Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/25/2001 ZBA minutes 4-01 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-04-2001 Hearing Date: January 25, 2001 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson St. PUBLICATION DATE: January 10, 2001 Journal/Topics REQUEST: Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: 1) to create a minor variation process and amend the zoning ordinance accordingly to implement the process; 2) to create a floor-area-ratio (FAR) requirement for single family dwellings and amend the zor~mg ordinance accordingly to implement an FAR; 3) to increase the ma:dmum size of a detached garage to 672 square feet and eliminate conditional use approval for garages designed for more than two-motor vetfmles; 4) to clarify that the maximum number of accessory structures is two per zoning lot and exempt swimming pools from this provision; 5) to require that the finished side of a fence is exposed along arterial streets; 6) to eliminate parlimg lots from the bulk regulations sections of the nonresidential zoning districts to permit parking lots within 10-feet of a property line, unless adjacent to single family residential zoning districts. MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Hal Ettinger Leo Floros Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Luxem STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: None Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Minutes of the November 9, 2000 meeting were approved. The Zoning Board heard Case Nos. ZBA-01-01, ZBA-02-01, and ZBA-03-01. At 9:16, Ms. Jumcek introduced Case No. ZBA-04-01, Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that public notice had been given and introduced the staff memorandum for the item, a request for Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. As background to the case, Ms. Connolly explained that the Village Board and Zoffmg Board members discussed several zoning issues at a previous Committee of the Whole meeting last falk Copies of the minutes from the September COW Meeting and the Staff memo, which were the basis of that discussion, were included in the recent ZBA packets. As a result of these discussions, Staff was directed to draft text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Counolly said that the amendments (1) create a Minor Variation process, (2) create residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements, and (3) increase the size of detached garages to 672 s.f. and eliminate the Conditional Use requirement for garages designed for more than two vehicles. She explained that, in addition to these amendments, staff drai~d three other text amendments in response to concerns expressed at later Village Board meetings and to clarify Village policy. These amendments (1) require that the Zorfmg Board of Appeals ZBA-04-2001 Arlene ]'uracek, Chairperson Page 2 finished side of a fence faces out along arterial streets, (2) limit the number of accessory structures and (3) clarify parlimg setbacks for nonresidential properties that are adjacent to nonresidential zoning districts. It was decided that Ms. Connolly would briefly describe each amendment and Zoning Board members would voice their comments and questions at the completion of each amendment. MINOR VARIATION PROCESS Ms. Connolly described the minor variation process as one that would allow the Director of Community Development to hold an administrative hearing and decide whether an existing non-conforming structure, such as a patio or shed could be replaced in kind. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows people to replace certain non-conforming structures, but requires that they meet lot coverage requirements. Ms. Connolly stated that if the m'mor variation process is approved as proposed, a resident could replace an existing patio that was 3' from the lot line, when code required a 5' setback through a simpler hearing process. She said another example replacing an existing patio, same size and location, even if the lot coverage exceeded the maximum allowed by code. She said that if code allowed up to 50% lot coverage, the resident could have the same lot coverage up to 55%. Ms. Cormolly reported that the Staff memo contains revised sections of the Zoning Ordinance as it pert/ms to the minor variation process. Ms. Connolly said that the Director of Community Development could only hear requests for petitions for replacing existing non- conforming structures that: (1) extend into no more than 40% of the required interior setback, (2) extend into no more than 10% of the rear yard setback or (3) where the applicable lot coverage does not exceed the maximum permitted for that zoning district by more than 10%. She said that the new section creates standards for minor variations that require that the Director of Community Development to make findings of fact based the standards listed in the staff memo and input from adjacent property owners. The new section creates notice requirements to ensure that neighbors are aware of the request and includes posting a sign in front of the property, having neighbors sign an administrative notice or having the applicant mail the administrative notice through Certified Mail. Ms. Connolly described the administrative notice as having the property address, a description of the project, and where and when the hearing will be