Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/23/2003 P&Z minutes 43-02MINUTES OF TItZ REGULAR MEETING OF TlCIE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-43-02 Hearing Date: January 23, 2003 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson Street PUBLICATION DATE: January8,2003 REQUEST: Text Amendments (stoop size) MEMBERS PRESENT: Men'ili Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Richard Rogers, Vice Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: ludy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Vice Chairperson Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 21 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The November meeting minutes were approved 5-0, with one abstention by Joseph Donnelly. At 9:25, after hearing four cases, Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ- 43-02, 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 Amendment. She explained that the Planning & Zoning Commission has previously reviewed requests to allow stoops and stoops with canopies larger than the existing size limitations listed in the zoning ordinance. As a result of recent inquiries, staff researched whether the Village's existing regulations regarding stoops needed to be updated. Ms. Connolly said that the Village's current limitations allow open stoops and canopies that measure no more than 5'x5' to encroach into required yards. Steps and service walks up to 5 feet in width are also permitted encroachments in required yards and are not included as part of the overall stoop size. Prior to the adoption of the current regulations, the Village's zoning ordinance did not contain any limitations with regards to the size of stoops and canopies. She said that since the adoption of the current stoop/canopy regulations, the Village has received several requests to construct front stoops larger than the 5' x 5' size permitted by code. Also, staffhas witnessed a trend among homeowners ~vho want to update the front of their houses without doing an extensive addition. One of the most common ways of accomplishing an 'update' is to install a ne~v front door and covered entryway. Staffresearched the larger stoop/covered entryway design in more detail, which included obtaining 'industry feedback'. Ms. Connolly presented pictures that illustrated the 'before' and 'after' of installing a new stoop, front door and windows. The pictures showed how a larger stoop with an unenclosed covered entryway provides architectural relief and helps update a front facade. She said that a contractor who specializes in this type of home improvement project provided the pictures. Miss Connolly said the existing 5-foot width limitation could accommodate a standard front door width, which is typically 36 inches wide. However, it limits the options for a front door with sidelights, which are ~vindows on either side of the door, or a double door. She said that staffrecommends that the Village's definition of a stoop be modified to allow a maximum width of 8-feet, while maintaining the existing maximum depth limitation, wh/ch is the amount of the encroachment into the required front yard, of 5-feet. The 8-foot width will allow some design flexibility, but limit the stoop area to a size that will not negatively impact the neighboring properties or surrounding area. She said that lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-43-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 stoops larger than 8-feet wide and/or 5-feet deep would exceed the suggested size limitations and require either a variation or conditional use approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Village Board. Ms. Connolly reported that he Zoning Ordinance lists specifics standards for the P&Z to consider for text amendments and reviewed the standards. She said that the proposal to increase the maximum stoop size permitted to encroach into the front yard to 5'x 8' would be applicable on a community-wide basis and would not create non-conformities for existing stoops. The larger width dimcmsion would not adversely affect the character of the community and would not make the Zoning Code more permissive. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed text amendment maintains the same scope of encroachment into the front yard, but allows homeowners the design flexibility to make improvements that have minimal impact on the neighboring properties. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a text amendment to Sec. 14.2401, which contains the definition of a stoop, which reads: "STOOP: A platform at the entrance to a builchng with maximum dimensions of ~5~-~L-~52) eight feet (8') of width and five feet (5') of depth" for Case No. PZ43-02. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Merrill Cotten said that if the text amendment were approved, would unenclosed stoops with overhead roofs still come before the Board. Ms. Connolly said only stoops larger than 8'x5' would come before the Board. Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 9:30. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve a text amendment to Section 14.2401 of the Zoning Ordinance to read "STOOP: A platform at the entrance to a building with max/mum dimemsions of 5;'e feet (5') eight feet (8') of width and five feet (5') of depth", Case No. PZ-43-02. Matt Sledz seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Sledz NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. At 9:34 p.m., after hearing another case, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner