Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/28/2009 P&Z minutes 13-09 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF mE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-13-09 Hearing Date: May 28, 2009 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: May 13,2009 REQUEST: Chapter 14 & Chapter 7 code updates (zoning and sign codes) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBER ABSENT: Marlys Haaland ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTY: Lou Ennesser Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Mr. Beattie made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 23, 2009 meeting; Mr. Donnelly seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 6-0. After hearing two previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-12-09, a request for two Variations for additional wall signs, at 8:44 p.m. Mr. Simmons provided an overview and history of the proposed code updates. Mr. Simmons said the Village was currently in the process of adopting the 2006 versions of the Property Maintenance, Building, and Fire Codes. The Sign and Zoning Codes were a part of this update, with proposed changes designed to address on Variations the Planning and Zoning Commission and Village Board has approved over the past few years. Mr. Simmons stated that Staff was looking to make the sign and zoning codes more user friendly and easier to read. The Zoning Code has not had a comprehensive update since 1993. Over the past ten years, the Village has performed minor updates on text amendments that included topics such as circular drives and conditional use for unenclosed front porches. Mr. Simmons said there has been one meeting on code changes, the changes were discussed at the April 14,2009 Committee of the Whole meeting where feedback was provided and the Board recommended staff pursue the public hearing process for the sign and zoning code updates. Mr. Simmons stated that a legal notice was published for the public hearing with additional information provided on the Village's website. Also, letters were sent to the local park districts and shopping center owners within the community. Mr. Simmons discussed the proposed modifications to the Sign Code. Mr. Simmons said the primary change to the Sign Code would be the elimination of table 2 and modify the text requirements as a result of deleting this table. Mr. Simmons discussed the maximum size for ground signs. Chairman Rogers asked since signs would be smaller; would the Village grandfather in larger signs, if so, what would be the timeline. Mr. Simmons stated Staff has not proposed an amortization schedule with this code update, if the Planning and Zoning Commission wanted this it could be implemented. If there was not an Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-13-09 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 28, 2009 Page 1 of 5 amortization schedule, signs would be considered non-conforming and would not have to comply to the code update until they are replaced. Staff is recommending that an amortization schedule not be implemented, due to the limited number of signs that would be impacted by the proposed changes. Mr. Simmons said the maximum size was maintained on wall signs. He stated one of the changes regarding wall signs would be the calculation of signable area. This would be changed to the percentage of fac;ade area. Mr. Simmons showed a slide and discussed areas of the Village affected by the proposed size changes. Mr. Simmons said commercial properties located along secondary arterial roadways were currently permitted the maximum size of 65 square feet. With the proposed size changes, commercial properties located along the secondary arterial roadways would be allowed to add an additional 10 square feet to their signs to meet the proposed maximum of 75 square feet. The rest of the commercial properties within the Village were primarily located along arterial roadways, so their regulations for sizes would not change. Mr. Donnelly asked about the commercial property located at the intersection of Kensington and Wheeling Roads. Mr. Simmons said this property would get an additional 10 square feet of signage per the proposed change. Mr. Simmons discussed the proposed size changes for industrial signs in the Village. Mr. Simmons addressed additional proposed sign modifications for the Village that would permit wall signs of 300 square feet, if setback 250 feet from the property line. The proposed sign code update would clarify prohibited signs, remove the bonus section, and illumination standards would be established. Mr. Donnelly asked if there would be an amortization schedule regarding LED lights for signs. Mr. Simmons stated that Staff has not looked at an amortization schedule. He said most of the newer signs installed in the Village met this criteria. If the Planning and Zoning Commission would like an amortization schedule developed, it could be discussed. Chairman Rogers said that he would like an amortization schedule for bright illuminated signs that are older in age. Mr. Simmons stated that Staff could look into this and approach individual businesses to see if they can re- program signs. A specific timeline could be discussed. Mr. Beattie asked Staff if there would be a lot of signs changing because of the new proposed code changes. Mr. Simmons said that most of the changes would not affect the majority of signs in