Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0311_001MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MAY 28, 1991 I. ROLL CAL The meeting was called to order at 7:35 pm. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Gerald L. Farley; Trustees Mark Busse, George Clowes, Timothy Corcoran, Leo Floros, and Paul Hoefert. Absent from the meeting was: Trustee Irvana Wilks. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager John Fulton Dixon, Assistant Village Manager John Burg, Finance Director Dave Jepson, Planning and Zoning Director David Clements, Economic Development Director Ken Fritz, Public Works Director Herb Weeks, Deputy Public Works Director Glen Andler, Public Works Administrative Aide Lisa Angell, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce Janet Hansen, Recycling Commission Chairman Ken Westlake; thirty persons in the audience and three members of the press. IL MINUTES The Committee of the Whole Minutes of May 14, 1991 were accepted and filed. HI. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD Seven residents spoke regarding the recently approved Flood Proofing Incentive Program. They felt the Program should be made retroactive so that the flood proofing projects they completed in their homes would be eligible. Mayor Farley addressed the issues raised by the residents and explained the reasons why the Board felt this Program should not be retroactive. Trustee Busse again urged the Board to consider making the Program retroactive because he felt the money in the Program would not be used unless previous projects would be considered eligible. Trustee Clowes said that he sympathizes with these residents but there are limited funds for this Program. He felt the effective date of the Program should be left as it is, but that the Program should be reviewed in six months during the regular budget review process to see how many residents are participating. Trustee Corcoran explained that the purpose of this Program is to provide incentives for residents to protect their homes. The purpose is to help those who are flooding at this time to help alleviate the flooding. He was not in favor of making the Program retroactive. Mayor Farley indicated that he and all the Board members are very sensitive to the plight of these residents and will continue to review the Program. He asked that residents send any information to the Board for their review. The consensus of the Committee was to leave the effective date of the Program as is with no retroactive provision. IV, R N' A► l F ]BE IL's IN 1 Ken Westlake, Chairman of the Recycling Commission, indicated the Commission had recommended the hiring of a full-time Solid Waste Coordinator. He outlined the reasons for the hiring of this individual, Public Works Director Herb Weeks also explained the need for this position. Trustee Hoefert said he sees this position as a highly technical one filled by a person with a broad waste management background who has up to date information. "Trustee Floros said be has not supported personnel increases in the past but he feels the argument for this position is a sound one and he supports it. He feels it is a much-needed position, Trustee Clowes said he felt the position is necessary but he is reluctant to add an individual. He would rather review the work that the Public Works Department would not be able to accomplish to see whether these items should be deleted rather than hiring someone. Trustee Busse said he supports hiring a Solid Waste Coordinator. However, he feels the position should be reviewed periodically to make sure it needs to continue. Trustee Corcoran said he cannot support the hiring of a Solid Waste Coordinator. He felt the Village should either promote someone from within or use an individual on a part-time basis through the Network 50 Program. Mayor Farley said he received a call from a volunteer and asked if a volunteer could possibly do this job, Manager Dixon said he would not put a volunteer in this position because we need a full-time person with the appropriate background. Mayor Farley asked if this was a unanimous recommendation of the Recycling Commission. Mr. Westlake said yes. Mayor Farley then opened the floor to comments by the audience. -2- Pete Lannon indicated this is a transitional program. He said that as time goes on, many of the issues coming to a head at this time will resolve themselves. For example, there will be a new garbage contractor and a recycling education program will be necessary. He felt the Village could get by with a part-time individual. Mayor Farley asked if the Village could hire a competent individual for the life of the new contract. Manager Dixon felt that three years would be adequate to attract competent applicants. Finance Director Dave Jepson agreed with this assessment. Trustee Hoefert said the Village reviews every job every year. He said he does not agree with a sunset provision. Mayor Farley indicated that the new Solid Waste Contract and the need to inform the public about the Recycling Program are very important. He said if the Stormwater Management Projects will require additional time of the Public Works and Deputy Public Works Directors, he is in favor of this position. However, he would like to review the position in three years. The consensus of the Committee was to authorize the creation of the Solid Waste Coordinator position. Chairman Ken Westlake then indicated the Recycling Commission had recommended that mixed paper 'be added to the Recycling Program instead of corrugated at this time. He said that a larger volume of the waste stream would be diverted with this option. He indicated that Arc Disposal already accepts corrugated cardboard at the Recycling Center. Trustee Hoefert said that many people were concerned what they would do with the cereal boxes, magazines and so on. He fully supports the recycling of mixed. paper instead of corrugated. Trustee Floros indicated he would prefer to remain with the recycling of corrugated cardboard. After discussion, the consensus of the Committee was to substitute mixed paper in the Recycling Program