Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/12/2004 P&Z minutes 41-03MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ - 41 - 03 Hearing Date: February 12, 2004 PETITIONERS: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: January 28, 2004 REQUEST: Various Text Amendments to the Village Code MEMB ERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Mer rill Cotten Leo Floros Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Sledz STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: None Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ - 41 - 03, saying this would be one case proposing approximately 16 text amendments to the Village Code and that the Village Board’s deci sion would be final for all of the amendments. She said each amendment would be discussed separately and voted on before discussing the next, leaving those they were stymied on for last. M ichael Jacobs noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission had prev iously reviewed these various amendments during their public workshop meetings on October 9, 2003 and January 8, 2004. Following the January 8, 2004 meeting the P&Z Commission directed Staff to prepare specific language for their review during tonight’s p ublic hearing. Mr. Jacobs noted the first issue to consider was amendments to the Village Code regarding permitted fence locations. He noted that the proposed amendments have been designed to allow some greater flexibility for property owners within the Village. Mr. Jacobs stated that the current interpretation of the Village Code requires that fences be located on the property line, and that no more than one fence can be located along a property line. The proposed amendments will address both interior and corner lots. The proposed amendments regarding interior lots will allow fences to be located anywhere on the property except within the required front yard, and for those who do not wish to place their fence along a property line, sufficient access to the area must be maintained to allow for proper maintenance. Mr. Jacobs noted that the only change to regulations regarding corner lots relates to those circumstances where a property’s exterior side yard abuts the front yard of a neighboring property. The Code currently allows fences within the exterior side yard regardless of its location. This existing regulation has allowed fences to be located in an exterior side yard even though it abuts a neighboring property’s front yard. Allowing fences in the se locations can have a detrimental impact on the adjoining property as well as the overall character of the neighborhood. To address this issue the proposed fence amendments will continue to allow fences within an exterior side yard, except if the exterio r side yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot. In those instances where the exterior side yard abuts a front yard then a fence will not be allowed any closer to the exterior side yard lot line than either the building line established by the princip al structure or the front yard established for the adjacent lot, whichever is less. Mr. Jacobs then reviewed the proposed amendment that would allow double fences along a common property line or multiple fences on a single property. He indicated that the only remaining concern with the proposed amendments related to the issue of dog runs, and the fact that the proposed regulations would allow someone to create an enclosed Planning & Zoning Commission PZ - 41 - 03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 area to serve as a dog run. Mr. Jacobs suggested that if the Commission was uncomfo rtable with the proposed regulations the issue of multiple fences and dog runs could be continued to the next meeting, providing staff some additional time to review the issue. Keith Youngquist had a question regarding dog runs and said he was not opposed to language specifically prohibiting dog runs. Richard Rogers suggested adding a sentence disallowing dog runs. Ms. Juracek suggested dealing with the fence locations at this meeting and deferring the double fence issue to another meeting. The Commissi on members agreed. Ms. Juracek noted for the record that no audience member came to address the issue. Joe Donnelly made a motion to approve the permitted fence locations and Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, F loros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6 - 0. Ms. Juracek made a motion to table the double fence location until the next meeting and Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers , Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6 - 0. Ms. Juracek introduced the proposed amendments regarding outdoor storage on residential properties. Mr. Jacobs noted that outdoor storage is often the main issue when addressing complaints regarding property maintenance. The Village Code currently contains limited language to address outdoor storage on residential properties. In response, specific language has been proposed that will limit what types of items can be stored outdoors on res idential properties. Mr. Jacobs stated that the proposed language would permit outdoor storage of the following items: lawn and garden equipment and materials, garbage cans, grills and portable fireplaces, patio furniture, household tools, children’s play equipment