Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/25/2015 P&Z Minutes 13-15 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -- 1439 Fern Drive PUBLICATION DATE: June 10, 2015 PIN NUMBER: 08-14-306-032-0000 REQUEST: Variation- Seven (7) foot tall fence MEMBERS PRESENT: Sharon Otteman Thomas Fitzgerald William Beattie Keith Youngquist Jeanne Kueter Norbert Mizwicki Joseph Donnelly, Chair Agostino Filippone - Associate MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES : Thomas Yarrish & Daphne Macias Yarrish Chairman Donnelly -Chairman Donnelly introduced Case PZ-13-15 1439 Fern Drive. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to the fence height regulations for the property located at 1439 Fern Drive. Ms. Andrade stated the subject property is located on the east side of Fern Drive and contains a single- family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. Ms. Andrade stated that the rear yard includes an in ground pool and two fence lines. An existing wood fence that measures six (6) feet in height and a chain link fence that measures four (4) feet in height. The wood fence is setback approximately twenty-nine and half (29 1/2) inches away from the rear lot line. Ms. Andrade further explained the Petitioner would like to replace the existing fences with a seven foot (7) foot tall fence along the entire length of the rear lot line. The Zoning Ordinance limits the height of a fence between two residential lots to five (5) feet. Planning and Zoning Commission- June 25, 2015 Meeting PZ-13-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 2 Ms. Andrade stated the proposed seven (7) foot tall fence would be a privacy PVC fence and would extend along the entire length of the rear lot line. Ms. Andrade summarized the standards for a Variation as the following: 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. Ms. Andrade explained that the Petitioner indicated the Subject Property is unique due to the in-ground pool and the grade difference located in the rear of the yard. She further stated that the backyard is level, until the existing wood fence line where the grade drops one (1) foot at the property line. Ms. Andrade stated that the space in-between the existing wood and chain link fence lines is twenty-nine and a half (29 ½) inches. Per the Petitioner, this area allows for property drainage but is difficult to maintain. She further stated that installing a five (5) foot tall fence at the rear lot line would cause a specific hardship due to the grade level, which would measure four (4) tall as measured at the swimming pool grade level. She explained that the Petitioner stated the rear lot line presented a liability should anyone attempt to enter the rear yard from the east and access the pool. Ms. Andrade explained s reasons for installing a seven (7) foot tall fence; however, does not find the request satisfies the Variation standards. Ms. Andrade explained the grade level at the rear lot line is not unique to this property and is consistent with the adjacent lots. She further explained the rear yards slope down towards the rear lot lines. The wall. The existing wood fence projects six (6) feet above the retaining wall. Village building permit records indicate a permit was issued for the in-ground pool in 1976, but does not indicate any record of fence permits. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff finds the variation request to allow a seven (7) foot tall fence does not meet the variation standards as listed in the Zoning Code and that granting such request would not be in the best interest of the Village. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt the findings in the staff report and deny the Variation request to allow a seven (7) foot tall fence along the rear lot line. Commissioner Mizwicki asked how high the fences are along the side of the yard. Ms. Andrade stated that the existing chain link fences that run along the sides of the property are four (4) feet in height. Chairman Donnelly asked if the six (6) foot fence is a non-conforming structure. Ms. Andrade responded it was and stated that staff researched the building record of a fence permit for the existing wood fence. She further stated the Zoning Code was amended in Planning and Zoning Commission- June 25, 2015 Meeting PZ-13-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 3 1993 to include the five (5) foot height restrictions and stated the fence was more than likely installed before the change. Commissioner Filippone asked if there was anything in the code against filling the land where the grading drops off to even out the space. a property line on any property because it can cause draining and flooding issues. Chairman Donnelly swore in the Petitioner Thomas Yarrish from 1439 S. Fern Drive. Mr. Yarrish stated they are trying to replace two existing fences with a seven (7) foot fence. He stated the total height of both fences looking from the east is seven feet two inches (7-.2). He explained that there is about a twenty nine and half inch space between the two fences which makes it difficult to maintain. Mr. Yarrish further explained that they would like to remove the wood and chain link fences and replace it with a seven (7) foot PVC fence and redo the landscaping in that area to help with drainage. Commissioner Beattie asked about the height of the chain link fences that are along the sides of the Subject Property and asked about what the liability issue he is concerned about because there is currently a fence. Mr. Yarrish stated they are about four (4) feet however the land slopes down so it is lower in certain parts. He said there is a lack of a fence in between the two properties to the east of the Subject Property which makes it easier to get over the fence coming in from the east than it would be from entering on the northeast or the southeast. Commissioner Mizwicki asked the Petitioner if they would keep the two side chain link fences if they put up the PVC fencing. Mr. Yarrish stated he plans on keeping the two chain link fences in their current locations. Commissioner Mizwicki asked why the side fences are in good shape and the other chain link is not. Commissioner Beattie asked why the seven (7) feet is being requested. Mr. Yarrish stated that he is just trying to match the existing height. Chairman Donnelly interjected that it is also graded one foot lower than the rest of the yard. Commissioner Younquist stated that he thinks that two four (4) foot from jumping the fences and into the pool. He stated his concern about the seven (7) foot fence in a height is five (5) feet per code. Mr. Yarrish asked why he wouldna seven (7) foot fence or a six (6) foot fence. Commissioner Youngquist stated because it is not what the Village Code supports. Planning and Zoning Commission- June 25, 2015 Meeting PZ-13-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 4 Chairman Donnelly stated if the Petitioner wants more privacy they could plant shrubbery to achieve the height and privacy. Mr. Yarrish asked if the wooden fence had to be removed regardless of the outcome of the variation request. Chairman Donnelly clarified with Staff. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner could repair the fence as long it is less than fifty percent (50%) of the overall structure replacement value. She clarified that if the entire fence were to be replaced it could not be reinstalled at the current height of seven (7) feet. Commissioner Mizwicki asked if the fence were to be repaired would it have to consist of the same materials. Ms. Andrade stated that was correct. Chairman Donnelly stated that the Petitioner is allowed to retain the fence area because it is a non- conforming structure. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any further questions for the Petitioner. Hearing none he opened the case to the public for discussion hearing no discussion from the public he closed the public portion of the case and brought the case back to the board for voting. Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald to approve the following motion: along the rear lot line at the Subject UPON ROLL CALL AYES: None NAYS: Otteman, Fitzgerald, Beattie, Youngquist, Kueter, Mizwicki, Donnelly The vote was denied 7-0. This case was Planning and Zoning Commission final. After hearing one (1) additional case, Commissioner Otteman made a motion seconded by Commissioner Kueter and the meeting was adjourned at 8:02 pm. ________________________________ Jenna Moder Jenna Moder Administrative Assistant- Community Development Planning and Zoning Commission- June 25, 2015 Meeting PZ-13-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chair