Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/28/2002 P&Z minutes 5-02MINUTES OF TIlE REGULAR MEETING OF TIt~ PLANNING & ZONING COM3~ISSION CASE NO. PZ-05-02 PETITIONER: Hearing Date: February 28, 2002 Agata Przybylak 2109 E. Seminole Lane REQUEST: Variation to allow a six-foot fence MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP,.Senior Planner Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Agata Przybylak Tom Lend Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:33p.m. Minutes of the January 24 meeting were approved. Ms. Juracek announced the withdrawal of Case No. PC-18-01 and the Commission heard Cases PZ-02-02, PZ-03-02 and PZ04-02. At 10:55, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No~ PZ-05-02, a request for a Variation to allow a 6' fence. She explained that this case would be Plmming and Zoning Commission final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. She said that the subject property is a comer lot, located at the southwest comer of River Road and Seminole Lane. The petitioner obtained a fence permit to install a six-foot fence along the River Road property line and two separate sections of five-foot fence along the Seminole Lane frontage. An inspection confirmed that the entire fence measures six-feet in height. The property owner was notified that the fence fronting ontO Semin°le Lane did not comply with zoning regulations and is now seeking a variation for the existing fence to remain at its current six-foot height in all locations, Also, the fence is required to be entirely behind the house along the exterior side yard. The existing fence i~ located approximately 4' behind the front of the house. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner stated in her application that the property is a unique site and that it is exposed to noise from River Road. The petitioner stated that a six-fo0i fence is necessary to block the noise and sight of River Road traffic. Also, the taller fence is necessary to keep trash out of the yard and to create a safe play area for the petitioner's child. Ms. Cormolly said that in order to approve the taller fence and its location, the request has to meet the standards for a variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said Staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey, site plan, and visited the site after the fence was installed. The property is a triangular shaped comer lot that measures 12,610 square feet. It is developed with a single family home and an attached garage. The applicant installed a six-foot cedar fence, although a five-foot fence was noted on the permit application for the Seminole Lane frontage. During the site visit, Staff observed heavy traffic volumes on River Road that were consistent with traffic volumes for' 6ther major arterial roads. The traffic volumes on Seminole Lane, which is a collector street, were consistent with traffic volumes of other collector streets. According to a 1998 traffic study, over 16,000 vehicles travel on River Road in both directions on a daily basis near Seminole Lane. Ms. Connolly said that while a taller fence on the east side, which is closest to River Road, may help minimize the impact of River Road traffic, the six-foot fence on the west side of the house does not appear to serve this same function. She said that this section of fence is adjacent to a single-family Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-05-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 residence and the fence is over 100-feet from River Road. In addition, the petitioner created the need for a variation by installing the taller fence and disregarding the information on the permit application. Ms. Connolly pointed out that the proposed variations to allow a six-foot fence along the Seminole Lane frontage and at its present location are unlikely to have a detrimental impact on neighborhood character. However, the justifications for the taller fence on the west side of the house do not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Also, the triangular shape of the subject property and the traffic volume on River Road are unique conditions and support the need for a six-foot fence on the east side of the property in its current location. Based on these findings, Staff recommends.that the Planning & Zoning Commission: deny the Variation to permit a six-foot fence on the west side of the house and approve the Variations for a six-foot fence on the east side of the house in its current location for the residence at 2109 E. Seminole Lane, Case No. PZ-05-02. The Planning and Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Joseph Dormelly asked if the petitioner had applied for a permit before they built the fence. Ms. Counolly said yes, and explained that the permit allowed a 6' fence on the River Road side because it is an arterial mad and that the Variations are for the fence height on Seminole Lane and the portion of the fence that is not behind the primary structure along River Road. Tom Lend, 8816 Elmore, said he is here on behalf of the people at 2109 E. Seminole Lane. Mr. Lend said the petitioner has a 2-year-old child and that the triangular area along River Road is the best play area because it is near the deck and kitchen and the mother can watch the child. He said that a safety issue exists because the debris that is thrown from cars and a noise from both River and Seminole River Roads impacts the petitioners' property. He pointed out that the road curves and that a car veered offthe road and drove directly onto the property. He said that the car almost went into -the petitioner's house. He said that there is heavy traffic on Seminole and that a 6' fence is not even ad.equate at times. Mr. Lend said that the petitioner also wanted to match the neighbor's existing 6' fence. He said the petitioner was willing to beautify the fence by adding more landscaping. Ms. Juracek noted it was not a stockade fence but an attractive shadow box design. She asked about the notation on the plat that the fence on Seminole was to be a maximum height of 5'. Mr. Lend said that he did not know who had written that on the plat. Agata Przyblak, the petitioner, was sworn in. She said that although nobody wants to break the Code, they felt that they had to due to the safety of the child. Also, it was not a question of money since they paid $3,000 for the fence. She reiterated the incident of a truck veering onto their property and sa~d there are many motorcycles that travel on River Road. She said that they wait for the light to change, which is in frb~t of their house, and create a great deal of noise. Mr. Sledz said the Rand Road traffic is very heavy and the traffic on Seminole is almost as bad. He said that he can understand the need for a 6' fence on both streets, but he does not see the need for the 6' fence on the west side where it abuts with the adjacent residence~ Mr. Rogers agreed ~vith Mr. Sledz's assessment of the fence situation and said that it is a dangerous intersection. Ms. Juracek also a~eed and closed the public heating at 11:15. She suggested breaking down the motion into two votes. lanning & Zoning Commission Arlene luracek, Chairperson PZ-05-02 Page 3 Richard Rogers moved to approve a 6-foot fence to be located 4-feet from the front of the house along River Road and for the east portion of the fence along Seminole Lane. Matthew Sledz seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Dormelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz and Juracek NAYS: None Mot/on was approved 6-0. Richard Rogers moved to require that the 10' section of fence on the west side of th6 building be lowered to 5' in accordance w/th the Zoning Code. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Dormelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz and Juracek Motion xvas approved 5-1. NAYS: Cotten At 11:23 p.m., Richard Rogers made a ,motion to adjourn, seconded by Matt Sledz. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ~Judy ~),~nolly, Senior Planner~-~'~