Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/26/2026 P&Z Minutes PZ-01-26 / 50 S Emerson St / Text Amendments1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-01-26 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: Hearing Date: February 26, 2026 50 S. Emerson Street Village of Mount Prospect February 11, 2026 REQUEST: Text Amendments Chapter 14 of the Village Code (Evaluation of the Current Zoning Regulations to Promote Single -Family Residential Neighborhoods) MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly William Beattie Walter Szymczak Richard Rogers Fay Costa MEMBERS ABSENT: Ewa Weir Donald Olsen Michael Fricano STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Antonia Lalagos - Development Planner Jason Shallcross - Director of Community & Economic Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Village of Mount Prospect, Petitioner Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM. Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak to approve the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on January 8, 2026. The minutes were approved 4-0 (Commission Rogers abstained). After hearing three items of New Business, Chairman Donnelly introduced case number PZ-01-26 for text amendments to Chapter 14 of the Village code. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — February 26, 2026 PZ-01-26 Staff Presentation Director Shallcross presented the proposed text amendments to Chapter 14 of the Village Code, explaining that the amendments respond to strategic planning directives prioritized by the Village Board in the previous year. The amendments address two primary objectives: (1) establishing architectural diversity standards for new single-family subdivisions and (2) evaluating existing zoning regulations affecting single-family residential properties to reduce common barriers residents encounter when making improvements to their homes. Director Shallcross explained that the architectural diversity standards would prevent repetitive housing patterns in new subdivisions. Under the proposed regulations, a new single-family home could not be similar in appearance to homes located within two lots on either side along the same street. Similarity would be determined based on characteristics such as roof form, front elevation massing, fenestration patterns, garage configuration, primary exterior materials, and wall planes. If three or more of these characteristics were substantially similar, the homes would be considered monotonous and would require revision. The proposal would also require submission of home model building elevations and streetscape diagrams to ensure compliance with these standards. Director Shallcross also explained that existing restrictions on stucco and EIFS (synthetic stucco) for residential construction are currently located in the Building Code. The amendment would cross-reference these restrictions within the Zoning Code to make them easier for staff to identify during review. Director Shallcross noted that the Village prohibits these materials on residential applications due to durability and maintenance concerns but allows limited use as accent materials on non-residential buildings with specific restrictions. Vice Chairman Beattie asked for clarification on EIFS and stucco materials. Director Shallcross explained that EIFS and stucco are engineered exterior systems composed of Layered waterproof materials applied over a backing and finished with a sprayed coating. Director Shallcross noted that these materials are not highly durable and tend to deteriorate over time, which can lead to significant maintenance issues. For this reason, the Village does not permit their use on residential homes. However, they are commonly used as accent materials on non-residential buildings, such as commercial strip centers, and are therefore allowed in those applications subject to limitations on how and where they may be used. Commissioner Rogers asked about the difference between stucco and Dryvit and whether Dryvit would be permitted. Director Shallcross explained that both materials are treated the same under Village regulations. Dryvit would not be permitted on single-family homes, which is the Village's existing policy. Director Shallcross clarified that the proposed amendment does not change this rule but simply cross-references the restriction in the Zoning Code for clarity. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — February 26, 2026 PZ-01-26 Director Shallcross explained transitioned the discussion from architectural design standards to proposed amendments affecting single-family zoning districts. Director Shallcross noted that staff evaluated common challenges residents face when applying for permits and reviewed practices in other communities to identify potential amendments that could reduce obstacles and make it easier for homeowners to make improvements to their properties. Director Shallcross discussed several amendments affecting accessory structures in single-family districts. One change clarifies that accessory structures attached to a principal structure will be treated as part of the principal structure only in residential districts, preventing potential misuse of this provision in commercial or industrial districts. Another amendment would treat multiple attached accessory structures, such as a detached garage with an attached pergola, as a single accessory structure to prevent the creation of oversized or combined structures that exceed intended Limits. Additional language reinforces existing prohibitions on using accessory structures as residential living quarters or office space. Commissioner Costa expressed concern about accessory structure regulations appearing in multiple sections of the code and asked how the Village prevents inconsistencies if amendments are made in one section but not another. Director Shallcross responded that staff monitors the zoning code for inconsistencies as part of their regular responsibilities. Director Shallcross noted that some provisions are cross-referenced by section number while others are repeated in full text to make them more visible during review. Director Shallcross added that staff continually reviews the zoning code and maintains a list of potential amendments, typically addressing updates on an annual basis, and that a future comprehensive zoning code rewrite could further reconcile any inconsistencies. Chairman Donnelly added that the Village adopts the International Building Code by reference, meaning updates to the code are automatically incorporated into the Village's regulations. However, certain provisions may not always align with the Village's preferences. The provision being discussed allows the Village to review and approve