Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/2017 P&Z Minutes 02-17 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO.PZ-02-17 Hearing Date: February 23,2017 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 50 S. Emerson Street PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: February 8, 2017 REQUEST: Code Amendments to Chapter 14 of the Village Code MEMBERS PRESENT Agostino Filippone William Beattie Keith Youngquist Norbert Mizwicki Joseph Donnelly, Chair MEMBERS ABSENT: Sharon Otteman Thomas Fitzgerald STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Arguilles-Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Shallcross-Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Consuelo Arguilles-Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Shallcross-Development Review Planner Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:30. Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Youngquist to approve of the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on January 26, 2017. The minutes were approved 4-0 with Commissioner Mizwicki abstaining. Mr. Shallcross stated that the Village is proposing several text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the Village Code. He explained the first amendment to Article V, Section 14.504-Planned Unit Developments. He stated that Zoning Ordinance currently limits the maximum density in the B5C district to 80 units per acre regardless of the size of the dwelling unit. This regulation applies to condominium units that are typically over 1,000 square feet in size;however, Staff feels this would significantly limit the construction of rental apartments in the downtown district as rental apartments typically include units as small as 500 square feet per unit. Staff is recommending eliminating the maximum permitted density in the B5C zoning district. A project's density would be reviewed on a case by case basis as Planned Unit Developments. Mr. Shallcross stated the next proposed text amendment is to Article VI: Land Use Table L He stated the residential land use table currently does not include planned unit developments for religious institutions. However,it is not uncommon for religious institutions to consist of more than one principal building. Many religious institutions throughout the Village have multiple buildings on a lot. Staff is Planning and Zoning Commission-February 23, 2017 PZ-02-17 Joseph Donnelly- Chair 2 recommending adding a line item to the land use table to make it clear that religious institutions consisting of more than one principle structure on a zoning lot requires conditional use approval for a planned unit development(PUD). This would be consistent with the general provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which indicate that more than one principal building on a lot is not permitted, except in the case of a PUD. He further explained another change to the land use table that is needed as a result of the code updates that took place last year. The land use table still indicates conditional use approval is required for circular driveways in residential districts when conditional use approval is no longer required. The requirement for conditional use approval was eliminated in last year's code updates. Circular/dual frontage driveways are permitted by right in Section 14.2204.A.10 of the Village Code as long as certain minimum requirements are met; therefore the land use table needs to be amended to eliminate the conditional use requirement. Mr. Shallcross explained the next proposed text amendment to Article III, Section 14.318 Fences and Walls. He stated the Village Code limits the height of fences in residential zoning districts to five feet (5'),with some exceptions allowing for 6'. However,the majority of fences available at home improvement stores come in standard four feet(4') or six feet(6')tall sections. This has required residents to custom order a fence or cut six foot(6') tall fence sections down by one foot in order to meet Village Code. Staff is recommending increasing the permitted residential fence height from five feet(5') to six feet(6'). This would alleviate the extra cost and/or work required of homeowners to comply with code. Mr. Shallcross further stated that during his research he spoke to the managers at the home improvement stores in Mount Prospect regarding the price increase of custom fence orders and the cost of cutting six foot(6') fence sections down to five feet(5'). He further explained, that he found the price increases about twenty-five percent(25%) for these orders; and that about eighty percent(80%) of the fence orders are custom orders or orders of six foot sections needing to be cut down to five feet. Mr. Shallcross showed a table consisting of surrounding municipalities and their fence height requirements. Majority of the municipalities have a six foot(6') fence height requirement. The next proposed text amendment is to Article XXIL Off Street Parking and Loading. Mr. Shallcross stated the accessible parking requirements currently require an eight foot(8')wide access aisle as part of the sixteen foot(16')wide accessible parking space. Staff is recommending updating this regulation to allow for either an eight foot(8')wide access aisle or a five foot(5')wide access aisle. This would be consistent with the Illinois Accessibility Code,which allows for either. Mr. Shallcross stated the next proposed text amendment is to Article XXIV: Definitions. He stated, Staff is recommending modifying the sight-triangle definition to better define the area that is considered a sight-triangle and remove any reference to what structures or landscaping can be located within the sight- triangle. Fence and landscape regulations are provided in Chapter 14 and in Chapter 9 of the Village Code. Staff is not recommending any changes to the code provisions. Mr. Shallcross stated the standards for Text Amendments including the following: • 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 Planning and Zoning Commission-February 23, 2017 PZ-02-17 Joseph Donnelly- Chair 3 • Consistency of the amendment with Village policy as established by previous rulings. Mr. Shallcross stated that the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code would be applicable to the community as a whole and are not proposed in response to an individual parcel within the Village. The proposed changes are intended to reflect current Village objectives as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, other accepted planning documents, and the goals outlined in the strategic plan. The proposed amendments satisfy the standards for text amendments as required in the zoning code. He further explained, Staff finds that the proposed text amendments meet the standards contained in Section 14.203 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance and that granting such request would be in the best interest of the Village. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff's findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend approval of the following motion: "To approve the proposed text amendments to the Village Zoning Ordinance." He started that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Commissioner Beattie asked Staff to clarify the language regarding fence and landscape regulations that is provided in Chapter 14 & Chapter 9 and how it relates to the site triangle definition being proposed. Mrs. Arguilles stated that the landscape provisions within Chapter 14 pertain to non-single family residential lots such as commercial or multi-family developments and they require landscape requirements which are explained in Chapter 14 but don't apply to single family residential lots. She further stated the there are other chapters in the Village Code that explain the landscape requirements for single family residential lots. She stated that the proposed amendment is a clean-up item to the definition. Commissioner Beattie said he understood; however he wants to know the regulations regarding landscaping and fences. He is concerned that the proposed amendment is taking away the regulations the height of plantings in the site triangles. Mrs. Arguilles explained that regulatory provisions are provisions within an article versus in the definition and the proposed is just a clean-up item. She further explained within Chapter 14 there aren't any landscape provisions for single family lots that limit the height of landscaping on private property. Mrs. Arguilles continued to comment that it is very common to see plantings within site triangles on single family lots within the Village of Mount Prospect. She further explained that the Village regulates fence height within the site triangle which is limited to three (3) feet when there is a driveway and walkway on private property. This aspect of the code is not changing. Mrs. Arguilles stated that in the future the Village will be looking to see if the code needs to be amended to address concerns;however, there is existing language in Chapter 9 that regulate plantings in public right of way areas within site triangles which also has its own separate definition of a site triangle which is different from the definition in Chapter 14. Commissioner Beattie asked what the regulations are for the plantings. Mrs. Arguilles stated that the regulations in Chapter 14 don't pertain to single family lots. Planning and Zoning Commission-February 23, 2017 PZ-02-17 Joseph Donnelly- Chair 4 Chairman Donnelly clarified that the proposed amendment is to clean up the current definition to be consistent;however, the requirements are different for single family lots and other properties. The single family homes don't have a limitation for landscape within the site triangle. Mrs. Arguilles stated that the regulations in Chapter 14 only apply to fence height not landscaping on single family lots. Chairman Donnelly clarified that changing the definition doesn't change the current requirements. Mrs. Arguilles stated that was correct. Commissioner Beattie asked Staff to address the concerns from the public. Mrs. Arguilles stated that Staff received concerns regarding the site triangle and those comments will be forwarded on to the Village Board for further discussion but from a zoning perspective, Staff is looking to better define "site triangle"within Chapter 14. If changes need to be made to the regulations,it would have to be done in the future. Commissioner Youngquist stated that he concerned residents will increase their five foot(5') fences to six foot(6')if the proposed amendment is passed. Mrs. Arguilles stated that a permit would be required and Staff would take a look at the proposals as part of the building permit process. There was general discussion between board members about the concern of residents adding additional material to their already existing five (5) foot fences in order to make them six feet(6'). Commissioner Filippone asked if Commissioner Youngquist's concerns could be addressed at the meeting and how it would the voting process proceed. Mrs. Arguilles stated that the proposed amendment is only related to the fence height. She further explained that the Commission can vote on what is being proposed or amend the motion to include a condition prohibiting alterations of existing fences in order to make them six feet(6'). Commissioner Youngquist explained that he would like the Village Board to hear his concern about the issue before they make the final decision. Hearing no further questions for Staff from the Commission, Chairman Donnelly opened the hearing to the public. Chairman Donnelly swore in Gerald Farley, 116 North Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Farley stated his concerns in regards to increasing the fence height to six feet(6'). He stated that six foot fences aren't as "friendly" as five foot fences and those interior lots could be enclosed by six foot fences which may not be desirable to the homeowners. He stated that the current regulations have served the community well and that the current code allows six foot fences along major roadways or parking lots. Mr. Farley further stated that the untreated side of the fence usually faces out towards other properties and the treated side faces in towards the homeowners yard. He thanked the commissioners for their time and consideration. Chairman Donnelly swore in Joseph Plato 210 S.Wille Street,Mount Prospect, Illinois. Planning and Zoning Commission-February 23, 2017 PZ-02-17 Joseph Donnelly- Chair 5 Mr.Plato spoke on behalf of Ken Brae who emailed his concerns regarding the site triangle to the Commission for review. He was unable to attend the meeting. Mr.Plato stated that he is a safety engineer and is confused as to why the Village wants to remove language from the definition without fixing the provision first to ensure that the language isn't lost in the code. He stated that it would make more sense if the