and other items similar to these as determined by the Community Development Director. Mr. Jacobs noted that these proposed regulations would not apply to vehicles, recreational vehicles and/or trailers, and recreational equipment. Commission members discussed many items usually found stored outside and some not usually found stored on private property. Mr. Youngquist asked if the amendment couldn’t be interpreted to mean junk could be stored on private property in thirty or more garbage cans. Members ventured the opinion that “household tools” could be widely interpreted. Mr. Cotten said a gasoline - powered generator could be considered in that category today. Ms. Juracek said the Commission’s previous discussions had generally focused on go ing with the proposed language, noting that the issue of vehicular and recreational vehicle storage would be discussed as part of another section within the Code. The Commissioners requested that the proposed language be modified to cross - reference the ap propriate sections within the Code regarding vehicle storage. Richard Rogers made a motion and Keith Youngquist seconded it. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6 - 0. Ms. Jur acek introduced the home occupation segment of the text amendments. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ - 41 - 03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Mr. Jacobs stated that the Village Code currently contains specific regulations regarding home occupations. He noted there have been several recent issues regarding employees showing up to a home occupation to then be dispatched to another site. This practice is not adequately addressed in the current regulations, thus Staff has proposed some additional language be included within the Code’s home occupation regulations. Specifically, th e proposed language would prohibit employees, other than those persons residing on the premises, from reporting to work at or near the premises, either for work to be completed within the residence or to be dispatched to work at another location. Commissi on members confirmed that service workers such as baby sitters, home care nurses, etc., were not affected by this ruling. Ms. Juracek observed that all members seemed to be in agreement with this amendment and asked for a motion. Mr. Rogers so moved and Mr. Youngquist seconded. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6 - 0. Ms. Juracek then introduced the next section regarding daycare regulations. Mr. Jacobs said that the Villag e’s existing regulations contain some inconsistencies with regard to terms, definitions, and conflict with the home occupation regulations. Mr. Jacobs noted that the proposed amendments to the daycare regulations relate to two different issues. The first part of the proposed amendments relate to the existing definition of Limited Residential Daycare. The second portion of the proposed amendments would eliminate Daycare Centers as a Conditional Use in the residential districts since they conflict with the Village’s regulations regarding home daycare and are not in keeping with the character of the Village’s residential neighborhoods. Ms. Juracek asked if someone wanted a Daycare Center in a residential area would they have to request a variation. Mr. Jac obs said that the proposed amendments would prohibit daycare centers from residential districts and the only means of relief from that in the future would be a text amendment. Mr. Jacobs reiterated that no more than 8 children would be allowed in a daycar e facility in a residential district. Ms. Juracek pointed out this might preclude churches from operating daycare facilities for more than 8 children and be more drastic than actually intended by this amendment. Mr. Jacobs agreed this might need to be re visited. Mr. Floros asked what change would be included in the revised amendment. It was suggested that the definition of Daycare Center be amended to read “a non - residential building…”. Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to adopt the proposed definition of Daycare Center with the addition of the word non - residential, to adopt staff’s definition of Limited Daycare Facility and to not adopt Staff’s disallowance of daycare centers in the Village’s residential districts. Joe Donnelly so moved and Keith Younqui st seconded. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6 - 0. Mr. Jacobs said the next item related to maintenance and replacement of landscaping materials. Mr. Jacobs noted that the Village’s existing property maintenance regulations require the maintenance of landscaping in non - residential districts. The code, however, does not differentiate between maintenance and removal. To help maintain the benefits of the existing landscap ing within the Village’s non single - family residential properties, Staff has suggested the Code be amended to require the replacement of dead or damaged materials in similar kind and quantity rather than allowing them to be simply removed. Ms. Juracek sai d landscaping should be similar, not identical. Mr. Rogers said landscaping design changes through the years and flexibility is needed. Mr. Youngquist said residents could not be required to replace a dead tree with the same size tree. Ms. Juracek said a ll members were in agreement with this amendment and asked for a motion. Richard Rogers moved to approve the amendment and Keith Youngquist seconded. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ - 41 - 03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion w as approved 6 - 0. Mr. Jacobs introduced the next item by saying that there were two issues to consider regarding attached garages. The first relates to an inconsistency within the code that lists “single - family dwellings, including dwellings with an attac hed 3 - car garage” as a permitted use in some of the residential districts while only “single - family dwellings” are listed as a permitted use in other residential districts. To address this issue Staff recommends the code be amended to include “Single - Fami ly dwellings, with attached or detached garages” as a permitted use in all of the single - family residential zoning districts. The second issue relates to limiting the size of garages in single - family residential districts. Based on the Commission’s previ ous discussions the proposed amendments will allow attached garages fronting public rights - of - way, not exceeding an exterior appearance of a three car garage while there would be no limitation on the size of an attached garage that did not front a public r ight - of - way. Ms. Juracek noted the proposed revision of “single - family dwellings, with attached or detached garages” could be interpreted as requiring all single - family homes to have a garage. Mr. Jacobs said the Code currently requires homes to provid e off - street parking but not necessarily a garage. He said the Code has existing regulations regarding the permitted size of detached garages. Much discussion ensued as to whether a garage should be required. Richard Rogers made motion to approve staff’ s definition of single - family dwellings as written, with attached or detached garages as a permitted use, seconded by Merrill Cotten. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES Donnelly, Floros, and Juracek NAYS: Cotten, Rogers, Youngquist Motion was tied 3 - 3. Motion wa s not approved. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to amend the wording to read with or without attached or detached garage as a permitted use, seconded by Richard Rogers. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NA YS: Juracek. Motion was approved 5 - 1. Joseph Donnelly moved that if there are two public rights - of - way there can only be three garage doors total facing those right - of - ways, Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6 - 0. Driveway width was the next subject. Mr. Jacobs said that based on the proposed amendments regarding attached garages, corresponding amendments would be required for the Vil lage’s driveway width regulations. Mr. Jacobs summarized the proposed amendments, indicating that in most cases the regulations would not change except for those garages that would exceed the standard driveway width regulations. In those cases a maximum driveway would be allowed to have a width the same as the width of the garage within 15 feet of the garage’s front elevation. The garage width would be determined by measuring the width of the garage doors, the separation between the doors, plus an additi onal 2 feet on either side. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ - 41 - 03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 5 Merrill Cotten asked if turning radius was checked when 15’ the width was determined. Mr. Jacobs said that the most common configurations were considered but it was difficult to think of every scenario. Mr. Cotten said large SUVs and Hummers might not be accommodated by this size of driveway. Mr. Jacobs said someone could request a variation in that case. Mr. Younquist said 15 feet would be adequate unless someone owned a school bus. Mr. Rogers agreed. Keith Youngquist mad e a motion to approve the amendment as written, Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6 - 0. Ms. Juracek introduced the next subject, pavement separation between various sections of allowed pavement. Mr. Jacobs noted that Staff had initially recommended an amendment to the Village Code that would require a specified separation between paved areas that were intended for different uses, such as a driveway and patio. Mr. Jacobs stated that although Staff supported an amendment the Planning & Zoning Commission determined it was not necessary. Due to these circumstances the Commission did not recommend any amendments to the Code regarding this matt er. Ms. Juracek introduced the next section, unenclosed front porches. Mr. Jacobs said that the Village Code currently requires Conditional Use approval for front porches that are to be located within a required front yard. To help expedite the review p rocess it has been suggested that the Planning & Zoning Commission be the final review body on these requests, thus eliminating the need for the requests to be forwarded to the Village Board for review and approval. Richard Rogers made motion to accept th e proposed amendments and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6 - 0. Ms. Juracek introduced the next subject, flags and flagpoles. Mr. Ja cobs indicated that the Village Code currently contains limited regulations regarding flags and flagpoles. The proposed regulations would create specific regulations regarding flags and flagpoles for residential and non - residential zoning districts. For residential districts the proposed regulations would permit a maximum of one flagpole per lot, containing no more than two flags. The maximum height for flagpoles in residential districts shall not exceed 20 feet. With regards to non - residential district s the proposed regulations would allow a maximum of three poles, with no more than two flags per pole. The maximum height shall not exceed the district’s height limitations for the principal structure. In addition to the specific district restrictions, t he proposed regulations include limitations on location. Flagpoles and flag supports shall not be located within a required yard interior side yard, and shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from any property line. Roof mounted flagpoles or flag supports shall be prohibited. With regards to the total number of flags, no more than two flags shall be displayed on a single - family residential property at one time. Richard Rogers noted the exhibit that indicated a maximum size of 3 feet by 5 feet fo r flags on single - family residential properties. Mr. Jacobs noted that the size restriction of 3 feet by 5 feet should also be considered as part of the proposed amendments. Richard Rogers made a motion that flags on residential property shall not exceed 3’x5’, Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek Planning & Zoning Commission PZ - 41 - 03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 6 NAYS: None Motion was approved 6 - 0. Merrill Cotten made a motion to accept the amendments proposed on flags and flagpoles by st aff, seconded by, Richard Rogers. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6 - 0. Mr. Jacobs introduced the proposed amendments to service walks and sidewalk limitations. After som e questions by Merrill Cotten on step and stoop widths, Keith Youngquist moved to accept the proposed amendment and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion wa s approved 6 - 0. Mr. Jacobs reviewed the proposed amendments to administrative subdivisions. Mr. Rogers asked if the Chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission would sign the Plat of Subdivision if it were approved by administration. Mr. Jacobs said the V illage Manager or Director of Community Development would sign it. Ms. Juracek said many of these subdivisions are so perfunctory it is time - consuming to have people go through the complete process. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the proposed am endment and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6 - 0. Mr. Jacobs introduced the proposed amendment for the conversion of garages to livin g spaces. Commission members thought residents should not be required to change the outside appearance of the house if they convert the garage to living space because a future resident may reconvert the space. The amendment was tabled. Mr. Jacobs review ed the next segment, commercial trailers in residential districts. Keith Youngquist made a motion to accept Staff’s amendment to require commercial trailers to be kept inside garages in residential districts. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROL L CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6 - 0. Richard Rogers made a motion that the Village Board consider limiting the amount of time a boat or recreational trailer may be kept on a resid ential driveway. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6 - 0. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ - 41 - 03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 7 Mr. Jacobs introduced the amendment to the segment on arbors and trellises. Co mmission members agreed that in certain cases trellises would be allowed in a front yard. Ms. Juracek thought a Community Development discretionary clause would be helpful to this segment. Commission members agreed that wording should be added that in sit uations where you could have a fence, such as an interior side yard, you could have a trellis or arbor. Richard Rogers made motion to accept the amendment with that change in wording and Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6 - 0. Mr. Jacobs introduced the last issue, FAR and some related definitions. Commission members discussed sizes and heights of various new construction projects in the V illage and as it compares to other Codes in other areas of the country. Keith Youngquist said he thought garages were used mainly for storage and not for cars. Mr. Jacobs said they could vote separately on any portion of the amendment, the basement, the height, etc., or the entire amendment at once. Joe Donnelley mad a motion to approve all phases of the FAR amendment. Richard Rogers seconded the motion UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Moti on was approved 6 - 0. Ms. Juracek summarized by saying the Commission had tabled the fence amendments as they relate to dog runs and recommended to Village Board to address recreational trailers and vehicles. At 9:40 p.m Joe Donnelly made motion to adjour n, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. __________________________________ Michael Jacobs, AICP Deputy Director Community Development H: \ PLAN \ Planning & Zo ning COMM \ P&Z 2003 \ Minutes \ PZ - 41 - 03 VOMP Various Text Amendments.doc