Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Meeting Packet 08/10/1993DEPUTY VILLAGE CLERK ALL 0 iwm . AM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time: Mount Prospect Senior Center Tuesday, August 10, 1993 50 South Emerson Street 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL IL ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF JULY 27, 1993 111. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD V. REVIEW OF REVISED ZONING CODE This item is a continuation of the July 27 Revised Zoning Code discussion. For well over a year, Planning staff and Zoning Board of Appeals members, ,have worked on a comprehensive revision of the Village's Zoning Code. The existing Code has been criticized as being outdated, not user friendly, contributing to the sometimes lengthy and cumbersome public hearing process that many petitioners are now faced with. The proposed Code changes are designed to take into account well-established building and remodeling trends, the growing predominance of in -fill projects and the overall need to streamline the public hearing process. Proposed changes to the Zoning Map seek to recognize conditions as they exist and create conforming uses where possible. A number of joint workshop meetings have already been held between the Village Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Members of the ZBA have been invited to Tuesday's Committee of the Whole and appropriate staff will be in attendance to facilitate discussion. VI. MANAGER'S REPORT VII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT EXECUTIVE SESSION - Property Disposition Minutes COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE July 27, 1993 Can to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Mayor Gerald L. Farley. Trustees present were George Clowes, Tim Corcoran, Michaele Skowron, and Irvana Wilks. Also present were Village Manager Michael E. Janonis, Planning Director David Clements, Communications Administrator Cheryl Pasalic, Planner Ray Forsythe, Finance Director David Jepson, Kelvin Fee of TCI, two residents and four members of the print media. Trustees Richard Hendricks and Paul Hoefert were not in attendance. II Minutes of June 29, 1993 The minutes of June 29, 1993 were accepted and filed. M Citizens To Be Heard Trustee Corcoran stated that he attended a recent meeting with downtown merchants and it was pointed out that the primary overtime parking violators in the downtown area were employees. There was concurrence by the merchants that stepped up enforcement by the Police Department should be taken. Trustee Clowes announced that TAP Mount Prospect (Teens and Parents for a Better Mount Prospect) has been awarded a $5,000 grant by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services for Positive Youth Development programs in the Village of Mount Prospect. The award was announced in Springfield last Friday by Sterling M. Ryder, Director of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. In presenting the grant award to TAP Mount Prospect chairman George Clowes, Director Ryder said only a handful of new recipients get awards each year. Out of 32 new grant applications, only 11 new awards were made. Positive Youth Development grants are made available to organized groups of community volunteers through DCFS's Division 'of Youth and Community Services. The program has three goals: first, to provide young people ages 6-16 with the motivation, skills, and resources to improve their decision-making skills and enhance their self-esteem; second, to enhance the well-being of families in the community; and third, to encourage a cooperative effort among community groups, organizations, parents, youth, schools, and churches as they plan and implement Positive Youth Development activities. Trustee Clowes stated that we decided to apply for a grant when we saw that TAP Mount Prospect's goals were so similar to the goals of Positive Youth Development. Trustee Clowes said he was pleased to receive the award on behalf of the TAP Mount Prospect group because this recognizes the contributions that TAP participants have made to make Mount Prospect a better place to live. He also said that a lot of credit gees to the Mount Prospect boosters who wrote letters supporting the work of our group --State Senator Marty Butler, State Representative Carolyn Krause, Cook County Commissioner Carl Hansen, Judge James Geocaris, High School District 214 Board President Robert Zimmanck, School District 26 Board Vice President Donna Johnson, School District 59 Board President Sam Lissner, School District 57 Board President Thomas Munz, School District 57 Superintendent Thomas Many, Police Chief Ron Pavlock, C.R.U.S.H. President Alva Kreutzer, Fighting Back coordinator Ilene Berns Zare, and residents Holly Jamison, Nancy Kubow, Jane Stavoe, and David and Carolim Schein. In addition, NBD Bank President John Edering, Jr. agreed to process the grant money and waive all bank charges. IV Cable Television System (Single Cable Negotiations) Status Report Village Manager Janorus reported that the Village Board had direcled staff to negotiate an amendment to the Cable TV Franchise Agreement that would expedite a change to a single cable system. Mr. Janonis stated that a draft agreement had been worked out and contained two additional features. In addition to moving to a single cable system, the agreement provides for TO to conduct a market test of the Mount Prospect market for "on -demand service" and for upgrading TO equipment in Mount Prospect, Communications Administrator Pasalic further explained that the draft agreement included the following specific points: - An upgrade of fiber optic backbone cable shall be implemented. - While going to a single subscriber cable, system will Elso offer special services over the second cable on a test market basis. - Many "cable -ready" television features will be able to be utilized with the upgraded system. Sets limitations on the movement of PEG (Public Education Government) channels and mechanism for reimbursement of associated costs by the access entity. 'Sets stricter construction and installation standards. Sets requirements for longer hours at the Mount Prospect office. Sets requirements that the Mount Prospect studio be available to advanced access users, and training will be provided. Incorporates penalty structure from ordinance. Allows for transfer of the franchise to TO of Illinois,'but does not erase from the record any prior violations of the fi-anchise or penalties imposed. Ms. Pasalic stated that the proposed modification applies to the current franchise only and in no way extends it beyond the current term. The Village anticipates that it will receive a notice from TO in the next 7 months that will request that the franchise be renewed. While the current franchise does not expire until 1996, the renewal and hearings process can, take several years to complete. 2 Kevin Fee, State Manager of TO Illinois, stated that Ms. Pasalic did a good job of explaining the changes and that with the change Mount Prospect will have the same service as other communities served by TCL Trustee Corcoran complimented Mr. Fee for the improvement in relations with the Village and in the service to the community. Trustee Corcoran discussed the cost reductions with Mr. Fee and concluded that the initial monthly savings will average about $1.90 per subscriber along with the elimination of an additional outlet box for many subscribers. However, Mr. Fee stated that new rates will be established by the FCC and these amounts will change at that time. Trustee Corcoran also asked Mr. Fee about the public access channels and the weather channel. Mr. Fee responded that the public access channels will be reduced from 13 to 8 and that one of the 8 public access channels could be substituted for the weather channel. Trustee Corcoran moved that the Village opt for the weather channel in place of one of the public access channels. Trustee Wilks thanked Mr. Fee and Ms. Pasalic; for working out an acceptable agreement. Trustee Wilks inquired about the proposed test market. Mr. Fee responded that it would be voluntary and the price for the programs will depend on the demand of the test results. The single cable system should be complete in 60-90 days and the pay-per-view option should be available by December or January. Trustee Wilks stated that before the Village gives up a public access channel for the weather channel it should discuss the proposed change with the other interested PEG groups. Trustee Skowron stated that some of the other groups have not had the resources to utilize the public access channels and that the weather channel would benefit more people. Trustee Clowes stated that he also supported the weather channel. He also questioned Mr. Fee about the interconnect with other systems. Mr. Fee responded that there have not been any requests to use the interconnect in twelve years. Mayor Farley said he also supported the weather channel. Resident Ernest Lasse commended the Board for reaching an agreement with TCI on the single cable system. V Review of Revised Zoning Code Mayor Farley stated that the effort to revise the Zoning Code should result in a streamlined zoning and permit process. He added that a number of workshop meetings have been held and there would be another Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss the proposed changes. Mayor Farley requested that discussion on the proposal that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) be the final authority on all variations be deferred until all other changes had been discussed. Director of Planning, Dave Clements, stated that staff had begun work on the revised ordinance in the fall of 1991, and the Zoning Board of Appeals began a series of eleven monthly workshops throughout 1992. Four additional workshops were held in the spring of this year for the Zoning Board of Appeals to discuss proposed changes with the Village Board. W. Clements then summarized the major changes and highlights of the ordinance as listed below: I it is recommended that the Zoning Board of Appeals be final on all variations rather than just 25 % of the standard. 2. Regulations for fences have been moved to the Zoning Ordinance from the Building Code. 3. Antennas and satellite dishes are now an accessory use instead of a Special Use. 4. The ordinance proposes a 3 foot separation between houses and garages, if the garage has interior fire -rated drywall. 5. A new minimum setback for garages of 3 feet rather thari 5 feet on lots which are 50 feet or less. 6. Provisions for outdoor sales have been added to rthe ordinance. This recognizes the seasonal display of merchandise that is found in the Village, and provides guidelines for its location. 7. Complete revisions for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section have been added. The new section includes> more specific design features to be included with a <PUD application, such as utility and detention plans, architectural and landscape plans. I 8. All zoning districts include a purpose statement, to help define their hierarchy within the text, and to distinguish their specific role. 9. Attached three -car garages are a permitted use in residential districts, rather than Special Uses. 10. A transitional setback has been added to all commercial areas abutting residential districts. This is designed to help reduce any adverse impact of commercial development on adjoining neighborhoods. 11. A new zoning classification has been developed for downtown,and the areas along Northwest Highway. This zoning district recognizes the smaller commercial lots and zero lot line development of these older areas. New parking requirements are also included for these areas, to allow more reasonable -change of uses without increasing parking. 12. The four -acre minimum lot size of the industrial district has been reduced to two acres. This is similar to the lot sizes in Kensington Center for Business., 13. Driveway widths are regulated by lot coverage rather than, a specific dimension. 4 14. The Zoning Map is revised to reflect the new zoning text. It emphasizes creating conforming uses, but it also eliminates a number of single lot B-4 classifications that exist on the current zoning map. These uses are mostly service stations and fast-food restaurants. These areas are designated part of larger B-3 Districts on the new zoning map, and the existing uses are made conforming by receiving Conditional Uses. Mr. Clements added that the Zoning Board of Appeals generally discussed the revised Zoning Ordinance, and it was noted that the ordinance streamlines and updates many requirements of the current Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Board of Appeals concurred with the proposed changes. However, Chairman Basnik and Mr. Cassidy believed that the Zoning Board of Appeals should not be final on all variation requests, or that a lesser number of dissenting votes should trigger Village Board, review. These members also were concerned with eliminating the minimum