Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/09/2003 COW minutes 1. III. IV. MINUTES COMMI'I-rEE OF THE WHOLE SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m., in the Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center, 1000 West Central Road, by Village Manager Michael Janonis. Nominations for Mayor Pro Tern were requested. Motion made by Trustee Zadel and Seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer to nominate Trustee Hoefert for Mayor Pro Tern. Nomination closed and Trustee Hoefert was designated as Mayor Pro Tern for the evening. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana WiIks and Michael Zadel. Absent from the meeting were Mayor Gerald Farley and Trustee Timothy Corcoran. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development Director William Cooney, Deputy Community Development Director Michael Jacobs, Police Chief Richard Eddington and Deputy Police Chief John Dahlberg. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from August 12, 2003. Motion made by Trustee Lohrstorfer and Seconded by Trustee Skowron. Trustee Wilks requested several revisions to the Minutes for clarification purposes, With the revisions, the Minutes were approved. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD David Schein, 512 NaWaTa, spoke. He recommended the Village Board consider a Resolution opposing the U.S. Patriot Act. He feels the Act goes too far regarding privacy issues. REGULATION OF MOTORIZED SCOOTERS Village Manager Michael Janonis stated that there had been extensive discussion with the Village Board in August and September of 2002. At that time, the Village Board decided to rely on the existing State regulations. He atso stated that invitations had been sent to participants from previous discussions. He stated that at this time, staff is requesting the Board consider a ban on the use of motorized scooters on public property, He stated this request comes about due to difficulties regarding enforcement at the local Court level. Chief Eddington stated that issues arising from enforcement are based on the Judges in the Third District refusing to apply the State taw to violators brought before the Judges. The State law is rather harsh in terms of penalty for violation which has caused the Judges to sidestep the enforcement. He stated these scooters cannot be licensed by the State as a motorized vehicle and in order to respond to complaints, he feels it is critical that his Department be provided the enforcement tools necessary to respond to requests for service. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was a discussion regarding the impoundment fee and possible safety concerns for street use. There was also discussion regarding the enforcement success in other communities. There was a concern regarding motorized wheelchairs to ensure that such wheelchairs would not be considered illegal for enforcement purposes. Police Chief Eddington stated that he has received 31 calls since April 1, 2003, and feels that there would have been more calls if the response from the Police had been that they do not have the enforcement power .to address the complaint calls. He did state that 75% of the calls occurred during rush hour. He stated that if the Village Board desires enforcement of motorized scooters, he would like to' have the tools necessary for such enforcement and in order to effectuate enforcement, he is recommending a total ban on public property. John Korn, 301 North William, spoke. He stated that he has previously spoken to the Board regarding safety concerns of the users and feels that there may be additional issues that should be discussed regarding utilization of altering vehicles which are not street legal also in the future. General consensus of the Village Board was to direCt staff to review and define regulations necessary for the effective enforcement of banning motorized scooters from all public property, Angela Limberopoulos, Des Plaines resident, spoke. She stated that her son, Louis, was struck by a SUV while riding a scooter and died on July 4, 2002. She stated that he was riding his scooter on the evening of July 3. She stated that he would have been at risk whether he was on a scooter or riding a bicycle and banning of scooters does not necessarily make them any easier to see than someone on a bicycle. She would suggest consideration and enforcement of scooter riders wearing reflectors, lights and helmets with prohibition for use after dark. She currently is involved in litigation regarding the driver who struck her son and feels that scooters should not be banned without consideration of the users. PROPERTY-RELATED CODE AMENDMENTS AND COMPANION ISSUES Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated that the majority of the items to be discussed this evening are a direct result of experience in dealing with residents with unique issues or circumstances and staff is seeking direction from the Village Board to either address the issues or define the intent. Fence Location The permitted location of a fence is from the lot line attached to the house. However, recent issues with residents who do not want to enclose the entire lot and a desire not to place the fence on the lot line have occurred along with corner lot issues where the fence cannot be extended beyond the front of the building. Staff recommendation is to allow fences to be installed in the rear and interior side yards provided the fence is located behind the front tine of the principal structure. If the fence is not located along the property line, then sufficient access must be provided to the area between the fence and the property tine to allow for proper maintenance. Exterior Side Yard Fences Staff had recommended fences must be installed in the exterior side yard provided that the fence is placed behind the front line of the principal structure. If the exterior side yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot, the fence shall not be located any closer to the exterior side yard lot line than either the building line established by the principal structure or the front yard established by the adjacent lot which ever is less. Mr. Cooney stated that endorsing the staff recommendations would allow flexibility of residents to fence any portion of their lot and not necessarily enclose the lot at the lot line. General comments from Viltage Board members included the following items: Several comments were made regarding the opportunity for flexibility for the residents. There was a concern raised about the appropriate wording to ensure that the flexibility can be understood by the average resident and it was suggested that simple diagrams be included for residents' use during the permitting process. Consensus of the Village Board was to support staff recommendation as requested and gather input from the Planning and Zoning Commission for further discussion before the Village Board. Permitted Residential Fence Heiqhts Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated that many residents have requested the flexibility to install a six-foot fence versus a five-foot fence and have also voiced some concern regarding the manufacturing limitations of a five-foot fence versus a six-foot fence. Staff is recommending a maximum fence height of six feet permitted within an interior side yard, exterior side yard and rear yard. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: Three Trustees felt that the existing fence limitation of five feet is adequate while two Trustees felt that the flexibility of residents to have up to six feet was permissible. Consensus of the Village Board was to keep the existing fence height regulations in place at five feet. Double Fences Mr. Cooney stated that the current Village regulations allow only one fence along the lot line and cannot put another fence adjacent to an existing fence. Staff recommendation is to allow multiple fences along the common property line. Mr. Cooney also stated that in many cases, the first person who puts a fence up along the rear property line dictates the type of fence for other adjacent property owners who may want to put a fence up in the future. 3 General comments from Village Board members included the following items: The majority of Board members were supportive of the change to allow double fences, however, it was mentioned that maintenance could become an issue and would require the necessary enforcement. Consensus of the Village Board was to allow multiple fences along the common property line as requested by staff. Dog Runs Mr. Cooney stated that there are no existing regulations and dog runs are prohibited within the Village's current fence regUlations. He is recommending appropriate language to allow dog runs to be permitted under specific conditions. He stated that staff is proposing dog runs shall be permitted within single-family residential districts provided they are located entirely behind the principal structure and shall not encroach into the required side or rear yard setbacks. He also is recommending that the dog runs be at least five feet from the property line. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There were concerns raised regarding accumulation of waste and the possible additional issues connected with installation and maintenance of dog runs. Consensus of the Village Board was not to change the existing regulations concerning dog runs, thereby; they remain prohibited under the Village's current fence regulations. Outdoor Stora.qe on Residential Properties Mr. Cooney stated that it is currently a property maintenance issue that has caused extensive confusion among staff to enforce such regulations because of the varying interpretations of what should and can be stored outdoors. He stated currently there are no regulations defining outdoor storage. He stated staff is recommending outdoor storage on residential property be prohibited except for lawn and garden equipment and materials, grills and portable fireplaces, patio furniture, household tools and children's play equipment. These outdoor storage regulations shall not apply to vehicles, recreational equipment or recreational vehicle trailers. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was suggested that firewood be added as a permitted outdoor storage item. Consensus of the Village Board was to endorse the staff recommendation for creation of a definition of permissible outdoor storage items. "No Trespassin.q" Si.qns on Residential Properties Mr. Cooney stated there are currently no regulations regulating "No Trespassing" signs on residential properties. Staff is suggesting no more than four signs shall be permitted on any single-family residential lot and under no circumstances shall the total sign area exceed six feet. No more than one sign shall be permitted along each front, rear or side property line. These limitations do not apply political'signs or seasonal displays. Consensus of the Village Board was to limit the number of signs per side of the home and compliance of the size of the sign would be consistent with the Sign Code. Home Occupations Mr. Cooney is requesting that the regulations be clarified to address employees reporting to a home for employment purposes. Staff recommendation includes additional language to the existing Ordinance Such as, "employees shall not report to the residence or be dispatched from the residence to another location for work purposes." Also, "no routine attendance of employees associated with any home occupation shall be allowed at the premises of the home occupation." "Routine attendance" shall mean that the conduct of the home occupation requires non-domiciled persons to visit the premises of a home occupation as part of the regulation conduct of the occupation without regard to the number, frequency or duration of such visits. Consensus of the Village Board was to support staff recommendations with the additional language regarding home occupation use. Day Care Facilities Mr. Cooney stated that the current regulations limit the number of children to eight at a day care center at the home. The State requires that if there are more than eight children, additional staff is necessary. Staff is recommending that the limit be set for eight children which would match the State requirements. Consensus of the Village Board was to support staff recommendation, however, it was mentioned that there would be a need to address adult day care centers in the near future. Landscaping - Maintenance Vs. Replacement Mr. Cooney stated the current language provides that maintenance of plant materials is rather general. It does not specifically address the issue of replacement of either dead or dying or diseased landscaping. Staff recommends the Code be amended to include specific language that would require the replacement of any landscaping to be consistent with the originally approved plan if one exists, or in similar kind, to landscaping material being removed. The intent is to require the ongoing maintenance of landscaping throughout the Village while specifically prohibiting the removal of landscaping materials under the guise of maintenance. Consensus of the Village Board was to support staff recommendation. Driveway Width The Village Code currently limits the maximum permitted driveway to 35% of the lot width. There are special exceptions for lots less than 60 feet or greater than 75 feet in width however. The Code includes an exception for driveways that serVe three- car garages allowing a maximum driveway width that would match the width of the garage no greater than 32 feet within fifteen feet of the garage's front elevation. The driveway width must then be tapered to a width no greater than the maximum allowable driveway width as would normally be allowed by Code. This approach is designed to reduce the driveway width that is in keeping with the property and do not overly impact the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that recent trends in home design have seen an increase in the number of two, three and four-car and orientation of front, side and rear-load garages. With this in mind, staff believes it is necessary to address the driveway width issue to be consistent with the front of the garage and the width at the curb. General consensus of the Village Board was to clarify the definition of a three- car garage with the necessary functionality of such a garage and further develop the language to minimize excess pavement or access to the garage from the street. Attached Garaqes Staff is recommending elimination of current references to single-family residences as permitted uses with attached or detached garages and consolidate the definition of single-family dwellings with attached or detached garages. This would eliminate the specific reference to the three-car garage. Consensus of the Village Board was to accept staff recommendation for deletion of the reference specific to a three-car garage. Pavement Separation Mr. Cooney stated there are currently Code regulations defining a paved surface but the regulations do not clearly delineate one pavement type from another where pavement types are adjacent to one another. For example, if a driveway is serving a detached garage at the rear of the property which is located directly adjacent to a patio, it is possible for the patio area to become either temporarily or permanently a parking pad allowing the vehicle access to the patio area directly from the driveway. Staff is recommending a separation of at least 24" between paved areas such as driveways, patios and service walks. Twenty-four inches is consistent with the typical width of a lawnmower so the area can be maintained Consensus of the Village Board was to accept the Staff recommendation of a separation of at least 24" between driveway pavement and patio surface. Unenclosed Front Porches Mr. Cooney stated that the Village Code currently allows unenclosed front porches to encroach up to five feet into the required front yard. HOwever, this encroachment requires review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval bY the Board of Trustees. in reviewing the recent history of Conditional Use applications for unenclosed front porches, staff has found that each application during the past two years has been approved, all with unanimous approval by both the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the Board of Trustees. In light of these statistics, staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission be final on such structures thereby not requiring the Village Board final approvall Consensus of the Village Board was to accept staff recommendation and alloW Planning and Zoning Commission to be final on unenclosed front porches. Compost Pile Locations Mr. Cooney