Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Meeting Packet 08/24/1993VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Meeting- Location: Meeting Date and Time: Meeting Room Senior Citizens Center Tuesday 50 South Emerson Street August 24, 1993 Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 7:30 P. M. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL II ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald "Skip" Farley Trustee George Clowes Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Richard Hendricks Trustee Irvana Wilks Ill. ACCEPT MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF WHOLE MEETING - August 10, 1993 1V.. REVIEW OF REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE This item has been discussed at the July 27 and August 10 Committee of the Whole meetings. 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 The existing Code has been criticized as being outdated, not user friendly, contributing to, the sometimes lengthy and cumbersome public hearing process that many petitioners are now faced with.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. V. DEPARTMENT REVIEWS - FINANCE DEPARTMENT During the last round of Budget Hearings, it was determined that it would be beneficial to conduct a series of workshops during which the Village board could review the operations of each Village Department and Division. The review would consist of an overview of the Department's mission, organizational structure, staffing levels, scopes of services, contracting oust, use of technology, etc. Where appropriate, comparative data would be provided to show staffing levels and scope of services in like communities. The purpose of the workshops is to provide elected officials and the public with a better understanding of how the Village operates and provides services. It is also an opportunity to raise and discuss issues affecting departmental operations (internal issues) as well as Village -wide concerns (external issues). This format is designed to take place away from the "glare" of the annual budget hearings so that the discussion can focus on operations and issues, and not the bottom line. It is hoped that the discussion in this forum will then provide the basis for setting the fiscal parameters that will guide the preparation of the 1994/1995 budget. The format for Tuesday evening's discussion is somewhat open. I anticipate a less formal presentation and more opportunity for questions and answers on a variety of subjects. Appropriate staff will be in attendance to facilitate discussion. VI. EXECUTIVE S VII. ADJOURNMENT aerty Disposition MAVOR �. r GERALD L. BARLEY _ GEORGE A. CLOWES TIMOTHY) CORCORAN RICHARD N. HENDRICKS.. PAUL WM.. SKO RT MICHAELEWWRON Village of Mount Prospect ...IRVANA K. WILKS VIALM MANAGEIL 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 MICHAEL E.JANONIS' p VILLAGE CLERK CAROL A. RELos Phone: 706 / 382-6000 Fax: 706 / 392-6022 TDO: 708 / 392.6064 NOTICE August 19, 1993 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUSINESS DISTRICT DEVELOP'- MENT AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 25, HAS BEEN CANCELLED. THE NEXT REGULAR. MEETING WILL BE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1993. AN AGENDA WILL BE SENT PRIOR. TO THIS MEETING. FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, August 26, 1993 7:30 p.m. Trustees Roam Village Hall 100 South Emerson Street I Gall to Order II Accept Minutes of July 8, 1993 III Departmental Reviews - Finance Deparatment IV Finance Director's Report V Other Business VI Adjournment MAYOR "T GERALD L FARLEY I' TRUSTEES ^ r" GEORGE A, CLOWES:: TIMOTHY) CORCORAN RICHARD N;HENDRICKS PAUL.WM,LEWa ,SKOWRON +'„�VHOEFERL MICHAELE... Village f:, Mount Prospect ` :W IRVANA K, WILKS "". `.. .... WLLASSMA AA" 106 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60058 MICHAEL E. JANONIS'. WLLASE CLERK =. CAROL A, FIELDS Phone: 708:./ 392-8000 Fax: 708`/ 392-6022 AGENDTDD: 708 / 392.6064 , 'A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting Thursday, August 26, 1993 7:30 P.M. Senior Citizen Center 50 South Emerson Street ZDA&EV--D,ElmhmM Road The petitioners are seeking a variation to Section 14.3012 to allow 109 parking spaces instead of the minimum required 132 to allow an office to occupy the entire building. Upon completion of the public hearing, Village Board action will be required for this case at their meeting of September 7, 1993. WOW The petitioners are seeking a variation to Section 14,3016 to allow a driveway with a width of 21 feet instead of the maximum allowed 15 feet for a one car garage, Upon completion of the public hearing, Village Board action will be required for this case at their meeting of September 7, 1993. ®. h Elmhurq Aveoug The petitioners are seeking a variation to Section 14.102E to allow an accessory structure with an interior side_ yard setback of three (3) feet instead of the minimum five (5) feet. , The Zoning Board of, Appeals is final in this case. (SEE NOTE) ZRA. Ich and bogarcIll, 4 North VAlliam The petitioners' are requesting a variation to Section 14.1102.B. to allow an interior yard setback of 0' instead of the minimum required 7.6' to allow a patio to remain. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT SIGN REVIEW BOARD August 16, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting of the Sign Review Board was called to order by Chairperson Adelaide Thulin, at 7:34 p.m., Monday, August 16, 1993 at the Village Hall, 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. ROLL CALL: Members of the Sign Review Board present: Richard Rogers, Warren Kostak, Hal Predovich aind ChairpersonAdelaideThulin, Absentwere Elizabeth Luxern, Philip Stephenson andJohn McDermott. Also present was Kenneth H. Fritz, Economic Development Coordinator and representatives for the cases on the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of June 21, 1993 were approved on a motion by Richard Rogers, seconded byWarren Kostak. The motion passed unanimously, 4 ayes, 0 nays. NEW BUSINESS: Mont Emillect Plaza Shoolling Cguter, Mr. Scott Fixell, Manager from Western Development, was present to seek an increase in height of the newly installed freestanding sign on Central Road for the Mount Prospect Plaza Shopping Center. He is seeking a height from 15 feet to 20 feet on the sign adjacent to the Central Road entrance. SIGN -15-92 and SIGN -5-93 were previous cases involving the same freestanding signage. Mr. Fixell apologized for the confusion that was created by the earlier request that had been made before the Village asking for a 20 foot high sign at Rand Road and 15 foot high sign at Central. When the structural work was actually installed, the signs were reversed, that is, the 15 foot high sign was located at Rand Road and the 20 foot high sign was located at Central. Subsequently, along with the request for two additional tenant panels (increasing from 4 to 6), Western Development through Kieffer Sip Company under SIGN -5-93, also asked that the freestanding signs be increased in height to 20 feet for the Rand Road sign and 30 feet for the Central Road sign. The: action taken by the Sign Review Board at this meeting was to approve the request for the additional tenant panels from 4 to 6, but to disapprove the request for the height increase on Central Road. The action taken by the Sign Review Board was instead to instruct the sign company to reduce the height of the Central Road sign from 20 to 15 feet as had earlier been the action of SIG -N-15-92. Mr. Fixell indicated that after further study of the signage, it was their considered opinion that the 20 foot height was desirable and satisfactory for both freestanding signs, and therefore Sign Review Board Minutes Page 2 were seeking to increase the height of the Central Road signage from 15 to 20 feet, and then carry out the intended increase�,in tenant panels from 4 to 6 in number, (Note: It was emphasized that the confusion on the height and location of the respective freestanding signs could have been avoided, were there better, communication between the Kieffer Sign Company and Western Development Corporation, as well as having both representatives at the previous meeting held on May 17 1993,); Discussio Staff recommended, as they had, in the earlier staff .report, that the height of the sign on CentralRoad should be maintained at the same; height',as ;the sib on Rand, hely, 20 feet above grade. To place the sign height at arty footage greater than. 20 feet could make the proportion` of the sign with,6 tenant panels took awkward and not well balanced in design. Conversely if the sigta lteigltt were-reduced below 211 feet £a height, say tra;1S feet„, the sign would' be too low to 'b reasonably seen by passing motorists froth a reasonable distance In advance of the driveway turn-off-itear the freestanding:sign on Central woad; Photographs were presented. by Mr. Fixell and Mr. Fritz indicating ;that the signage at the present location at a height of 15 feet was too short to really be easily identified, and that a sign at a height of 20 feet was appmpriate but nothing in excess of 20 feet would seem to be needed. Motion A motion was made to appro e4he increase'in height for the 9xeestanding sign adjacent to Central Road by Hal Predovich; seconded by Warren Kostak. The motion to approve from 15 feet to 20 feet in height passed unanimously, 4 ayes, 0 nay¢i, 3 members absent. id Video, 2&1JEgq ftdid &AInue: This is a request by Euclid Video for a special use equity option to permit a i35 foot sideyard setback instead of the required 6b foot setback, and a 0 foot front yard setback from the front property line instead of the required 5 feet in order to allow a pylon sign of approximately 30 square feet in area and 12 feet in height, The petitioner is willing to "trade off” 55 square feet of permitted awning signage in exchange for the setback modifications being requested. After reviewing the site plan with the owner, Reay Naegele of Des Tlaines, several questions were raised with regard to the Ap area proposed for the site. Mr. Naegele indicated that there is a proposed wall sign which meets the; Code that would be placed on the easterly face of the building under 'constfttctioit and =that a proposed avrning would also be installed over the windovr area of btttillding with a s t sign area ower the en nce on'.a raised. portion of the awning: There to sqf ftient area of some 55 square feet that is available for Sign Review Board Minutes Page 3 be located 60 feet off of the east property line, and therefore, at a point approximately 35 feet west of the easterly property line is the most logical place to propose a freestanding sign, which will measure 5 feet in width and 6 feet in height. This will also provide the maximum, distance between the other existing freestanding signage for the business to the east of the Euclid Video. u1 • ----------------- A motion was made by Richard Rogers, seconded by Hal Predovich, to