The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/25/2013 P&Z Minutes 09-13 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-09-13 Hearing Date: July 25, 2013 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1901 Wood Lane PETITIONER : Peggy Solis PUBLICATION DATE: July 10, 2013 PIN NUMBER: 03-25-205-020-0000 REQUESTS: 1.) Locate Fence in Exterior Side Yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly Tom Fitzgerald William Beattie Jacqueline Hinaber Leo Floros Sharon Ottoman MEMBERS ABSENT: Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES : Peggy Solis Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Beattie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hinaber to approve the minutes of the June 27, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting; the minutes were approved 6-0. Chairman Donnelly introduced Case PZ-09-13, 1901 Wood Lane and stated this case is Planning and Zoning Commission Final. Mr. Simmons stated the Petitioner is seeking a variation to place a fence in the exterior side yard. The Subject Property is a corner lot and fronts on two street frontages. The Burning Bush street frontage is considered the exterior side yard. Mr. Simmons explained since the side yard fronts on to the front yard of an adjacent lot to the south of the site, the setback for the fence needs to be at the building line of the Subject Property or the front building line for the property on the adjacent site. Mr. Simmons stated the Petitioner is seeking a variance to install a fence up to one foot (1’) from the property line to provide more usable space in the rear yard. He further explained the Zoning Ordinance requires a twenty seven foot (27’) setback in order to be aligned with the existing building line because the Subject Property’s exterior side yard abuts the neighbor’s front yard. Mr. Simmons explained the fence would be a four foot (4’) tall chain link. Mr. Simmons stated the Variation Standards listed in the Village Zoning Ordinance include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list a summary of the findings: 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 welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Mr. Simmons stated per the Petitioners’ application, the fence would be installed to create a usable yard space that is secured area for children to play. Mr. Simmons explained Staff appreciated the Petitioner’s desire for a larger enclosed yard space, but there are no unique conditions that exist on the Subject Property that would not exist on other corner properties which are adjacent to the front yard of an adjacent lot. The desire for more usable yard space does not constitute a physical hardship unique to this property to support a Variation. Therefore, the alleged hardships presented in this case are directly related to the property owner’s own interest in the property and not by the Village Code. Mr. Simmons stated that Staff recommends a denial of the motion, “To approve a Variation request to allow a fence setback one (1) foot from the exterior side yard lot line for the residence at 1901 Wood Lane, Case No. PZ-09-13.” He also stated the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision is final for this case. Chairman Donnelly asked the board if they had any questions for Staff. Commissioner Hinaber asked where the fence could be located in order to comply with code. Mr. Simmons stated that the fence could be installed along the side of the house towards the Burning Bush side of the property and would continue to the southern property line. Commissioner Beattie asked if the neighbor whose front yard the Subject Property directly abuts to had any issues with the request. Mr. Simmons stated he was unaware of any discrepancies from that neighbor. Chairman Donnelly called the Petitioner to the stand and swore in Peggy Solis 1901 E. Wood Lane. Ms. Solis stated that she recently purchased the home and was hoping that she could extend the enclosed yard space, which was a concern of hers before she purchased the property. Ms. Solis explained that she has children and grandchildren that would benefit from having the enclosed space. She stated that it currently is a waste of space because they can’t use it. She also stated that installing the fence on the foundation line would create too small of a space. Chairman Donnelly asked if any of the properties in her neighborhood had similar fences. Ms. Solis stated that the adjacent corner properties all have mature shrubs that “enclose” the yard space. She stated she realizes she could do the same but it wouldn’t be as secure as the fence. Commissioner Beattie asked where the rear neighbor’s chain link fence is located in relation to the Subject Property. There was general discussion regarding the placement of the neighbor’s fence. Chairman Donnelly opened the public portion of the meeting. He swore in the resident at 1418 Burning Bush Lane. The resident stated he is concerned the fence will take away from the open space look of the neighborhood, and it would be the view from his front window. There was general discussion between the board and Staff regarding the setback and the building lot line. Chairman Donnelly closed the public portion of the meeting and brought the discussion back to the board. Commissioner Beattie asked how many feet from the roadway would the fence be if the Petitioner was allowed to put it where they want. The Petitioner stated it is 24 feet (24’) to the curb from where the fence would be placed. The Petitioner also stated that there is plenty of clearance for the entire intersection from all directions in order to see approaching traffic. Chairman Donnelly clarified that there is twenty one feet (21’) from the curb to the start of the front yard setback and then additional thirty feet (30’) for the front yard setback. Mr. Simmons stated the house is setback about twenty-seven feet (27’) from the property, which is where the fence would need to be setback by code. He stated the setback from the house to the property line is twenty-seven feet (27’) and there is another twenty-four feet (24’) from the property line to the curb. Commissioner Floros asked if there was a sidewalk on the Petitioner side of the street. Chairman Donnelly clarified that there isn’t sidewalk on the Petitioner’s side of the street but there is sidewalk on the west side of the street. Commissioner Hinaber stated that if people were walking down Burning Bush Lane in either direction they would be walking down the west side of the street where the sidewalk is located. Chairman Donnelly stated that there would be room in the additional twenty-four feet (24’) if they decided to put sidewalks down in the future. Commissioner Floros stated that in his opinion a twenty-seven foot (27’) setback is too big and it takes about one third of the homeowner’s yard away. He also stated that he thinks the request is reasonable and doesn’t see any problem with Petitioner’s proposal. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated that he thinks the same condition consists on a lot of corner lots. He also stated that he has a corner lot in the Village and was not able to build a fence that would project out like the Petitioner is proposing because it would be effectively in his neighbor’s front yard. Commissioner Floros stated that placing a chain link fence in that area is different from a solid wood fence which could have shrubs placed in front of it in time. The Petitioner explained where the shrubs are currently located on the property. Commissioner Donnelly asked if there were any further comments, hearing none he requested a motion to approve the variation to locate a fence in the exterior side yard. Commissioner Floros made a motion which was seconded by Commissioner Beattie to approve a variation to locate a fence in the exterior side yard at 1901 Wood Lane. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Hinaber, Floros, Donnelly NAYS: Fitzgerald, Otteman The motion was approved 4-2. This case is Planning and Zoning Commission final. ______________________________________ Jenna Moder, Community Development Administrative Assistant