specific building code changes before they are implemented, providing protection against unintended changes that could occur when the code is updated. Commissioner Rogers asked whether the Village had recently approved a shed to be used as living quarters for a young woman. Director Shallcross clarified that the approved structure was not considered formal living quarters because it did not include a bathroom and was not classified as a habitable space. Director Shallcross added that the structure could not legally be leased or rented as a dwelling unit. Director Shallcross then presented proposed revisions to accessory structure size standards. The amendment would increase the maximum size of detached garages from 672 square feet to 720 square feet (7% increase), allowing garages to be 2 to 4 feet deeper to accommodate larger vehicles and storage needs, but maintaining the maximum height at 15 feet. The proposal also replaces the current formula for accessory structures such as Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — February 26, 2026 PZ-01-26 sheds and pergolas with a simpler maximum of 200 square feet Village -wide, eliminating granular calculations based on lot area. Chairman Donnelly sought clarification on whether the proposed regulations would limit properties to one accessory structure. Director Shallcross explained that the code currently permits up to two accessory structures per lot and that no changes to this limit are being proposed. Chairman Donnelly expressed concern about smaller lots potentially accommodating multiple accessory structures, such as two 200-square-foot structures, which could significantly reduce usable yard space. Director Shallcross responded that most lots in the Village are larger, typically around 7,500 square feet, and noted that lot coverage requirements would still regulate the amount of development on a property. Director Shallcross further clarified how different accessory structures are counted toward Lot coverage. Structures such as sheds and patios count toward lot coverage, while pergolas are treated differently because they are open structures; generally, only the posts supporting a pergola are counted. As a result, a pergola placed over an existing patio would not typically increase lot coverage beyond the patio itself. Director Shallcross presented the proposed text amendment to increase the maximum driveway width from 26 feet to 30 feet. Director Shallcross explained that the recommendation follows a comprehensive review of driveway standards across municipalities in the northwestern suburbs, where staff found that several communities already allow wider driveways. Director Shallcross noted that residents frequently request wider driveways due to increasing numbers of household vehicles and the Village's prohibition on overnight street parking. Director Shallcross stated that the proposed change is intended to allow residents to comfortably park three vehicles side -by -side, since a typical parking space is approximately nine feet wide, meaning three vehicles require roughly 27 feet of width. While three vehicles can technically fit within the current 26-foot limit, it is tight and often leads to complaints from residents. To maintain neighborhood character, Director Shallcross emphasized that the driveway must still taper to 26 feet at the property line, meaning the widening would occur only on the private portion of the driveway closer to the house. Director Shallcross explained that this approach avoids creating larger driveway aprons at the street and limits the visual impact along the public right-of-way. Director Shallcross further explained that the proposal also does not apply to circular driveways, which are already permitted only on Larger lots (minimum 75 feet wide) and already allow significant driveway area. Chairman Donnelly asked several clarifying questions about driveway dimensions, setbacks, and how the change would function in practice. Director Shallcross explained that most homes in the Village have a 30-foot front setback, meaning the typical driveway length is approximately 30 feet from the property line to the garage. Vehicles are not allowed to park across sidewalks or in the driveway apron, so many households currently struggle to fit multiple vehicles fully within the driveway area. Director Shallcross indicated Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — February 26, 2026 PZ-01-26 the change may help reduce situations where cars are parked partially over sidewalks or in the grass. Vice Chairman Beattie expressed concern that allowing wider driveways could lead to front yards appearing overly paved or resembling parking lots, particularly when homes already have two -car garages and additional driveway space. Director Shallcross responded that the amendment represents only a four -foot increase beyond what is already permitted and noted that many homeowners already attempt to create additional parking areas through informal solutions such as gravel strips, brick pavers, or parking on grass, which the Village must then address through code enforcement. Commissioner Costa asked whether driveways could extend all the way to the property Line. Director Shallcross confirmed that the Village does not currently have a driveway setback requirement from side property lines, meaning driveways can extend to the property boundary. Commissioner Rogers noted that because many homes have 7.5- to 10-foot side yards, expanding driveways could result in large continuous paved areas when neighboring homes both place driveways along their property lines. Director Shallcross acknowledged this possibility and stated that the Commission could recommend a setback requirement if desired. Ms. Lalagos clarified existing safeguards, including restrictions that prevent driveways from extending more than three feet beyond the front of the house toward the street. The Commission also discussed existing lot coverage limits that regulate how much of a property, specifically the front yard, can be covered by impervious surfaces. These standards would continue to apply and prevent properties from being entirely paved over. Overall, the amendment is proposed as a modest adjustment intended to address resident parking needs while maintaining existing limits on driveway placement and lot coverage. Director Shallcross presented a proposed set of text amendments to Chapter 14 of the Zoning Code intended to adjust how certain zoning requests are categorized and who has final decision -making authority over those requests. Director Shallcross explained that the goal of the amendments is to streamline the review process, reduce unnecessary hearings for routine matters, and create a new category of administrative requests that can be handled at the staff level when appropriate. Director Shallcross explained that the Village currently allows "minor variations," which are administrative approvals handled by the Director of Community Development. These minor variations presently apply to two situations: 1. Existing legal nonconforming accessory structures, and 2. Parking requirement reductions for downtown uses larger than 2,500 square feet. