Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/22/1996 ZBA MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE NO. ZBA-I5-CU-95 PETITIONER: SUBJECT PROPERTY: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: Hearing Date: August 22, 1996 Village of Mount Prospect 100 South Emerson Street August 2, 1996 (Journal) The Village of Mount Prospect is seeking an amend- ment to Section 14.240 1, Definitions and Section 14.2208 Parking of Commercial Vehicles in Resi- dential Districts and Section 14.307 I Standards for Home Occupations, omitting Sections 14.803.A.10, 14.903.A.10, 14.1003.A.11, 14.1203.A.7, and 14.1303.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Gilbert Basnik, Chairman Ronald Cassidy Elizabeth Luxem Robert Brettrager Jack Verhasselt Leo Floros Chairman Gil Basnik introduced Case ZBA-I5-CU-95, being a request to amend the Village's Zoning Ordinance to redefine and provide provisions for parking commercial vehicles on residential properties. Daniel Ungerleider, Planning Coordinator, presented the Village's request and summarized the staff report. He explained that the Village has prohibited the parking of commercial vehicles as early as 1966. Through the years, there have been several amendments to the Code regarding this restriction. However, the Village has not made changes which would permit outside parking of commercial vehicles in residential districts. The current ordinance only permits commercial vehicle storage within a garage. However, during a recent court case, the presiding judge determined that the Zoning Ordinance does not adequately define what constitutes a commercial vehicle. As a result, the Village's commercial vehicle provisions are inadequate and not enforceable. During the past year, the Village has worked to address this issue and to evaluate the Village's position regarding commercial vehicles. ZBA-I5-CU-95 Page 2 The proposed text amendment incorporates the numerous discussions held by the Village Board, the Commercial Vehicle Ad hoc Committee, the Zoning Board of Appeals, residents and the business community. If approved, the proposed text amendment would create a definition for commercial vehicles and would permit one commercial vehicle per residential lot so long as it complies with the listed criteria. Mr. Ungerleider briefly summarized the proposed provisions for commercial vehicle storage on residential properties. William Cooney, Director of Community Development, introduced the three members of the Commercial Vehicle Ad hoc Committee present: Nancy Bobikewicz, Ray Rubio and Beverly Carr. Raymond Rubio, 412 North Elmhurst Avenue, stated that he has been a resident for 30 years. He informed the Board that the Ad hoc Committee has recommended that the amount of signage permitted on a commercial vehicle be 25%, not 10%, as proposed tonight. Beverly Carr, 427 Larkdale, stated that the Ad hoc Committee did recommend that signage be permitted to 25 %. However, the Committee also recommended that this signage be covered when parked on the residential property. When reviewing the Committee's recommendation, the Village Board reduced the sign area to 10% and removed the covering requirement. She agreed that this is an appropriate solution. She also stated that he ordinance permits non -conforming signage to remain for up to four years. Ms. Carr explained that the Committee worked very hard to develop a compromise between two different viewpoints of the situation. Much time and effort was spent. The resulting ordinance is a fair and reasonable solution for everyone. She complimented everyone involved. Chairman Basnik asked Ms. Carr why it is necessary to delay sign conformity for four years rather than requiring compliance now. Ms. Carr responded that there are many vehicles which residents have made great investment. Ms. Carr stated that this time will be needed to allow employers to address this issue. These vehicles are these residents' livelihood. Gil Basnik asked the Ad hoc Committee if they had researched the number of commercial vehicles in the Village. Ms. Carr stated yes. The Committee contacted as many of these vehicle owners as possible. Mr. Cooney explained that the Ad hoc committee met on three occasions and presented their recommendation to the Village Board. After some discussion, the Village Board made some minor modification to the overall amendment. Mr. Cooney explained that the Village Board decided that they did not want to restrict signage they could not see. Therefore a vehicle parked in the garage will not need to comply with the sign