Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/23/2001 ZBA minutes 25-2001 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-25-2001 Hearing Date: August 23, 2001 PETITIONERS: Frank and Dianne Rancci 212 Audrey Court PUBLICATION DATE: August 8, 2001 Journal & Tol~ics REQUEST: Variation for a privacy fence taller than 6-feet MEMBERS PRESENT: Leo Floros Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Conno!ly, AICP, Senior Planner Mike Blue, AICP, Community Development Deputy Director INTERESTED PARTIES: Frank and Dianne Raucci Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. The minutes of the July 26, 2001 meeting were approved 4-0. At 8:15, afler hearing two other cases, Chairperson Arlene Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-25-01, a request for a Variation for a privacy fence taller than 6-feet. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. Ms. Connolly stated that the petitioners recently reconstructed and expanded their raised deck. As part of the project, they installed a privacy fence along a portion of the deck. The specs for this section of the deck were not included with the building permit. She said that the Building Inspector noted that a 9-foot privacy fence was constructed along the east section of the deck and disapproved the final inspection of the project. While a privacy fence is a permitted structure, it must comply with Zoning Ordinance regulations and cannot exceed 6-feet in height when measured from grade. Ms. Connolly said that the existing privacy fence measures 9-feet from grade and that the petitioners are seeking a variation to allow the fence to remain at its current height. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner was informed how the fence could be modified to comply with Village regulations. She said that staff learned that the contractor provided the petitioner with information that called for a privacy fence that exceeded the maximum height allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, but that this information was not included with the Building Permit application. If it had been part of the application, staff would have notified the contractor and homeowner that the height of the privacy fence would have to be reduced. The structure would have been built according to Village codes or the petitioner would have sought a variation before constructing the privacy fence. Ms. Connolly said that staff reviewed the petitioners' plat of survey, site plan, and visited the site. She said that the .property is a triangular shaped lot, on a cul-de-sac, that is relatively level, and out of any flood zone. The parcel is developed with a single-family home, an attached garage, and has a 2-tiered, raised deck. The height of the deck varies and measures 2'10" from grade along the east elevation, which is the location of the existing privacy fence. Ms. Connolly reiterated that the Zoning Ordinance permits privacy fences up to 6-feet in height for 18 linear feet. The privacy fence must be located along the edge of the patio or deck. She said that in this case, the location and length of the privacy fence comply with zoning regulations, but that the height exceeds the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Although the fence itself measures less than 6-feet in height, the overall height of the privacy fence strucA'ure is measured from grade and is 9' 1". Ms. Connolly noted that the petitioners state in their application that the existing fence is necessary because their property is an irregular shape and is on a cul-de-sac. Therefore, a taller privacy fence is needed to screen the deck from the street. Also, the fencing material without the lattice trim measures less than 6-feet from the top of the deck Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-25-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 and that it would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. The next-door neighbor (Mary Schulz, 210 Audrey Court) contacted staff and said that she does not object to the height of the privacy fence and stated that it was an attractive improvement to the property. Ms. Connolly said that the privacy fence is highly visible from the street and provides more than adequate screening from vehicle and pedestrian traffic. While the fence would not have a negative impact on the charaetar of the neighborhood, public welfare, or drainage, the request fails to meet the standards for a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staffrecommends that the ZBA deny a Variation for a 9' 1" privacy fence along the east elevation of the deck for the residence at 212 Audrey Court, Case No. ZBA-25-01. She said that the Zoning Board's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek commended the petitioner on the color rendering of the home showing the privacy fence, which had been submitted with their application. Richard Rogers noted that the drawing depicts a more "airy" fence, whereas the actual picture shows a board-on-board fence with latticework on the top and bottom, and extends from the side comer of the house. Ms. Juracek noted that a fence on the first floor is measured at grade level, and asked what criteria would be used to measure the height on a second story deck. Ms. Connolly said that any deck more than 18" high is required to have a 36" guardrail according to BOCA requirements; and aRer 42" it becomes a fence. She said that a second story fence would have to be constructed in the buildable area and that the second story screening Ms. Juracek referred to would be part of the structure. Mike Blue said such a hypothetical case would take more consideration, but the measurement would not start at grade, and would be considered as part of the structure. Ms. Juracek noted that, based on her reading of fence definitions in the Zoning Code, that the structure in question is not a fence, but part of the house. Ms. Juracek said that this is her interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance's definition of a fence and clarified that her interpretation was not critical of staff's interpretation of the structure as being a fence. Leo Floros said he did not agree with Ms. Juracek,s interpretation and that the structure is a fence. Richard Rogers said that the rendering makes the structure look like a fence, but the photographs show it to be more a part of the main structure. Keith Youngquist said that he does not have an issue with this request since the neighbors are accepting of it. He said that he understands how it could be interpreted as part of a structure. Diane and Frank Raucci were sworn in, Mr. Raucci said they had been residents of Mount Prospect for over 25 years. Mrs. Kaucci presented more pictures to the Zoning Board. The pictures showed their view of the neighbor,s driveway from the deck; She stated that since the deck is raised, that in order to comply with zoning regulations, the fence could only measure 3'2" and be more of a guardrail around the deck. Mrs. Kaucci said they have received many compliments on the appearance of the new deck and fence. Mr. Floros asked the height of the latticework and if it is removable. Mrs. Rancci said the deck is 2' 10" above grade and uses latticework to screen the base. She said that the fence is 5'4" of so[id wohlmanized wood fencing with 1.5' of latticework on top. The Rauccis said they thought it would detract from the overall appearance if the top latticework were removed. Zoning Board members agreed. Ms. Juracek noted there was no one in the audience to address the Zoning Board. At 8:34, Chairperson Juracek closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board members Variation for a privacy fence taller than 6-feet. Mr. Rogers said this was a very attractive addition and Ms. Juracek agreed. She said that was one of the reasons why she scrutinized the definitions so closely and would rely on that information to persuade her to vote in favor of this oning Board of Appeals ZBA-25-2001 Arlene Juraeek, Chairperson Page 3 request. Mr. Floros said he could not support the request. He said that it is a fence and that it is higher than what is allowed by Code. There was discussion among the ZBA as to whether the structure was a fence or part of the house, i.e. a structure that had to be constructed within the buildable area. After much discussion, Richard Rogers moved to approve the request for a Variation for a privacy fence taller than 6-feet at 212 Audrey Court, Case No. ZBA-25-01, with the following conditions: 1. The privacy fence must continue to meet all the requirements of the documents submitted with the petitioners' Variation appliea'fion; 2. The privacy fence cannot be longer than 8' or the length of the east elevation of the deck as shown on the attached site plan; 3. That the uppermost part of the fence remain an open latticework as shown on the attached exhibit; 4. That the privacy fence remain attached to the house itself and be contained in the buildable area. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Floros Motion was approved 3-1. Ms. Juracek said three carries the vote so the fence has been approved. At 8:45 p.m., Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary