Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24/2002 P&Z minutes 33-02MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-33-02 Hearing Date: October 24, 2002 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson Street PUBLICATION DATE: October 9, 2002 REQUEST: Text Amendments: 1) public notices; 2) maximum shed size; 3) provisions for converting attached garages to living space MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Richard Rogers, Vice Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Vice Chairperson Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 26 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The September meeting minutes were approved 6- 0. At 8:00, after hearing three cases, Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-33-02, a request for Text Amendments to the Village Code, and said the case would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, described the requested Text Amendments. She explained that three amendments were being requested and that the first request was to eliminate Legal Descriptions from public notices. Ms. Connolly explained that the Village currently requires that a property's legal description be included on a public hearing notice. Due to the length, content, and cost of publishing a property's legal description, Staff proposes that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow publishing the property's common address instead. She said that a common address is easier to understand than a legal description and reduces the possibility of error. As an example, she said, a typo may nullify a legal notice and create delays for the petitioner while the notice is republished. Ms. Connolly said the Village Attorney has reviewed this issue and determined that the elimination of a property's legal description from the public notice would be acceptable. Based on the information outlined above, staff suggests Section 14.203. G. 4 - Public Hearing Procedures is amended. Ms. Connolly read the changes listed in the Staff memo and pointed out that the elimination of legal descriptions will help to shorten the public notices, in some cases substantially, resulting in more reader friendly notices and lower publishing costs. Vice Chairman Rogers suggested discussion and voting on each requested amendment separately. Matt Sledz said eliminating the legal description from the published ads was a very good idea and Joseph Donnelly agreed. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Board to amend Section 14.203. G. 4 - Public Hearing Procedures, as prepared by staff. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-33-02 Page 2 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Sledz NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Connolly explained the second requested amendment, Regulations regarding the conversion of attached garages into living space. She explained that the Building Division has received an increased number of permit applications regarding the conversion of an attached garage into living space. In some cases, the conversion of the garage into living space did not include constructing a new garage and the existing driveway was maintained and used for parking vehicles. She said that there have been other instances where a new detached garage could not be constructed following the conversion of an attached garage into living space because there was insufficient space to accommodate a 9-foot wide driveway or the site would have exceeded lot coverage regulations. Ms. Connolly said the Village currently does not require existing residential properties to have a garage. As a result, demolishing and converting an existing garage into living space without constructing a new garage is permitted. Staff proposes that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to prevent situations where the conversion of an existing garage is completed without the construction of a new garage. Ms. Connolly pointed out that there are two potential options to address this situation: 1) require that a new garage be built as part of a garage conversion project; or 2) require that the garage conversion project be done in such a manner that, at a minimum, a new one-car garage could be built at a later date. Ms. Connolly said that in order to ensure that a new garage is built as part of a garage conversion project, staff suggests that Sec. 14.304 - Bulk Regulations of the Zoning Code be modified and that a new subsection would be created. She read the changes listed in the Staff memo. Mr. Rogers said that most homes with attached garages in the Village do not have sufficient side yard to allow for a new 9' driveway to a detached garage. It was suggested that, as an alternative when side yard space is limited, room additions could be added to the back of a house or as a second story. Some Commissioners said it was not fair to limit room addition projects to a more costly way of building, i.e. building a second story and also putting residents through the expense of providing another detached garage or provisions for one. Mr. Donnelly asked if a new driveway to the rear of the house could be less than 9' wide with permission from the Board. Ms. Connolly said that due to publication requirements that it was not possible to change the 9' width as called for in the Development Code at this meeting. She said that staff could research the possibility of reducing the minimum driveway width at the direction of the Commission. However, the minimum width is based on industry standards and that a narrower driveway may not be navigable. Several Commissioners cited examples of garage conversions with the driveway left in place and used as a parking pad for many family cars. They pointed out that this amendment would preclude that happening in the future. Mr. Cotten stated that limiting the location of an addition and/or requiring that a garage be built at the time of the addition could force families with many children to move, possibly out of Mount Prospect. Matt Sledz made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Board to amend Section 14.304.E, Bulk Regulations, of the Zoning Code, that appropriate provision for replacement of a garage be completed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Leo Floros seconded the motion. lanning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-33-02 Page 3 UPON ROLL CALL: Motion was denied 4-2. AYES: Floros and Sledz NAYS: Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, Youngquist Ms. Connolly explained the third text amendment, regulations regarding the maximum allowable size of a shed. She said that in response to an increased number of variation requests to install sheds larger than 120 square feet, staff researched the typical size of the most commonly sold sheds and the size limitations of other communities. The intent was to determine if the Village's existing 120 square foot limitation was still appropriate. The findings indicated that the Village's existing regulations do not correspond with today's common shed sizes or the regulations of other communities. Ms. Connolly reported that various options to regulate shed sizes were discussed at recent Committee of the Whole meetings. Also discussed was prohibiting flat roofs on sheds and garages. As a result of these discussions, staff proposes that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit the maximum shed size to correspond to the size of the property, but capped at 200 square feet. In addition, that the code contain regulations regarding a shed and garage roof pitch. She said that the benefits of this approach would be the relative ease in which Staff and residents could understand and apply the regulations in addition to allowing for larger sheds on larger lots. Staff also proposes that the Zoning Ordinance include definitions that would help to restrict the types of uses that would be permitted in a storage shed. These definitions would help to prevent the use of a larger size shed for a workshop or the storage of a vehicle. She read the definitions and the staff recommendation from the Staff memo and summarized the standards for text amendments to the Code. Ms. Connolly said that staff recommends that the P&Z recommend approval of the proposed Text Amendments as detailed in the Staff memo and added that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Mr. Cotten said it would not be fair to limit smaller properties to a smaller size storage shed because a smaller house requires a larger storage area. Mr. Sledz said the amendment was headed in the right direction by sizing the shed to the size of the lot but that 200 s.f,. is too large for any property. Much discussion followed with varying ideas as to what size shed should be allowed for what size lot. Leo Floros reminded the Commissioners that the Committee of the Whole had spent many hours and many sessions agonizing over this matter and he was prepared to accept their findings. Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 8:40 Joseph Donnelly moved to recommend to the Village Board approval of an amendment to Sec. 14.306.B to allow sheds no larger than 160 s.f. Matt Sledz seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: Motion was approved 5-1. AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, Youngquist and Sledz NAYS: Floros At 9:00 p.m, Merrill Cotten made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner H:\GEN\PLANNING\Planning & Zo~fing COMM\P&Z 2002\Mh~utes\PZ-33-02 Text Amen&nents.doc