Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/2024 P&Z MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -01-24 Hearing Date: February 22, 2024 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 50 S. Emerson Street PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: February 7, 2024 REQUEST: Text Amendments to Chapters 14, 7 and 15 of the Village Code (Zoning and Sign Code Updates) MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly William Beattie Walter Szymczak Norbert Mizwicki Thomas Fitzgerald Ewa Weir Donald Olsen Greg Miller MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jason Shallcross — Deputy Director of Community Development Ann Choi — Development Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Village of Mount Prospect Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. Commissioner Miller made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak to approve the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on January 25, 2024. The minutes were approved 7-0 (Chairman Donnelly abstained). Chairman Beattie introduced Case No. PZ -01-24: 50 S. Emerson Street for text amendments to the Village code. Ms. Choi stated that the Community Development Department has reviewed both the Village's zoning and sign codes and is recommending the text amendments to eliminate inconsistencies and ambiguity, and to address recent changes in industry trends and standards. Ms. Choi stated that the topics are related to lodging accommodations, specifically extended stay hotels, building height of buildings in the 1-1 district, and electronic message center signs. Ms. Choi began with the text amendments related to lodging accommodations. Ms. Choi stated that extended stay hotels can sometimes be used by individuals as permanent residences which are closer in use to multi -family uses. Ms. Choi explained that the Village currently does not distinguish between long-term and short-term lodging accommodations, and the goal is to establish clearer regulations for Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting— February 22, 2024 PZ -01-24 these uses. Ms. Choi indicated that hotels and motels are currently allowed as permitted uses in the downtown districts and as conditional uses in the B-3 and B-4 districts, and that staff recommends making extended stay hotels conditional uses in the B-3 and B-4 districts. Ms. Choi went on to state that the current zoning code definition of "Dwelling" explicitly excludes "hotels, motels, rooming, boarding or lodging houses" but the Village does not define rooming, boarding or lodging house, so staff recommends eliminating this reference from the definition. Ms. Choi noted that "Hotels, Motels, and Motor Inns" are included in a single definition, and this would be deleted and replaced with separate definitions of "Extended Stay Hotel", "Hotel" and "Motel". Ms. Choi further stated that "Boarding, rooming, lodging houses, and motor inns" are not listed in the land use table so any references would also be removed from the Village code. Ms. Choi explained that "Extended Stay Hotel" would be defined as an accommodation that is limited to no more than 90 days. The definition of "Dwelling" in Chapter 15 of the Subdivision Code would also reference the zoning code's definition to reduce redundancy. Ms. Choi emphasized that "Hotel" and "Motel" would also be separately defined and stays at hotels and motels would be limited to no more than 30 days. Ms. Choi added that the off street parking requirements would also be modified by adding extended stay hotels under the use category "Hotel/motel" and they would share the same parking requirement of one space per guestroom plus one space per employee on peak shift. Ms. Choi advanced to the next topic of building height. Ms. Choi explained that the maximum height of any building in the 1-1 Limited Industrial District is forty feet (40'). Due to changing industry trends driven by palletized racking systems and fork-lift technology which allow for more product to be stored in the same footprint, Ms. Choi further explained that the height of buildings used for logistics and distribution centers are increasing. Ms. Choi provided that clear height is defined as the distance from the floor to the lowest hanging ceiling member and is the most important measure of the interior height of an industrial building because it defines the minimum height of its usable space. For distribution buildings that require a forty foot (40') clear height, the overall height of an industrial building would not likely exceed fifty feet (50'). Ms. Choi stated that staff anticipates future permit requests for industrial buildings that will exceed the current maximum height limited permitted in the 1-1 district. In lieu of requiring these projects to apply for a variation for increased height, staff recommends increasing the maximum height limit to fifty feet (50') in the 1-1 district and that the current height permitted in the 1-3 district is fifty feet (50'). Ms. Choi further stated that buildings in the 1-1 district that exceed the fifty -foot (50') height limit would automatically require conditional use approval for a planned unit development. Ms. Choi explained that this would allow staff to impose conditions on the project such as increasing setbacks from the street to accommodate a taller building, requiring denser landscape