approve the special use equity option and to reduce the setback from the easterly property line to 35 feet instead of the required 60, and to reduce the front yard setback from 5 feet to 0 feet. The' vote on the motion was unanimously approved, 4 ayes, 6 nays, 3 members absent. Sign -12,91, Villagg, 9f Mount PrQ§Vecj, SEC gf Northmt Llighway & Ro.4te 83 The Village of Mount Prospect is seeking a special use equity option to reduce the front yard setback from 5 feet to 0 feet in order to properly locate the Civic Events sign previously heard by the Sign Review Board under SIGN -1-93 This request is being made to avoid placement of the Community Civic Events sign over underground utility lines in the area near the train station. The Commissioners asked Mr. Fritz if there were any other locations on this block that would provide the necessary setbacks from Northwest Highway, and he indicated that the utility lines run parallel to Northwest Highway along the entire length of the block, and therefore, the same situation would occur whether it was close to the corner or in mid - block. Mr. Fritz indicated that the placement of the Civic Events sign would be as close as practical to the intersection of Route 83 and Northwest Highway. He stressed however, that the sight distance triangle would not be compromised and there would be clear vision at the corner location. He also indicated that there is a traffic control box and street light fixtures as well as a traffic signal that precludes the sign from being placed too close to the Route 83 property line to begin with, and because of proper viewing distances it would be better to place the sign further to the southeast for maximum readability above the traffic control box and other utility poles in the area. Discussion The members of the Commission raised the question of whether or not the height of the sign should be increased above the 12 feet, and Mr. Fritz indicated that he felt it was the desire of the Village Board and the earlier actions of the Sign, Review Board to maintain the sign height at 12 feet. He felt that the sign would be readable at that height, and did not need to be increased above that present 12 foot height in order to be,seen. The members of the Commission wanted to make sure that every opportunity was being given to' locate the sign to it's best advantage without tying down the limitation too greatly.for the proper display of the Civic Events sign. Sign Review Board Minutes Page ;4 Motion A motion was made by WarreuXostak, seconded by Mr. Richard Rogers to approve the special use equity option by reducing the front setback from 5 feet to 0 feet for the Civic Events sign and giving maximum flexibility to the location because of the underground utilities, noting however, that thesight distance triangle should be observed in the placement of the sign. The motion passed unanimously, 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 members absent. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8;07 p.m. ctfully ubm tt t der ;th rite,. Economic Development' or for VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: MICHAEL L JANONIS VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTSDIRECTOR 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 bearing, 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 cbanges'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 how the text can reduce a number Of More routine variations. (Page 23) Michael E. Janonis 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 lo -cation. (Page 29) 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. Also, the minimum size of a PUD is eliminated, as it is anticipated that more 6 -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. 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. (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 bearing 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:hg Attachment MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE NO. ZBA-39-A-93, PETTTIONER: SUBJECT PROPERTY: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: Hearing Date: June 10, 1993 Village of Mount Prospect N/A May 25, 1993, (Herald) 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 L,uxem Richard Pratt OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: 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 and staff 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, stab` began holding workshops with the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to discuss the draft ordinance. The workshops were held on the second Thursday of the month and continued through October of 1992. 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 1%8. 