PUD lot size However, by a 6-0 vote, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommends that the revised Zoning Ordinance be approved. Mayor Farley asked if the two acre minimum lot size for the industrial classification should be reduced to 1-1/2. Mr. Clements responded that staff would prefer no minimum but to review it on a case-by-case basis. The ZBA recommended the two acre minimum. In response to a question on the revision to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section, Mr. Clements said a PUD can utilize fill-in lots more efficiently by allowing a 10% density bonus. Trustee Wilks asked about the restrictions on development that were covered by a PUD. Mr. Clements stated that each PUD has an underlying zoning classification that must be satisfied and there are numerous design standards in the Zoning Code. Trustee Willis also asked if height restrictions in the Business District would affect the proposed Pine/Wille Development. Mr. Clements responded that the B5 Core Area classification permitted six stories. Trustee Wilks commented that the Zoning Ordinance should not limit business opportunities by restrictive parking requirements. Mr. Clements said there are provisions for more reasonable parking requirements for businesses in the Downtown area. Trustee Corcoran said the concept of the ZBA being the final authority is hard to accept. He asked what other communities do. Mr. Clements responded that.a recent survey of 26 other communities showed that in most of the communities the Village Board is required to review all of the requests. In response to Trustee Corcorm's question regarding the distinction between business classifica- tions, Mr. Clements said that B3 is the most common and that B2 only applied to the Brentwood Shopping Center. Trustee Corcoran said he would like to see rules requiring super -majority votes included in the Map Amendments Section. In regard to satellite dishes, Mr. Clements stated that there are different standards for residential and commercial installations and that FCC regulations actually pre-empt local standards. Dennis Saviano, a former member of the ZBA complimented David Clements and Ray Forsythe for the efforts put into the revision of the Zoning Code. VI Manager's Report There was no report. VII Any Other Business Trustee Wilks said she found the workshops with the ZBA to be Wpful and complimented staff for the effort that has gone into the Revised Zoning Code.. VIIIAdjournment' The meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted David C. Jepson Finance Director DCJ/sm 6 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: MICHAEL E. JANO AGE MANAGER C FROM: DAVID M. CLEMEES., 'DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DATE: . AUGUST 5, 1993 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE Attached please find additional information for use by the Village Board in their continued discussion of the revised Zoning Ordinance. 1. Survey of municipalities and the role of their Zoning, Board of Appeals with variation requests. 2. Memo addressing the consistency of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. 3. A number of sample illustrations, to help with interpretation and understanding of certain key terms or regulations. DMC:hg VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING FROM: WESLEY MOTT, PLANNING INTERN DATE: JULY 27, 1993 SUBJECT" ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACCELERATED APPROVAL PROCESS Following are the responses from 26 cities and villages in the Chicagoland area regarding an accelerated approval process with the Zoning Board of Appeals. I have separated the communities into two categories: places where the ZBA is final on some or all minor variations and where the ZBA is only a recommending body to the Village Board or City Council. ZBA FINAL ON SOME OR ALL MINOR VARIATIONS: Addison- If a variation is part of a Planned Unit Development or subdivision the ZBA is a recommending body to the Village Board. Otherwise, the ZBA is final on all minor variations. Arlington Heights- The ZBA is final on all minor variations they hear. They do not hear land -use and subdivision variations. Carol Stream- The ZBA is final on sign and fence variations. The ZBA is a recommending body to the Village Board on setback, deck, and garage variations. Downers Grove- If a variation is part of a Planned Unit Development or subdivision the ZBA is a recommending body to the Village Board. Otherwise, the ZBA is final on all minor variations. Elmhurst- The ZBA is final when setback and lot coverage variations do not exceed a certain percentage of the maximum allowed. On all other minor variations the ZBA is a recommending body to the City Council. Morton Grove- All minor variations are final with the ZBA if it is residential. A commercial variation bypasses the ZBA to the Plan Commission and Village Board. Oak Park- The ZBA is final on all minor variations they hear. The ZBA does not hear cases on land -use and subdivision variations. Park Ridge- The ZBA is final when the setback variation is not more than 20% of the maximum allowed. On all other minor variations the ZBA is a recommending body. Rolling Meadows- The ZBA is final on all variations they hear. However, variations with Planned Unit Developments, subdivisions and signs go to the Plan Commission and Village Board. ZBA ONLY A RECOMMENDING BODY: Deerfield- The ZBA was final on all minor variation cases until 1978. After a controversial variation was granted, the mayor revoked the ZBA!s power. Des Plaines Elk Grove Village Glen Ellyn Glendale Heights Hanover Park- They are currently attempting to make the ZBA final on all sign variations. Hoffman Estates Lake Forest Libertyville- They are attempting to make the ZBA final with all minor variations cases in their proposed new zoning ordinance. Lombard- They are attempting to make the ZBA final with all minor variation cases in their proposed new zoning ordinance. Naperville Palatine- Variations on fences and decks bypass the ZBA and are heard by the Village Board. Schaumburg Westmont Wheaton Wilmette Woodridge VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: MICHAEL E. JANONI L GE MANAGER FROM: DAVID M. CLEME S, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DATE: AUGUST 6, 1993 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE VILLAGE'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPOSED REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE Staff recently completed it's review of the Village's Comprehensive Plan and the possible inconsistencies it may pose with the proposed new revised Zoning Ordinance. The following identifies those inconsistencies. 