The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/22/2012 P&Z Minutes 02-12MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -02 -12 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: PIN NUMBER: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTIES: Hearing Date: March 22, 2012 3007 L-, Court Patricia Ann Daidone -Seidl March 7, 2012 08 -22- 200 -186 -0000 Variation — Six (6) foot high fence Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist Leo Floros Jacqueline Hinaber, Alternate None Consuelo Andrade, Senior Planner Patricia Ann Daidone - Seidl, Jan Kent, Amy Ugalde Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Youngquist to approve the minutes of the January 26, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes Nvere approved 5 -0 Nvith Mr. Beattie abstaining. After hearing one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 02 -12, 3007 Lvim Court at 8:00 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ -02 -12 requested a Variation to allow a six (6) foot high fence on the rear property line of the property located at 3007 Lynn Court. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner obtained a permit in 2007 to construct a five (5) foot high fence along the forty - five (45) feet of the south property line, but constructed a six (6) foot high fence instead. The fence abuts multi - family residential to the south. The Zoning Ordinance limits the height of a fence between N,-o (2) residential lots to a maximum height of five (5) feet. Therefore, the Petitioner Nvas seeking a Variation to increase the permitted fence height to six (6) feet high to allow the fence to remain as currently constructed. Ms. Andrade referenced pictures that show the existing six (6) foot tall fence on the Subject Property. The fence is a Nvhite vinyl fence that abuts the driveNvay and parking lot of the adjacent multi - family residential. Ms. Andrade stated the Zoning Code alloNved for the construction of a six (6) foot tall fence when it is no longer than eighteen (18) linear feet and Nvithin 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. Ms. Andrade said the conditions at the Subject Property met the criteria for a permitted six (6) foot tall fence along the east property line as it abuts ComEd poNver lines, but not along the south property line because it abuts a residential use. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -02 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 22, 2012 Page 1 of 3 Ms. Andrade stated the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. A summary of the standards 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 said per the Petitioner's application, a six (6) foot high fence is necessary* as the property* abuts a busy* driveway* and dumpster. The Petitioner stated that the adjacent dumpster is not screened and causes trash to blow onto her property* and that there is constant traffic on the adjacent driveNvayT. During nighttime, headlights from the vehicles shine into the Petitioner's family* room and bedroom. Staff appreciated the Petitioner's need for privacy* but it does not constitute a hardship per Village Code. Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny* the motion listed in the Staff Report. Mr. Beattie asked about the Nvooden fence pictured in the exhibits that abuts the Subject PropertyT's vinyl fence. Staff confirmed per a site visit that the Nvooden fence is six (6) feet in height. Ms. Andrade said Staff researched the permit history* and did not find a permit issued for the six (6) foot Nvooden fence; it is considered non- conforming. Both fences discussed are located on the single - family* properties. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioner, Patricia Ann Daidone - Seidl, 3007 Lynn Court, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Daidone -Seidl stated that she is the original oN -,ner of the Subject Property. She said the current fence replaced a previous fence. Ms. Daidone -Seidl said there Nvas a permit issued for the previous fence and did not know how it came to be six (6) feet in height. She stated the current fence has been in place since 2007. The Petitioner said the area Nvhere the fence is located is adjacent to a busy* driveway* for the multi -unit building to the South. Ms. Daidone -Seidl also discussed trash being blov'n onto her property* from the adjacent property*. Ms. Daidone -Seidl stated that the vinyl fence could not be cut down to conform to code. It Nvould require the fence to be removed and replaced at a high cost. Ms. Daidone -Seidl said there is no privacy* in her yard Nvithout a six (6) foot tall fence. Mr. Donnelly* asked if the fence that Nvas replaced Nvas five (5) feet or six (6) feet. She believed it Nvas a six (6) foot fence previously*. There Nvas additional discussion regarding the height of the neighbor's Nvooden fence. Chairman Rogers discussed the permit process. He understood the request for the Variation given the conditions of the multi-family property* to the South. Ms. Daidone -Seidl provided additional background when the fence Nvas replaced in 2007. Ms. Daidone -Seidl Nvas under the impression that the fence contractor and her ex- husband took care of the permitting process. She did not learn of the fence height issue until she recently* applied for the Village's exempt stamp on the Subject Property*. There Nvas additional discussion on when the neighbor's Nvooden fence Nvas replaced. Ms. Daidone -Seidl could not recall the height of the neighbor's previous fence. Mr. Floros confirmed Nvith the Petitioner that the multi - family units to the South are rental tov'nhouses in Unincorporated Arlington Heights. Ms. Daidone -Seidl discussed many* nuisance issues Nvith her neighbors to the South. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -02 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 22, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Chairman Rogers sNyore in Jan Kent, 2802 Brianyood West, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Kent stated she is currently the President for the Lake Brianyood Homeovrier's Association. She stated the Petitioner is a member of the association. Ms. Kent said the Association is in support of the peripheral fence at the Subject Property due to the multi - family units to the East and the toN -,nhomes to the South. She stated there have been no complaints from the neighbors regarding the fence height. Chairman Rogers sNyore in Amy Ugalde, 3001 Lynn Court, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Ugalde said the fence Nyas needed for additional protection in the neighborhood. She discussed hovy children Nyould cut through the yards if the fence Nyas not up and believed the six (6) foot height acts as a deterrent. There Nyas additional discussion stating that a six (6) foot fence Nyould be permitted along the East side of the Subject Property since it abuts to the ComEd right- of -Nyay. Chairman Rogers asked if there Nyas anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 8:19 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. DonnelIv made a motion, seconded by Ms. Hinaber to approve a Variation request to alloy a six (6) foot high fence along the eastern forty -five (45) feet of the south lot line for the residence at 3007 L-, Court, Case No. PZ- 02 -12. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, DonnelIv, Floros, Hinaber, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None The motion Nyas approved 6 -0. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision Nyas final for this case. Chairman Rogers asked Staff if there Nyas a permit obtained for the neNy signs placed at the shopping center located 1706 -1742 E. Kensington Road (N-, Photo's is located). Ms. Andrade stated that permits Nyere obtained and that the signs Nyere considered changeable copy reader boards. Chairman Rogers said the tNyo (2) signs on -site Nyere electronic message boards, not changeable copy. Ms. Andrade stated Village Code does not require a special use or apply a minimum distance for signs consisting of a display period of thirty (30) seconds or longer. Chairman Rogers believed it Nyas getting too cluttered Nyith these types of signs. He said the reason for the distance and minimum number of electronic signs Nyas to eliminate the clutter. Chairman Rogers stated that this should be discussed Nyith the Commission or revieNyed by Staff. Ms. Andrade said Staff Nyould look at the Code to address the Chairman's concerns. Mr. DonnelIv made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to adjourn at 8:21 p.m. The motion Nyas approved by a voice vote and the meeting Nyas adjourned. Rvan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -02 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 22, 2012 Page 3 of 3