as opposed to corrugated cardboard at this time. Mr. Westlake then indicated the Recycling Commission had suggested a name change for the Commission to the Mount Prospect Solid Waste Commission. Mr. Westlake said the name change simply reflects the new reality of what the Commission has been involved with in recent months. Trustee Floros preferred to leave the name as the Recycling Commission as recommended by the Village Manager. -3- Mayor Farley indicated that he could accept the name change but would not anticipate any change in the responsibilities of the Comn-dssion. Trustee Corcoran said the objective of the Recycling Commission is not recycling but rather to reduce the waste stream. He said the Commission has done a great job. Trustee Busse said the Commission has done a great job. He said he has no problem with the name change. He said the Commission makes the recommendation and then the Board makes the final decision. He thanked the Commission for helping the Board make many important decisions. Village Manager Dixon clarified why he was not in favor of the name change. He was concerned that the Commission would want to have a representative in SWANCC. Mr. Westlake said the Commission would not expect to be represented in SWANCC. Trustee Clowes also agreed with the name change. The consensus of the Committee was to support the name change from the Recycling Commission to the Mount Prospect Solid Waste Commission. Economic Development Director Ken Fritz outlined the proposed Business Retention Program. Janet Hansen, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, also added her own comments. Mayor Farley said he wholeheartedly and enthusiastically supports this Program. He said he would like to involve Village officials as part of the visiting team. Trustee Busse said this Program is long past due. But he asked if thd Village will also focus on small businesses which make up a large part of the business community. In response to the question about a survey, Janet Hansen said she felt the Chamber survey performed in September provides enough information to begin the Program immediately. She feels the questions could be restructured for a future survey. However, she does not recommend the survey right now because this would slow down the Program by six months. Trustee Floras said he would be happy to make house calls. The consensus of the Committee was to support the Business Retention Program. The Committee advised staff to begin work on this Program immediately. -4- RNINEFITIT3 WSURW17M Planning and Zoning Director Dave Clements gave an overview of the proposed Home Occupation Ordinance as well as the recommendations of the Zoning Board. He recommended that an Ordinance with performance standards be adopted. Trustee Hoefert said he supports this type of Ordinance but the moment an activity intrudes on residential, the Village should vigorously enforce the Ordinance to protect neighborhoods. Trustee Corcoran explained his suggested changes which would more clearly define the requirements of the Ordinance. Trustee Busse said that he is in favor of performance standards as recommended by the Zoning Board and he is in favor of a fee. However, he would not want any activities to impact the neighborhoods. Trustee Clowes was also in favor of the Ordinance with performance standards. However, he asked how music lessons would be handled. Mr. Clements said he felt the Ordinance would prohibit music lessons but he said the Ordinance could be amended to say that one customer at a time would be allowed. Trustee Clowes also asked how a recipe book mail order business would be handled. Mr. Clements said he felt this would also be a violation of the Ordinance. Trustee Clowes asked how other towns enforce this Ordinance. Mr. Clements said that citations are issued. He recommended this method to be consistent with the way other Zoning matters are handled. These citations are referred to Housing Court. Trustee Corcoran made a plea for enforcement by the staff instead of in Court. Trustee Hoefert said he is not in favor of allowing any employees under the Ordinance. "Mere was a recess between 10:10 p.m. and 10:20 p.m. When the Committee reconvened, Mayor Farley opened the floor to public comment. A resident at 416 South Mt. Prospect Road was not in favor of this type of Ordinance noting that the Village does not enforce current Ordinances prohibiting businesses in a residential area. A resident on Sitka Lane said he is in favor of home businesses as long as they do not cause noise and problems for the neighborhood. However, he said if there is a law, the Village should enforce it. -5- A resident at 211 South Hi-Lusi said the standards in the Ordinance proposed by staff are vague. He said it is time to update the law but these standards must be more clearly defined. A resident at 409 South Hi-Lusi just requested that the Village not make the fee too high. Janet Hansen indicated that the Chamber is in favor of the Ordinance as recommended by the Zoning Board with three differences. First, the Chamber feels that one employee should be allowed. The Chamber also feels that item 10 and item 3 are redundant and should be deleted. A resident at 1442 Fern Drive also urged that the Home Occupation Ordinance be adopted. Former Trustee Don Weibel felt an Ordinance with performance standards is needed but the standards should be tightened up. He said the Board should first pass an Ordinance requiring all home businesses to register with the Village for a nominal fee. He said when the Village knows how many businesses there are, then meaningful performance standards can be drafted. He said the list of Federal Tax ID Numbers could be a good starting point to notify individuals of the requirement to register. The Village should also require an inspection if this is ordinarily done for the same type of stores in the commercial area. Mayor Farley requested that the Home Occupation Ordinance be placed on the June 11 Committee of the Whole Agenda as the only item. Planning and Zoning Director Dave Clements was directed to assemble the comments of the Committee