Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/24/2012 P&Z Minutes 10-12MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -10 -12 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: PIN NUMBER: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBER ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTY: Hearing Date: May 24, 2012 1312 Peachtree Lane Catherine Napoli Mav 9, 2012 03 -25- 112 - 040 -0000 Variation — Locate Fence in Exterior Side Yard Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Keith Youngquist Leo Floros Jacqueline Hinaber Joseph Donnelly Consuelo Andrade, Senior Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development Catherine Napoli Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Beattie made a motion, seconded by Mr. Youngquist to approve the minutes of the April 26, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes Nvere approved 5 -0. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 10 -12, 1312 Peachtree Lane at 7:32 p.m. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner for PZ -10 -12 Nvas requesting a Variation to allow a fence to encroach in the exterior side yard of the property located at 1312 Peachtree Lane. The Subject Property is located on the northwest corner of Peachtree and Cree Lane and contains a single - family residence Nvith related improvements. The yard facing Peachtree Lane is considered the front yard and the yard facing Cree Lane is considered the exterior side yard. The Subject Property s exterior side yard abuts the neighbor's front yard to the Nvest. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner Nvould like to install a fence setback one (1) foot awa -,T from the exterior side lot line when the Zoning Ordinance requires a nineteen (19) foot setback. Per the Petitioner's Plat of Survev, the fence Nvould extend out from the southwest corner of the house to the exterior side yard property line and continue along the exterior side, rear, and interior side lot lines. The Subject Property currently did not include a fence. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner intended to construct a five (5) foot tall cedar scalloped picket fence similar to a picture that Nvas shoN -,n. She 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. Therefore, the fence Nvould have to be setback a minimum of nineteen (19) feet from the exterior side property line to meet Code. Ms. Andrade stated 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 these findings include: Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -10 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 24, 2012 Page 1 of 3 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, the fence Nvould be installed to protect their children from a busy* intersection and provide adequate space for a dog they plan to get in the future. Installing the fence to meet Code Nvould require removal of an existing pine tree, Nvhich Nvould be a financial hardship. The Petitioner also mentioned that the exterior side yard property* line curves along Cree Lane. While Staff can appreciate the concern for safety* and a bigger yard, there Nvere no unique conditions that exist on the Subject Property* that Nvould not exist on other corner properties Nvhich are adjacent to the front yard of an adjacent lot. The need for a fence for safety* and ample space for a dog do not constitute physical hardships unique to this property* to support a Variation. A fence could be installed to meet code and still serve the Petitioner's needs for an enclosed yard. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner submitted a list of properties Nvith fences located in exterior side yards. Staff researched the properties and found no record of fence permits in some instances and record of fence permits in other instances. Some of the fence permits Nvere issued prior to 2004 (Ordinance 45426) when the Code Nvas amended to require fences in exterior side yards to comply* Nvith the current regulations. Other fence permits Nvere issued because the property* line Nvas considered the interior lot line. Regardless, the existing fences are considered non - conforming and Nvill be required to comply* Nvith Village Code requirements when replaced. Ms. Andrade said the Variation request to install a fence setback one (1) foot 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. Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny* the motion listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Rogers stated the Petitioner documented several homes in the area that Nvere similar to the Subject Property*. He confirmed Nvith Staff that many* properties may have not had a permit. Ms. Andrade stated the list she researched contained approximately* sixty* (60) properties; about eighty* (80) percent of those listed did not have history* of a Variation or a fence permit. Chairman Rogers said a majority* of the area Nvhere the Subject Property* is located Nvas Cook County* and eventually* annexed into the Village. He asked if it Nvas possible that some of these fences Nvent up at that time. Ms. Andrade stated that Nvas a possibility* that a fence could be in existence prior to the property* being annexed. The fences Nvould be considered legal non - conforming and Nvould have to comply* to current Code if they Nvere replaced. Mr. Beattie confirmed Nvith Staff that all the fences that Nvere documented could then stay* up until it Nvas time to replace them. He asked Staff to explain why- the Code requires the fence line to be setback Nvith the side of the house for the Subject Case. Ms. Andrade stated that it Nvould create an open area along the public right- of -Nvay for situations N here the exterior side yard abuts to the front yard of a neighboring property*. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioner, Catherine Napoli, 1312 Peachtree Lane, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Napoli discussed the proposed fence for the Subject Property*. It would be a five (5) foot dog -eared scalloped spaced picket fence in the back yard and side yards one (1) foot off the Subject Property* line. She stated that if she had to conform to the current Code, the fence Nvould have to come off the end of her seven and one -half (7.5) foot deck on an angle. She believed this Nvould create an uneven look and it Nvould not look aesthetically* pleasing. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner how tall the current fence Nvas. Ms. Napoli said that there Nvas currently* no fence at the Subject Property*. There Nvas general discussion regarding the existing deck Nvhich Nvas constructed in 2003. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -10 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 24, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Ms. Napoli referenced a picture from the neighboring property that showed the back of the house on the Subject Property. This gave a visualization of the alloNvable fence line and the proposed extension Nvith the Variation. The Petitioner stated the immediate neighbors surrounding the Subject Property signed a Petition in support, including the neighbor directly to the Nvest whose front yard abuts to the side yard of the Subject Property. Ms. Napoli showed an aerial picture comparing where the immediate neighbors' houses Nvere. Ms. Napoli explained whN- she believed the Subject Property met the standards for Variation as listed in Chapter 14 of the Village Code. She said her intent Nvas to build a scalloped picket cedar fence that Nvould enhance her property and the surrounding area. Ms. Napoli stated that if she had to conform to Code, she Nvould have to remove a large pine tree. She believed the Subject Property is non- typical of the corner houses in the neighborhood. Many of the homes she observed Nvere on a ninety (90) degree angles to the neighboring property. Ms. Napoli believed the Variation, if approved, Nvould not alter the character of the neighborhood. She stated approximately ninety -five (95) percent of the corner lots she observed had a fence layout as they requested. Ms. Napoli discussed findings of fifty -five (55) area homes that she observed. Six (6) of the houses had a permit approved during or after 2004. There Nvere three (3) Variations approved in 2011 and 2012 to replace an existing fence. And there Nvere two (2) homes that had a permit approved in 2007, Nvith Variations approved in 1990. Ms. Napoli said that these findings Nvere presented to show that they Nvere not looking at changing the feel or look of the neighborhood. She stated she Nvanted the proposed fence to look nice as their property is seen by many of those who enter into the neighborhood off of Basswood Lane. Ms. Napoli discussed, referenced, and showed pictures of many of the homes that had similar fences approved in the surrounding neighborhood. She discussed Variation standards three (3) through six (6). She stated that there Nvould be no financial gain as the fence is an increased cost, the hardship is caused by the pine trees and Nvas not created by any person presently having an interested in the property, and the proposed layout of the fence Nvould not create any detriment to the public Nvelfare. Ms. Napoli stated that someone cut through her yard and burglarized a neighboring home last summer. She believed a fence Nvould create a deterrence and Nvould not alter the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Youngquist asked the Petitioner whN- the deck on the Subject Property is so tall. Ms. Napoli stated the home is a split level and she preferred to Nvalk straight out onto the deck from the kitchen without taking steps doN -,n. Mr. Floros confirmed Nvith the Petitioner that there Nvould be no change to the existing deck. 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 7:55 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Mr. Youngquist made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to approve a Variation request to allow a fence setback one (1) foot from the exterior side yard lot line for the residence at 1312 Peachtree Lane, Case No. PZ- 10 -12. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Floros, Hinaber, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None The motion Nvas approved 3 -2. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision Nvas final for this case. After hearing t�vo (2) additional cases, Mr. Youngquist made a motion, seconded by Ms. Hinaber to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. The motion Nvas approved by a voice vote and the meeting Nvas adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -10 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 24, 2012 Page 3 of 3