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 then indicated that the goal of the Zoning Board of s and staff was to streamline the regulationsandproomTo accomplish this goaL the draft language incorporates a number of changes 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 M Administration and Enforcement, it stipulates that the Village Board shall convene an annual meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals to review the effectiveness of this Zoning Ordinance. Item 6 indicates that the Zoning Board of Appeals is final on variations which receive four concurrmg votes either for or against. Without four concurring votes, the request will go before the Village Board for their review and decision. The members discussed this item. Chairman Basnik 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. Eagt_j There are new standards for map amendments and text amendments. Currently there is one set of standards which are used for both. Paee 11: The term Conditional Use is introduced. This term replaces Special Use Permits. The term change is requested as it better reflects what the item is and to indicate that reasonable conditions can be applied. Page 13: Item 10, indicates new standards for resubmitting a request after a denial. The general provisions section now incorporates the fence regulations which was previously located in the Building Code. There is a change in the exterior side setback to 10 ft from the current 1 foot. Satellite antennas are proposed to be accessory uses ;rather than special uses with the sante standards being used. Eage 23: Introduces new standards for 50 foot. lots. A 3 foot setback for interior sideyards for accessory structures is proposed. This will eliminate marry variations for garages in older areas of the Village. Page 24 Contains the swimming pool standards from the Building Code. PAgtn Begins the revised Planned Unit Development (PUD) Section. This section has been rewritten in its entirety to better reflect steps needed to go through. New requirements include landscaping plans and engineering plans. ZBA-3&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 aver -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 slill apply, and that if greater than a 100/c 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. BasnA 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 4-5 acre minimum. It was then reduced to 60,000 square feet and he stated he has strong reservations in reducing it further. Bob Brettrager indicated that he doesn't see any 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. Fuge 43. A a w 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 will create conforming lots and better address the bulk regulations. He stated that the lot coverage has been increased to 50% to reflect the long driveways leading to the detached garage to the rear. He indicated that there has been an exhibit furnished that indicated lot coverage on a typical 50 foot lot. Chairman Basnik questioned if this would encourage rezonings to R -A to allow additional homes. He further questioned if the mapped areas were near any flood prone areas. It was indicated that any rezoning would require a public hearing and fzther that there are no known flooding areas near the proposed R -A Districts. The members recommended that the proposed 25 foot front yard setback be increased to 30 feet to that it would better reflect existing areas. Mr. Clements indicated that the R-2 Attached Single Family District is similar to the current ordinance, however, it has been set up for townhouses. Currently, the R-3 District has a name of Apartment Residence and the legal notice often creates marry questions by residents. PAU E includes additional restrictions which include 175 ft. maximum width, 6 units maximum attached, and a 30 foot separation between buildings. The members then discussed the height of buildings and how it is measured. Mr. Clements indicated the definitions set how it is measured. Low -Density Residence District is similar to the current ordinance with an increase in non-residential lot coverage to 75% from the current 50%. Egge fi4-69: Contains the R-5 Senior Citizen District. Mr. Clements indicated that be has discussed the district with the Village Attorney and the attorney suggested that it is not necessary to be in the ordinance. Mr. Clements stated flat be is concerned with the regulations regarding age and disability and would recommend it be eliminated entirely. He stated that the district was developed due to a request by Centennial Apartments. He stated the elimination of R-5 would make it non -conforming, however, it would be allowed to continue as developed. Mr. Brettrager suggested that he has concerns with the district and would like to eliminate it. Mr. Cassidy questioned the need to keep it for HUD funding. Mr. Clements stated that with the Catholic Charities request, there was no mention of HUD requirements in local zoning. Peter Lannon stated that developers could set their ovm standards and felt the Village should not regulate items such as the R-5 District attempts to do. The members discussed the elimination and agreed to do so. Mr. Clements then introduce the 'B" Commercial Districts. He stated that the B-1 Office District is like the current B-2 Office District. He stated that the transitional setback is included in all the commercial districts. pap M Begins the Neighborhood Shopping District Mr. Clements indicated that this is an area for basic needs and compared it to the Brentwood Shopping Center. ZBA-3&V-93 Page S Pue ,; Begins the B-3 Community :Shopping District. Mr. Clements indicated that this is for centers such as Randhurst, Golf Plaza, and Mount Prospect Commons. Em 81- B-4 Corridor Commercial District addresses the automobile oriented uses. PW 85: This is the new Central Commercial District. The goal of this district is to recognize the fully developed commercial area designated as downtown Mr. Clements indicated that the proposed area extends along Route 14 to the limits of Mount Prospect. He indicated that there as a "Core" area as designated 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 height 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 should be tied to the zoning reap. The other members agreed to this suggestion Starts the O -R Office Research District. The proposed is similar to the current district which was developed with Lake Center Plaza. 