Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/2003 P&Z minutes 14-03MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-14-03 PETITIONER: Hearing Date: May 22, 2003 Charles Dianis 1605 Rosetree PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: May 7, 2003 Variation to replace an existing privacy fence that exceeds maximum permitted length Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Anne Walters, Community Development Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Chuck & Mary Dianis Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 24 meeting, seconded by Richard Rogers. The April meeting minutes were approved 6-0, with one abstention by Matthew Sledz. At 7:36, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-14-03, a request for a Variation to replace an existing privacy fence that exceeds maximum length permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Juracek said the case would be P&Z final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the case. She explained that the petitioner is seeking a variation to replace an existing privacy fence that exceeds the maximum length currently permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the subject property is a comer lot, located at the southeast comer of Buckthom Drive and Rosetree Lane. It currently contains a six-foot wooden privacy fence that measured 42 linear feet, prior to being blown down by a recent windstorm. She said that the fence wrapped around and screened the patio. Ms. Connolly reported that the petitioner would like to replace the 6-foot tall ;vooden privacy fence because it is deteriorating but current code regulations limit the length of privacy fences to 18 linear feet. She said that the petitioner is seeking a variation to replace the fence in kind, which measures 42 linear feet. Although the staff report states that the new fence would be 2 feet less than the length of the original fence, 40 linear feet, the petitioner has since met with contractors who have informed him that the pre-fab fence sections would require the 42-foot length. Ms. Connolly said that the subject property is a comer lot and that the proposed privacy fence would screen the view of the petitioner's patio and home from pedestrian and vehicular traffic on Rosetree Lane. She said that the petitioner states in his application that the fence was installed as part of the original construction of the home 37 years ago and that an 18 linear foot fence permitted by current code ;vould not provide adequate privacy or screening. The petitioner states that the proposed fence setback from the property lines is significant and would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood character or the adjacent properties. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the petitioner is proposing to replace an existing nonconforming fence and since the petitioner is replacing more than 50% of the structure, the new fence is required to meet current code regulations. She said that the proposed fence would exceed the linear Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-14-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 length permitted by the Zoning Ordinance and would be used to screen the petitioner's patio and house. However, the physical shape and general development of the subject property is typical of most comer lots in the Village. Ms. Connolly reported that the petitioner has the option of installing a 5-foot perimeter fence, which is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. She said that while the length of the proposed 6-foot wooden privacy fence would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood character and would be an attractive enhancement, the subject property does not meet the standards for a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance and the petitioner has an alternative that would not require relief from Village Code regulations. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny a Variation for a 42-linear foot privacy fence for the residence at 1605 Rosetree Lane, Case No. PZ-14-03. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek asked whether the fence would be permitted if it were less than 6-feet in height. Ms. Connolly said no, that a perimeter fence can be no more than 5' and that a perimeter fence is defined as being no more than 6" off the property line. She said a privacy fence needs to be in the buildable area and is limited to 18 linear feet and the 6-foot height is permitted by code. There was general discussion regarding the hardship related to high winds, replacing non-conforming structures, and the possibility of a permitting a Conditional Use. Ms. Connolly clarified that the Zoning Ordinance requires a hardship to be related to the property and that fence requests require a variation not Conditional Use approval. Charles Dianis, t605 Rosetree, was sworn in and testified that his property had been annexed into the Village just two years before he purchased it in 1975. He said that the privacy fence was already in existence when he purchased the property. He reported that they have one of the few homes with a patio to the side of the house rather than the rear yard and that the fence was damaged by high winds. Ms. Juracek asked if he wanted to use the same material for the new fence as the existing fence. Mr. Dianis said he hoped to use cedar instead of the Wohlmanized wood presently used, but the fence would be the same style. He said he wants to retain the fence height and length for privacy from the street and sidewalk. Ms. Juracek observed that if the project were being started from scratch, landscaping and an 18' length of tall fence at an angle would provide the necessary privacy, but this condition has existed for 37 years. She said that she could understand Mr. Dianis wanting to replace the existing fence and not lose privacy. Richard Rogers asked if the fence could be replaced board by board. Ms. Cormolly said the petitioner could repair the fence on multiple perm/ts, replacing less than 50% each time. Mr. Donnelly observed that the existing fence was less obtrusive than a perimeter fence would be. P&Z members agreed and noted the communications from several neighbors who are in support of the longer fence. Ms. Juracek suggested that Mr. Dianis attempt to use landscaping to provide vertical relief and break-up the look of the fence. She closed the meeting at 7:53. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the requested Variation as submitted for Case No. PZ-14-03, 1605 Rosetree. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion approved 7-0. P&Z decision final. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-14-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 At 8:37 p.m, Joseph Donnelley made motion to adjourn, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner H:\GEN~,PLANNING\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2003\Minute~'~Pz~14-03 I605 Rosetree doc