Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/23/2000 ZBA minutes 09-2000 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO, ZBA-09-2000 Hearing Date: March 23, 2000 PETITIONER: Fernandez / Fear SUBJECT PROPERTY: 416 S. Nawata PUBLICATION DATE: March 8, 2000 DAILY HERALD REQUEST: Fence Variation ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Leo Floros Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Luxem STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Pedro Fernandez Elizabeth Fear Mark Peterson Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Minutes of the February 24, 2000 meeting were approved with corrections. At 9:05, after hearing one case under Old Business and two cases under New Business, Ms. Juracek introduced Case ZBA-09-2000 for a fence Variation at 416 S. Nawata. Michael Blue, Deputy Director of Community Development introduced the case, stating that notice had been provided in the newspaper, mailed notices, and through signage on the property. He indicated this request was for a variation to allow construction ora 5' fence approximately 5' offthe side property line Mr. Blue provided background on the variation request. He indicated that the subject site was an existing home. Both this house and the neighboring property have five foot setbacks from the side property line. The subject property's rear yard is partially enclosed by existing fences. Mr. Blue continued that the applicant proposes to complete the enclosure of the rear yard by building a fence from the southeast comer of the neighbor's fence to the northeast comer of the house. This would place the fence five feet off the property line -the zoning ordinance requires that all fences be located on the property line. As reason for the request, the petitioner states that maintenance problems for them and their neighbor would be created by locating the fence on the property line. It was noted that the neighbor concurs with that concern and supports the proposed variation. Considering the variation request in light of the hardship requirements of the zoning ordinance, Mr. Blue noted alternatives to the requested fence location existed that would be permitted by cede. The fence could be built on the south side of the existing hedge and adjacent to an existing patio (as a privacy fence built within the buildable area of the lot) or located on the property line. Although the parcels do have small side yard setbacks and locating the fence on the property line may create maintenance problems, the request does not meet the standards for variation as defined in the zoning ordinance. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-09-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Therefore, based on the lack of a finding of hardship, Mr. Blue presented staffs recommendation to deny a variation to ~'~'~,< accommodate a fence 5' off the side property line at 416 S. Nawata Avenue. He noted that the Zoning Board's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juraeek asked if the petitioner wanted to speak. Pedro Fernandez and Elizabeth Fear, owners of the property, were sworn in. Mr. Fernandez explained they have a dog and want to enclose the back yard. By tying to the existing fence at their neighbor's house, they would need to come all around to the corner end of the garage. By putting down a fence on the property line, they would split the space between the two houses into two unmanageable areas, particularly since the patio is surrounded by a very old yew hedge· They are proposing putting the fence along the right side of the hedge. It would be a green fence, blendiug into the old yew hedge, and would make a 90-degree turn to connect with the neighbor's fence. The problem with putting it on the patio side of the hedge is they would have to cut up the hedge, which would present another problem because there is a change of height at the back end of the patio, about a two step drop, and the soil would fall apart. By staying on the side of the yew hedge with the fence, they would not disturb the landscaping. He said it would be best to not disturb the landscaping. Mr. Rogers agreed the land does slope off quickly to the rear. To keep the same height as the neighbor's fence, the petitioner would only have a three or three and a half foot fence at his house because of the drop in the ground. Mr. Fernandez said the fence along the hedge would be five feet. Ms. Juracek asked if any audience members wished to be heard. Mark Peterson, the Fernandez' neighbor, came forward and was sworn in. He said he was in favor of granting the Variation because putting the fence on the property line would make it difficult for him or the Fernandezes to mamtam their property due to his window well, a large lilac bush and the sloping land. Ms. Juracek said the maintenance issue was understandable. She pointed out there were no property line disputes and the neighbor wanted the fence where the petitioner proposed placing it. She said she would entertain a motion to approve the request. Richard Rogers made a motion to grant approval for a Variation to construct a five-foot fence five feet off the side property line Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. LrpoN ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Flores, Youngquist, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. Zoning Board of Appeals' decision is final in this ease. At 9:20 p.m., Leo Flores made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned, l~llehael Blue Deputy Director of Community Development