1. The new Zoning Ordinance now provides a separate zoning district (C-R) that permits parks and another similar recreational activities. This new classification should be mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The section of the Comprehensive Plan that specifically addresses the Zoning Ordinance should be changed to state that the Zoning Ordinance has been updated in order to better enforce the content of the Comprehensive Plan. It now clearly identifies permitted and conditional uses, and no longer shows excluded uses. The section of the Comprehensive Plan indicating the "Zoning Ordinance is in the process of being revised" should be removed. (See Page 47 of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Zoning Ordinance now provides transitional setback requirements for each business district. This recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan on Page 49, the third item under Housing, should be removed from the Plan. 4. The new Zoning Map and Ordinance now establishes better defined commercial districts, including a Business Office District, Neighborhood Shopping, Community Shopping District, Corridor Commercial Districts and Central Commercial Districts. The section of the Comprehensive Plan recommending revising the Zoning Map to reflect new commercial area designations and firm boundaries could be removed. (See last sentence on Page 49 of the Plan.) 5. The proposed Zoning Ordinance encourages development with a high level of excellence in site planning, landscaping, and architecture in the Office Michael E. Janonis August 6, 1993 Page 2 Research District. The Comprehensive Plan section recommending that the zoning regulations establish standards and incentives in such developments should be reviewed. During the August 4, 1993 meeting of the Plan Commission, the members discussed how the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance need to be consistent with each other, and indicated a desire to update the Comprehensive Plan in order to achieve this need. Also, to address the question from Trustee Corcoran, the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically list zoning districts by title or designation, so no changes need to be made in that regard. DMC:hg Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS FROM: GEORGE A. CLOWES DATE: JULY 28, 1993 SUBJECT: "A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS" During the discussion of cable TV at last night's Committee of the Whole meeting, the term "user- friendly" was used to describe the systems in place in other communities. I had intended to make some remarks on "user-friendly" in relation to the Zoning Code but was not able to because the meeting was curtailed at 10:00 pm. In order to give staff as much time as possible to respond to my suggestion, here are my comments. The Sign Code establishes some fairly complex rules for putting up signs but the code --- and its intent --- is made much easier to understand by the pictures that go along with the code to illustrate what the words mean. rve attached a few examples to show what I mean. The Planning Department and the Zoning Board have done an outstanding job of organizing and clarifying the Zoning Code for the Village. They know the code inside out ... but most of us don't. My suggestion for improving the Zoning Code even further is to have a corresponding set of diagrams to illustrate the meaning of the words in the code. While staff is familiar with the code and its meaning through daily use, few others know, for example, what `interior side yard setback' means without thinking about it. If the Zoning Code contained diagrams to illustrate the meanings of the following terms, I think it would help make the rules more understandable to everyone (including this Trustee). Ideas for what should be illustrated include the following: Basic Definitions/Requirements: Setback, interior side yard, exterior side yard, fences, abutting districts, garage, driveway, variation, special use... Common Items: Room additions, decks, detached garages, fences, driveway replacement, lots 50' or less... Hope you find these comments helpful. George Clowes rm VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: David Clements, Planning Director FROM: Ray Forsythe, Planner DATE: August 6, 1993 SUBJECT- Illustrations and Definitions for the Zoning Ordinance In response to the memo from Trustee Clowes regarding illustrations and definitions for the Zoning Ordinance, I have enclosed definitions and samples of drawings which can be integrated into the ordinance. DEFINITIONS The proposed definition section of the Zoning Ordinance contains the following definitions Trustee Clowes mentioned in his memo: Setbacks, interior side yard, exterior side yard, abutting, variation and conditional use. Following are some definitions that were indicated in the memo which the proposed ordinance currently does not contain: FENCE: A structure or partition erected about a yard or other space, or about any other object, intended to prevent intrusion from without, whether physical or visual, or straying from within. (Taken from Building Code) GARAGE, PRIVATE: A private garage is an accessory building, or an accessory portion of the principal building, which is intended and used to store motor vehicles. (Taken from existing Zoning Ordinance). ILLUSTRATIONS Attached are samples of illustrations that could be integrated into the definitions or text of the Zoning Ordinance. Also attached are handouts given by Inspection Services with permit applications to answer many common questions a homeowner may have. Also attached is a memo dated June 10, 1993, sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals members which discusses building heights, driveways, and 50 % lot coverage. SAMPLE ILLUSTRATIONS LOT WIDTH AND LOT DEPTH EXPLAINED REAR LOT LINE LOT D tso R. SIDE LOT LINE SIDE LOT L 145 fL —, ---- Ice ft. FRONT LOT LINE width immediately ie beck dtlte toquited Dant yad. umamad wW. lb. III bowdosim REQUIRED, YARW—IMUSMATED TUMITIONAL YARDS CURRENT FENCE PERMIT 1. PERMITTED FIVE (b) FOOT FENCES Z PERMITTED SIX (d) FOOT FENCES* 771 * Six 0 foot fences an also permuted alone rear or exterior side lot tines where abuninq an arsenal road. w*b112 2mning MAY r4t Oxoeed Meet in tow . Source: Village of Mount Prospect, Planning and Zoning Department, August 19". Revised March 1993 REQUIRED YARDS ILLUSTRATED z J a a 3 d FRONT LOT LINE STREET . MEMO VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT To: Zoning Board of Appeals Members From: Ray Forsythe, Planner ?