stated there are currently no regulations regarding the location of a compost pile on a property. He is suggesting that the compost pile regulations include a minimum setback of at least five feet and not permitted Within the front yard. Consensus of the Village Board was to accept the staff recommendation of the five-foot setback and the prohibition in the front yard. Gravel Driveways Mr. Cooney is suggesting that there are few remaining gravel driveways in the Village and the current Development Code requires gravel driveways to be repaired once they are worn out, however, it is difficult to enforce such a regulation whereby the owner can just add additional gravel and then continue with the gravel driveway indefinitely. To address this issue, staff is recommending that language be included in the Village Code phasing out gravel driveways with a date specific so that the driveway can be paved. Staff is suggesting acompliance date of January 1,2009. Consensus of the Village Board was to support the phase-out period with proper notification to residents and suggested assistance to the residents if necessary. The Board also wanted to know how many gravel driveways actually exist so they would have an idea of how many residents would be impacted by such a phase-out. Fla_cll~oles and Flaqs Mr. Cooney stated the Village Code does not currently restrict the height or number of flagpoles as well as the number of flags within the single-family or multi-family districts. He also stated that the Code excludes flagpoles from various residential height limitations such as chimneys, steeples and radio/television antennas attached to the principal structure. In addition, the Code is silent with regards to flags and flagpoles within other zoning districts. Staff is recommending a maximum of one flagpole per lot with not more than two flags per pole with the maximum flagpole height not exceeding the District's height limitations for principal structures. For non-residential properties, the recommendation is a maximum of three flagpoles with no more than two flags per pole per zoning lot. Again, the maximum height permitted for flagpoles shall not exceed the District's height limitations for principal structures. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was some discussion regarding the standard height in the various zoning districts and possible restriction on the flag size. Consensus of the Village Board was to direct staff to research typical heights of flagpoles and flag size in order to address possible noise created by the flagpole and flag, but was supportive of staff recommendation. Location of Port-a-Pots Mr. Cooney stated the Village does not currently have any specific regulations regarding the permitted locations for port-a-pots on properties during construction activity. Staff is recommending that port-a-pots cannot be located either in the permitted side yards or within any right-of-way. Consensus of the Village Board was to accept staff recommendation for location of port-a-pots, Residential Construction Site Fencinq Mr. Cooney stated that there are currently no regulations in the Village Code regarding fencing around construction sites of single-family residential homes. Staff is recommending that when such site fencing is installed, it is maintained for safety concerns and it be a minimum of four feet for new construction, teardowns and major additions. Consensus of the Village Board was to support staff recommendation. CDBG Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan and Repayment Requirements Mr. Cooney stated that the repayment period is solely a Village regulation and is not required by HUD as part of the CDBG program. He stated the current repayment period created a 20-year repayment time limit, however, he stated that there would be no adverse impact if the repayment of the loan would be made at the time the property is sold versus requiring a repayment after the 20-year period. Staff is recommending that the time limit for repayment be eliminated entirely, thus requiring repayment of the loan only at the time of the sale of the property. Consensus of the Village Board was to allow repayment of the no interest loan at the time of sale or title change and the loan would be callable if the loan holder were not to reside in the home. Merrill Cotten, 2710 Briarwood Drive West, spoke. He stated that he appreciates the Board's effort in going through so many issues this evening and complimented the Board on considering all the needs of the residents without adversely impacting their ability to enjoy their own property. 9 illage Manager Janonis stated that many of the items would need to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission for input prior to bringing it back to the Village Board. That would be the next steps in the process so many of these items may be coming back in small increments. VI. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated Coffee with Council is scheduled for September 13, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. at the Village Hall, second floor conference room. VII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Skowron wanted to thank Trustee Hoefert for his assistance in Mayor Pro Tem effods for the evening and keeping the discussion succinct and focused on a conclusion for each item. Trustee Wilks requested some discussion about removable speed bum ps in the near future. VIII. ADJOURNMENT DS/rcc There being nc further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:09 p.m. DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 10