held. She said residents can go to the hearing or submit their comments in writing. In addition, the new section creates an appeals process whereby residents can appeal the Director's decision on minor variations to the ZBA. Ms. Juracek asked if there would be a trial period for the Minor Variation Process. Michael Blue said that if the process was not working that Minor Variations could be removed from the Zoning Ordinance as a text amendment. Ms. Jumcek asked who presently provides notice to the adjacent property owners. Ms. Connolly responded that the petitioner obtains the names of property owners vdthin 250' and prepares labels, which are given to staff. The notices are mailed to the homeowners by staff. Mr. Blue pointed out that under the new system the petitioner would personally contact homeowners within 50' of the petitioner's property for their approval and signs would continue to be posted, Ms. Juracek said that was a much more friendly process. FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) Ms. Connolly explained that Floor Area Ratios (FAR) are regulations that lini~t the intensity of development. She said that the Village currently uses lot coverage to regulate the amount of property a development covers, but recent development trends require that the code be revised to include an FAR in an effort to restrict the gross square footage of buildings that may be constructed on a property. She stated that current lot coverage requirements would not change as those regulations also govern structures such as patios and decks. The Zoning Ordinance would be revised to create FAR regulations and a definition of FAR. Ms. Counolly said that Staff had researched adjacent communities' requirements to arrive at the proposed FARs and definition. Ms. Jumcek asked why RX districts had a .35 FAR and other districts had a .5 FAR. Ms. Connolly explained that R-X district was the largest lot size and that a .5 FAR on a large lot would allow for too large a structure. DETACHED GARAGES Ms. Connolly reported that in response to lifestyle changes, the number of requests for detached garages larger than 600 s.f. has increased. People are driving larger vehicles and using garages as a workspace or storage area. Village Board directed staffto revise the Zoning Ordinance to increase the size of detached garages to 672 square feet. This Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-04-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 number was arrived at based on how garages are designed and constructed (28'x24' is a standard 3-car garage size), and how people use garages, in relation to the aesthetics of the community. Ms. Connolly said that this text amendment seeks to eliminate the requirement that garages designed to house more than two vehicles receive Conditional Use approval. By increasing the size of detached garages to 672 square feet, the garage is designed for more than two ve!Yacles and puts an undue burden on homeowners who wish to construct a garage as would be allowed by the proposed text amendment. Ms. Connolly described the proposed changes to sections of the Zoning Ordinance, R/chard Rogers asked if the Director of Community Development would be authorized to allow someone to construct a new garage 10% larger than the newly allowable 672 s.f. Ms. Connolly said no, that the minor variation would apply to existing bffddings only. Mr. Blue said the minor variation process would be for setback requirements and not to allow an increase to a garage size. The resident would have to apply to the ZBA for a garage larger than 672 s.f. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Ms. Connolly explained that it has been Village policy to allow two accessory structures per property, but that the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically state such bruit. She said that current code regulations address the location of accessory structures and the amount of lot coverage permitted, as a whole for the property. Revising the Zoning Ordinance to specifically state that accessory stmetnres are limited to two per lot, and exempting swimming pools from this total, would maintain the aesthetics of the community and limit the number of accessory structures. This would allow homeowners to have a swimming pool, a shed, and a detached garage, or a swimming pool, gazebo, and a detached garage. Ms. Connolly described the proposed changes to sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Arlene Juracek asked if someone would have to go through the variation process if they requested more than two structures. Ms. Connolly said that they would have to get approval from the ZBA. FENCES Ms. Connolly reported that, in an effort to improve the appearance of the town's corridors, Village Board has directed Staffto prepare a text amendment that requires homeowners to install the finished side of a fence face "out", towards the street, along arterial roads. The code currently requires that the "good" side face out, towards your neighbor, but allows the unfinished side to be exposed along arterial roads. The code would be amended so that the last sentence of 14.304.D.2.a is deleted. PARKING LOTS Ms. Connolly stated that the Bulk Regnlations section of the Zoning Ordinance requires parking lots to meet the same setbacks as a building. In the Off-Street Parking and Loading section of the Zoning