—I Date: June 10, 1993 Subject: Follow-up on Draft Ordinance Phone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 708 / 392-6022 TDO: 708 / 392-6064 Attached are exhibits and information which address some concerns or questions that the Zoning Board Members had throughout the workshop process. Exhibit # 1: Building Height Exhibit # 2: Driveway Widths Exhibit # 3: 50 % Lot Coverage in the R -A District GERALD L FARLEY GEORGE A. CLOWES TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN RICHARD N. HENORCKS PAMICKAELEUL WM.W. HSKOWRON OERAT Village of Mount Prospect iRVANA K.WILKS VILLAW MA"01011 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 MICHAEL E JANONIS VILLA" CLERK CAROL A. FIELDS . MEMO VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT To: Zoning Board of Appeals Members From: Ray Forsythe, Planner ?—I Date: June 10, 1993 Subject: Follow-up on Draft Ordinance Phone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 708 / 392-6022 TDO: 708 / 392-6064 Attached are exhibits and information which address some concerns or questions that the Zoning Board Members had throughout the workshop process. Exhibit # 1: Building Height Exhibit # 2: Driveway Widths Exhibit # 3: 50 % Lot Coverage in the R -A District EXHIBIT # 1 BUILDING HEIGHT Following is the definition of Building Structure Height followed by the allowable single family building heights and examples. BUILDING STRUCTURE HEIGHT: The vertical distance of a building or structure as measured in feet, from the base grade to the highest point of the roof or parapet, R a flat, mansard, or gambrel roof, or the point midway between the ridge line and the eave line if a hip or gable roof (See illustration). Mechanical penthouse, chimneys and steeples shall not be included in measuring the height of buildings. GABLE MIP GAMBREL MAN6AR0 TYPICAL TYPES OF ROOFS ALLOWABLE SINGLE FAMILY BUILDING STRUCTURE HEIGHTS: R -X SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT: The maximum height of a residential building shall not exceed thirty five feet (35') or three (3) stories, whichever is the lesser. R-1 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT: The maximum height of a residential building shall not exceed twenty eight feet (28') or three (3) stories, whichever is the lesser. R -A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT: The maximum height of a residential building shall not exceed twenty-eight (28) feet or two (2) stories, whichever is less. Attached are examples of structure heights which meet the proposed ordinance. 2-61 � F■ asxIVR r«« MAN, !9Z EXHIBIT # 2 DRIVEWAY WIDTHS Mrivewav wivn stallI�T, v:rt J&amy- "Tim - Oz. Nil 0 z 59' or less 21' 601-61, 21' 62'- 64' 222' 65' - 67' 23: 681-69, 24 70# 24.5' 71'- 72' 25' 73' - 75' 26' 76' or greater 26' NOTE: MaAmurn driveway width will be reduced it sidewalks and/or stoops are located in the front yard for lots which are 59' in width or less. Lor A -w JL JOHN M. HENRIKSEN OF L,LOr SEVENTY Y SEVEN (77) IN ALFINI °S SE= AMITICN TD MGtW PRCiSPECT, BEING A suwrvrsllCN or THE Fir OF THE Rof EAST (j) OF �asT Qu� (i) C swrim 1)..HrF .4 NCiRTe#, RANGE 11, EAST DF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, AC:CMING TC7 PLAT I� i7i F REGTEREIr IN " C)F FIC7EREGISTRAR of TITLES OF COCK CCxJk7rY, rLd.rNCiISr CIN JANUARY T 1955, AS DGCStfEN1 NVW. " PENDLETOiV PLACE . . CONCRETE L32tEAST-� CONCRETE WEST FACE OF BASKETBALL POST 0.04 EAST 1 l....... CONCRETE L31 EAST 2223 / ! l d gh to BRICK AND FRAME tV RE3IDFNCE WITH GARAGE CHAIN LINK FENCE N0. KK?T =ACE OF FENCE 0,24 WEST CONCRETE 0.09 WEST-,,' 0 ENCLOSED 1 PATIO CONCRETE OJO EAST s 17.66 I CONCRETE ." r ` PAT10 " W 2 gy LOT u 77 rrl I REC.. 206,0 EAST FACE OF FENCE 026 ZOAJQP P-1 Lor $N2,r, e' FAoA1'r Y�►o�b LoT GMy'I-,rte► 3y�j* Tort► �. �.. r �% Gov1CiN-Ar, 4 � OF FENCE OJO EAST ANO E OF FENCE 026 NORTH 6 FT. EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES SOUTH FACE OF FENCE 0.2t OF FENCE OJ6 WEST CHAIN LMR' FENCE ANO EAST FACE OF FENCE E OF FENCE 0.61 SOUTH CHAIN LIM( �5.0 WOOD FENCE FENCE 1I 1 27 '^NORTH FACE OF FENCE 0,34 SOUTH OF r1sioN or TMT PAn CF THE SO= 133.5 FM Or nZ M=WZAM UMM (1/4) OP CH 25, 0 PRDKMPAL MUDIM, LYIW, WWT Cr A tme M" AT RIGlfr man 70 zm 9WM LUM Cr SUID WEST Or TM CERM LUM Cr RrVM J*W; A= THhT PARr CP M NOWH EMP 0 /2) Cp 7W �rrm (1 /4) or ShM MnC" 2S, LYV4 H=H Or THE SOM IMM CP IM SOM 16-1 /2 P=s Tiamwr; ) CF SKM S=TCM 25, LYDC NCM OF 7M HCRM LUC OF M SO= 1$-1/2 "MS Or 7W NCM 40 MG THEYMM UW PAM I} J•' HDVrCFM DWICXTED FM IKWZ, ni C= COMM, UAMMS. AVENUE EUCLID 0/,1 -7 - *A" -LQ"l -1%-LO.L 11/0 o -LO-1 WWN'k JJ4 *,a j M -LIS, 4.01 -- rr 911 ?poor% %P Fla VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: MICHAEL E. JANONISW� VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DATE: JULY 19, 1993 SUBJECT: ZBA-39-A-93, REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits for consideration by the Village Board, their recommendation on revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. This application was filed by the Village of Mount Prospect, and proposes to amend Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code in its entirety. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the revised Zoning Ordinance at a public hearing on June 10, 1993. At the public hearing, Director of Planning, Dave Clements, stated that staff had begun work on the revised ordinance in the fall of 1991, and the Zoning Board of Appeals began a series of eleven monthly workshops throughout 1992. Four additional workshops were held in the spring of this year for the Zoning Board of Appeals to discuss proposed changes'with the Village Board. Mr. Clements then summarized the major changes and highlights of the ordinance as noted below: 1. It is recommended that the Zoning Board of Appeals be final on all variations rather than just 25% of the standard. However, certain cases will still be forwarded to the Village Board if a concurring 4 votes is not received. This will help streamline the approval process for variation requests, and provide quicker results for residents. (Page 6) 2. Regulations for fences have been moved to the Zoning Ordinance from the Building Code. A new setback along exterior side yards has been added for fences, so fences aren't erected close to sidewalks. (Page 18) 3. Antennas and satellite dishes are now an