9Q; I-1 Limited industrial is similar to the current Light Industrial. The prohibited use list has been eliminated as it was in the commercial districts. Mr. Clements indicated that the performance standards are similar to those used by most municipalities. Off -Street Parking and Loading is similar to the existing standards. All ADA Standards have been added. Discusses driveway widths. The language regulates width by lot coverage rather than a figure related to garage size. This is proposed to better meet demand and reduce the number of variations requested. The Central Area parking regions on 13 was developed after a great amount of study and research. Dave Clements indicated that the proposal has been reviewed by the Business District Development and Redevelopment Commission The members recommended the proposal with an increase to 15 spaces per unit for two-bedroom multi -family. The Landscape ordinance has been incorporated into the ordinance. Mr. Clements indicated that it was adopted two years ago into the Municipal Cade. This concluded the overview by staf Mr. Basnik 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 12, "Action by Village Board." Mr. Clements indicated that on May 4, 1993, the Village Board adopted standards for voting. ZBA-38-V-93 Page 6 Mr. Clements recommended 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 14.8W.0 which gives residents the right to petition for amendments to be approved with a 3/4 vote. He suggested that this language be added to the proposed ordinance. 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 Chairman Basnik have indicated that they would prefer that I or 2 no votes would require 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. Luxem questioned if the Village Board could request a review of a case. 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 the 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 the appeals process will be made 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 is 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 Lannon questioned the proposals to designate current B-4 gas stations to B-3 with a Conditional Use. The Zoning Board had no concerns about dcsignating, service stations with a B-3 Conditional Use, as it provides the Village with more W:ontrol. However, members believed all property owners should be advised. ZBA-38-V-93 Page 7 In summary, the members felt comfortable with the proposed amendments. Mr. Basnik 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 agreed that the ordinance was acceptable but noted he was uncomfortable with the elimination of a minimum lot sin 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 Brettrager. Upon Roll Call: AYES: Brettrager, Floros, Luxem, 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. Respectfiilly submitted, A?W Rayl.Forsythe Planner Approved: f- x 01� David M. Clements, Director of Planning 1201 W. Cleven Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 AugusL 16, 1993 FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION SUBJECT: Vo Ling Requir-eiiieriLs fur.• ZBA Oi-dinarice The Zoning Board of Appeals has vecolilluerided LhaL Lhe zoning ordinance be uhariged in such a way LhaL will make Lhe ZBA firial on cer-Lairi var-iaLiori L-equesLs Lo help sLr-eamlirie Lhe approval process. I suL in on several occasions and lisLeried Lu debuLe Lhe ZBA held oil 0lis maL(,et-. The pr-eseriL r-ecoumeridaLiori for r-evisiuri, LhaL of having four cuxiQuL-t-irig voLes Lu pr•evenL iL from going Lo Lhe Village Boar -d, is riuL 6ufficienL Lo pi-uLecL Lhe process and MuuriL PvospecL lleighbuL-hoodh. For over LweriLy ,years I have waLched Lhe procedure LhaL is in place and since coming on Lhe Board I've helped iniplemeriL Lhe pj:-eseriL ordinance. I have concluded LhaL Lhe ZBA should, for Lhe ftiosL par -L, continue Lo be a recummeriding body. I suppor-L keeping Lhe appr•uval process as iL is, wiLh mosL of Lhe va.L-iaLion i-equesLs being forwarded Lo Lhe Board for• firial disposiLiuri. Of Len, afLer- Lhe cases come before Lhe ZBA and before Lhey reach Lhe Village Board, new ififoimaLion comes Lu light which changes or alLer's Lhe disposiLions. I have wiLriessed Lhe ZBA provide r-easuned and well LhoughL ouL opinions only Lo have Lheii- i-ecominexidaLiuns uver-Lurried by Lhe Village Board which receives facLs Lhe ZBA members did noL have aL Lhe Lime of Lheii- delibevaLioini. The new facLs may come from any number- of suu.E-ce8, buL having all addiLiorml layer• irl Lhe Village Board allows us juuL,e Little for Lhe facLs of a case Lu shake ouL. IL allows more Lime for• r.-eflecLiurl and another layer of eyes Lo look iriLo an issue. Also, Lhe facL LhaL we oil Lhe Village Board are elecLed officials requires us Lo be Lhe cour-L of lasL review for Lhese cases. For us LU shirk LhaL r-esporisibiliLy in Lhe inLeve6L of sliuvLening our agenda dockeLs would be unfut-LunaLe. I warit, Lo uoriLirlue Lo PL-UVide a place far, ciLizeris Lu address us on vat-iaLion r•equesLs LhaL are being considered in Lheir. neighbor -hoods. OfLeri residents may rioL fully under-sLarid Lhe impacL a proposal may have for Lheir-, neighbor-houd until iL has passed Uhi-uugh Lhe ZBA ' hearing process and Lhey have lisLeried Lu Lhe ZBA debaLe. They may siL in Lhe audience as observers and noL offer- suppol-L of- opposit,iurl because Utley ar•e gaLlier-ing Page 2 -- ZBA ORDINANCE ififormaLion for Lheir own reflecLion. Allowing a small measure of Lime, Lhe Lwo weeks LhaL iL Lakes a variaLion Lo geL from Lhe ZBA level Lo Lhe Village Board, affords LhaL uppoxLuriiLy. We have managed Lo sLreamlifie cerLain cases which come before Lhe Village Board by waiving Lhe rule requiring Lhe second reading of an ordinance where Lhe majority of us feel iL is appropriaLe. If my plea Lo keep Lhe ordinance as iL is fails Lo gain supporL from my fellow board members, I would suppurL having the ZBA decisions kiria.L if iLs voLe on a maLLer is unatij _ qLjjy . ....... -.