provisions of the ordinance. Mr. Basnik asked if the Ad hoc Committee dissolved. Ms. Carr responded affirmatively. ZBA-15-CU-95 Page 3 Ron Cassidy asked if recreational vehicles were discussed. Ms. Carr said no, only commercial vehicles were discussed. Ms. Luxem asked if vehicles with over 10% of signage can be covered to comply with this requirement. Mr. Cooney said this would be a sufficient way to comply with this requirement. Nancy Bobikewicz, 1114 North Meadow Lane, stated that the initial objective of the Ad hoc Committee was to establish a legal definition for commercial vehicles. The other regulations were a result of their discussions. The Home Occupation Ordinance only permitted these vehicles within the garage. Residents had expressed that they needed the Village to allow one vehicle in the driveway because many garages are not large enough for some commercial vehicles. Signage became an issue when the Committee addressed the infiltration of commercial signage within residential neighborhoods. Mr. Cooney stated that the Committee took the 25 % requirement from the Sign Code. Their original recommendation would permit this amount of signage inside and out of a garage. The Village Board modified this requirement so to provide a realists amount of signage when parked outside while protecting the residential character of the Village's neighborhoods. Chairman Basnik agreed with the 10 % recommendation. Robert Quarnstrom, 601 Hackberry, stated that he does not believe that there is a proliferation of commercial vehicles in Mount Prospect neighborhoods. If the Village wants to restrict signage on residential commercial vehicles, then the Village needs to review its police and other public vehicles as well. Mr. Cooney responded that the Village's vehicles are not stored in residential neighborhoods overnight. Mr. Quarnstrom stated that his employer takes pride in his vehicle signage and it would be very difficult to convince his employer to comply with the ordinance as proposed. Chairman Basnik asked Mr. Quarnstrom if his vehicle fits in his garage. Mr. Quarnstrom stated that it does not. The Zoning Board of Appeals asked Mr. Quarnstrom to describe his vehicle. Elizabeth Luxem stated that he could cover the excess signage with a magnetic cover. Mr. Quarnstrom said that magnetic covers do not work during the winter months. Mr. Quarnstrom stated that 10% is not reasonable. His boss will not comply. Ms. Luxem stated there is always the opportunity to appeal the Code on an individual basis. Mr. Quarnstrom stated that the only problem he has with the proposal relates to the signage regulations. Mr. Cooney stated that the rationale for signage regulation was to protect the residential character of the Village neighborhoods. Signage is not permitted in residential districts by any other Village Code. Roy Chapman, 1102 Sycamore Lane, stated that he does not have a commercial vehicle, is not self-employed and therefore has no vested interest. However, he stated that he does not like the ZBA-I5-CU-95 Page 4 proposal for it is too obtrusive. The signage regulations proposed are too restrictive. He further stated the proposed definition would include his personal mini -van given that the State licensed it with a truck designation. Mr. Cooney, stated that this is not the case. The proposed definition excludes personal vehicles with the designation of "B" and trucks which do not meet the other commercial vehicle criteria. Mr. Chapman asked how this ordinance addresses multi -family properties, such as, Boxwood. How will the Village determine how many vehicles per unit are being parked in a multi -family development parking lot? Mr. Cooney agreed that this is one issue that is not addressed by the proposed ordinance and that it should be modified to allow one commercial vehicle per unit in multi -family districts. Mr. Chapman stated that he opposes this ordinance in its entirety. Mr. John Flickinger, 121 South Edward Street, stated that he has no immediate vested interest given that his commercial vehicle will be stored in his new garage. He reminded the Zoning Board of Appeals that he recently applied for a variation to build his garage. He agreed that the 10% sign restriction is not reasonable. Enforcement will be very difficult, in particular in calculating 10% or 25 % signage. The Code should allow for 25 % signage. Chairman Basnik responded by stating that a solution would be to park the commercial vehicle in the garage. Mr. Flickinger agreed, however the Board has conceded that one vehicle will be parked in the front