A meeting of the Village of Riverlea Planning Commission was held August 12, 2024 at the Old Worthington Library. Members present were Bryce Jacob (Planning Commissioner), Chris Bedell, Paul Collini, Rich Skowronski, and Jennifer Zipfel. Also present were Cory Shields, Kent Shimeall, and Jay & Karyn Prater. The Planning Commissioner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

  1. The minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of July 8, 2024 were not read since each member had received a copy. Skowronski moved and Zipfel seconded the motion that the minutes be approved as submitted by the Clerk-Treasurer. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea: 4, Collini, Jacob, Skowronski, and Zipfel; Nay: None; Abstain: 1, Bedell. The motion carried 4-0-1.
  2. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Jan and Karyn Prater at 272 Melbourne Pl to remove the existing concrete stoop at the front of the house and replace it with a porch. Karyn Prater explained that this move is being made because the concrete on the existing stoop is deteriorating and these improvements will make the porch more ADA accessible. The Planning Commissioner pointed out that porch as shown on the application would extend into the 35 ft setback from the street as required in Riverlea’s Code of Ordinances. The plans show that the current stoop extends to 31 ft from the street and the new porch will extend to 26 ft from the street. Per the code, if the neighboring residences extend into the setback requirement, the plans may extend to the average of the nearest two houses. The Planning Commissioner stated that knowing the setbacks of the two neighboring houses would assist the Commission in deciding on this.

The Praters showed the planned materials for the project, which include metal on the roof of the house and shingles on the gable, both in Dynasty Gray. The Planning Commissioner recommended that the plans be revised to include a metal roof on the gable as well. The lot calculation on the project shows that it will be above the 40% restriction per the Code, but this may include the addition of some pavers that should not have been included. The Praters will revise this calculation, and it is expected to fall under 40%.

The Planning Commissioner explained that a variance would be required given the encroachment into the setback. The Praters will measure the distances to the street of the two closest houses and recalculate the lot coverage and then bring this application back to the Commission. Collini moved to table the application until the requested information is returned. Jacob seconded this motion. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea: 5, Bedell, Collini, Jacob, Skowronski, and Zipfel; Nay: 0; Abstain: 0. The motion carried 5-0.

  1. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness and Variance by Kent Shimeall at 121 W Southington Ave to replace the existing chain-link fence along the west side of the rear yard with a six ft cedar fence. The application was tabled at the July meeting. Zipfel moved to take the application off the table and Jacob seconded the motion. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea: 5, Bedell, Collini, Jacob, Skowronski, and Zipfel; Nay: 0; Abstain: 0. The motion carried 5-0.

Shimeall presented additional information and pictures in support of the granting of the variance for the six ft height. The yard has a downhill slope from east to west, up to two feet in height and the area where the fence is to be has an additional dip. Because of this dip, a four ft fence would be below the railing of Shimeall’s deck. The six ft height would also align the height with the four ft height on the east side of the yard due to the slope. Shimeall proposed a change in the design of the fence to include vertical stiles at the top that would present more of an opening given the requested height.

Zipfel inquired how the planned gate would work given the slope of the yard and Shimeall explained that this gate would likely need to be constructed on site and adapted for this. Shimeall stated that the Village Code calls for variances to be granted under special conditions and that the slope of the yard as well as the crown of the neighbor’s yard that creates a valley in between the two yards would be a special condition to grant this.

Collini asked if the Commission could caucus without the applicant present and Shimeall and Cory Shields excused themselves from the meeting. Collini stated that he was torn given the requirements stated in the Code but that he sympathized with the special conditions in the case. Zipfel stated that she had never encountered a case where the fence on one side of the yard had to match the height on the other side of the yard and that she does not see a hardship in this case. She stated that she would likely approve the application if they could put a stipulation that no neighbors could use this height as precedent for adding their own six ft fence but that this is not the case. She stated that she felt that the solution is a four ft height fence with landscaping to assist with the privacy. The Planning Commissioner stated that he understood the request for the six ft height given the valley between the two yards but that the need to match the fence height on the other side of the yard was unconvincing. Skowronski stated that his primary concern in the case is the precedent set by granting the height.

Shimeall and Shields reentered the meeting at this point. The Planning Commissioner asked Shimeall if he was open to replacing the fence on the east side of the yard at four ft as well. Shimeall stated that this is not likely as he felt that it would be a danger to wildlife in the area. Shields reiterated that he was in favor of the height of the fence at six ft. The Planning Commissioner moved to approve the fence at a height of six ft starting at the rear of the yard and tapering down in height to maintain an even level to where it meets the house given the slope of the yard and using the amended design with the open top of the fence. Collini seconded this motion. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea: 2, Collini, Jacob, ; Nay: 3, Bedell, Skowronski, Zipfel; Abstain: 0. The motion failed to pass (2-3).

  1. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Gina Traetow at 5826 Westchester Ct to add a wooden picket fence at the northeast corner of the rear yard. The application was tabled at the July meeting. The applicant was not in attendance, but the Planning Commissioner explained that the plans had been revised to a height of 48 inches, down from the original application. Collini moved to approve the application with the amended height. Zipfel seconded this motion. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea: 5, Bedell, Collini, Jacob, Skowronski, and Zipfel; Nay: 0; Abstain: 0. The motion carried 5-0.

Skowronski moved and Collini seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion was approved unanimously (5-0). The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m.

 

Bryce Jacob, Planning Commissioner

Josh Mehling, Clerk