into a draft version of an Ordinance for consideration at that meeting. VII. MANAGER'S REPO Village Manager Dixon indicated that the Village has received a very favorable proposal by the First Chicago Bank of Mount Prospect to lease one-half of the fourth floor in that building. He said the lease will be placed on the June 4 Agenda and he recommended heartily that the Village Board approve this lease. The use of office space would eliminate the need for eight of the proposed eleven trailers. Only three locker room trailers would be needed. These trailers have been scheduled for a bid opening on June 11. VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Clowes said he would like to have a presentation from the Village of Bartlett and from Bill Abolt of SWANCC regarding the Balefill. Mayor Farley did not agree with the need for a presentation by the Village of Bartlett. He felt there is adequate information available for review of the proposed Balefill and suggested that Trustee Clowes avail himself of this information. -6- Manager Dixon indicated he would not be averse to having Bill Abolt of SWANCC make a presentation. However, he said that Bartlett is in litigation with member communities of SWANCC and it would not be advisable to allow them a public forum to push their case. The Committee discussed the suggestion to allow Bartlett to appear before the Board. However, no action was taken on the request to have Bartlett appear. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:06 p.m. JPB/rcw Respectfully submitted, )"r, ?PK�---)- JOHN P. BURG Assistant Village Manager -7- VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING"AND ZONING DATE: JUNE 4, 1991 SUBJECT: HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCE As a follow-up to the May 28 Committee -of -the -Whole meeting, I have revised the home occupation standards for review at the June 11 Committee -of -the -Whole meeting. The revised standards reflect comments by the Board, and each standard now includes a purpose statement to help reduce interpretation problems. Please note that the proposed definition includes a statement about for-profit home businesses and home offices. I believe this helps satisfy the "professional' question, as any professional, technical or clerical business would be permitted, subject to meeting all the standards. I have also added a new standard about contractors or service businesses and I believe this addresses questions about truck and trailer parking for activities like landscape businesses. Home Occupation. Home Occupation is an accessory use conducted completely within a dwelling unit and clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes. No home occupation or part of any home occupation shall be conducted in an attached or detached garage. A home occupation may include a for-profit home business or a home office for a resident who may work for another employer, or contract or consult with another company or individual: Home occupations shall be governed by the following standards to ensure that they are conducted in a manner that does not have any adverse impact on a residential area, or infringe on the rights of adjoining property owners. There shall be no sign displayed in conjunction with a home occupation. The purpose of this standard is to assure that no commercial signs are displayed in residential areas. 2. There shall be no separate entrance for use by a home occupation, or any exterior alteration to a dwelling unit that will indicate from the exterior that any part of the residence is being used for any purpose other than that of a John Fulton Dixon June 4, 1991 Page 2 dwelling. The entrance to any space devoted to a home occupation shall be from within the dwelling. The purpose of this standard is to prohibit any alterations to a dwelling solely to accommodate a home occupation. 3. There shall be no stock or inventory maintained at a residence with a home occupation, however, sample items are permitted. The purpose of this standard is to prohibit shipping or receiving of inventory at a residence, and to prevent the storage of goods or materials that might be a fire hazard in a dwelling. There shall be no noise, odor, dust, vibration, smoke glare, television or radio interference, electrical interference, fire hazard or any other hazard emanating from the dwelling. No home occupation shall involve the use or production of noxious, tonic or harmful materials. The purpose of this standard is to ensure that a home occupation has no adverse environmental impact on adjoining properties. No person shall be employed other than a member of the immediate family residing in the dwelling unit. The purpose of this standard is to ensure that no non-resident comes to a dwelling for employment purposes, and to minimize the traffic generated by a home occupation. 6. The home occupation shall not generate traffic hazards or nuisances on a public street, nor require more vehicle parking than exists on a residential driveway. The purpose of this standard is to avoid business-related trip generation in a residential area. 7. No home occupation shall involve hourly, daily or regularly scheduled customer or client visits. The purpose of this standard is to reduce frequency of customer or client visits to a residence, and related traffic. 8. The home occupation shall not utilize more than 25% of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit. The purpose of this standard is to assure that the home occupation remains incidental to the residential use of the structure. 9. No outside storage of any kind related to a home occupation shall be permitted. 