Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/26/2002 P&Z minutes 25-02MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-25-02 Hearing Date: September 26, 2002 PETITIONER: Rich & Sue Eddington PROPERTY ADDRESS: 407 Carol Lane PARCEL NUMBER: 08-10-415-012 PUBLICATION DATE: September 11, 2002 REQUEST: Variation - Double Fence MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Planning INTERESTED PARTIES: Rich & Sue Eddington John Massong Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 22 meeting, seconded by Richard Rogers. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 25 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotton. The August minutes were approved 4-0 with Rich Rogers, Matt Sledz, and Keith Youngquist abstaining. The July minutes were approved 6-0 with Joe Donnelly abstaining. At 7:33, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-25-02, a request for a Variation to allow a second fence along the rear lot line of the property. She said the case was Planning & Zoning Commission final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, reported that the subject property is located on the east side of Carol Lane and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. She said the property is zoned R1 Single Family Residence and is bordered by the R1 Single Family District on all sides. The property abuts two single family residences, each of which have their own chain link fences. Ms. Connolly said one of the existing fences measures three-feet in height and the other fence measures four feet in height. The petitioner would like to construct a 5-foot wooden fence along their rear lot line. The proposed fence would match the existing wooden fence along the petitioner's interior lot lines. She said that the zoning ordinance permits only one fence per lot line and that the petitioner is seeking a variation to allow two fences along the same lot line. The petitioner investigated removing the existing chain link fences, but found that it would require replacing more than the two fences that abut the subject property. She said that the lots on Carol and Deborah Lanes do not 'line up' and that each property abuts at least two other lots insteadlof the typical 'one-to-one' line-up. In order to meet zoning regulations and have only one fence per lot line, the petitioner would have to replace two fences that impact'at least four other properties, 405 Carol Lane, 409 Carol Lane, 404 Deborah Lane, and 406 Deborah Lane. ' Ms; Connolly explained that in order to approve the Variation, the Planning & Zoning Commission must find that the request meets the standards for a variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the standards relate to a hardship that is created by the physical surroundings, shape, or conditions of the specific property 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. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-25-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly said that the Zoning Ordinance permits only one fence per lot line for several reasons. The primary reason is to ensure that the fence and surrounding area is maintained. She said that in this case, the chain link fences provide the Deborah Lane property owners with adequate means to maintain their existing fence and surrounding area. The proposed wooden fence will not limit access to the existing fences and typically requires minimal maintenance if left untreated. Another reason that the Zoning Ordinance allows only one fence per lot line is due to aesthetic reasons. Ms. Connolly said that the neighbor at 406 Deborah indicated to staff that they do not object to the Petitioner's request to install a new fence, but the other neighbor at 404 Deborah sent an e-mail stating an objection to the request. However, the Petitioner noted in the application that both neighbors have bushes that will screen the proposed wooden fence. Ms. Connolly summarized the case and stated that the petitioner proposes to construct a new wooden fence adjacent to existing chain link fences that are located on the rear lot line to ensure the petitioner's dogs do not leave the yard. The petitioner looked into removing the existing chain link fences, but found this required replacing multiple fences and/or impacting several neighboring properties. In reviewing the situation, Staff concluded that the petitioner tried to comply with Village code requirements, but was unsuccessful. She said that the manner in which the lots were platted would require replacing multiple fences and that installing a second fence along the lot line will not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare since the existing fence and the proposed fence allow for both to be maintained. Ms. Connolly relayed Staffs recommendation that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve a Variation for a second perimeter fence along the rear lot line for the residence at 407 Carol Lane, Case No. PZ-25-02. She said that the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek said the platting for this block is unusual and asked if it existed anywhere else in the Village. Ms. Connolly said it appears to be common in the area of this subdivision, but that it may occur in other areas of the Village, too. Richard Eddington, 407 Carol Lane, was sworn in and testified that they own large dogs and were concerned that the dogs' barking disturbed the neighbors. He said that he thought a wood fence would screen the neighbors' yards from the dogs' line of sight, which would reduce the barking. The chain link fences cannot be removed because it would involve more properties than just the two neighbors to the rear. He said the neighbor at 406 Deborah Lane approved of the fence and that the neighbor from 404 Deborah Lane was here to express his concerns. Richard Rogers asked if the dog jumps the fence. Mr. Eddington said no. Ms. Jumcek asked if the existing chain link fences were different heights and Mr. Eddington said yes. Ms. Juracek asked about the side fences. Mr. Eddington said when they moved in they erected a fence on one side to match the one on the other side. Leo Floros asked the height of the side fences. Mr. Eddington said they were 5' with latticework on the top, and said that he would like to install the same fence along the rear property line so the fence would match. Merrill Cotten asked if the smooth side of the fence was on the outside and was told it was a solid wood fence, so both sides would be smooth. Joseph Donnelly asked if the neighbors had complained about the dog barking. Mr. Eddington said no and that there was no concern that the dog would bite the neighbors. Mr. Cotten asked for the distance between the fences. Mr. Eddington said he was not sure of that measurement. Mr. Cotten said that to place them directly next to each other would be better than leaving a space because'the space'WOuld be difficult to maintain. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak. lanning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-25-02 Page 3 John Massong, 404 S. Deborah Lane, was sworn in. He stated that he has lived in his home for 16 years. He said that when Mr. Eddington talked to him about the fence he told Mr. Eddington that he was strongly opposed to a second fence. Mr. Massong said listening to the dogs bark was better than looking at a double fence. Mr. Massong said he was also concerned about futura maintenance between the fences. He shared with the Commission a petition signed by other neighbors who opposed the petitioner's request. Ms. Juracek noted there were many signatures from neighbors on Deborah & Lincoln Streets on the petition. Matt Sledz asked if a double fence had been approved anywhere else in this neighborhood. Ms. Connolly said not in this neighborhood, but that the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a request for a double fence last year for a property on George Street. She said that the petitioner wanted to install a solid wood fence, but that the neighbor, who had two dogs, would not remove his split rail fence. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Rogers said this would solve the problem of one continuous fence on this property and create a two-fence problem of different heights on adjoining properties, so there is no easy solution. Mr. Youngquist said this would create an aesthetic issue for the properties in the back. Richard Rogers suggested putting slats in the chain link fence to stop the dog from seeing neighborhood activity and reduce their barking. Richard Rogers moved to approve a Variation to permit a second perimeter fence along the rear lot line for the residence at 407 S. Carol Lane, Case No. PZ-25-02. Matt Sledz seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, Sledz and Juracek Motion was denied 7-0. At 8:50 p.m., after hearing four more cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary