planning and Zoning Commission's decision Nvould be final for this case. Mr. Floros asked how far the fence Nvould need to be moved to comply* Nvith Code. Ms. Andrade said the fence Nvould need to be located at least twenty-one (21) feet from the exterior property* line. The current fence is setback nine (9) feet so the proposed fence Nvould need to be moved an additional twelve (12) away* from the setback to conform to Code. Mr. Beattie confirmed Nvith Staff that if the fence conformed to the Code it Nvould align itself Nvith the home. Chairman Rogers swore in Mario Torres Road, 900 Westgate, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Torres stated that he did not Nvant to change the size or location of the fence; he just Nvanted to replace the current fence Nvith a new Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -24 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 27, 2011 Page 2 of 4 fence. He said his fence Nvas damaged in the June 2011 storm that struck the Village. Mr. Torres stated that he originally Nvas only going to replace the damaged part of the fence. He looked at the condition and age of the fence and decided the best option Nvas to replace the entire fence. Mr. Torres said that he came to the Village Nvith his proposal for the new fence and Nvas notified of the Code requirements for installing a fence on a corner lot. He stated he Nvas unaNvare of the requirements as he just moved to the Village in May 2011. Mr. Torres Nvas advised that he could contest the Village Code requirement by applying for a Variation and appearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Torres questioned whN- his existing fence location could not be grandfathered in. He believed by replacing the fence he Nvas doing his part to beautify the neighborhood. Mr. Torres discussed how small his yard Nvas and by moving the fence in further Nvould decrease the amount of private space. Mr. Torres said if his Variation request Nvas denied he Nvould just replace the damaged section of the fence as alloNved by Village Code. Chairman Rogers asked how much of the fence Nvas damaged. Mr. Torres stated approximately thirty -five (35) to forty (40) feet of the fence. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if he Nvas aNvare that he can replace up to fifty (50) percent of the fence. Mr. Torres said ves. Chairman Rogers discussed how the fence may impact the immediate neighbor; however, the neighbor signed a petition and Nvas in agreement for the replacement of the existing fence. Mr. Torres stated that he talked to the surrounding neighbors who all did not object to the replacement of the fence. Chairman Rogers said the fence location does not block anv site angles at the T intersection Mr. DonnelIv confirmed Nvith the Petitioner that he Nvould like to repair the entire fence at once and not in segments. He also stated that the Petitioner's lot is one of the smallest lots in the subdivision and loses additional space being on a corner. Ms. Hinaber asked how long the existing fence has been up. Mr. Torres did not know. Mr. Donnelly believed the fence may have been up for at least twenty -five (25) Nears. Mr. Torres discussed correspondence he had Nvith Community Development Director William Cooney. Mr. Torres asked Mr. Cooney to investigate a fence at 901 Hemlock Nvith the same characteristics as the Subject Property. He Nvas advised by Mr. Cooney that the fence on Hemlock Nvas installed via a permit in August 2001; prior to the amendments placed on the Village Code in 2004 to regulate fences in the existing side yard. Mr. Torres believed the fence on Hemlock Nvas not ten (10) Nears old; he stated it Nvas a newer fence. Mr. Youngquist asked if the Petitioner's fence Nvas bloN -,n doN -,n or hit by debris. Mr. Torres said the fence Nvas bloN -,n down by the high Nvinds during the tornado that hit the Village in June 2011. Mr. Youngquist agreed Nvith the Petitioner that the rest of the fence should be taken doN -,n and replaced. 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 7:49 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. Floros believed the Commission should grant the Variation request to the Petitioner. He stated that the request Nvas not detrimental to the neighborhood. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -24 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 27, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Mr. Floros made a motion, seconded by Mr. Donnelly to approve a Variation request to allow a fence setback nine (9) feet from the exterior side yard lot line for the residence at 900 Westgate Road, Case No. PZ- 24 -11. 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 one (1) additional case, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to adjourn at 8:17 p.m. The motion Nvas approved by a voice vote and the meeting Nvas adjourned. Rvan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -24 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 27, 2011 Page 4 of 4