10. Any contracting or service business which operates as a home occupation, shall meet standards 1 through 8, and shall meet the following additional requirements. a. No employees other than persons residing on the premises shall report to work at or near the premises. John Fulton Dixon June 4, 1991 Page 3 b. Any contracting or service business truck with a commercial message painted on the vehicle shall be permitted up to a "Class B" license plate, but must be parked overnight in an enclosed garage. Trucks with any license classification indicating a capacity of more than a 'B" plate are prohibited from being parked at the residence. C. No contracting or service equipment or materials shall be stored on the premise, except in a permitted truck used for transporting equipment or materials between jobs. No loading or unloading of equipment or materials shall be done on the premises. No trailer used for commercial contracting or service uses shall be permitted for equipment storage in a residential area, and shall not be parked on the premises. Also, there was discussions by the Village Board about music lessons in a residence. This could be accomplished by the following additional standard: a. Musical instrument lessons for not more than one pupil at a time. Staff notes that this standard would be particularly hard to enforce or verify. Lastly, the Village Board needs to make a determination on enforcement of home occupation complaints. You will recall that Trustee Corcoran recommends a hearing by the Village Board with a final appeal to the Village Board. Staff recommends that home occupations be enforced as any zoning matter, with a review by staff and any citations issued to the Cook County Housing Count. DMC:hg VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING DATE: MAY 24, 1991 SUBJECT: HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCE The May 28 Committee -of -the -Whole Agenda will include discussion on the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow home occupations. For background, the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals is attached. As a summary, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation is for a "performance standards" approach to regulate home businesses. This approach sets up standards for all home businesses based on their intensity and impact on the neighborhood. For example, a home occupation can display no sign, shall not maintain any inventory, nor have any outside storage. Any type of home business that meets all standards would be allowed, as it would not have any adverse impact on the neighborhood. Also attached are several recommended revisions to the ordinance suggested by Trustee Corcoran. His suggestions are noted in capital letters. Trustee Corcoran is modifying the "standards" approach somewhat by including wording that limits home occupations to the less intense commercial uses, with specific prohibitions on certain businesses. This approach is reasonable in setting up an understanding of what types of businesses are allowed and prohibited. However, there will always be the possibility that a proposed home business would not fit neatly into either category, and still be able to meet the performance standards of not having any impact on the neighborhood. The standards approach as recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals would adequately regulate the uses suggested as permitted and prohibited by Trustee Corcoran. Lastly, Tim suggests that home business complaints be reviewed by the Village Manager, with an appeal to the Village Board. I would recommend that any home occupation complaint be enforced as any other zoning matter, with a review by staff, and any citations being processed through Cook County Housing Count. DMC. -hg VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GIL BASNIK, CHAIRMAN 1lr - FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1990 SUBJECT: Z, VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AMENDMENTS To THE ZONTING ORDINANCE This application for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance was filed by the Village of Mount Prospect. Three amendments are proposed as follows: 1. Amend Section 14.503.B. to change the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting time from 8:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. 2. Amend the existing regulations for home occupations in all residential districts, and add standards to allow home occupations in residential districts subject to certain performance standards, and appropriate definition in Section 14.2602. 3. Amend Section 14.101.G to clarify the interpretation of lot consolidations, and add a definition of "zoning lot" to Section 14.2602. These amendments will be discussed individually. AmmdmugA The Zoning Ordinance establishes the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting time as 8:00 p.m. In August of 1990, the Zoning Board determined that the meeting time should be changed to 7:30 pm., to perhaps handle more business at the regular meetings, in hopes of avoiding special meetings every month during the busy spring and summer season. This amendment merely changes the meeting time as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. Amendment The Chamber has suggested that the Village consider adopting standards that would allow home occupations. On August 28, 1990 Janet Hansen, Chamber Executive Director, preliminarily discussed home occupations at a Committee -of -the -Whole meeting. At that time, the Village Board determined it would be appropriate to refer the matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a public hearing. Gil Basnik, Chairman Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 At the present time, Mount Prospect Zoning Ordinance prohibits he occupations, and offices in homes, *except that a surgeon, physician, dentist, homewyr, clergyman, or other professional person using his residence for consultation, emergency treatment or the performance of religious rites only, and not for the eeneral practicr, QLft_gr�s" However, what we find in the community is a wide range of inconspicuous home based businesses, many of which have Illinois revenue numbers. Home based businesses vary from contractor's offices, part-time caterers, artist studios, to computer consultants. Staff typically becomes aware of home occupation if it is one that disturbs neighbors. These matters are investigated on a complaint basis. The difficulty with the present requirements is that well-meaning residents call the Village Hall and inquire about opening a home business, and are advised that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow home occupations. In many cases, these residents are aware of other home occupations in the Village, and do not understand why they cannot gain approval. It would be appropriate to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow home occupations, if the home-based business met certain standards. For example, a home occupation should have no employees, display no sign, nor have any retail sales on premise. Also, no home occupation should include storage of supplies or inventory. Many communities regulate home occupations based on such performance standards, and this would be a reasonable approach for Mount Prospect to consider. A survey of members of the Northwest Municipal Conference indicates that virtually every municipality has provisions to allow home occupations. It is recommended that the following Sections be amended: Amendment to ADD Home Occupations, as defined herein, to the following Sections as permitted uses: R -X 14.1001A R-2 14.1301A R-1 14.1101A R-3 14.1401A R -A 14.1201A R-4 14.1501A Amendment to DELETE Home occupations from the following Sections, as specifically excluded uses: R -X 14.1001.B.5 R-2 14.1301.8.4 R-1 14.1101.B.5 R-3 14.140I.B.5 R -A 14.1201.B.5 R-4 14.1501.B.5 ADD to Section 14.2602 the following definition: HoMe Occu2afig - Home Occupations to be permitted in all residential zoning districts, subject to the following definition and performance standards: Gil Basruk, Chairman Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 Hgmj_QZUgAtjan is an accessory use conducted completely within a dwelling unit, carried on by any member of the immediate family residing on the premises, clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes. The following standards shall govern the operation of a home occupation: 1. There should be no sign, display or alteration that will indicate from the exterior that the home is being utilized in whole or in part for any purpose other than that of a dwelling. 2. No substantial amount of stock in trade shall be kept or commodities sold. 3. No mechanical or electrical equipment shall be used or stored except such as permissible for domestic or household purposes. 4. No offensive noise, vibration, smoke fumes, odor, heat or glare or electrical interference shall be noticeable at or beyond the property line. 5. No explosive or combustible materials shall be used. 6. No person shall be employed other than a member of the immediate family residing on the premises. 7. No outside storage of any kind related to the home occupation shall be permitted. 8. The home occupation shall not generate traffic or parking in excess of what is normal in a residential neighborhood. 9. The home occupation shall not utilize more than 25 percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit. 10. A professional person may use his residence for infrequent consultation, emergency treatment, or performance of religious rites, but not for the general practice of his profession. Staff believes it is best to regulate home occupations based on such performance standards, because this provides a measurement of impact on a neighborhood. This is considered preferable to creating a lengthy list of permitted home occupations, which might not be able to list every reasonable home business. Amendment The Scope of Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.101.G, states that it is unlawful "to construct one building on more than one lot, or to occupy more than one lot by more than one main use." This is being interpreted to mean that a principal building, such as a house, cannot be on more than I lot, or the portion of any lot. For example, there are many homes built on two 25 foot lots. If a resident, Gil Basnik, Chairman Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 in such an example, hopes to add a room addition, current policy requires that the two 25 foot lots be consolidated or combined into a 50 foot lot. In consolidating the two 25 foot lots into one 50 foot lot, the resident then has only one building on one lot, meeting the intent of the current requirement. This is an expensive and unnecessary burden for a property owner. If a home has existed for years on two 25 foot lots, or some similar example, and it is being properly assessed, there is no public benefit to having the property owner consolidate the parcel, in order to get a building permit for a room addition or other improvement. The Plan Commission has reviewed a number of such lot consolidations over the years, and does not believe such a requirement is necessary. However, the Plan Commission notes that consolidation plats should be done if there is the need for easements or street dedications. The Plan Commission recommends that the Zoning Board take appropriate action to amend Section 14.101 to eliminate the lot consolidation requirement. Staff recommends that Section 14.2602, Definitions, be amended to add a definition of "zoning lot", as follows: L&L_ZgAjU is a single tract of land located within a single block which (at the time of filing for a building permit) is designated by its owner or developer as a tract to be used, developed, or built upon as a unit, under single ownership or control. Therefore, a "zoning lot or lots" may or may not coincide with a lot of record. With this definition, a tract of land is designated a buildable unit for zoning purposes, thus not having to coincide exactly with one lot of record. In researching this matter, staff found that a number of other suburban municipalities utilize a zoning lot definition for similar purposes. Further, staff recommends that the statement found in 14.101.G be deleted. DMC:bg n MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE NO. 96-A-90 Hearing Date: December 13, 1990 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect SUBJECT PROPERTY: 100 South Emerson PUBLICATION DATE: November 27, 1990 REQUEST: Amend Section 14.503.E. to change the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting time from 8:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Amend the existing regulations for home occupations in all residential districts, and add standards to allow home occupations in residential districts subject to certain performance standards, and appropriate definition in Section 14.2602. Amend Section 14.101.G to clarify the interpretation of lot consolidations, and add a definition of "zoning lot" to Section 14.2602. ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT: Gilbert Basnik, Chairman Peter Lannon Richard Pratt Ronald Cassidy Robert Brettrager ABSENT: Lois Brothers Micheale Skowron OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: Margaret Gaweke, 416 S. Mt. Prospect Road. Janet Hansen, Chamber of Commerce. Chairman Basnik introduced this case stating that the petitioner is requesting amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Amend Section 14.503.B to change the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting time from 8:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. 2. Amend the existing regulations for home occupations in all residential districts, and add standards to allow home occupations in residential districts subject to certain performance standards, and appropriate definition in Section 14.2602.2 3. Amend Section 14.101.G to clarify the interpretation of lot consolidations, and add a definition of "zoning lot" to Section 14.2602. ZBA-96-A-90 December 13, 1990 Page 2 of 3 The petitioner, David Clements, Director of Planning and Zoning, presented the case stating that the first request has to be formally changed in the Zoning ordinance, to reflect the current meeting time. Mr. Clements stated that the second request is to allow home businesses in certain situations, noting that the Planning and Zoning department receives many calls regarding this and they must tell them this is not allowed. He noted that in the community a wide range of inconspicuous home businesses exist, many of which have Illinois revenue numbers. Home based businesses vary from contractor's offices, part-time caterers, artist studios, to computer consultants Staff typically becomes aware of home occupation if it is one that disturbs neighbors. Theses matters are investigated on a complaint basis. It would be appropriate to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow home occupations, if the home-based business met certain standards. For example, a home occupation should have no employees, display no sign, nor have any retail sales on premise. Also, no home occupation should include storage of supplies or inventory. Many communities regulate home occupations based on such performance standards, and this would be a reasonable approach for Mount Prospect to consider. Mr. Clements then introduced Mrs Janet Hansen, executive director with the Chamber of Mount Prospect. Mrs. Hansen stated that the Chamber of commerce had voted in favor of allowing home businesses in the Village of Mount Prospect and presented the Board with facts founded by the Chamber of Commerce. The Board then reviewed the comments made by the Chamber of Commerce. They also separately considered the standards presented in the staff memo. Mr. Clements stated that amendment # 3 and the definition of 1. zoninglot" would allow existing properties consisting of more than one lot, under single ownership, to be considered as a single buildable unit for zoning and building permit purposes. Under current regulations, when physical improvements, such as a room addition, are proposed on property consisting of more than one lot, but under single ownership, the owner must consolidate the lots in order to get a building permit. This situation usually occurs when two older, narrow lots have been developed as a single unit. Staff does not feel that there is a public benefit to requiring lot consolidations in many of theses situations. Tom McGovern of the Mount Prospect Plan Commission stated that the Plan Commission agrees with staffs proposal and feels that many lot consolidations are unnecessary except in ZBA-96-A-90 December 13, 1990 Page 3 of 3 cases where easements or street dedications are required. The Board then generally discussed the amendments noting that for amendment number 2 they make the following changes to the standards listed in the memo from staff: 1. Delete item #3 pertaining to mechanical and electrical equipment. They felt item # 4 would cover any problems associated with the use of such equipment. 2. Change item # 6 to allow on non -family member employee at one time rather than no non -family employees as suggested by staff. Chairman Basnik then entertained a motion to grant the petitioners request with the changes to Amendment 2 as discussed.. Mr. Cassidy moved. Mr. Lannon seconded. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Lannon,. Pratt, Cassidy, Brettrager, Basnik NAYS: None Motion carried by a vote of 5-0. This case must still be heard before the Village Board. Michelle Thompson Recording Secretary r AGE OF MOUNT PROSI,.,( PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER W-./ FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING DATE: DECEMBER 18, 1990 SUBJECT: ZBA-96-A-90, VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits, for your consideration, their recommendation on three amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as follows: 1. Amend Section 14.503.B. to change the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting time from 8:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. 2. Amend the existing regulations for home occupations in an residential districts, and add standards to allow home occupations in residential districts subject to certain performance standards, and appropriate definition in Section 14.2602. 