The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/24/2003 P&Z minutes 12-03MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-12-03 Hearing Date: April 24, 2003 PETITIONER: Rich & Sue Eddington PROPERTY ADDRESS: 407 S. Carol Lane PARCEL #: 08-10-415-012-0000 PUBLICATION DATE: April 9, 2003 REQUEST: Variation to allow a double fence along the rear lot line MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo FIoros Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Rich & Sue Eddington John Masong Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 24 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotton. The March meeting minutes were approved 5-0, with one abstention by Keith Youngquist. At 8:15, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-12-03, a request for a Variation to allow a double fence at the back of the property. She said that the requests would be P&Z Commission final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case, describing the subject property as being located on the east side of Carol Lane, between Lincoln Street and Rusty Drive, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. She the petitioner is seeking a variation to allow the construction of a new five-foot wooden fence along the subject property's rear lot line without removing the adjoining properties' existing chain link fences. The proposed fence would be located as close to the existing chain link fences as possible and the existing ground cover and landscaping would be removed to minimize, if not entirely eliminate, any maintenance issues. She said that the subject property currently contains a wooden fence along both of its side property lines and abuts two different chain link fences along the rear lot line. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner previously applied for a variation to allow the double fence. She said that the Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at the September 2002 meeting and voted to deny the request. Since then, the petitioner has taken steps to address the objections raised during the September meeting and has provided photographs taken during the Fall season in addition to identifying screening techniques to improve the aesthetics of a second fence. She said that the subject property abuts two single family residences, each of which have their own chain link fences. One of the fences measures three-feet in height and the other fence measures four-feet in height. The petitioner proposes to construct a five-foot wooden fence along their rear lot line and would match the existing wooden fence along the interior lot lines. The Zoning Ordinance permits only one fence per lot line; therefore, the petitioner is seeking a variation to allow two fences along the same lot line. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-12-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly said the petitioner previously investigated removing the existing fences, but found that it would require replacing more than the two fences that abut the subject property because the properties on Carol and Deborah Lane were platted differently and do not 'line-up'. She said that in order to meet zoning regulations and have only one fence per lot line, the petitioner would have to replace fences that would impact at least four other properties. Ms. Connolly reported the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the petitioner is proposing to construct a new wooden fence adjacent to existing chain link fences that are located on the rear lot line. The proposed wooden fence would not limit the neighbors' access to their fences and typically requires minimal maintenance, if left untreated. The petitioner would like the second fence for aesthetic reasons, in addition to providing privacy and minimizing noise. Staff concluded that the Petitioner tried to comply with Village code requirements, but was unsuccessful because the manner in which the lots were platted would require replacing multiple fences. She said that installing a second fence would not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare since the existing fences and the proposed fence allow for both to be maintained. Ms. Connolly relayed Staff's recommendation that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve a Variation for a second perimeter fence along the rear lot line for the residence at 407 S. Carol Lane, Case No. PZ-12-03. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Rich and Sue Eddington, 407 S. Carol Lane, were sworn in and testified they are in the process of landscaping their property and have been advised that a fence would be the best solution for the rear property, where nothing grows due to the shade. They said they wanted to address concerns that had been raised as a result of their last fence request before the Commission. Ms. Juracek asked the Eddingtons if the depicted 15' "pipe" trellis and wishing well covered by a blue tarp were located on their property. Ms. Eddington said they were on the neighbor's property to the rear of their property. Ms. Juracek said the Commission had received letters and e-mails from neighbors who had previously been against the fence request, but now support the request because they had a better understanding of the request and how a second fence would appear. John Masong, 404 S. Deborah Lane, was sworn in and testified that eight months ago they presented a petition signed by 26 neighbors objecting to the request for a double fence. He said the neighbors still do not want a double fence in the area. He said it is a common practice to cover objects with a blue tarp in the winter. He said the Commission should not reverse their previous unanimous vote. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 8:35. Richard Rogers said he had a problem with the statement that nothing would grow in the rear of the property. He said he thought arbor vitae would grow. Ms. Juracek said the situation of uneven lots holds the property owner hostage to the varying tastes of several neighbors to the rear unless everyone can agree on a certain type of fence. She said she understood the large pine tree provided too much shade for the soil and feels the iron trellis looks like a second fence. Leo Floros asked if the neighbor at 406 Deborah Lane was opposed to this request. Ms. Eddington said they did not. Ms. Juracek noted the previous case minutes reflected approval by the neighbors at 406. Mr. Masong said he did not object to removal of the fence and replacement and that his objection was to the double fence. The Eddingtons said they would pay to remove the other fences and put up their own fence. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ- 12-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Richard Rogers moved to approve the request for a Variation to allow a double fence at the back of the property at 407 S. Carol Lane where it backs up to 406 Deborah Lane; the petitioner is required to remove existing fence at the back of 404 S. Deborah Lane and continue their new fence, Case No. PZ-12-03. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and J'uracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. P&Z decision is final. At 9:12 p.m, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary H:\GEN~LANNINGkPlanning & Zoning COMM~&Z 2003hMinutes~PZ*12~03 407 S, Carol Lane.doc