accessory use instead of a Special Use. This eliminates the lengthy hearing process for these generally accepted antennas. (Page 20) 4. The ordinance proposes a 3 foot separation between houses and garages, if the garage has interior fire -rated drywall. This is A change from the current 10 foot requirement, which is frequently reduced by variations with a condition requiring the fire -rated drywall. This is an example of bow the text can reduce a number of more routine variations. (Page 23) Michael E. Jannis Page 2 5: A new minimum setback for garages of 3 feet rather than 5 feet on lots which are 50 feet or less. This helps address development problems on narrower lots. (Page 23) 6. Provisions for outdoor sales have been added to the ordinance. This recognizes the seasonal display of merchandise that is found in the Village, and provides guidelines for its location. (Page 29) It. Completer "s for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section have been addedMe new section includes more specific design features to be included with a PUD application, such as utility and detention plans, architectural and landscape plans. Also, the minimum size of a PUD is eliminated, as it is anticipated that more in -fill development will be forthcoming in the Village. (Page 33) 8. All zoning districts include a purpose statement, to help define their hierarchy within the text, and to distinguish their specific role. The purpose statement is the introduction to each district. 9. Attached three -car garages are a permitted use in residential districts, rather than Special Uses. This recognizes that three -car garages are more of a standard feature with new home construction. 101, A transitional setback has been added to all commercial areas abutting residential districts. This is designed to help reduce any adverse impact of commercial development on adjoining neighborhoods. 11. A new zoning classification has been developed for downtown, and the areas along Northwest Highway. This zoning district recognizes the smaller commercial lots and zero lot line development of these older areas. New parking requirements are also included for these areas, to allow more reasonable change of uses without increasing parking. (Page 84) 12. The four -acre minimum lot size of the industrial district has been reduced to two acres. This is similar to the lot sizes in Kensington Center for Business. (Page 92) 13. Driveway widths are regulated by lot coverage rather than a specific dimension. (Page 101) 14. The Zoning Map is revised to reflect the new zoning text It emphasizes creating conforming uses, but it also eliminates a number of single lot B-4 classifications that exist on the current zoning map. These uses are mostly service stations and fast-food restaurants. These areas are designated part of larger B-3 Districts on the new zoning map, and the existing uses are made conforming by receiving Conditional Uses. Michael E. Janonis Page 3 The Zoning Board of Appeals generally discussed the revised Zoning Ordinance, and it was noted that the ordinance streamlines and updates many requirements of the current Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Board of Appeals concurred with the proposed changes. However, Chairman Basnik and Mr. Cassidy believed that the Zoning Board of Appeals should not be final on all variation requests, or that a lesser number of dissenting votes should trigger Village Board review. These members also were concerned with eliminating the minimum PUD lot size. Comments from Zoning Board of Appeals members from the public hearing are noted in the attached minutes. Accordingly, by a 6-0 vote, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommends that the revised Zoning Ordinance be approved. DMC:bg Attachment I MINUTES OF THE REGUL&R MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE NO. ZBA-39-A-93, Hearing Date: June 10, 1993 PETMONER: Village of Mount Prospect SUBJECT PROPERTY: N/A PUBLICATION DATE: May 25, 1993, (Herald) MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: To amend in its entirety Chapter 14, Zoning, of Mount Prospect Municipal Code. Gilbert Basnik, Chairman Robert Brettrager Ronald Cassidy Leo Floros Peter Lannon Elizabeth Laxem Richard Pratt 3 Residents 2 Reporters Chairman Basnik introduced the only agenda item of the evening being a request by the Village of Mount Prospect to amend Chapter 14, Zoning, in its entirety. David Clements, Director of Planning, summarized the process that the Zoning Board of Appeals ands have undertaken in order to get to this Public Hearing. He indicated that the 1990 proposed budget included a consultant to complete the Ordinance update. However, it was taken out due to resource constraints. At this point, staff decided to undertake the project and in 1991 the process of gathering information and drafting language began. In February of 1992, staff began holding workshops with the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to discuss the draft ordinance. The workshops were held on the second 1burWay of the month and continued through October of IM In November and December, staff compiled all of the prepared sections and presented a draft ordinance in January, to the Zoning Board of Appeals and in February, March, and April reviewed the draft with the Zoning Board of Appeals and Village Board. Mr. Clements then gave a brief history of the current Zoning Ordinance. He indicated that some of the Articles date to 1968. He further stated that the current format was designed in 1979 and has been amended many times to keep the ordinance current, however, it has created conflicts and inconsistencies. Mr. Clements also stated that the ordinance could be described as a typical suburban ordinance geared toward a growth community. This type of ordinance does not address mature communities with redevelopment as it's most common form of expansion. ZBA-38•V•93 Page 2 it was thenindicated that the,goal of the,ZOniogBwdof Appealsandstaff was tostreamlint the moons and profess. To accomplish this Val, the draft langaW incorporates a Ott da of clogs to the text and map The members then proceeded to discuss the proposed ordinance on a chapter by chapter basis, Mr. Clements indicated that in Article U. Administration and Enforcement, it stipulates that the Village Board shall`o onvene an annual meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals to review the effectiveness of this Zoning Ordinance. Item d indicates haat tae Zoning � oaf is final onriations whi+oKh �r inre four