3. Amend Section 14.101.G to clarify the interpretation of lot consolidations, and add a definition of "zoning lot" to Section 14.2602. The Zoning Board considered the amendments at their meeting of December 13, 1990. At the meeting, David Clements, Director of Planning and Zoning, explained the purpose of the proposed amendments as follows: Amendment -1 An earlier meeting time would allow the Zoning Board to handle more business at the regular meetings and potentially avoid special meetings during busy months. It would also reflect recent practice of the Zoning Board. This would establish performance standards to regulate home occupations that currently occur inconspicuously since the Mount Prospect Zoning Ordinance does not allow them outright. Stafffeels.that many home-based businesses are compatible in residential zoning districts provided they meet certain peante-standards-relative to number of employees; signage display; noise; outside storage; traffic generation, and other factors which could impact the neighborhood. Staff feels that measuring the appropriateness of a business based on its impact is preferable to developing an exhaustive list of permitted/excluded home occupations. John Fulton Dixon Page 2 Amendment 3 Under current regulations, when physical improvements, such as a room addition, are proposed on property consisting of more than one lot, but under single ownership, the owner must consolidate the lots in order to get a building permit. This situation usually occurs when two older, narrow lots have been developed as a single unit. Staff does not feel that there is a public benefit to requiring lot consolidation in many of these situations. The Plan Commission agrees that many lot consolidations are unnecessary except in cases where easements or street dedications are required. The proposed definition of "zoning lot" would recognize single tracts of land as buildable units for zoning purposes (setbacks, number of buildings on a lot, etc.). A zoning lot would not necessarily cpincide exactly with one lot of record. Also at the meeting, Janet Hansen of the Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce, stated support for Amendment 2 but suggested that one employee (non -family) be allowed for each home occupation, rather than staffs suggestion that no, non -family members be employed in home occupations. Tom McGovern of the Mount Prospect Plan Commission presented testimony in favor of Amendment 3. The Zoning Board discussed each amendment separately. They generally agreed that the amendments, as proposed, should be approved, but suggested some changes to the home occupation performance standards listed in the staff memo. Accordingly, by a 5-0 vote the Zoning Board of Appeals recommends that the Village Board approved the three proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to include the following changes to the performance standards for home occupations as proposed by. staff: 1. Delete Item #3: "No mechanical or electrical equipment shall be used or stored except such as permissible for domestic or household purposes." 2. To allow one non -family employee at a time, rather than a prohibition on any employees. DMC:hg Gil Basnik, ChairmaL:--, Page 3 Mount prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Nome gy conducted pat:Lqn is an accessory Use _qc completely within a dwelling unit, carried on by any member of the immediate family residing premises, clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes. The following standards shall govern the operation of a home occupation: 1. 2. 3. THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE IS TO ALLOW THOSE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES THAT WILL NOT INTERFERE IN A DETRIMENTAL WAY WITH THE ENVIRONMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. HOME OCCUPATIONS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO THOSE BUSINESSES RUN FOR PROFIT, THAT IS OF A SUBSTANTIAL CO:e4-TRCIAL NATURE AND SUBCONTRACTOR STATUS TO ANOTHER EMPLOYER. There should be no sign, display or alteration that will indicate from the exterior that the home is being ng Utilized in whole or in part for any purpose other than that of a dwelling. No substantial amount of stock in trade shall be kept or commodities sold, STOCK SHALL BE LIMITED To THOSE AMOUNTS NEEDED FOR SAMPLES, INVENTORY NECESSARY TO SHIP FROM A RESIDENTIAL LOCATION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. No mechanical or electrical equipment shall be used or stored except such as permissible for domestic or household purposes. 4. No offensive noise, vibration, smoke fumes, odor, heat or glare or electrical interference shall be noticeable at or beyond the property line. S. 110 explosive Or combustible materials shall be used. 6. No person shall be employed other than a -member of the ir-mediate family residing on the prenises. 7. No outside storage of any kind related to the home occupation shall be permitted. a. The home occupation shall not generate traffic or parking in excess of what is normal in a residential neighborhood. 9. The home occupation shall not utilize more than 25 percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit. Gil Basnik, Chairs* Mount Prospect Zor. 4 Board Of Appeals Page 4 10. A professional Person may use his residence for infrequent consultation, emergency treatment, or performanceof religious rites, but not for the goneral practice profession. of his 11. ONLY THOSE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES THAT FALL WITHIN THE aUR'SDICTION OF A SI BE ALLOWED IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. SHALL B3 TCT- ALL B2, At' 10 B4 ZONINGS AND SPECIAL USES AS A PART OF SHALL BE*PROXISITEO IN THE HOME OCCUPATION UNDER I THE HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCE. IF A COMPLAINT IS MADE TO A BUSINESS THAT A HEARING WILL BE SCHEDULED �WTTH THE VILLAGE -Mi*-SAGER, T:E DECISION OF THE SV:LT-AGZ MANAGER HALL BE SUBJECT TO FINAL APPEAL OF THE VILLAGE BOARD. IT IS THE INTENT OF THE VILLAGE BOARD TO ONLY ALLOW THOSE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES THAT 00 NOT INTERFERE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIcHBORHOOD. ORDINANCE IS INTENT OF THIS TO PROVIDE GUIDELINES OF THAT INTENT, THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION WILL BE SUBJECT TO FINAL DECISION IN AN INDIVIDUAL CASE. ALL HomZ OCCUPATIONS THAT HAVE A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH THEM, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE HOME OCCUPATION FEE OF $ 25 PER YEAR, PAYABLE AT rHF BEGINNING OF EACH FISCAL YEAR. 14, SUCH BUSINESSES As LANDSCAPING, HOME BEAUTY SALONS, AUTO REPAIR AND RETAIL SALES FROM STOCK SHALL BE PROHIBITED IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. O'naflac'helipe-�7es it is best to regulate home Occupations based measurementl4rement performance standards, because this provides a Of "'nPact On a neighborhood. This is considered preferable to creating a lengthy list Of Permitted hone home business. occupations, which might not be able to hist st every reasonable The Scope of Regulations 04 14 :101-G, states that it , the Zonijig Ordinance, Section building On more than one is un! -awful- 11to construct one , use:." This is being interpreted to mean by more than one main lot, -)r to occupy more than one lot that a principal building, sucl" as a house, cannot be On more than I lot, orthe portion of any lot. For example, there are Many homes built 01) t-dO 25 foot an exar.1p, e, 1,,.)tS . If a resident, in such 'L hc,Pes to add aroorn addition, 01,1,rent policy requires that the two 25 foot lots be into a So foot lot. cOns0lidated or combined l VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING DATE: JUNE 6, 1991 SUBJECT: REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE As you know, the FY'91292 budget included a work program for the Planning and Zoning staff to undertake a comprehensive revision to the Zoning Ordinance. The budget includes a $10,000 line item for an attorney or land -use expert to review the staff -prepared zoning text. The Planning and Zoning Department has started this process, but before we proceed too far, I believe it is important to talk about our approach to the Zoning Ordinance revision, and to get direction from the Village Board in several areas. Residential Districts The general residential trend in the Village is to remodeling, room additions, new garages, and a variety of other improvements, rather than the construction of new homes. It is appropriate to examine all zoning regulations to see that they best reflect this trend, rather than impede a homeowner's ability to get a project underway. For example, setting up different zoning requirements for 50 foot lots and 65 foot lots would address the development problems encountered on various lot sizes. Business Districts All the zoning districts, particularly the business districts, need a definition or intent statement to indicate the role they are to play in providing retail or services to the Village. For example, a small neighborhood convenience center fulfills a different function than a regional center. It is best to have the Zoning Ordinance recognize this, and list permitted uses accordingly. Also, the Business Districts in the present Zoning Ordinance list permitted and excluded uses. A zoning district should only list permitted uses. If this is correctly done, there is no need to list excluded uses. I would also recommend that we consider performance standards for commercial areas abutting residential areas. This could include fencing requirements, noise and lighting levels, and increased setbacks and landscaping. John Fulton Dixon June 6, 1991 Page 2 Industrial Districts As with the Business Districts, the Industrial Zoning Districts need a definition or intent statement, and it would be appropriate to review the permitted uses, and eliminate excluded uses. There are many newer light industrial uses that could be considered as permitted uses in the industrial district. We should review all such high tech uses to make sure the zoning district permits as wide a range as possible of desirable industrial uses. Downtown DevtIQ12ment Development in the downtown area is regulated by the same zoning restrictions that would govern an office building or shopping center on Rand Road or Golf Road. The physical nature of downtown indicates that there should be a separate zoning classification for the Central Business District. Such a zoning district would also allow easier implementation of the downtown redevelopment project. Residents frequently inquire about replacing non -conforming structures such as patios, driveways and fences. Many times these cannot be replaced without obtaining a variation. Staff believes that a more up-to-date zoning ordinance may solve this problem to some extent. It might be appropriate to examine a policy that allows certain minor non- conforming structures to be replaced without a variation, if for example, the non -conformity does not exceed 50% of the ordinance requirement. Administration The administrative sections of the ordinance need to be revised to standardize some guidelines on special uses, amendments and variations. Also, a more streamlined public hearing process should be considered. Presently, the Zoning Board of Appeals has final authority on variations up to 25% of the ordinance requirement. Variations of more than 25% require a review and ordinance approval by the Village Board. As you know, this process can take 90 days. If the Zoning Board of Appeals had final authority for types of variations, like all yard reductions, rather than a percent of variation, the public hearing timetable could be significantly reduced. This would also reduce the number of routine Zoning Board cases on the Village Board Agenda. This streamlined process would directly address frequent complaints from residents about the variation process. John Fulton Dixon June 6, 1991 Page 3 A revision of the Zoning Ordinance could result in the creation of new zoning classifications that would have to be designated on the zoning map. The Village Board should be aware that zoning changes are a possibility. A complete revision of the Zoning Ordinance will take staff a considerable length of time. We believe that the Village Board and Zoning Board of Appeals should be involved with this process. Staff would recommend that a work group consisting of a Village Board member and Zoning Board member be designated to work with staff on the process, and to help keep other elected and appointed members informed about the revisions.