screening, and imposing higher standards on building elevations, etc. Ms. Choi presented the last topic of the evening. Ms. Choi stated that the proposed text amendment were proposed amid recent complaints of electronic message center (EMC) signs being too bright in single-family residential districts. Ms. Choi provided that EMC signs include but are not limited to: LED signs, LED displays, digital billboards, changeable message signs, architectural lighting facades, or electric signs. Ms. Choi stated that EMC signs can impact the natural and built environment due to glare and light trespass and can substantially change the nightscape. Ms. Choi noted that light emission from EMC signs cannot be shielded and are typically aimed outward toward traffic and may contribute to light trespass into nearby residences. Ms. Choi explained that permits for EMC signs are typically requested by schools, churches, and park districts — nonresidential uses that are located in single-family residential Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting— February 22, 2024 PZ -01-24 zoning and conservation recreation districts. Ms. Choi stated that Section 7.401 would be amended to separate regulations for EMC signs located in the C-R, R -X, R-1 and R -A districts from EMC signs located in all other districts, and to add stricter requirements for EMC signs in the conservation recreation and single-family residential districts. As a first step, Ms. Choi stated that the minimum requirements and best management practices provided by the International Dark -Sky Association, Guidance for Electronic Message Centers, would be adopted as part of the proposed amendments. Ms. Choi noted the following changes to Chapter 7 Sign Regulations: • Light intensity shall not exceed 4 foot-candles using the sign's night -mode white screen setting (brightest nighttime setting) when measured at a distance of 10' away from the face of the EMC sign. • The proposed text amendment would also add a curfew requiring EMC signs to be turned off no later than the later of: o 1 hour after sunset, but no later than 7:00 P.M.; or o 30 minutes after the closing of the establishment, but no later than 7:00 P.M • EMC signs in the C-R, R -X, R-1 and R -A districts would remain turned off until 7 AM the following morning. • All existing EMC signs within the Village will be required to comply with the proposed curfew. Ms. Choi summarized that staff is proposing stricter curfew standards than what the International Dark Sky Association is proposing, and similar light intensity standards to the IDA, but much stricter than what the code currently permits. Ms. Choi wrapped up the presentation by stating that the proposed amendments satisfy the standards for text amendments as required in the zoning and sign codes. Ms. Choi stated that staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff's findings as the findings of the Planning & Zoning Commission and recommend approval of the following motion: "To approve the text amendments as outlined in the staff report for case PZ -01-24 which should perform certain amendments to the text of the Village's zoning, sign and development code regulations." Ms. Choi stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case and concluded her presentation. Chairman Donnelly asked the Commission if there were any questions for staff. Vice Chairman Beattie stated that he was unable to visit the three existing EMC signs that staff had requested for the commissioners to do prior to the meeting (one EMC sign at the Fairview Elementary School and two EMC signs at the St. Paul Lutheran Church and School) but asked staff how the existing EMC signs comply with the proposed amendments. Ms. Choi responded that staff had just measured the light intensity level of the sign at the Fairview Elementary School which measured approximately 2.5 foot-candles at a distance of 10 feet away. Ms. Choi stated that the sign would be under the 4 foot- candles allowed under the sign code amendments. Commissioner Weir asked if there are any single-family districts next to the 1-1 district and if there are, if there are any standards for those. Ms. Choi responded that there are single-family residential districts next to 1-1 districts but that there would be no additional standards for industrial buildings next to single-family districts. Ms. Choi stated that conditional use approval for a planned unit development Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting— February 22, 2024 PZ -01-24 4 would apply to buildings above the 50 -foot height limit so that staff could impose additional standards such as increased building setbacks. Deputy Director Shallcross clarified that the fifty foot is a building height, not a setback. Chairman Donnelly and Vice Chairman Beattie asked if the building height increase applied to the clear height or to the overall building height. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that the 50 -foot building height limit would apply to the overall peak building height, and that staff is seeing an increase in the industrial sector for buildings to exceed the 40 -foot height limit that current code permits. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that several buildings have recently been permitted to go above the 40 -foot height limit so in response to those changes, staff is looking to increase the permitted height in industrial districts to allow for those increased clear heights. Chairman Donnelly asked what the front setback is for the 1-1 and 1-3 districts. Ms. Choi stated that the front yard setback for the 1-1 district is thirty feet (30'). Chairman Donnelly noted that there have been past projects that were required to be set back further from the road to reduce the "canyon-ish" character of tall buildings next to the road. Commissioner Weir asked if there would be any considerations given to 1-1 districts located next to residential districts and referenced an industrial building that was recently built on Wolf Road which appears to have been built very close to the road. Ms. Choi stated that the project referred to was actually set back an additional 10 feet than was originally required. Vice Chairman Beattie asked if there would be any consideration given to setbacks next to residential districts. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any requirements such as stepping back the building at the upper portions of the building. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that this was not what is being proposed at this time, and that the height would be increased from 40 feet to 50 feet by -right without any changes to the building setbacks. Beyond 50 feet, a planned unit development would be required and at that point, staff would have the ability to seek additional yard setbacks and consider mitigating the additional height with things like stepped -back architecture. Vice Chairman Beattie asked what the side yard setback is for industrial buildings next to residential districts. Commissioner Weir rephrased the question for staff if there would be any consideration given for an industrial building adjacent to a residential building to have additional distance, whether it is the front, side or rear yard setback, provided if next to a residential use. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that the transitional setback requirement in the 1-1 district states: "Where a side or rear lot line in an 1-1 district abuts any residential zoning district, all buildings, structures and parking lots shall be set back forty feet (40') from the abutting property line. Such setback shall include a six foot (6') fence along the entire length of the transitional yard. The fence shall be not less than eight feet (8') from the property line. In addition to the fence, a continuous evergreen or dense deciduous hedge three feet (3') in height and planted two and one-half feet (2-1/2') on center, shall be planted on the outside of the fence, facing the abutting residential zoning district, along the entire length of the fence. This transitional landscape area shall be maintained and kept free of weeds. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that the Village does account for transitional setbacks when adjacent to residential districts. Commissioner Weir asked a follow-up question about light levels for residential and if the requirement is to go down to zero foot-candles at the lot line. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting— February 22, 2024 PZ -01-24 Ms. Choi stated that it is 0.1 foot-candles at the lot line. Deputy Director Shallcross confirmed. Chairman Beattie asked how often this problem may occur where industrial abuts residential. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that there are very few properties available for new industrial construction at this point in time, and the project mentioned on Wolf Road was a tear down and new construction. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that generally where this would be most prominent would be next to the Kensington Business Center and there is a residential subdivision south of the business center. Chairman Donnelly stated there were issues with light bouncing off the walls near the new police station along Kensington Road. Deputy Director Shallcross acknowledged this and stated he was the one who inspected the light complaints. Commissioner Fitzgerald wanted to clarify that the building height would be increasing to 50 feet by - right and that there were not many properties available in the Village to build a 50 -foot tall building. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that the building height increase would apply to new construction only or to buildings that were to construct an addition. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if there had been any issues with the current building height. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that staff has been routinely asked over the development of several years for increased clear heights in response to industry trends which staff had provided in tonight's staff report. The Commission moved onto the topic of electronic message center (EMC) signs. Commissioner Weir inquired about electronic signs and asked if schools, churches and park districts were allowed to have electronic signs. Ms. Choi responded that yes, these signs are permitted if certain requirements are met in the zoning code. Commissioner Weir stated that she is a neighbor that lives across from an EMC sign and was shocked when the sign showed up. Commissioner Weir asked if the proposed amendments to the sign code were in response to the community and to the impacts to the neighborhood. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that several complaints were made in response to a recent EMC sign so staff was asked to investigate what the latest and greatest best management practices are as Mount Prospect prides itself on being a dark sky community, and staff was able to find that the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) did put out the recommendations for EMCs. Deputy Director Shallcross emphasized that the proposed text amendments are stricter than what the IDA recommends. Chairman Donnelly added that signage has been an issue for a long time, and there was a previous rule that signs could not be located within 600 feet of another sign, and it created competition among business owners on who could put up their sign first. Chairman Donnelly asked if EMC signs for churches have the same rules as EMC signs for businesses. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that currently commercial and residential EMC signs are treated the same. Chairman Donnelly asked if the commercial EMC signs have to be dim at night. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that the definition of dim is still quite bright, and the EMC signs are very readable. Commissioner Weir asked if churches and schools are governed by the rules of the district they are located in. Deputy Director Shallcross responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Weir asked if a house could put up an EMC sign. Deputy Director Shallcross questioned if one would ever wish to do so. Commissioner Weir asked again if schools and churches are in a residential district, are those uses including a house, allowed to have an electronic sign. Vice Chairman Beattie stated that the proposed amendments are addressing the signs that are permitted in residential areas need a new set of Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting— February 22, 2024 PZ -01-24 guidelines as to how those signs will operate as opposed to the signs in the commercial areas, not that if a sign is allowed in those areas. Commissioner Weir emphasized that her question was more basic. If a school or a church is in a residential neighborhood, is an EMC sign allowed in general, and if so, then a house can put one up. Vice Chairman Beattie and Chairman Donnelly both stated yes, a house could put up an EMC sign and questioned if a homeowner would want to spend the money to spend on an EMC sign, but it would be possible. Chairman Donnelly stated that the code does not prohibit placing signs on a lot with a house on it as long as the sign complies with code. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if there were time limits placed on the signs. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that as a municipality, the Village is only allowed to regulate the time, place and manner at which the sign is displayed, and that those are the only limitations and restrictions that are placed on signage. Deputy Director Shallcross responded to Commissioner Weir's question that he would have to get back to her on her questions. Commissioner Weir asked again if these signs are even allowed in residential areas. Deputy Director Shallcross responded in the affirmative. Chairman Donnelly asked if there is a limit to how close an EMC sign can be to a residential area. Deputy Director Shallcross stated there are yard setback requirements but other than that, there are no other separation distance requirements. Deputy Director Shallcross pointed out that the signs in South Mount Prospect on residential properties with apartments were ostensibly approved as a planned unit development (PUD). Ms. Choi added that the code currently states that if you have an illuminated sign within 100 feet of a residential property, that the sign needs to be turned off by 11:00 PM until 7:00 AM. Vice Chairman Beattie wanted clarification on if the EMC signs currently permitted in residential areas are by -right or as part of the PUD approval. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that they are permitted by -right. Chairman Donnelly stated that they are allowed to stay on until 11 PM but that staff is proposing to reduce the hours. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that EMC will need to meet the night -mode standards and can be on until the later of a half-hour past business close or sunset, but not later than 7 PM. Commissioner Weir asked if the rules were for areas adjacent to a residential district, so if you had a commercial district next to residential, the EMC sign would have to be 100 feet away. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that the new regulations would only apply to EMCs on single-family residential or conservation recreation districts only. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that no changes are being proposed for EMC signs located in commercial areas. Chairman Donnelly asked about the church at Wolf Road and Kensington Road which is zoned residential, stated that it is across the street from all commercial/industrial properties. Chairman Donnelly asked if only the church would need to turn their EMC sign off even though it is on a corner where all other properties are commercial. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that in order to meet the standards, the church would need to turn off their sign, since the regulations are tied to the zoning. Chairman Donnelly asked if the new regulations would apply to new signs going forward or if these would apply to existing EMC signs. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that existing signage would need to meet the new standards. Chairman Donnelly stated it is the step in the right direction to which Deputy Director Shallcross stated that it is certainly more strict than what current code allows. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting— February 22, 2024 PZ -01-24 Vice Chairman summarized the proposed changes: the foot-candles would be lowered, the duration of time the EMC signs can be on would be lessened, and the standards under the IDA would be met. Chairman Donnelly asked if there had been any feedback from any existing sign holders. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that several of them are nervous if they will be able to conform to the new standards. Chairman Donnelly stated that the signs can be turned off earlier if they cannot meet Dark Sky recommendations. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that the signs can be turned on during the day, and that it is the night -mode time period, really only a few hours of the day, where the signs will need to meet the letter of the regulations or if they do not, the signs will need to be turned off. Chairman Donnelly stated that the new regulations would not mandate current sign holders to spend more money on their signs to comply unless they want to have their signs on later. Deputy Director Shallcross responded in the affirmative. Chairman Donnelly swore in Monica Schwarz of 220 N. Fairview Avenue, Mount Prospect, a resident who lives across the street from Fairview Elementary School. Ms. Schwarz stated that it has been a nightmare living in her house after the EMC sign was installed in late October 2023 at the Fairview School. Ms. Schwarz noted the following nuisances: • Every 10 seconds, there is a different color flashing on her bedroom wall. • The backyard cannot be used even after the school reduced the brightness level. • Glare is an issue on the street and on adjacent properties. • The current sign is too bright and should be further dimmed. Deputy Director Shallcross addressed the brightness issue and stated that staff had met with the school district the week prior and instructed the school district reduce the brightness of the sign to as low as possible. The school district lowered the brightness level over the weekend and at the beginning of the week. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that when staff measured the brightness level prior to the meeting with the school district, it was 3 to 4 times brighter than it is today, and the brightness of the sign today meets the dark sky regulations. Chairman Donnelly asked Ms. Schwarz if she had noticed if the sign was significantly lowered than last week, to which Ms. Schwarz stated it was absolutely not dimmer. Ms. Schwarz repeated that the light from the sign is coming through her front room, kitchen, and master bedroom windows, and that her backyard is rendered useless from the time that it gets dark to 7 PM at night. Ms. Schwarz stated that her house is less than 100 feet from the sign. Commissioner Mizwicki asked Ms. Schwarz if she has a glass front door and what percentage of it is composed of glass. Ms. Schwarz stated that about a third of her front door is composed of glass with an oval glass window in the center, and the glass is etched so it basically acts like a prism reflecting colors all over the rooms. Ms. Schwarz stated that she would be okay if the sign were to be turned off by 6 PM at night if the brightness level were to be greatly reduced. Ms. Schwarz stated that she did not care if the sign was on during the day. Vice Chairman Beattie asked if Ms. Schwarz was okay with the time limitations proposed and Ms. Schwarz acknowledged that it was a step in the right direction. Chairman Donnelly summarized Ms. Schwarz's issues that the sign is okay during the day, the sign is too bright at night and 7 PM is too late for the sign to be turned off. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting— February 22, 2024 PZ -01-24 Commissioner Mizwicki asked if a solid front door would alleviate some of these issues and Ms. Schwarz responded that she would still experience these issues since her front room window is 14 feet wide, and she has three windows facing Isabella Street in her master bedroom, approximately 8 to 10 feet wide combined. Ms. Schwarz noted that the school is not open during the weekends or during the breaks, and requested if the residents could get a break from the sign when school was not in session and on weekends. Ms. Schwarz stated that she had spoken with neighbors who agreed with her and thought that a sign for a school was totally unnecessary, and questioned what the school is trying to advertise and for whom. Deputy Director Shallcross reiterated the proposed time limitations and stated that the EMC sign would need to be turned off one hour after sunset, but no later than 7 PM, and the sign would need to meet the regulations, or be turned off (for the three months where sunset is earlier than 7 PM), and in the summer where it is light out until 9 PM, the sign would need to be turned off by 7 PM. If it is a business that is operating, the business would need to turn off the sign a half-hour after it is closed. For example if Fairview School closes at 5 PM, the sign would need to be turned off by 5:30 PM, not 7 PM. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked how closing for a school would be interpreted and how that would be enforced. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that the Village would need to work out when the school closes generally, and the sign would need to be turned off a half-hour after that time. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that staff would need to further discuss what would be considered "closed" with the Village's legal counsel before the next Village Board meeting as this was not specifically contemplated with the proposed text amendments. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that he did not have a concrete answer on if a school is considered "closed" and if it is considered "closed" if they would be able to have their sign on at all during the day on a weekend. Vice Chairman Beattie asked if after-school events such as sporting events, plays, orchestra concerts, band concerts, and other events that start in the afternoons and go on into the evenings, would extend the time that the sign that can turned on. Deputy Director Shallcross stated this would be another item to discuss and hammer out before the next Village Board meeting. Commissioner Weir asked if the time limitation for "business closing" would apply to churches. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that it would apply to all EMC signs in all single-family residential districts. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if the proposed sign code amendments were a significant change. Deputy Director Shallcross responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked for clarification since what was being discussed seemed to be different than what is written. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated that the text states the sign needs to be turned off, but that there is discussion about the sign being dimmed. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that the new regulation is a curfew and that the sign needs to be turned off. Chairman Donnelly asked if there could be a differentiation for those uses that are on a major street such as St. Emily's, River Trails Park District, and Euclid School versus the street that Fairview School is located. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that he would personally not like to get into the weeds from an administrative standpoint since these nonresidential uses are zoned the same, have the same neighbors, everything is restricted to residential areas, and would like to reduce the instances of unique sign regulations applied to different properties. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting— February 22, 2024 PZ -01-24 Commissioner Fitzgerald pointed out that it is written "All existing EMC signs within the Village will be required to comply with the proposed curfew" and that suggests that this would apply to all EMC signs, regardless of if they are commercial, and that there may be some wordsmithing to do. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any other speakers and swore in Elizabeth Espinoza of 303 N. Fairview Avenue, Mount Prospect. Ms. Espinoza stated that she needed to purchase shades and modify her living arrangements ever since the sign was installed, and she is experiencing many of the same issues as Ms. Schwarz. Ms. Espinoza noted that the sign is still on during the weekends, and rarely is the sign off. Chairman Donnelly asked Ms. Espinoza if she was okay with the light on during the day, to which Ms. Espinoza responded that the brightness level of the sign only bothers her when it is dusk and when it gets dark. Commissioner Mizwicki asked if the sign was the only fixture that lights the area. Ms. Espinoza stated if the school's sign is turned off, then the neighborhood is dark. Commissioner Mizwicki stated that it may be dangerous if the area is too dark. Ms. Espinoza stated that there are streetlights in their neighborhood. Vice Chairman Beattie asked and Ms. Espinoza confirmed that what staff is proposing is a step in the right direction. Chairman Donnelly redirected to staff and stated that the neighbors do not seem to recognize that the school's sign is noticeably three times dimmer than it was last week. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that staff had inspected the Fairview School's sign multiple times this week and that the sign does meet the new recommended light level, and reiterated the curfew which is that EMC signs shall be turned off the later of an hour after sunset or a half hour after a business closes, however in no instance later than 7 PM. Chairman Donnelly stated that there were several issues: the current sign is still too bright for the residents, how "closing" is undefined for a park, school or church, and how to restrict people from putting EMC signs on the front of their homes. Chairman Donnelly wanted to get the text amendments cleaned up before presenting them to the Village Board. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that staff would ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to make a recommendation to the Village Board that would include any additional requirements or conditions of approval that could be added as part of the motion. Deputy Director Shallcross requested that if the Commission were adding conditions, that the conditions would affect all schools and not just a singular school. Chairman Donnelly asked if there would be any issues that would arise with park districts - if they are located too close to residential areas and if they would really affect the neighbors. Chairman Donnelly pointed out that park districts seem to be located on major roads where they are not affecting neighbors. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that the Village has not received any complaints on EMC signs at park districts, and that the only complaints that were received were for EMC signs at places of worship and schools. There was some discussion among the Commission and staff about what is considered "closed" between schools, churches and park districts. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting— February 22, 2024 PZ -01-24 10 Commissioner Fitzgerald made the suggestion of changing the proposed text amendment to a half-hour after sunset as the recommendation. Chairman Donnelly asked Ms. Schwarz if the half hour after sunset would take care of her concerns. Ms. Schwarz seemed to be agreeable. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that staff would seek additional clarification if necessary. Commissioner Weir asked if EMC signs could be restricted on park district land. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that the park district would be allowed to install an EMC sign by -right, but that parks generally have closing hours, and the half-hour after sunset closing regulation would apply. Commissioner Fitzgerald noted that parks generally close at sunset. Commissioner Miller requested to split the motion into three separate motions to address the hotels, the signs and the building height. Commissioner Fitzgerald and Vice Chairman Beattie requested to have a discussion on the extended stay hotels. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked staff if the only difference between the hotel and the extended stay hotel is the duration of stay or if there are other differences. Ms. Choi responded that there are other differences in that extended stay hotels would also be considered conditional uses in the B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. Ms. Choi added that existing hotels could not qualify themselves as an extended stay hotel since once the proposed amendments go into effect, a hotel would have to apply for a conditional use permit and be approved to be considered an extended stay hotel. Vice Chairman Beattie asked what the purpose of the proposed changes was related to extended stay hotels. Deputy Director Shallcross responded that the amendments came about because staff was made aware that the current code does not delineate between the two uses, and that extended stay hotels are more like a multi -family use than they are to a traditional hotel use. Deputy Director Shallcross pointed out that extended stay hotels are not subject to the hotel/motel tax, and once someone stays longer than 30 days, is not subject to the tax. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that the purpose of the amendments is to do a better job of delineating between the two uses. Vice Chairman asked if he could schedule a stay longer than 30 days as a hotel guest. Deputy Director Shallcross stated that he would be unable to schedule a stay longer than 30 days as a hotel guest. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Donnelly closed the hearing and asked for the following three motions: 1) Commissioner Miller made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak to approve the proposed text amendments related to the extended stay hotels (lodging accommodations) per the staff report. UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Donnelly, Beattie, Fitzgerald, Szymczak, Mizwicki, Olsen, Weir, Miller NAYS: None The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting— February 22, 2024 PZ -01-24 11 2) Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald to approve the proposed text amendments related to the 1-1 building height change per the staff report. UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Donnelly, Beattie, Fitzgerald, Szymczak, Mizwicki, Olsen, Weir, Miller NAYS: None The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0. 3) Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak to approve the proposed text amendments related electronic message center signs per the staff report with the following modification: change the recommended language regarding the curfew to "the earlier of a half-hour after sunset or a half-hour after business close, but in no instance later than 7 PM; and UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Donnelly, Beattie, Fitzgerald, Szymczak, Mizwicki, Olsen, Weir, Miller NAYS: None The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0. Chairman Donnelly stated that it was Village Board Final and asked when the next Village Board meeting will be. Ms. Choi answered that the next Village Board meeting will be March 5th. After hearing no more items of new business and no citizens to be heard, Commissioner Miller made a motion seconded by Vice Chairman Beattie, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:17 PM. Ann Choi Development Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting— February 22, 2024 PZ -01-24