concurring totes ei for ora i, "i"lthout concurring flee request go before the Vallage d for their revie and decision. , The members discussed this item. Chairman Bassnilc indicated that he has previously stated his view on this item as being the Village Board should have final authority for variations. However, he stated that perhaps a variation could be final with the Zoning Board of Appeals with a unanimous vote, Ems►' There are new standards for map amendments and text amendments. Currently there is one set of standards which are used for both. The texan Conditio Ilse is ix►troduced. Thais term replace Special Use Permits. "floe tensa charnge is rues�ied as it Better reflects the item is and to indicate that re nalale coonditions eon. be lied. r2go 13: Item 10, indicates new standards for resubmitting a request after a denial. The general provisions",section now Inco W the fe regulations a rhich was previonsl located in the Building Code. There is a,change in the exterior sidle setback to 10 ftw from the current 1 foot. Satellite amotmas are proposed to be accessory uses gather than special uses with the e stands being Introduces new standards for 50 foot lots. A 3 foot setback for interior sideyards for accessory structures is proposed This will eliminate many variations for garages in older areas of the Village. E Contains the swimming pool standards from the Building Code.' ban .Begins the revised Planned, nit'Devel ant (PUD) Section. This section has been rewrittteeu in its enfitety to better refied step jeeded to go through. New requirements include landscaping plans and engineering plans: ZBA-38-V-93 Page 3 Ron Cassidy indicated his concerns with a minimum lot requirement of 30,000 square feet instead of the current 60,000 square foot requirement. Mr. Clements indicated that the proposed ordinance sets no minimum lot size. Mr. Cassidy suggested that this would create over -building on small lots. Mr. Clements indicated that many communities have a minimum lot size of 60,000 sq. ft. in their PUD Ordinance, however, this may not reflect Mount Prospect. He further indicated that redevelopment can occur on less than 1-1/2 acres. He gave examples of zero lot line homes or creative setbacks. He stated that there were protections to over -development throughout the ordinance. He indicated that the standards in the underlying zoning district still apply, and that if greater than a 1095' bonus density were requested, a rezoning would have to be requested. The members discussed the revised section. Gil Basnik questioned if the density would increase in a typical PUD. Mr., Floros suggested it would most likely increase. Mr. Clements stated that it could but would not automatically do so. Mr. Basnik questioned if a PUD was feasible on small lots and stated that he does not want to reward small lot development. Mr. Clements indicated that a PUD on small lots ensures review by the Zoning Board of Appeals and Village Board. Mr. Clements indicated that without the PUD, a good review tool would be lost at staff level. Mr. Cassidy discussed the origin of the PUD Ordinance. He stated that it began in the 1970's with a 45 acre minimum. It was then reduced to 60,000 square feet and be stated he has strong reservations in reducing it further. Bob BTettrager indicated that he doesn't see my number as important. He feels that the standards in the underlying district will regulate and any modifications will be requested in the PUD. He further stated that on small lots, the 10% bonus is mathematically impossible Or very small. Pete Lannon indicated that the PUD requires a public hearing which will give the Board a chance to review and the neighbors a notice of possible development. The consensus of Zoning Board members was to establish no minimum PUD lot size. Pa= 41 A and • This is a new district C-R Conservation Recreation. This replaces the "G" Golf District and has been expanded to include parks and playgrounds, as well as municipal facilities and recreational complexes. Mr. Clements indicated that the Park District has reviewed the prepared language. Mr. Clements then discussed the Residential Districts., He indicated that attached three - car garages have been included in the permitted uses. Mr. Clements indicated that the R -A Single Family District has been reformatted to reflect the older established area of Mount Prospect which is primarily 50 ft. wide lots. He stated ZBA 38=V-93 Page 4 that the standards willcreateconfombg lob and better address the bulk replationL He stated that the lotcoverage has been increased to 50 to ref ea long driveways leading to the detached garage to the rear. HO ' there haus beenan"hi ZBA-38-V-93 Page 5 Begins the B-3 Community Shopping District. Mr. Clements indicated that this is for cutters such as Randlairst, Calif Plaza, and Mount Prospect Commons. rApjaL B4 Corridor Commercial District addresses the automobile oriented uses. hgoM; This is the new Central Conttnercial Distria 1je;goal of this district is to rempize the ftdiy developed commercial area designated as downtown. Mr. Clements indicated that the proposed arca, extends along Route 14 to the Units of Mount Prospect. He indicated that there is a "Core" area as desipated on the Comprehensive plan. He indicated that the "Core" area allows a higher density and height regulations. He stated that the transitional setback also is included in this district, however, it is increased as the bueight of a building is increased. Peter Lannon stated his concern with tying the "Core" to the Comprehensive Plan He stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has no control on the Comprehensive Plan and the boundaries could be changed. He felt it shouldire tied to the; Zoning . The other members agreed to this suggestion EagoM Starts the O -R Office Research Distrim The proposed is similar to the current distract which was developed with Lake Canter Pl xa. Pago f 1-1 Limited industrial is similw to the current Light Industrial. The prohibited use list has been eliminated as it was in tete commercial districts. Mr. Clements indicated. that the performance standards are similar to those used by most municipalities. Page 98: Off -Street Parking and Loading is similar to the existing standards. All ADA Standards have been added. Eat; = Discusses s driveway widths. The 'language regulates width by lett coverage rather than a figure related to garage size. This is Proposed to better meet demand and reduce the number of variations requested. of study _ _ research. Dave Clements