process was reversed and a provision was added that would make landscaping and fencing equal in the site triangle area and then remove the language from the definition. Mr.Plato read Mr. Brae's proposed version of the site triangle definition as follows: "Triangular area established at the intersection of two streets or a street and a driveway which is established to provide visibility around the corner to pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. Such triangle should have legs of ten feet(10') along the rights of way when two streets intersect or when a right of way or driveway intersect." Mr.Plato further asked why the Village is not enforcing the current height regulations in the site triangles and will removing the definition help enforce it. Mrs. Arguilles reiterated that the provisions within the chapters are different from the definition. She stated the item before the Commission is strictly the definition within Chapter 14 which needs to be "cleaned up"to be consistent of how it has been used. Chapter 14 doesn't have provisions pertaining to private property on single family lots. Mrs. Arguilles further explained that the concerns of the public regarding provisions of regulations are worthy of further discussion but the item before the commission is strictly the definition in Chapter 14. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any discussions of including regulations of Chapter 14 for site triangle in single family lots. Mrs. Arguilles stated there have been some internal discussions with staff regarding the comments received about the site triangle. She stated that more in depth discussions need to take place before any changes can be proposed and that currently just the definition needs to be cleaned up. Commissioner Beattie asked Staff how the Village can address the concerns of the public. Mrs. Arguilles stated that the Village's traffic engineer has sent letters to homeowners who have landscaping obstructing visibility in the site triangle. Mr.Plato stated that there should be consistency for both fence height and planting height. Mrs. Arguilles stated that the Commission can decide to make separate motions regarding each item if they don't want to make a decision on all of the proposed text amendments together as a whole. Commissioner Youngquist stated he understands why the legal reason the language is being removed from the definition regarding landscaping and obstructions. Mrs. Arguilles stated that there will be representation from the Village's legal department at the Village Board Meeting. There was some general discussion between the commission members regarding the difficulty of regulating landscaping on private property. Planning and Zoning Commission-February 23, 2017 PZ-02-17 Joseph Donnelly- Chair 6 Commissioner Filippone asked for clarification about the voting process since there is significant concern about the site triangle item. Chairman Donnelly stated the motion can be approved regarding the definition and have Staff work on recommendations for requirements which will have to be requested by Village Board. Commissioner Youngquist stated that Mr. Brae's proposed definition has similar issues as the current definition. Mr.Plato stated his overall goal is to clarify the regulations and fix the issue. Commissioner Youngquist stated the Planning and Zoning Commission can only recommend approval or denial and that Village Board has the final decision. Hearing no further questions from the public Chairman Donnelly closed the public portion of the meeting and brought the discussion back to the board. Mrs. Arguilles stated that the Commission can vote as the motion has been presented or individually. Chairman Donnelly stated they will vote on each one individually. Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Filippone to approve the following motion: "To approve the text amendment to Article V, Section 14.504 Planned Unit Developments." UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Beattie, Youngquist, Filippone, Mizwicki, Donnelly NAYS: None The motion was approved 5-0 with a positive recommendation to Village Board. Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Mizwicki to approve the following motion: "To approve the text amendment to Article VI: Land Use Table I." UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Beattie, Youngquist, Filippone, Mizwicki, Donnelly NAYS: None The motion was approved 5-0 with a positive recommendation to Village Board. Commissioner Filippone made a motion seconded by Commissioner Beattie to approve the following motion: "To approve the text amendment to Article XXIL Off-street Parking and Loading." UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Beattie, Youngquist, Filippone, Mizwicki, Donnelly NAYS: None The motion was approved 5-0 with a positive recommendation to Village Board. Planning and Zoning Commission-February 23, 2017 PZ-02-17 Joseph Donnelly- Chair 7 Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Youngquist to approve the following motion: "To approve the text amendment to Article XXIV: Definitions." There was general discussion regarding the need for additional regulations to be defined in the code regarding site triangles in single family lots. It was decided between Staff and the Commission that the motion presented will have to be voted on and that Staff will include the comments to Village Board that were discussed at the hearing regarding the provisions needed. UPON ROLL CALL AYES: None NAYS: Beattie,Youngquist, Filippone, Mizwicki, Donnelly The motion was disapproved 5-0 with a negative recommendation to Village Board. Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Youngquist to approve the following motion: "To approve the text amendment to Article III, Section 14.318 Fences and Walls." There was general discussion between the board regarding the concern of increasing the height of fences to six feet(6'). They stated it would increase the separation between neighbors. UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Beattie NAYS: Youngquist, Filippone, Mizwicki, Donnelly The motion was disapproved 4-1 with a negative recommendation to Village Board. Hearing no further discussion or citizens to be heard, Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Filippone and the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm. Jenna Moder Administrative Assistant Planning and Zoning Commission-February 23, 2017 PZ-02-17 Joseph Donnelly- Chair