—I - . . .... . . . ......... If LhaL consideraLion fails, I would supporL Having ZBA cases come Lo Lt yill.gt� if Lhe ZBA voLe is 6-1. The one dissenLing voLe would aL least acL as a signal Lo Lhe Village Board LhaL Lhere are issues in Lhe case LhaL deserve special scruLiny. I would appreciaLe your consideraLion on Lhis maLLer. (Manager: Please see LhaL Lhis sLaLemenL is read inLo Lhe record aL Lhe Lime Lhe revised Zoning Ordinance considers voLing requiremefiLs.) VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: MICHAEL E. JANONISVI GE MANAGER FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS,l)i AOR OF PUNNING DATE: AUGUST 19, 1993 SUBJECT: REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE As a result of discussion at the August 10 Committee -of -the -Whole meeting regarding the status of recreational vehicles and equipment, below are several revisions and additions to the revised Zoning Ordinance for consideration by the Village Board. 1. Off -Street Parking: Page 100, replace paragraph Parking of Vehicles in Residential Districts. 'TarkiQQmmng gfer' 1 Vehicles, in Roidential Districts, Any contracting or service business truck or commercial vehicle used as part of a Home Occupation shall be permitted up to a licensed weight of 8,000 lbs., but shall be parked in a garage. The parking of any commercial truck, vehicle or commercial trailer with a licensed weight or gross weight in excess of 8,001 lbs. shall only be permitted in a residential garage with a conditional use permit. Residential i t i mi P rkin Recreational vehicles and equipment as defined herein, automobiles, personal use trucks and vans shall be permitted to park upon an approved driveway, parking pad or apron constructed to the required standards of the Development Code." 2. Definitions: Page 141, add alphabetically. Every vehicle or other transportation equipment designed to be used primarily for recreational purposes, including, but not limited to the following: a. Boat. Any vessel used for water travel. A trailer upon which a boat is mounted shall be deemed to be a boat for purposes of this Article. , and such a boat is maintained on a trailer the two shall be considered as one vehicle. b. Camping Trailer. A trailer constructed with partial side walls which fold for towing and unfold to provide temporary living quarters for recreational camping or travel use and of a size or weight not requiring an over -size permit when towed on a highway. Michael E. Janonis August 1.9, 1993. Page Zoning Board of Appeals c. Motor Home, Mini M r H moc Van Cam- r. Aself-contained motor vehicle designed or permanently converted to provide living quarters for recreational, camping or travel use, with direct walk through access to the living quarters from the driver's seat. Such vehicles must include at least four of the following: -A cooking facility with an on -board fuel source -A gas or electric refrigerator -A toilet with exterior evacuation -A heating or air conditioning system with an on -board power or fuel source separate from the vehicle engine -A potable water supply system that includes at least a sink, faucet, and a water tank with an exterior service supply connection d. Off the Road Vehicle, A vehicle intended principally for recreational off-road use, such as a dune buggy, go-cart, ATV or snowmobile. e. Racing Car orQsLg, A vehicle intended to be used in racing competition, such as a race car, stock car or racing cycle. L Iravel Trailer, A trailer designed to provide living quarters for recreational, camping or travel use, and of a size or weight not requiring an oversize permit when towed on a highway. g. Truck Camper. A truck, not used commercially, when equipped with a portable unit designed to be loaded onto the bed which is constructed to provide temporary living quarters for recreational, travel or camping use. h. Vehicle Trailer. A vehicle without its own motor power that is designed to transport another vehicle, such as a boat, moi:orcycle or snowmobile for recreational or vacation use and that is eligible to be licensed or registered and insured for highway use. i. Other Recreational E i m n tither wheeled items which are designed for recreational use but not meet the exact definitions of items defined in a through h." 3. General Previsions: Page 16, add as fourth paragraph to Interpretation of Zoning Requirements. "Except for an accessory use, as defined in this Chapter, any use or potential use of land or a structure which is not specifically enumerated as a permitted use, conditional use or use in limited circumstances, within a particular district, shall be prohibited. This prohibition is subject to Section Non -Conforming Buildings, Structures and Uses." DMC:hg Minutes COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE August 10, 1993 I Call to order The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Mayor Ger- ald L. Farley. Trustees