indicated that the pr lois been reviewed by the Business District Development and Redeveloptnent Commission. The members recommendede the proposal with an increase to 1.5 spaces per unit for two-bedroom multi -family. The Lan Ordinance has been incorporated into the ordinance. Mr. Clements indicated that in was Arlo two years ago into this Municipal This concluded the: overview by staff. Mr. Baimik then opened up the discussion to the audience. No one addressed the Board. Mr. Basnik then opened up discussion to the Board members. Peter Lannon questioned the language to be used on Page 8 and 1 ,"Action by Village BoarxV Mr. Clements indicated that on May 4,1993, the Village Board adopted standards for vo ZBA-38-V-93 Page b Mr. Clements recommended that the same language be used, Mr. Lannon recommends that if the Village Board denies a case, then the super majority would be required He does not feel that the Zoning Board of Appeals should define what a super majority is. Mr. Lannon then discussed the current ordinance Section le ".0 which gives residents the right to petition for amendments to be with a 3/e vote. He suggested that this lanpage be ad to the proposed odinatac. The members agreed to this. Ron Cassidy then brought up the language regarding the Zoning Board being final on variations. He stated that at previous workshops he and Citairman'.Ba n have indicated that they would prefer that 1 or 2 no votes would rewire Village Board approval. Mr. Basnik ,indicated that he feels that the Village Board is the ultimate authority. He stated that the Village Board must answer to residents and that the Zoning Board of Appeals is appointed. Mr. Basnik feels that there should be a way for the Village Board to review decisions made by the Zoning Board of Appeals . Ms. iuxern questioned if the Village Board could request aresew ,of a . Mr. Basnik stated that in a discussion with the Mayor, the possibility of providing tapes of the meetings to the Village Board members was addressed. Mr. Basnik stated that Bae minutes are not transcripts, "and only the final result is indicated and much of the deliberations are not included Mr. Floros indicated that he could support two or more negative votes to require Village Board review. Messrs. Lannon and. Brettrager indicated that thtappWs process will be e easier and don't feel that people will be afraid to file an appeal. Mr. Lannon stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would only be final on variations and that all other requests would have Village Board review, Mr. Clements stated that the important thing a that the Zoning Board of Appeals has final authority with built-in checks and balances. The members .decided to proceed with the draft language with the understanding that the minutes reflect the opinions of the minority; Mr. Clements then referred to the proposed zoning map. He indicated that the proposed map reflects the existing land uses in relation to the new classifications. Peter, on questioned the proposals to designate current 84 gas, stations to B-3 with Conditional Use . The Zoning d had no concerns about designating service stations with" a B-3 conditional Use, as it provides Village with more routo& However, members believed all property, owners should be advised. ZBA-38-V-93 Page 7 Ln summary, the members felt comfortable with the proposed amendments. Mr. Basmk noted that he supports the ordinance with the exception of the Zoning Board being final for variations with four concurring votes and noted Mr. Cassidy's feelings being the same. Mr. Cassidy stated be also *Weed that the ordinance was acceptable but noted be was uncomfortable with the elimination of a minimum lot size on Planned Unit Developments. Chairman Basnik then asked for a motion on the request, and Mr. Lannon moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend approval on Case ZBA-39-A-93 to amend in its entirety Chapter 14, Zoning, with the amendments discussed at this public hearing being added by staff. The motion was seconded by Bob Bre"er. Upon Roll Call: AYES: Brettrager, Floros, Laxem, Lannon, Cassidy and Basnik NAYS: None The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board for their consideration. Respectfully submitted, ashy . Forsythe Planner Approved: D- X cuyn� 1501i'd- M. Clements, Director RI Planning . . . . . . . ... .................. MAYOR GERALD L FARLEY TRUSTEES GEORGE A CLOWES TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN RICHARD N. HENDRICKS PAUL WM. HOEFEAT Village of Mount Prospect MICHAELE W SKOWRON iAVANA K. WILKS VILLA" Al"Asall MICHAEL E. JANONIS 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VIUAINICLORK CAROL A. FIELDS Phone: 706 / 392-6000 Fax: 708 / 392-6022 TOO: 708 / 392-6064 AGENDA SAFETY COMMISSION VILLAGE HALL 100 S. EMERSON STREET MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 7:30 P.M. THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION, AUGUST 9,1993 HAS BEEN CANCELLED. s. MAYOR GERALD L FARLEY TRUSTEES GEORGE A CLOWES TIMOTHY J, CORCORAN RICHARD N. HENDRICKS PAUL WM, HOEFERT MICHAELE W, SKOWAON Village of Mount Prospect IFIVANA K. WILKE VILLAGIEMANIA"R MICHAEL I- JANONIS 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK CAROL A, FIELDS Phone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 708 / 392-6022 TDD: 708 / 392-6064 &fi-E-N-DA SIGN REVIEW BOARD Monday, August 16, 1993 Trustees' Room, 2nd Floor, Village Hall 100 South Emerson Street 7:30 P. M. S.WN Mount figWWA PJaz;J Shoppift Cgnlgr� E _aA CgnlrAl, Road E-4trance The petitioner seeks to increase the height of the new freestanding sign from 15 feet to 20 feet adjacent to Mount Prospect Plaza, Central Road entrance. (Section 7.305.A; 7.330.C.) SIGN -15-92 and SIGN -5-93 were previous cases on the same signage. SIGN -41-M, Emglid !adeq. 2012 East ElICIIII AKC4.0 The petitioner requests a special use equity option (Sec. 7.330.D) to permit a 35 foot sideyard setback instead of the required 60 feet; and a zero foot setback from the front property line instead of the required 5 feet to allow a pylon sign (30 sq. ft., 12 ft. high). The petitioner is willing to "trade off' 55 sq. ft. of permitted awning signage in exchange for setback modifications. sm-N-4-2--u. Villagg of magot Prospect, &Rlhost Cpj:= of. NorthweA HM� #ad MAIn The petitioner requests a special use equity option (Section 7.330.D) for zero foot setback from front property line instead of the 5 feet required by Ordinance to avoid placement of the Community Civic Events sign over underground utility lines.