Title/Name/Summary
Cooper Residence Variance - 14461 Woodland Avenue
History
Project: Cooper Residence Variance - 14461 Woodland Avenue
Prepared: 7/27/2026
Prepared by: Hailey Gorman, Planner
Legistar ID: 2026-0504
Project ID: PPA-26-0035
Petitioner: Brian Cooper (Property Owner)
Address: 14461 Woodland Ave, Orland Park, IL
P.I.N.s: 27-09-111-014-0000
REQUESTED ACTIONS
The Petitioner is requesting approval of a variance from Sections 6-310.H & 6-310.1.A.1.b.2.a.9 Raviniaof the Land Development Code to eliminate the requirement to install a 6’-tall opaque fence to screen a swimming pool on a corner lot.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This property is within the Orland Grove Planning District in the Comprehensive Plan, which identifies Single-Family Residential as an ideal use for this site.
The Orland Grove District is dominated by single-family and mixed residential uses, with some commercial development along 143rd Street. Overall, the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for this area.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Planning District: Orland Grove
Planning Land Use Designation: Single-Family Residential
ZONING DISTRICT
Existing / Proposed: R-3, Residential
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
Existing & Proposed: Single-Family Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: R-3, Residential; Single-Family Detached Residential
East: R-3, Residential; Single-Family Detached Residential
South: R-3, Residential; Single-Family Detached Residential
West: R-3, Residential; Single-Family Detached Residential
PROJECT SUMMARY
In 2021, the Land Development Code (LDC) was amended to require 6’-tall opaque fencing to screen swimming pools located on corner lots (Ordinance No. 5653). Swimming pools are permitted to be located in the side and/or rear yards of residential lots. On corner lots, the side and rear yards can be adjacent to a public right-of-way, making a pool more visible from the street. This requirement was implemented in order to screen the view of swimming pools from the public right-of-way.
The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Woodland Avenue and 145th Street. The petitioner is requesting approval of a variance from the screening requirement, in which they propose to install a 5’-tall, open-style aluminum fence around the swimming pool, in accordance with swimming pool barrier requirements prescribed in the LDC. Their swimming pool is located in the rear yard of the property, adjacent to the public right-of-way along 145th Street.
The petitioner has already constructed and filled the swimming pool. There is a valid building permit for the swimming pool, but final inspections have not been passed due to the absence of the appropriate swimming pool barrier. Therefore, the property is currently out of compliance with swimming pool barrier requirements as there is only a temporary construction fence securing the site.
The petitioner has stated that a difference in elevation makes it difficult to meet screening requirements. Specifically, 145th Street is higher than the rear yard of the subject property, so the swimming pool may be seen from the public right-of-way even with a 6’-tall opaque fence.
In an effort to meet the intent of the screening requirement, they are proposing to install landscaping on the inside of the proposed 5’-tall fence. The plantings include 8 arborvitaes and 10 shrubs.
FINDINGS OF FACT
When reviewing an application for a variance, the decision-making body shall adopt findings of fact based on the variance standards prescribed in the Land Development Code. The petitioner has submitted responses to the standards which are attached to this case file. The standards below come from Section 5-105.E of the Land Development Code:
1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located;
2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;
4. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations were carried out;
5. The conditions upon which the petition for a variation is are based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property;
6. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by these regulations and has not resulted from any act of the applicant or any other person presently having an interest in the property subsequent to the effective date hereof, whether or not in violation of any portion thereof;
7. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located or otherwise be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, any adopted overlay plan or these regulations;
8. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood;
9. The variance granted is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land; and
10. Aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Section would deprive the applicant of any reasonable use of his or her land. Mere loss in value shall not justify a variance; there must be deprivation of all beneficial use of land.
In their responses, the Petitioner discusses that the variance request is the minimum adjustment necessary for them to have complete use of their property. The unique conditions of the site make it so that they cannot meet the screening requirement as its written in the Land Development Code. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and maintains the character of the residential neighborhood.
Recommended Action/Motion
MOTION OPTION #1 - APPROVE
Regarding Case Number 2026-0504, also known as the Cooper Residence Variance, I move to accept and make findings of fact as discussed at this Plan Commission meeting and within the Staff Report dated July 27, 2026;
And
Recommend that the Board of Trustees approve a Variance from Sections 6-310.H and 6-310.1.A.1.b.2.a.9 of the Land Development Code to eliminate the requirement to install a 6’-tall opaque fence to screen a swimming pool on a corner lot.
MOTION OPTION #2 - DENY
Regarding Case Number 2026-0504, also known as the Cooper Residence Variance, I move to accept and make findings of fact as discussed at this Plan Commission meeting and within the Staff Report dated July 27, 2026;
And
Recommend that the Board of Trustees deny a Variance from Sections 6-310.H and 6-310.1.A.1.b.2.a.9 of the Land Development Code to eliminate the requirement to install a 6’-tall opaque fence to screen a swimming pool on a corner lot.