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — February 26, 2026 PZ-01-26 Under the proposed amendments, Director Shallcross explained that the Village would eliminate a minor variation request and restructure the approval system. Specifically: 1. Requests involving existing legal nonconforming accessory structures would no Longer be processed as minor variations. Instead, they would become Administrative Conditional Use requests. 2. The only remaining Administrative Variation would be parking reductions for certain downtown uses over 2,500 square feet. Director Shallcross also presented the existing "Final Authority Matrix," which identifies which body has decision -making authority over different zoning requests. Currently: 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) is the final authority for: a. Fence petitions b. Sign requests c. Zoning variations under Chapter 14 that are less than 25% of the required standard d. Conditional uses for setback reductions under 25% 2. The Director of Community Development is the final authority for minor variations. The proposed changes would adjust the matrix while largely keeping the Planning and Zoning Commission's authority intact. Key proposed changes include: 1. Fences in residential districts would shift from being reviewed as variations to conditional uses, meaning they would be evaluated under conditional use standards rather than under hardship criteria. 2. Requests for relief from accessory structure requirements in single-family districts would become conditional uses with the Planning and Zoning Commission as the final authority. 3. Existing legal nonconforming accessory structures would become administrative conditional uses decided by the Director. 4. Setback reductions under 25% would remain unchanged. Director Shallcross explained that the shift from variations to conditional uses changes the evaluation standard. Variations require demonstrating a unique hardship tied to the property, whereas conditional uses are evaluated based on impacts on adjacent properties, neighborhood character, and public welfare, making them somewhat easier to review for common situations. Director Shallcross also clarified that administrative conditional uses would still require public notice, including: 1. Mailed notices within 100 feet of the property 2. Aposted notice sign on the property for 7-30days Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — February 26, 2026 PZ-01-26 3. Aformal recorded decision tied to the property Director Shallcross stated that the approval criteria would focus on public health, safety, welfare, and neighborhood compatibility, and further noted that if an administrative request is denied by staff, the applicant may appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and Commission decisions may be appealed to the Village Board, with further appeal possible through the court system. Director Shallcross also described new definitions that would be added to the zoning code, including definitions for the following: Administrative Conditional Use, Administrative Variation, Accessory Structures (modification to existing definition), Permitted Obstructions. Finally, Director Shallcross stated that the amendments support the Village's strategic planning goals, including improving zoning processes and making it easier for homeowners to undertake property improvements. Discussion Chairman Donnelly asked clarifying questions about how the proposed administrative conditional use category would apply to existing nonconforming accessory structures and specifically asked whether the category would apply only to structures that were originally built legally but later became nonconforming due to changes in zoning regulations. Director Shallcross confirmed that this is correct. Chairman Donnelly emphasized the distinction between legal nonconforming structures (originally permitted but now inconsistent with current regulations), and illegal structures (built without permits). Chairman Donnely asked if illegal structures would not qualify for the administrative conditional use process. Chairman Donnelly also asked about how accessory structures are counted. When he noted that items such as generators, air-conditioning units, and sheds might technically be considered structures, Ms. Lalagos clarified that the accessory structure limit only applies to certain accessory structures, not mechanical equipment. Chairman Donnelly expressed support for the proposed approach and noted that similar adjustments had been made in the past such as delegating authority for certain routine requests like circular driveways because the Commission frequently approved them anyway. Chairman Donnelly stated that when requests are consistently approved, it can make sense to delegate authority to staff to streamline the process. Chairman Donnelly commented that the types of requests being shifted to administrative review are generally ones the Commission would typically approve, meaning the change simply removes unnecessary hearings. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — February 26, 2026 PZ-01-26 Motion and Vote Vice Chairman Beattie thanked Director Shallcross for the diligent work. Director Shallcross acknowledged planning staff and Ms. Choi for her contributions. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Donnelly closed the hearing and asked fora motion. Vice Chairman Beattie made motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak to approve the following motion: "To adopt the text amendments to Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code." UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Szymczak, Beattie, Rogers, Costa, Donnelly NAYS: None The Planning and Zoning Commission gave a positive recommendation (5-0) for the next Village Board meeting to be held on March 17, 2026. REVISED MEETING DATE: This meeting has been rescheduled to March 16, 2026 due to a recently passed amendment to the Open Meetings Act. After hearing no additional items of new business, Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any citizens to be heard. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Vice Chairman Beattie, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:43 PM. J/ Ann Choi, Development Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — February 26, 2026 PZ-01-26