Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/28/2007 P&Z minutes 24-07 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-24-07 Hearing Date: June 28, 2007 PETITIONER: The Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: June 13,2007 REQUEST: Text Amendment; Outdoor Dining Requirements MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Keith Youngquist Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Marlys Haaland moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. After hearing nine previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-24-07, a request for a Text Amendment at 10:42p.m. Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development stated that the Village of Mount Prospect regulations (Section 14.202.B.4) allow for the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve a conditional use permit for unenclosed front porches that encroach up to five (5) feet in the required front yard setback. This amendment proposes a change to allow unenclosed porches in the required front yard with "administrative review and approval" from the Director of Community Development. Neighbors would still receive written notice of the proposal with the date and time of the administrative hearing. Staff would continue the same level of review and base recommendations on materials and design and safety concerns such as potential site obstructions. Administrative review would reduce approval time and costs for our residents, and free up the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. Ms. Divita said in 2001 the Village Board approved changes to the Village Code creating provisions for an unenclosed porch to be constructed on an existing house in the required front yard. The approval process entailed applying for a Conditional Use permit and limiting the encroachment to 5-feet into the required front yard, with the condition that the porch remains unenclosed. The application was reviewed by Staff, then forwarded to the then Zoning Board of Appeals (the precursor to the Planning & Zoning Commission). A Public Hearing was held and the ZBA made a recommendation to the Village Board; the Village Board's decision was final. The zoning approval process took between 90 to 120 days, depending on meeting dates, and then the applicant would apply for a building permit. In 2004 the Village Board approved a code change that allowed the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to be final for unenclosed porches. This change shortened the approval process for the applicant. It currently takes between 30 to 60 days to get zoning approval for an unenclosed porch. Once the P&Z approves the request, the applicant may apply for a building permit. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-24-07 Page 2 Ms. Divita said since the Village Code was changed in 2004, the Village has received 20 Conditional Use applications for unenclosed porches and all have been approved. Staff recommendation and the Commission decisions have been based on whether quality materials were being used, confirming the encroachment would not create a sight obstruction, and whether the design blended with the existing house and neighboring houses. Ms. Divita stated that in considering the upcoming revisions for the Village zoning ordinance at their April 10, 2007 Committee of the Whole Meeting, the Village Board agreed that further streamlining this process makes sense. At the April 26, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Commissioners agreed this makes sense. Staff has met with the Village Attorney to identify this proposed process. As presented here, it most resembles the process used for minor variances and includes a public notice and hearing component and due process with appeals to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Currently administrative hearings are used for the Director of Community Development to consider "Minor Variations." She said the review process for a front porch within the required front yard setback cannot however be considered a variation because: 14.203.C.9.b. "The conditions upon which an application for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variation is sought and are not generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification." Ms. Divita stated that virtually all homes in the Village are set back thirty feet from the front property line so this is not a unique situation. Rather, unenclosed front porches in the required front yard are one of the two situations which qualify as a "conditional use:" 14.203.F.1.b. "Uses entirely private in character but of a nature that their operation may present a different impact upon adjoining properties or the neighborhood in general." Ms. Divita said that currently Conditional Use approval may only be granted by the Village Board, and in the case of front porches, conditional uses approval is granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Village Attorney has advised to leave this system in tact and to create 14.316 as a special category to allow administrative review of unenclosed front porches in the required front yard. This new process will be referred to as an "Administrative Conditional Use" and follows: · Requests would be reviewed by Staff for conformance to Standards including lack of site obstruction, materials, design, and aesthetics. · Notices would be mailed to neighbors within 100' of the Subject Property. · A Public Hearing sign would be posted on the Subject Property. · A Staff Report would be prepared and presented at an open hearing. · The approval process would take approximately 3 weeks and the Director of Community Development's decision is final, but may be appealed to the P&Z. Ms. Divita said Section 14.203.D.8.b of the Village Code lists standards for the P&Z to consider for text amendments to the Zoning Code. These standards relate to: · The general applicability of the amendment to the community, rather than an individual parcel; · Consistency of the amendment with objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan; · The degree to which the amendment would create non-conformity; · The degree to which the amendment would make the Zoning Code more permissive; and Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-24-07 Page 3 . Consistency of the amendment with Village policy as established by previous rulings. Ms. Divita stated that the proposal to amend the Village's existing process of reviewing of unenclosed front porches would be applicable on a community-wide basis and would be consistent with the Village's previous requirements, maintaining health and safety for the neighbors at large. Ms. Divita said the proposed text amendment meets the standards contained in Section 14.203.D.8.b of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve the text amendments as outlined above for Case Number PZ-24-07 which would allow administrative review of unenclosed porches in the required front yard setback to encroach up to 5-feet. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. She stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Mr. Roberts asked if the encroachment was greater than 5-feet, the case would still need to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Divita confirmed and stated in addition, that if the porch was also part of another zoning case, it would come before the Planning and Zoning Commission, rather than sort the porch out from the zoning case. Mary McCabe stated she had a question regarding item HI in the Staff memo. She asked about the verbiage allowing the permit to be revoked without final action from the Village Board. Ms. Divita stated the new process combined the notice component of a variation and the standards and process of a conditional use. Mr. Roberts clarified that the eighteen month standard is existing language and there is no change; he clarified that revocation ofthe Conditional Use comes from the Village Board ifthe project has not been significantly completed within 18 months or no further action taken to extend the conditional use permit. Ms. Divita stated his interpretation is correct. Chairman Rogers closed the public hearing at 11 :00 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve a Text Amendment, Case Number PZ-24-07. Mary McCabe seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Haaland, Roberts, McCabe, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. Ronald Roberts made a motion to adjourn at 11 :04 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Senings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ-24-07 Text Amend Front Porch Admin Cond Use.doc