Ordinance, parking lots in a nonresidential zoning district are allowed within ten-feet of the property line unless the parking lot is adjacent to single family residential. She pointed out that the code regulations are contradictory. Eliminating 'Sparking lots" from Bulk Regulation sections of Business, Industrial, and Office Research Zoning Districts clarifies code requirements. The Staffmemo lists specific sections of the Zoning Ordinance that would be revised. Hal Ettinger asked why parking lots would have less restrictive requirements than buildings as they still have an impact. Ms. Cormolly responded that when the parking lot is adjacent to single-family residential it must adopt the more stringent setback so it would be farther away, similar to the building. Mr. Ettinger suggested the Ordinance should be more restrictive regarding parking lots. Mr. Blue said that the Village did have a more restricted code but it was changed six years ago because it restricted development of the commercial corridor. The amendment several years ago allowed properties not adjacent to residential to have parking 10' from the lot line. Mr. Ettinger disagreed with this decision. He said that this change allows more commercial development and encourages parking lots. He said that along commercial corridors are part of a community, but that it was bad for a community to acquiesce to vehicles. Mr. Blue agreed, but said that the Ordinance as originally written was overly restricting to development. Ms. Jumcek said the Village did make changes in the Off-Street and Loading sections, but not the Bulk Regulations sections. This amendment affirms that determination that a parking lot has a different impact than bulk regulations intended to govern. Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-04~2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4 Ms. Connolly summarized the amendments saying that the proposed text amendments are a result of (1) in-depth discussions with the Village Board and the Zoning Board on what changes are necessary for the Zoning Ordinance to accurately reflect Village policy and goals, (2) research of neighboring communities regulations and what is consistent with community expectations, and (3) clarifying existing code regulations. The proposed amendments meet the standards listed in Sec. 14.203.D.8.b which relate to the degree to which the amendments are consistent with Village policy, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, applicable to the Village at large and not for the benefit a specific property, and also consistent with objectives and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommends that the ZBA recommend approval of the proposed text amendments as listed in the staff memo. At 9:45, Chairperson luracek closed the public hearing and asked for motions on each amendment individually. Leo Floros made a motion to recommend to the Village Board approval for Text Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Nos. 14.203 and 14.2401, to create a Minor Variation Process and related changes and provisions to various sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Ettinger, Floros, Youngquist, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Leo Floros made a motion to recommend to the Village Board approval for Text Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Nos. 14.306.B. 1, ar.803.A, 14.902.A, and 14.1003.A, to increase the maximum size of detached garages to 672 s.f. and eliminate Conditional Use approval reqnirements for garages designed to house more than two motor vehicles. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Etfmger, Floros, Youngquist, and Juracck NAYS: Rogers Motion was approved 5-1. Keith Youngquist made a motion to recommend to the Village Board approval for Text Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Nos. 14.306.A.5, to limit the number of accessory structures to two structures. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Ettinger, Floros, Youngquist, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend to the Village Board approval for Text Amendments to Zoning Ordinanco Nos. 14.805, 14.905, 14.1005, 14.1105, 14.1205, 14.1304, 14.2401, to create Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements and related definitions. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Ettinger, Floros, Youngquist, Rogers, and luracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-04-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 5 Merrill Cotten made a motion to recommend to the Village Board approval for Text Amendments to Zoning Ordinance No. 14.2217, to clarify setback requirements for parking lots. Leo Flores seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Flores, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: Ettinger, Rogers Motion was approved 4-2. Merrill Cotten made a motion to recommend to the Village Board approval for Text Amendments to Zoning Orr[mance No. 14.304.D.2.b, to eliminate provisions that allow the unfinished side of a fence to be exposed along arterial streets. Leo Flores seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Ettinger, Flores, Youngquist, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. At 9:48 p.m., Richard Rogers made motion to adjourn, seconded by Hal Ettinger. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Serf~or Planner