MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,
WHICH TOOK
PLACE ON
AT
1. ROLL CALL.
PRESENT: Board
Members – Holthof, Lichtenwald, and Sutton
ABSENT: Higgins and Pelton (each excused)
OTHERS
PRESENT: Mark Ostgarden, secretary and seven people in the audience
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
The
minutes of
Petition 03-03. Page 1, First paragraph, seventh line, the sentence should read: “…..assured the Board that property across the street from the museum would not be developed”.
Third Paragraph seventh line the word “boiling” should be “building”.
Page
3, last sentence in Old/New Business
should read: “It was suggested that the
chairman may want to periodically talk with the Mayor and Board members may want to contact City Council members to
occasionally request feedback about the Board.”
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND CONSIDERATION.
The Vice-Chair explained that petitions 03-05 and 03-07 had been withdrawn. He also explained to the petitioners of 03-04 and 03-06 that, because there is less than a full Board, that the Board’s procedure is to allow the petitioner to postpone a decision on their appeal until a full Board is present.
The petitioner of 03-04 indicated they want to proceed with a decision. The petitioners of 03-06 indicated a desire to wait until a full Board was present.
Petition No.
03-04 – John and Terri Mendyk for a special approval for a fence
to be six feet high in the required side street yard at
The Mendyks
constructed a pool in the rear yard and desire to construct a six foot privacy
fence. The property is a corner lot in
an RA-1 zone, which requires a street side yard setback of 20’. Fences in the required setback area are
permitted to be 3-1/2’ and the petitioners desire that the fence be constructed
with a setback that would range from 4’ (southwest corner) to 7’ northwest
corner) from the property line The fence
would be located 18’ form the southwest corner of the garage. The Mendyks submitted photographs of a blue
plastic tarp they put up to visually illustrate how far the fence would come
out from garage corner to the lot line.
Photophraphs of other six foot fences in street side yards were shown.
Three
letters in support of the appeal were received.
Hank
Holthof commented that the drawing was out of proportion. He inquired about the distance the fence is
from the pool. Mr. Mendyk said it was
approximately 12’.
Sally
Sutton informed the petitioner she saw no other six-foot fences in the
neighborhood. She observed an open feeling about the neighborhood. She was concerned about safety and observed
mature trees along the south property line.
She inquired about options such as a smaller fence and landscaping which
would be more compatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. Mendyk
thought there were other six-foot fences in the area and referred to the
photographs, which identified a six-foot fence on
A vinyl
fence is to be installed which is more costly and would look better. It will be
too cost prohibitive to install shrubs and a fence.
Terri
Mendyk thought that if the setback was required they would loose too much of
the yard area.
No one
else spoke in support of or in opposition to the request.
FINDING OF FACTS
1.
The
Property is zoned RA-1.
2.
The
house is located on a corner lot.
3.
Three
letters in support were received.
4.
The
pool is above ground with white exterior.
5.
There
are no 6’ fences visible from the petitioner’s residence.
6.
A
row of mature trees is shared by the adjacent property along the rear lot line.
7.
The
lot is irregular shaped having a curved street side yard.
8.
The
area is a mature residential neighborhood.
9.
The
fence will be vinyl.
A motion was made by Sally Sutton
and seconded by Tim Lichtenwald to approve Petition 03-04.
Sally
Sutton thought the petitioners had options to construct a fence and comply with
the ordinance. She restated her safety
concerns and thought the fence was not in character with the neighborhood.
Tim
Lichtenwald stated that a photograph shown to the Board clearly depicted the
fence would not create a safety hazard for pedestrians or motorists. He thought all criteria were met. He concurred he did not see other fences in
the area but the vinyl fence would be compatible in the area. He thought the property was unique because of
the street curve and how it affects the lot.
Hank
Holthof agreed with Mr. Lichtenwald. He
said there was stop sign at the corner of Lancaster and
This
addressed Ms. Sutton’s concerns about safety and impingement on the
neighbors. She could support the
amendment and the petition. Mr.
Lichtenwald agreed to the amendment. The
motion on the floor was amended to read:
A
motion was made by Sally Sutton and seconded by Tim Lichtenwald to approve
petition 03-4 conditioned upon the fence extending 7’6” from the garage and
being setback six feet from the southwest property corner.
.
Vote
on the amended motion:
YEAS: Holthof, Lichtenwald, Sutton
NAYS:
None
The special approval was approved.
Petition No.
03-06 – Richard Miller for a special approval to allow a six foot
fence in Residential A-4, which has Business B-2 uses on three sides at
Mr. Miller informed the Board that he has reconsidered postponing a
decision and requested the Board to decide his appeal.
The secretary explained property is located at the west end of
The site had been owned by the petitioner and a land division was
approved for four single-family lots.
Mr. Miller has sold the west half of the property to Ron Lowery.
Several photographs of the fence were shown depicting that the fence
height ranged from over seven feet to 6’5”.
The secretary indicated that there was a grade change adjacent to the
fence, which based on the fence height measurement requirement
caused the fence height to exceed seven feet.
There were no letters in support of or in opposition to the request.
Mr. Miller explained that he has owned the property for forty years. He reviewed the zoning history and the
difficulty he has had in changing the zoning.
He compromised with the current RA-4 zone.
He approached the adjacent property owners and none had an interest in
constructing a fence. The fence on the
north line of the adjacent property has, according to Mr. Miller, been there
forever. The subject fence will buffer
the residential uses planned for the site.
The fence was built to help block noise from the car dealership that is
adjacent to the east and to prevent trash from blowing onto the property. It cost $9,000 to construct the fence.
Ron Lowery who purchased the west ˝ of the property provided additional
photos depicting why the fence was needed and its relationship to the fences on
the property to the west.
No one else spoke in support of or in opposition to the request.
FINDING OF FACTS
A motion
was made by Tim Lichtenwald and seconded by Sally Sutton to approve Petition
03-06.
Ms. Sutton
thought all the criteria for the special approval were met. There would be no safety problems, the fence
will not limit the supply of air and light, and it will enhance the residential
use of the property as all three sides are bordered by commercial
property. She did not see any
incompatibility sizes as the fence helps everyone in the neighborhood.
Tim
Lichtenwald agreed with Ms. Sutton. Hank
Holthof added that he thought it would affect the aesthetics of the fence if
the northwest corner was cut back to 3-1/2 feet (to comply with the height
requirements).
The Board
commended the petitioner for placing the finished side of the fence toward
adjacent properties.
Vote on the
motion:
YEAS: Holthof, Lichtenwald, Sutton
NAYS:
None
The special approval was approved.
4. Public comments before the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
There were no public comments.
5. Election of officers.
Because three
members of the Board were present the election of officers did not take
place. There was discussion about
interest in the Chair position. Sally
Sutton stated that she would be serve as chair if
nominated. Hank Holthof also stated that
his schedule and time commitments have improved and would be available to serve
as chair.
No action
was taken and this will be an agenda item for July.
6. Old/New
Business.
The secretary gave a brief report on the Zoning Ordinance update
process.
The secretary explained that a five member Board is available for July.
6. ADJOURN.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Ostgarden, AICP, CFM
THESE MINUTES ARE NOT
OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.