Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/2003 P&Z minutes 15-03MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-15-03 Hearing Date: May 22, 2003 PETITIONER: Charles & Sharyn Gunderson 1812 Aralia Drive PUBLICATION DATE: May 7, 2003 REQUEST: Variation to allow a double fence along portions of the rear and side lot lines MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Anne Walters, Community Development Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Chuck & Sharyn Gunderson 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 7:55, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-15-03, a request for a variation to allow a double fence for sections of the subject property's rear and side lot lines. Ms. Juracek said the P&Z decision would be final for this case. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case and said that the petitioner is seeking a variation to allow the construction of a new four-foot wooden fence along portions of the subject property's rear and side lot lines without removing the adjacent properties' existing chain link fences. She said that the subject property is located on the west side of Aralia Lane, between Aztec and Maya Lanes, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The subject property is zoned R1 single family residence and abuts five other lots of record, all of which are zoned R1. She said that sections of the subject property include existing chain link fences installed on the neighboring properties. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner is seeking a variation to install a landscape/screening-type fence that would screen the subject property from utility boxes located in the neighboring yards in addition to 'framing' a garden area on the subject property. She said that since the proposed fence is four feet in height, the Zoning Ordinance does not recognize it as a landscape feature, although that is how the petitioner will use it. The proposed fence is subject to applicable zoning regulations that govern the location, height, and number of fences permitted on a lot line. Ms. Connolly said that sections of the proposed fence are not permitted by code because there are fences currently in the same location as the proposed landscape/screening fence. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-15-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly reported that the subject property abuts 5 lots of record and sections of the subject property include two different chain link fences on shared lot lines. She referred to pictures that indicated the location of the existing fences and the location the petitioner would like to install the proposed 4-foot fence. The pictures showed that existing chain link fences that belong to the petitioner's neighbors and extend beyond the petitioner's property lines and enclose the neighbors' yard. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner currently has a fence similar to the proposed fence on the south lot line, but this fence would be replaced with the new fence material. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner would like to install 24-linear feet of the 4-foot screening fence along the north lot line, which would create a double fence situation. The proposed 24-linear foot fence would connect to 12-linear feet of fencing located along the northwest corner of the subject property, but this section of fence (12-1inear feet) would be the only fence along this lot line. In addition, the petitioner would like to install 18-linear feet of the proposed fence along the west lot where there is an existing chain link fence. The petitioner's existing wooden fence located along the south lot line would be removed and the proposed 18-linear feet of fencing would connect to the new fence. The new 18-linear foot fence would be located next to a 5-foot chain link fence and requires relief from zoning regulations because code prohibits two fences on a lot line. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance and the petitioner's request. She said that the Zoning Ordinance permits only one fence per lot line primarily to ensure that the fence and surrounding area are maintained. She said that in this case, the existing chain link fences provide the property owners with adequate means to maintain the existing fence and surrounding area. The proposed 4-foot open slotted wooden fence would not limit access to the existing fences. In addition, the petitioner has provided information that the proposed fence is durable and maintenance free. Therefore, it is unlikely that the fences and surrounding area would become maintenance concerns. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner would like the second fence to screen the view of the utility boxes and to enhance a garden area. She said that in order to install the proposed fence, the petitioner would have to replace multiple fences for lengths that extend past the petitioner's property line because the lots were platted off-center and the existing chain link fences enclose the adjacent properties yards. Ms. Connolly said that staff concluded that the petitioner tried to comply with Village code requirements, but was unsuccessful because the manner in which the lots were platted would require replacing multiple fences. She said that in this case, installing a second fence would not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare since the existing fences and the proposed fence allow for both to be maintained. Ms. Connolly said that staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve a Variation for a second fence along the lot line for the residence at 1812 Aralia Drive, Case No. PZ-15-03, but only for the locations shown on the attached site plan. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Sharyn Gunderson, 1812 Aralia Drive, was sworn in mad explained that she wanted to put up the fences to give some uniformity to her garden, which presently has three different fences. She said that she discussed the project with the two neighbors, who favor the request. Richard Rogers said this project was a good idea and would add an architectural appearance to the yard. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-15-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Ms. Juracek said the landscaping was aesthetically pleasing and the screening would provide a nice backdrop for the garden. There was discussion on the irregular platting of the lots in the petitioner's neighborhood, the number of fences that would have to be replaced and the negative impact on those neighbors, and the letters from the neighbors supporting the petitioner's request. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 9:04. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the requested Variation as submitted for Case No. PZ-15-03, 1812 Aralia Drive. 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. 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, AICP, Senior Planner