HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/2005 P&Z minutes
MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 25, 2005
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DISCUSSION ON CIRCULAR DRIVEWAYS
TOPIC:
Circular Driveways
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Richard Rogers, Acting Chair
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Ronald Roberts
Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
ChairArlene Juracek
Marlys Haaland
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner
Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development
Acting Chair Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the
minutes of the July 28, 2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0
with Leo Floros and Keith Youngquist abstaining from the vote.
At 9:24 p.m. Mr. Rogers introduced the topic of Circular Driveways. Discussion that evening would allow the
Commission to discuss this topic without an actual case being before them. The Village Board will discuss the
topic at a Committee of the Whole Meeting in September and would appreciate understanding the Planning and
Zoning Commissioners’ thoughts on the topic. Chairman Rogers noted that his comments on circular driveways
had not been included in the Commissioners’ packet; Ms. Connolly confirmed they would be included in the
Village Board packet.
Chairman Rogers said he would like to see a workshop that would help establish guidelines for situations where a
circular driveway may be approved. Joseph Donnelly stated that he had concerns that circular driveways had
been approved based on the premise that the driveway resolved a traffic conflict on or near major roads. He said
he noticed that some circular driveways were used only to park cars on and that people still backed out of the
driveway. He stated that the reason the Village Board granted Conditional Use approval was to provide an
alternative to backing out of the driveway and allow for a safer entry onto a busy street. He said that it is difficult
to enforce how people use their driveways and cited an example in his neighborhood where he counted 11
vehicles parked in the driveway.
Chairman Rogers stated that he thinks a drawback to allowing circular driveways is that the driveway may come
to serve as a parking lot. He added that circular driveways pave a significant portion of the front yard and that
installing landscaping in a manner that minimizes the impact of the driveway should be required as part of the
Conditional Use approval permit. Mr. Rogers said that landscaping would minimize the effect of a parking lot in
the front yard and if the Village decides to approve circular driveways, then the driveways should be done in
aesthetically pleasing manner.
Ronald Roberts said that the materials the driveway is constructed of affects the impact the driveway has on the
property. He said that requiring decorative materials would improve the aesthetics of the driveway. He suggested
requiring the owner to use brick pavers or stamped concrete, but not allowing shiny concrete, for the driveway.
He asked that a landscape plan be required as part of the review process. Also, he said that they have discussed
the lot coverage policy of no more than 35% of the front yard being covered. He said that 35% of paving may be
appropriate for lots in the RX district, but the lot coverage should be proportionate to the size of the front yard.
Mr. Roberts said that lot coverage should be considered when approving the driveways because drainage may
impact neighborhoods differently and may be more important in some areas of the Village.
Planning & Zoning Commission Page 2
th
August 25 Workshop
Mr. Donnelly noted that the request for circular driveways may be based on the belief that the driveways make an
impressive front yard. He said that part of this curb appeal, however, is that several cars are not parked in front
and that the landscaping is visible. He added that enforcing a ban on overnight parking on the circular portion of
the driveway would be problematic. Mr. Donnelly also stated that several requests for circular driveways have
been for new construction homes and that designing the house differently would have eliminated the need for a
circular driveway. He said that some of the requests were made because the owner did not want to push the house
back or the driveway was located on the ‘wrong’ side of the lot, right next to the main road. He said that he
would prefer the owners appear before the P&Z Commission with their proposed design, when the house is still
being designed, and before a foundation is poured.
Mr. Roberts asked whether the Village can limit the number of vehicles allowed to park in the driveway. He said
that too many vehicles are an eye sore. There was discussion about other vehicles permitted to park in driveways;
it was clarified that recreational vehicles and campers are permitted to be parked on an approved surface, as
described in the Village’s Development Code.
Mr. Youngquist noted the parking recreational vehicles, pop up campers, boats, cars being worked on, and
multiple cars are situations that already exist throughout the Village and that the restrictions are the same with, or
without, a circular drive. He said that people may want circular drives because of an aesthetic issue. He stated
that the Commission can discuss the safety issue further, but considering the larger style homes currently being
built, it is reasonable to believe circular driveways are wanted for aesthetic reasons. He said that on 100’ or 150‘
wide lots that have a 100’ or 80-90’ wide home, homeowners may want a circular drive so guests can enter
through the front door instead of the through the side loaded garage that is typically built on such homes. He said
that circular driveways made sense and were a reasonable request for situations such as this. He noted that since
overnight street parking is prohibited in Mount Prospect, people may look to the circular driveway as a way to
resolve a parking conflict. He said that from an enforcement perspective, the Village has the authority to write the
rules and ban parking on the circular driveway, but the restriction would most likely only be enforced on a
complaint basis.
Chairman Rogers and Leo Flores expressed concern that the rights of those in large homes on large lots be
balanced with the rights of those on smaller lots. They posed the question of “How do you legislate a
compromise?”
The Commissioners agreed that lot coverage and lot width are important factors to consider when reviewing a
request for a circular driveway. The Commissioners discussed whether a 70’ or 80’ lot width should be the
minimum lot size to consider for a circular driveway request. Mr. Younquist remarked that the Commission and
Village Board went through this process with sheds and that the maximum size of a shed relates to the size of the
property. He said that in the RX district, technically a 200 square foot shed is permitted. He said he hopes
circular driveways have a similar equitable solution.
Mr. Donnelly remarked he has seen circular driveways used for RV parking and not used for auto circulation.
The cars are on the original part of the driveway, and the homeowner never has to move the RV. He asked
whether the Village should put restrictions on the circular portion of the driveway.
Judy Connolly summarized the Commissioners’ concerns and thoughts on circular driveways:
1. Circular Drives should continue to require Conditional Use approval;
2. Lot width of the Frontage should be considered
3. Landscaping should be required
4. Decorative materials should be used for the driveways
5. There are still questions on enforcement such as whether to restrict overnight parking or the number of
vehicles
lanning & Zoning Commission Page 3
th
August 25 Workshop
Mr. Donnelly remarked that circular driveways are not an issue when the entire circle is located behind the
required setback, in the buildable area. He cited a home on Busse Road as an example of a circular driveway that
met this criteria. He stated that he has an issue with new construction houses that locate the home at the front
setback and then request the circular driveway in the front yard when they have the ability to locate the house
further back and construct most of the circular portion of the driveway behind the required front setback. Mr.
Youngquist noted that circular driveways are more in scale on the larger lots where the homes can be set further
back. He added that including landscaping is critical. He said that he is not so concerned about overnight parking
on the driveway because the driveway is usually vacant during the day, when it is most visible.
Ms. Connolly reminded the Commission that this topic will come up at a forthcoming Committee of the Whole
meeting. She said she will advise the Commission of the date when it is scheduled.
Mr. Donnelley made a motion to adjourn at 10:40 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved
by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
__________________________________
Ellen Divita, Deputy Director
C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\Discussion minutes Aug 25 05 Circular Drives1.doc