yard. He expressed that he did not know how the Village will enforce the proposed commercial vehicle signage ordinance. Mr. Cooney stated that the signage will be calculated in the same manner used in the. Sign Code. He agreed that the proposed Code should be modified to address this issue same as the Sign Code does. Mr. Flickinger stated that 25 % is more realistic. Ms. Luxem said that she thinks that the Zoning Board of Appeals should take high regard to the recommendation of the Ad hoc Committee. The Board should not ignore these recommendations. Chairman Basnik stated that the Board must keep in mind of the 99% of the Village's population who do not have a commercial vehicle. He stated that he sympathizes with those affected, however there comes a time when the Village needs to set standards. Mr. Rubio reiterated the Ad hoc signage discussions. He stated that the Code has never addressed commercial vehicle signage. He stated that he can comply with the proposed 10% signage requirement. ZBA-I5-CU-95 Page 5 Mr. Cooney responded that the current Code does not address signage because the Code does not permit any outdoor parking of commercial vehicles. Mr. Rubio stated that he found 22 trucks in the Village that would not comply with the proposed Code. Chairman Basnik said that the proposed Code should satisfy a majority of the population. Chairman Basnik closed the public hearing and asked the Zoning Board of Appeals to discuss the issues further. Ron Cassidy stated that the main objective of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to agree on a definition for commercial vehicles and decide whether or not a commercial vehicle can be stored outside. The signage issue is secondary. He stated that he is satisfied with the recommendation presented in the staff report. Ms. Luxem agreed. Chairman Basnik asked staff if the Village only replaced the current definition with the one proposed, would the courts be satisfied. Mr. Cooney stated that he believed so, however, commercial vehicles would continue to be prohibited in residential areas. Chairman Basnik stated that the Village would still be able to handle the situation on a complaint basis. Ms. Luxem and Mr. Brettrager disagreed in that they felt this is an issue which must be addressed. Chairman Basnik had surveyed his neighborhood of 1600 homes and found 19 objectionable situations (6 mobile homes, 5 boats, 2 pop-up campers and 6 trucks). He does not believe there truly is a problem given the small percentage of vehicles he found. Are there any better figures which show that there is a problem? Mr. Brettrager said that replacing the definition alone will not address the issue. There would still be these non -conforming vehicles out there. Chairman Basnik said that he did not want to deal with these situations unless there was a complaint. There has not been that many complaints. Mr. Cooney stated that there has been an average of 10-20 complaints a year. Up until this court case, the Village has been able to handle the problem on a complaint basis. Chairman Basnik stated that allowing these vehicles to park in front yards will increase the number of commercial vehicles parked in front yards. Mr. Brettrager said that as long as those vehicles comply with the ordinance, he has no problem. Chairman Basnik stated that he does not want these vehicles in his neighborhood. The Board discussed the similarity between commercial and personal vehicles. Chairman Basnik presented his own definition for commercial vehicles. Mr. Brettrager stated that his definition stands on subjective judgements rather than objective decisions proposed by the Ad hoc Committee definition. ZBA-I5-CU-95 Page 6 Chairman Basnik reviewed the ordinance section by section to allow the Board to comment on each section. Chairman Basnik has reservations regarding the number of commercial vehicles and did not feel that any vehicle should be permitted outside the garage. He believes that garages and commercial vehicles should not be taller than 7'-9". The Board asked that the ordinance be revised to address multi -family situations by allowing one vehicle per unit. In addition, staff also was instructed to provide instruction on the method of measuring signage. A motion to approve text amendment, ZBA-15-A-95 was made by Mr. Brettrager, seconded by Ms. Luxem. The motion was passed unanimously. Upon Roll Call: The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0. AYES: Brettrager, Cassidy, Luxem and Basnik NAYS: None Respectfully submitted, 4W� Daniel Ungerleider, AICP Planning Coordinator