the Village. Mr. Simmons addressed the proposed changes to the Zoning Code. The last update was in 1993. Mr. Simmons stated that there were five main areas of concern for the updates that included: townhome design standards, senior housing, building/site design elements, green technologies, and the land use table. Mr. Simmons stated that Staff was looking for ways to add a section to the Code for wind energy conversion systems, solar energy conversation systems, and rain barrels. Mr. Simmons showed pictures and explained the energy conversion systems and rain barrels. All energy conversion systems would require Conditional Use approval with the proposed Code changes. Rain barrels would be considered accessory structures and would not require a permit. Mr. Donnelly asked about noise with wind energy conversion systems. Mr. Simmons stated Staff did provide regulations regarding decibel level within the Code. Mr. Simmons discussed townhome developments. The requirements were developed based on projects that previously went before the Village. Staff was looking to standardize the requirements. Mr. Simmons said Staff recommended: a 100 square foot minimum for a patio or deck, minimum of two garage and two driveway parking spaces, one guest space per 2.5 units, open space design requirements, and density definition change. There was general discussion regarding the requirement for storage of garbage containers. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 28, 2009 PZ-13-09 Page 2 of 5 Chairman Rogers asked Mr. Simmons to explain the density definition change in greater detail. Mr. Simmons said the current definition of density does not include the roadway areas. The proposed definition would include any roadway surfaces in the area calculation for density. The end result of the change would be a slimming effect on the size of future townhome projects There was general discussion regarding the parking requirements. Mr. Simmons showed and discussed the proposed land use tables. Mr. Simmons stated that the tables are proposed to provide greater ease in reviewing the code, both for staff and those not familiar with the code. New uses have been added to the table based on recent industry trends such as dog day cares and children recreation centers. Mr. Simmons discussed another proposed change that would eliminate the R-5 (Senior Housing) Zoning District. Currently, there is only one property in the Village that is under this zoning district. As proposed, this change would eliminate the R-5 district but would allow senior housing facilities in R-3/R-4 Zoning Districts as part of Planned Unit Developments. Mr. Simmons discussed the site/building design standards proposed for the Code update. These standards include: architectural detail on large buildings, mechanical unit screening and ground based utility screening. There was additional discussion regarding screening for garbage dumpsters and outdoor storage areas. Mr. Beattie asked if phasing out the R-5 Zoning District would have an impact on public subsidy for seniors. Mr. Simmons said if senior housing was publicly subsidized, they would still fit in the R-3 or R-4 Zoning Districts. Mr. Simmons stated the requirements in the Village of Mount Prospect's Code for an R-5 district were not found in codes in the surrounding communities. Staffs proposed changes are intended to make the code more receptive to these types of facilities. Mr. Simmons summarized additional changes proposed in the Zoning Code that included: public hearing requirements, accessory structures, outdoor sales and storage, second housekeeping units, outdoor lighting, and nonconforming buildings. There was additional discussion regarding accessory structures, outdoor sales, and storage. Mr. Donnelly asked about portable storage unit (PODS). Mr. Simmons said the Property Maintenance Code has provisions for PODS. There was discussion at the Committee of the Whole meeting regarding the signage on the side of these units and the amount of time that these would be allowed on a property. Mr. Simmons stated language would be added to the Code to allow these units to be on a property for 14 days. Chairman Rogers asked about boat and recreational vehicle (RV) storage on a property. Mr. Simmons said that these are allowed by Code on an approved parking pad, but could not be used as living space. Mr. Simmons discussed additional proposed Zoning Code changes that included: building heights (maximum of 35 feet for all non-residential and 40 feet for industrial), parking setbacks, loading berths, and landscaping. Mr. Donnelly said the maximum height for residential district is 28 feet to the midpoint of the roof. Mr. Simmons confirmed that this was correct; the standards for residential single-family heights would not change. Mr. Roberts stated that the maximum height requirement for the R-X district is 35 feet. There was additional discussion regarding maximum height and roof midpoint. Mr. Simmons clarified that the proposed 35 foot maximum height was for commercial districts and non- residential buildings within a residential zoning district. Mr. Simmons stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission could define the maximum height measured to the highest point within residential districts. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 28, 2009 PZ-13-09 Page 3 of 5 Chairman Rogers stated there should be a maximum height to the peak of the roof rather than using the midpoint. Mr. Simmons said Staff could look at permits for recent teardowns to review the permitted height in the Code. There was a consensus with the Commission for the maximum height to be measured to the apex. Discussion continued regarding maximum height and midpoint. Mr. Simmons discussed maximum heights for the Industrial district. Mr. Simmons stated parking setbacks would a minimum of ten feet (l0') in each zoning district. Mr. Simmons briefly discussed loading berths and the landscape section of the Code. Mr. Simmons said no significant changes or comments came from the Committee of the Whole Meeting. Mr. Simmons stated there were three areas discussed: change in off-site parking approvals, LED signs and animation, and community and cultural centers. Mr. Simmons said letters have been sent seeking public input regarding the proposed Code changes. He stated that discussions with the Park District led to a proposed change that would allow an increase in a fence size to 20 feet next to recreational facilities as long as it is open mesh. Other comments by the Park District requested a change in the front and exterior side yard setback from 50 feet to 30 feet and change from 50 feet to 40 feet adjacent to residential. Mr. Simmons said Staff was comfortable with these requests. Mr. Simmons discussed other public comments addressed by the Park District that included lot coverage for the C-R District increase from 25% to 75% per parcel for interior uses. Staff was looking at how this would take affect if it was applied across the board for the C-R District. Staff has recommended continuing researching this item. There was additional discussion regarding lot coverage for the C-R District. Mr. Simmons discussed additional feedback from the Park District to permit recreational facilities in Industrial Districts. Mr. Simmons said the Village's Legal Department did not feel comfortable permitting/encouraging all types of these facilities within the 1-1 District. The Village currently permits limited athletic facilities within the 1-1 district for sports training facilities and vocational schools. Staff was not looking to change this part of the code as larger facilities for park districts would be still allowed in the C-R District and could also be allowed via a Map Amendment in the future. Mr. Simmons said the shopping center owners that contacted him were curious about the sign and landscape requirements, but he did not receive significant comments. Mr. Simmons discussed amendments to the Code. Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve the following motion: "To approve the text amendments as outlined in the attached documents for case PZ-13-07 which would perform certain amendments to the text of both the Village's Zoning and Sign Code regulations." The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers said he would like to see the final draft of the Code before voting on the proposed changes. Mr. Youngquist stated all the changes were excellent. Chairman Rogers swore in Lou Ennesser, Director of Parks and Planning for the Mount Prospect Park District, 1000 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Ennesser said he was not aware of the C-R Zoning District until 1993. He stated that this was the first time the Park District has been able to comment on Code changes. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 28, 2009 PZ-13-09 Page 4 of5 Mr. Ennesser discussed the Park District's lot coverage request. He said the Park District is split into two areas: neighborhood parks and recreational facilities. He stated that the neighborhood parks would remain at the 25% lot coverage as no development would be needed. Mr. Ennesser said the 75% lot coverage requirement would be requested for their larger recreational facilities due to the services provided for the community. Mr. Ennesser said municipal buildings are a permitted use in the 1-1 district, but not a park district facility. Chairman Rogers asked if Staff had a chance to meet with the Park District regarding the placement of facilities within the Industrial District. Mr. Simmons said Staff has met with the Park District discussed the Park District's uses within the 1-1 District. Mr. Simmons stated Staff would want additional time to review these requests before making a formal recommendation, but in general did not have significant concerns with the Park District's comments. Chairman Rogers said that the Park District should work with Staff on this issue. Mr. Donnelly asked about community and cultural centers in C-R districts. Mr. Simmons said community and cultural centers are permitted as conditional uses in the C-R District. There was additional discussion regarding commercial fitness centers in relation to community and cultural centers. Chairman Rogers asked the Commission whether or not they wanted to approved the changes or see the final draft. Mr. Floros made a motion to view the final draft of the Zoning and Sign Code updates by the June 25, 2009 Planning and Zoning Meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission makes an official recommendation to the Village Board. Mr. Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a voice vote. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 10:23 p.m., seconded by Mr. Beattie. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 28, 2009 PZ-13-09 Page 5 of 5