present were George Clowes, Tim Corcoran, Richard Hendricks, Paul Hoefert, Michaele Skowron, and Irvana Wilks. Also,present were Zoning Board of Appeals Member Ronald Cassidy, Planning Director David Clements,.Planner Ray Forsythe, Village Attorney Everette Hill, Jr., VillageManager Michael E. Janonis, and Direc- tor of Public Works Herbert L. Weeks. II Minutes of July 27, 1993 The minutes of July 27, 1993 were accepted and filed. III Citizens To Be Heard None IV Review of Revised Zoning Code Mayor Farley presented a brief overview of the past meeting and stated, prior to open discussion, that he wanted to adjourn that meeting by 9:00 p.m. to go into executive session. Trustee Skowron had no specific comments, but commended staff for a terrific job. Trustee Clowes comment- ed that his concern on making the code more understandable with diagrams had been addressed. He also suggested that an ar}I nual meeting with the Zoning Board, possibly also with the Planning and Sign Review Boards, would be helpful in undeistanding the phi-losophies of the different ' Boards. Planning Director Clements stated he will prepare an appen- dix on all illustrations. Trustee Hendricks suggested that the zoning ordinance in- clude a restriction on parking of recreational vehicles; i.e., boats, trailers, snow mobiles, etc. Zoning Director Clements stated that the current zoning ordinance does not include any restrictions on recreational vehicles. Trustee Hendricks asked that the Village'Manager or Attorney Hill address the issue of a restrictive ordinance on recreation- al vehicles. Attorney Hill stated that he would be happy to address the issue in a memo or ina meeting at a later date. Trusted Hoefert commended staff for the proposed changes; he stated he had attended some workshops where most of his questions were answered. Mayor Farley said he would like to address minimum setbacks and cited a case where someone had wanted to put down'a small, concrete pad,for+garbage cans, but the zoning hearing costs would have been more expensive than the construc- tion. Director Clements will address this issue in a subse- ,quent meeting. Trustee Wilks had all.her questions an- swered at the last meeting and at the different,workshops she attended. She praised the Zoning Board members and staff for their good work. Trustee Corcoranindicated that he wants to make the sec- tion regarding text and map, amendments easier to understand by everyone'. Trustee Skowron said staff usually walks ZBA members through the process, and they rely on professional staff. Mayor Farley commented that he tended to agree with Trustee Corcoran. ;Director -=Clements discussed how the code was formatted and that information regarding text and map amendments was in its proper place. After some further discussion:, it was decided that.no changes were necessary. Trustee Hoefert commented that he was concerned about an issue relating to'conversion'of single-family homes t apartments. He *could like conversions' phased out over time and does not want to change the character of single-family neighborhoods, "Trustee. Hoefert emphasz+ed.that.conversion of single-family homes to accommodate relatives or members of a family was not the issue he intended to address. His concern is related:to homeowners who rent out or lease part of their single-family; homes. Attorney Hill, said it is possible to draft appropriate language, but ;enforcement :may be very difficult or would have to be made on a complaint basis. Trustee Hoefert again reiterated that tenant conversions are taking place and would suggest that an inspector be sent around to ascertain uses. Attorney Hill stated that in some communities, property is inspected prior to sale. Mayor Farley commented that in cases where%fami.lies want to rent out rooms to students, such as from Christian Life College, that type of use should not be denied. Trustees Skowron and Corcoran. agreed with Trustee Hoefert's suggestion'on separation of a.single-family house into two separate living areas where the tenants would not share any of the accommodations. Mayor Farley directed Village Manag- er Janonis'to have staff review the situation and asked Attorney Hill to review for ]Liability. Trustee Wilks commented that her hoarse had, on various occa- cions, accommodated people who were not related to the family and emphasized that she would not want too restric- tive of a covenantlon such an issue; she does not 'want °to create a hardship. Village Manager Janoais voiced his I concern that the subject may not be ready for zoning code adoption in the time frame that had been discussed. Trust- ee Hoefert said he would prefer that the issue be brought up now, even if it delays code changes. Mayor Farley stat - ,ed that he prefers to have a full report and does not want to delay a vote on code changes. Trustee Skowron agreed with Mayor Farley; that is to look at the other issue as a separate piece of legislation. Mayor Farley initiated discussion on,reducing lot size from four acres to two acres. on industrial classification.. There was a suggestion to reduce even further to one and one-half acres. 'Dave Clements stated that the Zoning Board was reluctant to go from four acres to two acres. Trustee Corcoran is concerned that, with the reduced acreage, small industrial lots could spring up throughout the Village unless they were contiguous with other industrial areas. He suggests that it should be left at the two acre,,mini- mum. Trustee Clowes recommended no minimum lot size. Trustee Hendricks was concerned on reduction from four to two acres. Mr. Ronald Cassidy from the Zoning Board stated that he was reluctant to reduce to less than two aces and was concerned about spot rezoning; he agreed with Trustee Corcoran. Mr. Cassidy suggested PUD lot size, currently at 60,000 sq.ft., should go up -- not down to 30,000 sq.ft. He is concerned about future development of property and about setting a precedent. Mayor Farley adjourned to go into executive session at 9:03 p.m. The Board reconvened at 11:30 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. COW s-10.93/FILES/ADMIN Respectfully submitted, H�Uet L. leeks Director Public Works VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: MICHAEL E. JANO GE MANAGER ;_ V-— FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DATE: AUGUST S, 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. 161molin, 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 V LT�AGE MANAGER FROM: DAVID M. CLEMEN 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. L 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. Jannis 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. I've 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. et _4x, Clowes tin VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENT 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 ° 11 ±. LOT DEPTH m." IIM LSS R.tv, 1 ig:'G SIDE LTTIr L'wM.. SIDE LOT LINE °•".• 1 +:`. 145 R AT WIDTH 130 R. FRONT LOT LINE • Lt Wldth i[ kWd—W41—benmeO dW d&WRRa da W. ---W udre Du:Owxn wi4N Wmeft.ly ie buk d the gtirtd 6om ymt • L tD*WAh drR bodmmd dkn betty dw Eme IN Im ud dwe $KIRW Of a lm MW. dm Im *�.dwim REQUIRED YAXD$-UAAxTRATED TRANSITIONAL YARNS RESIDENTIAL DISTRdCT BUSINESS OR LiINDUINDUSTRIALDUSTR4 DISTRICT PROPERTY LRVE CURRENT FENCE PERMIT 1. PERMITTED FIVE (5) FOOT FENCES L Int ac kE b _C%xrter Lot Z. PERMITTED SIX (0) FOOT FENCES* Insidea. Wt�� r wr #'►tt►^�"w" +r rr ++y.;,yw .� � +r .rte .� � t MW ' 9x 0) foot fences an also permitted Nap rear or exterior silo lot Imes when abutting an arisrial road. •• POO ttc "nine may not wood IS feet to total lonath. Source: Village of Mount Prospect, Planning and Zoning Department, August 1990. Revised March 19903 REQUIRED YARDS ILLUSTRATED A -j ca a. 3 tL FRONT LOT LINE STREET 1111-41T, VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT To: Zoning Board of Appeals Members From: Ray Forsythe, Planner f Date: June 10, 1993 Subject: Follow-up on Draft Ordinance Phone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 70B / 392-6022 TDD: 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 TRUSTEES GEORGE A. CLOWES TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN RICHARD N. HENDRICKS PAW.W. HOEFERT Village of Mount Prospect MICHAELE W SKOWRON iRVANA K. WILKS VILLAGE MANAGER 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 MICHAEL E. JANONIS VILLAGE CLERK CAROL A. FIELDS 1111-41T, VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT To: Zoning Board of Appeals Members From: Ray Forsythe, Planner f Date: June 10, 1993 Subject: Follow-up on Draft Ordinance Phone: 708 / 392-6000 Fax: 70B / 392-6022 TDD: 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 bass grade to the highest point of the roof or parapet, if 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 NIP GAMBREL UY111VAL TYPES OF ROOFS ALLOWABLE SINGLE FAMILY BUILDING STRUCTURE HEIGHTS: R -X SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT: The maximum height of 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. 2.6' 0 EXHIBIT # 2 DRIVEWAY WIDTHS Driveway width shall be determined by the maximum front yard lot Coverage of thirty-five (35%) for all lots with widths of 60' - 75'. The maximum driveway width for lots less than sixty (60) feet in width shall be twenty-one (21) feet. Lots which exceed seventy-five (75) feet in width shall have a maximum driveway width of twenty-six (26) feet. The maximum driveway width shall include all adjacent walkways. ISOISO R y,rLVAIUT 59' or less 21' 60'- 61' 21' 62' - 64' 22' 65' - 67' 23# W, - W, 24' 70' 24.5' 71'- 72' 25' 731 - 75' 76' or greater NOTE: Maximum driveway width will be reduced N sidewalks and/or stoops are located in the front yard for lots which are 59' in width or less. Jl Ap ) V ~ **.,o I JOHN M. HENRIKSEN 4F Lor SEVENTY SEVEN (77) IN ALFINI'S SE030ADDITICN TD 14GIM PROSPECT, BEING A SUdBDIVISJCN OF 1 OF THE So rH 990 FEET CSF' THE EAST HALF" (Jj) or THE NC R7MiEST QUARTER (i) OF SECTION 1), TOWNSHIP OFFICE CI�, RANFGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD Mn4C2PAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO PLAT THEREOF REGISTERED IN ' THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES OF =CZE.kM, ILLINOIS, ON JANUARY 20, 1955, AS �� NU W. PENDLETON PLACE.. CONCRETE CONCRETE e CONCRETE E32 EAST WEST FACE OF BASKETBALL POST 0,04 EAST L.. - CONCRETE L31 EAST BS 22.23Lo a1 . ". BRICK AND FRAME C� l RESIDENCE WITH GARAGE CHAIN LINK FENCE NO, 1007 WE OF FENCE 0,24 WEST 3.29 CONCRETE 0.09 WEST 0. ENCLOSED O PATIO CONCRETE OJO EAST 9S''•— IT.BB I s'PAR E t LOT 77 REC.. 206.0 EAST FACE OF FENCE 0.26 2oN�p R-1 LOT S,Zc stic F LoT Ywv+� w � 324% • ToTN L. l.�'t-- t0 4 D% OF FENCE OJO EAST AND _ BFT. EASEMENT fOR UTILITIES E OF FENCE 0.26 NORTH SOUTH FACE OF FENCE 0.21 OF FENCE OJB WEST CHAIN LINK FENCE AND EAST FACE OF FENCE E OF FENCE 0.6i SpUTH CHAIN LINK 6C�.O WpOp FENCE FENCE VV G �' NORTH FACE OF FENCE 0.34 SOUTH EUCLID AVENUE %0)-z LJN O -d 100.0 n-Minev�".' OEM