Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 02/24/2004 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, February 26, 2004 7:00 p.m. Village Hall Building 100 South Emerson Street 2nd Floor Conference Room I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - Meeting of January 22, 2004 III Old Business A. Completion of 2004 Work Plan IV Chairman's Report v Finance Director's Report VI New Business A. TIF B. Fund Balance VII Next Meeting: Thursday, March 25,2004, 7:00 p.m. VIII Adjournment NOTE: Any individual who would like to attend this meeting but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate should contact the Finance Director's Office at 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, (847) 392-6000, ext. 5277, TDD (847) 392-6064. FINANCE COMMISSION DRAFT DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING JANUARY 22, 2004 VILLAGE HALL BUILDING 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present included Chairman John Korn and Commissioners Vince Grochocinski, Ann Hull, Brian McPartlin and Ann Smilanic. Also present were Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper. Commissioner Charles Bennett arrived at 8: 10 and Torn Pekras was absent. II. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Brian McPartlin motioned to approve the minutes of November 6, 2003. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski seconded the motion and the minutes were accepted as presented. III. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED 2004 WORK PLAN Chairman John Korn began the meeting by stating that the Commission needed to appoint a Vice Chairman. Chairman Korn asked the members for nominations for Vice Chairman. Commissioner Ann Hull nominated Commissioner Charles Bennett. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski seconded the nomination and the nomination was accepted. Chairman John Korn began by mentioning his list of potential topics of discussion for the 2005 budget process. Items mentioned were: 1. Sales tax dependency. Depending on sales tax revenue is not a sound basis for anticipating revenues in an uncertain economy. 2. Direct charge for refuse. 3. Reduction of personnel. 4. Raising Fees. 5. Real Estate taxes. Commissioner Ann Hull mentioned that she would like to have a complete review of the Tax Increment Financing District (TIF). Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer stated there is an updated TIF projection that can be provided to the Finance Commission for a discussion in February. In addition to sales tax dependency, Commissioner Vince Grochocinski mentioned the village should not focus on state revenues as a revenue source as well. Commissioner Brian McPartlin asked if there is a matrix as to where our fees are versus other villages/cities. Deputy Finance Director Carol Widmer stated that the village is constantly participating in surveys that gather this type of information. With Commissioners Ann Hull and Brian McPartlin leaving at 8:05 it was decided that the discussion on the 2004 work plan be deferred until the February 26, 2004 meeting. IV. CHAIRMAN'S REpORT Chairman John Korn highlighted the topics discussed at the board meetings that have taken place recently. V. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REpORT Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer distributed çopies of the 2004 Budget. VI. OTHER BUSINESS There was nothing to report. VII. Next Meeting: February 26, 2004 Commissioner Vince Grochocinski motioned to adjourn which Commissioner Ann Smilanic seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for February 26, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant Finance Department 2 MAYOR Gerald L. Farley VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele Skowron ¡rvana K. Wilks Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 AGENDA VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Phone: Fax: TOO: 847/818-5328 847/818-5329 847/392-6064 MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIME: Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center Thursday 1000 W. Central Road February 26, 2004 Mount Prospect, IL 60056 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22 & FEBRUARY 12,2004 MEETINGS A. PZ-39-02 / Meadows Park / Plat of Consolidation - Phase 1. B. PZ-47 -03 / 504-510 E. Rand Road / Map Amendment & Plat of Consolidation. C. PZ-Ol-04 / 507 S. Wille Street / Duffy Residence / Conditional Use (porch). D. PZ-02-04/ 1450 S. Elmhurst Road / Harris Bank / Conditional Use & Variations. E. PZ-03-04/ 501 db Drive / Niagara Educational Services / Conditional Use. F. PZ-4l-03 / Village of Mount Prospect / Various Text Amendments to the Village Code IV. OLD BUSINESS A. PZ-4l-03 / 100 S. Emerson Street / Village of Mount Prospect / Continued review of the proposed Text Amendments to the Village's fence regulations. NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. V. NEW BUSINESS B. PZ-04-04 / 1590 S. Elmhurst Road / Parkway Bank / Conditional Use (bank with drive thru lanes). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. C. PZ-06-04/ 1501 W. Dempster Street / Culver's / Special Use (Electronic Message Sign). NOTE: This case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. D. PZ-07-04 / 710 N. Wille Street / Boehm Residence / Conditional Use (porch) & Variation (lot coverage). NOTE: The porch is Village Board Final, but the lot coverage is P&Z Final. VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS . PZ-39-02 / Meadows Park - Víllage Board approved February 3, 2004 . PZ-47-03 / Hill Street Park - Víllage Board approved February 3,2004 . PZ-O 1-04/507 S. Wille Street - Víllage Board waived second reading & approved Feb. 3rd . PZ-02-04/ 1450 S. Elmhurst Road - Village Board waived second reading & approved Feb. 3rd . PZ-03-04/ 501 db Drive - Víllage Board reviewed Feb jrd - 2nd reading Feb. 17th VII. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommOl:ìationto participate, should êoîitá.Ct the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, II.. 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-39-02 Hearing Date: January 22, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1401 Gregory Street PETITIONER: Mt. Prospect Park District PUBLICATION DATE: January 7,2004 PIN#: 03-33-400-008/007/006/016/017/018 & 03-33-401-012/003/013/006/011 REQUEST: 1) Vacate Davidson, Rammer, and Evanston Avenues rights-of-way 2) Plat of Consolidation - Consolidate multiple lots of record (Phase 1) MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Lou Ennesser Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 11,2003 meeting, but modified to have Merrill Cotten's name spelled correctly. Leo Floros seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as corrected 7-0. At 7:33, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-39- 02, a request for plats of vacation and a plat of Resubdivision for the Meadows Park property. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Subject Property is located on the south side of Gregory Street, between Waterman Avenue and Dale Avenue, and contains apark with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned CR Conservation Recreation and is bordered by the Rl Single-Family Residence District to the east, the R4* Multi-Family Planned Unit Development to the south, and the Bl Office District to the southwest. The properties located to the north and west of the Subject Property are located in Arlington Heights and contain commercial and residential uses. Ms. Connolly reviewed improvements made to the Meadows Park aquatic center in the summer of 2003. She said that as a result of these improvements, the Petitioner was required to meet certain codes requirements that included vacating the existing, unimproved rights-of-way located within the park and consolidating the property into a single lot. She said that the Petitioner has prepared the plat in multiple phases in order to meet Village regulations regardiri¡f"t .' storm water detention Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Village Board approve the plats of vacation for Davidson Street, Rammer and Evanston Streets, and the Meadows Park Plat of Consolidation - Phase I, Case No. PZ-39-02. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-39-02 Page 2 The Planning & Zoning Commission asked Ms. Connolly questions regarding the project. Ms. Connolly clarified that the Petitioner met the Village's regulations regarding providing the amount of required storm water detention. She noted that the Village's regulations were based on the scope of the redevelopment or project in comparison to MWRD's regulations that based the amount of required storm water detention on the size of the entire site, not just the scope of work being done. Ms. Juracek confirmed that the aquatic center improvements complied with all Village codes and that the Petitioner was not seeking relief from Village regulations. Lou Ennesser, 1000 W. Central Road, Mt. Prospect Park District, was sworn in. Mr. Ennesser reviewed the scope of work done in Phase 1. He added that the Park District would comply with all Village and MWRD storm water detention regulations should the ball fields be redeveloped at a later date. There was discussion regarding the aquatic improvements and the Park District's long-term plans for Meadows Park. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience had questions as there were none, she closed the hearing at 7:45 pm. Leo Floros made a motion to make a recommendation that the Village Board approve the plats of vacation and consolidation - Phase I. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Floros, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 9:40 p.m, Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by-"" a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Michael Jacobs, AICP Deputy Director, Community Development . '.-, Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner H:IPLANIPlanning & Zoning COMMIP&Z 2004IMinutesIPZ.39-02 Meadows Park MPPD Plat Consolidation.doc ~ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-47-03 Hearing Date: January 22, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 504 & 510 E. Rand Road and 525 E. Hill Street PETITIONER: Mt. Prospect Park District PUBLICATION DATE: January 7, 2004 PIN#: 03-34-207 -004/055/018 REQUEST: 1) Rezone to CR Conservation Recreation, and 2) Consolidate site to create a one-lot subdivision MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Lou Ennesser Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 11, 2003 meeting, but modified to have Merrill Cotten's name spelled correctly. Leo Floros seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as corrected 7-0. At 7:46, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-47-03, a request for a map amendment and one-lot resubdivision. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Subject Property is located at the southeast corner of the Rand Road and Hill Street intersection and that it consists of a park with related improvements and two vacant lots. She said that the Petitioner is seeking approval to: 1) Rezone 504 & 510 E. Rand Road from R- 1 Single-Family Residence to CR Conservation Recreation; and 2) Consolidate the three existing lots into a single lot of record. The Petitioner is proposing to expand the existing Hill Street Park facility into a neighborhood park and nature center Ms. Connolly said that the Rand Road properties, which need to be rezoned in order for the Hill Street Park to be expanded, are surrounded by a variety of land uses and zoning districts. She said that the portion of Subject Property that is currently zoned R-l is adjacent to an existing toWilhome development and a buts properties currently zoned CR Conservation Recreation and B3 Community Shopping. Although Rand Road is a significant commercial corridor, the two Rand Road properties would not be conducive to commercial development due to the their size, shape, and surrounding land uses. She summarized the standards for a Map Amendment and said that the proposal meets the standards because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property and provides an adequate transition from Rand Road. Ms. Connolly reviewed the proposed plat of Resubdivision. She said that the plat under review changes the site from three lots of record to a one-lot subdivision. The plat includes easements as required by Village Code and Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-47-03 Page 2 has been prepared in accordance with Development Code requirements. She said that other Departments have reviewed the plat and found that it was prepared in accordance with Village Codes. Ms. Connolly said that based on Staffs findings, Staff recommends that the P&Z recommend the Village Board approve the request to rezone the Subject Property from Rl to CR and approve the Hill Street Nature Center Resubdivision subject to the following: 1. The Petitioner shall provide a detailed site plan indicating the proposed park improvements will comply with all applicable zoning regulations; and 2. . The Petitioner obtains permits from all appropriate agencies, including, but not limited to, mOT and MWRD. The Village Board's decision is final for this case, Case No. PZ-47-03. Lou Ennesser, 1000 W. Central Road, Mt. Prospect Park District, was sworn in. Mr. Ennesser described the components a nd use of a p ark that is designated as a neighborhood park. He said that the neighbors were notified about the Park District's plans to expand Hill Street several months ago. Mr. Ennesser reviewed the Master Plan for the proposed Hill Street Park expansion and answered the Commission's questions regarding landscaping, the anticipated maturity rate for the proposed landscaping, and the park located in the Kensington Business Center. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience had questions. As there were none, she closed the hearing at 7:55 pm. Joe Donnelley made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for the map amendment and plat 0 fR esubdivision subject to the conditions listed in the Staff memo. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Floros, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 9:40 p.m, Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Michael Jacobs, AICP Deputy Director, Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMMIP&Z 2004\MinutesIPZ-47-03 504-510 E Rand MPPD Plat Cons-Rezone doc f MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-OI-04 Hearing Date: January 22, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 507 S. Wille Street PETITIONER: Kevin Duffy PUBLICATION DATE: January 7, 2004 PIN#: 08-12-308-017-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use - Porch in front yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Kevin Duffy Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 11, 2003 meeting, but modified to have Merrill Cotten's name spelled correctly. Leo F loros seconded the motion. The minutes were a pproved as corrected 7-0. At 7 :56 p.m., Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-O 1-04, a request for an unenclosed porch in the front yard. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Subject Property is located on the east side of Wille Street, between Shabonee and Council Trails, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. She said that the Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. She said that the Petitioner's plans indicate that the proposed addition and unenclosed porch would be constructed according to Village Codes, but that the porch would encroach four (4)-feet into the required front yard. She said that the unenclosed porch requires Conditional Use approval. Ms. Connolly said that the plans show that the porch consists of a wood floor and wood railings. Also, the area under the porch would be enclosed with a wooden lattice to prevent animals from burrowing and/or living in this area. She said that the existing home and proposed improvements comply with zoning regulations and noted that the table in the Staff Report compares the Petitioner's proposal to the RA Single Family Residence district's bulk requirements. - Ms. Connolly reviewed the standards for Conditional Use approval and said that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision or public streets and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. She said that based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board approve a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach no more than 4-feet into Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-Ol-04 Page 2 the required ITont yard for the residence at 507 S. Wille Street, Case No. PZ-Ol-04. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. The Planning & Zoning Commission did not have any questions of Staff and asked the Petitioner to address the Commission. Kevin Duffy, 507 S. Wille Street, was sworn in. Mr. Duffy reviewed the scope of the addition and said that they were going to add a second story to the house. He said that the unenclosed porch would help unify the look of the house in addition to adding character. Ms. Juracek asked whether the wood would be treated. Mr. Duffy said he was not sure at this time if it would be painted and if so, what color. He said that the unenclosed porch would match the house and that he still needed to confirm those details. In response to Ms. Juracek's concerns, Mr. Duffy stated that the porch would not take on the characteristics of a deck and that it would match the house. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience had questions. As there were none, Ms. Juracek closed the hearing at 8:00 pm. Keith Youngquist made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve the Petitioner's request to construct an unenclosed porch four (4) feet in the front yard setback. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Floros, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 9:40 p.m, Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Michael Jacobs, AICP Deputy Director, Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner H:IPLANIPlanning & Zoning COMMlP&Z 2004\Minutes\PZ-01-04 507 S Wille Duffy CU Porch.doc it, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-02-04 Hearing Date: January 22, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1450 S Elmhurst Rd. PETITIONER: Harris Bank PUBLICATION DATE: January 7,2004 PIN#: 08-14-403 -021 REQUEST: Conditional Use approval to construct a drive-thru bank and reliefffom the Village's parking setback regulations MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Michael Aiello George Drost Amy Flairty John L. Frieburg, III Linda LaBarge David Liridgren Jeff Meindl John O'Connor Brad Pausha George Schober Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 11, 2003 meeting, but modified to have Merrill Cotten's name spelled correctly. Leo Floros seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as corrected 7-0. At 8:01, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-02-04, a request for Conditional Use approval to construct a drive-thru bank and relief from the Village's parking setback regulations. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Subject Property is located at the west side of Elmhurst Road, between Golf Road and Dempster Street. The site is currently vacant following the recent demolition of the former Super Shops store. Although the Subject Property is a separate lot of record, it functions more like an out-lot due to its close proximity to the adjacent retail center. The Subject Property is bordered by the B4 Corridor Commercial Planned Unit Development district to the south and west, the RX Single Family district, but is the CornEd right-of-way/power lines area to the north, and a variety of commercial uses located within Des Plaines to the east. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-04 Page 2 The Petitioner proposes to construct a one-story, 4,300 square foot bank building with four drive-thru lanes. The drive-thru lanes would be located on the north side of the building. The building's exterior will be constructed from a combination of materials including face brick, synthetic stone materials, and aluminum/metal panels. The building's roof treatment will combine flat and peaked roof features. Although the Subject Property is a separate lot of record from the adjacent retail center, the property's location requires the proposed bank to complement the surrounding uses to ensure safe and cohesive traffic flow for the entire area. As a result of working with Staff extensively, the Petitioner proposes to change access to the Subject Property by modifying some of the existing driveways and limiting access to the Subject Property. The proposed bank building would comply with all building setback regulations. However, the Petitioner is seeking relief for the proposed parking lot bypass lane setback along the north lot line. The bypass lane to the north of the drive-thru lanes would encroach eight (8) feet into the required ten (10) foot setback, resulting in a two-foot setback along the majority of the northern lot line. The Petitioner's site plan shows the proposed parking lot layout for the bank. The thick-dashed line on the Petitioner's site plan indicates the property line for the Subject Property. The parking spaces shown outside of the dashed line are permitted as part of a cross access easement agreement between the Petitioner and the adjacent property owner. The Plat of Survey notes the existing easement areas that are located adjacent to the Subject Property. The chart in the Staff Report summarizes parking requirements and shows that the site will exceed Village parking regulations. The Petitioner's lighting plan included within their initial application submittal does not comply with Village regulations. In response to Staff comments, the Petitioner is in the process of revising the plan and has indicated that all applicable lighting regulations will be met. They will be able to provide more details on this matter during their presentation. The Petitioner's landscape plan details t he proposed plant materials and sizes. Although the proposed plan complies with the Village's regulations, the proposed plants-materials consist of primarily deciduous hedges and shrubs. The Petitioner's proposed use of mainly deciduous plant materials will not achieve the year-round screening as required by the Village's Corridor Design Guidelines. Staff has discussed modifying the landscape plan with the Petitioner so the plan includes more year-round, winter-hardy plants to ensure the development is attractive during all four seasons. Staff received a letter from the Petitioner's landscape architect after the Staff Report was mailed stating that it is the landscaper architect's contention that the plan submitted not be modified. Consequently, Staff contacted the landscape architect to request examples of what the site will look like during the winter to assist the P&Z with theirrecommendation to the VB regarding the proposed landscape plan. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner has modified their signage proposal and that they will review the revised exhibits. It is Staffs understanding that all signs comply with the Village's regulations. Staff reviewed the Petitioner's Traffic Study and found that the existing and anticipated level of service needed to be improved to ensure safe ingress and egress. Staff recommended that the Petitioner work with mOT to investigate whether a traffic signal is warranted. The Petitioner has sjnce rec.eiveda letter fr°Jl1JQQIi5!a.ting that t here ares pecific spacing requirements for a traffic signal since Elmhurst Road is a Strategic Regional Arterial road. The letter ends by stating, "Minimum SRA Traffic signal spacing requirements would preclude the installation of a new traffic signal at this intersection regardless of the existing or future traffic volumes." Therefore, the level of service will remain at "F" which is the worst possible rating for some peak travel times. The proposed site plan indicates a public sidewalk along Elmhurst Road, but does not include pedestrian links between the bank and surrounding properties. In reviewing the proposal it appears that minimal consideration has been given to pedestrian movements between the Subject Property and the adjacent retail uses. Given the , Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-04 Page 3 proposed mix of uses it is likely that some pedestrian interaction will occur between the various uses. With this in mind, Staff recommends that the Petitioner review the plan to determine where appropriate pedestrian links between the proposed uses as well as to adjoining properties could be provided. The new bank building will comply with the required setback and lot coverage regulations. As previously noted, the Zoning Ordinance requires a ten (10) foot landscape setback for the parking lot. In order to accommodate a bypass lane without adversely impacting the drive-thru lanes, the Petitioner is proposing a two (2) foot landscape setback along the north lot line. The property adjacent to the Petitioner's north lot line is the CornEd easement, which is an open area with overhead power lines. The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. They include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. Ms. Connolly reviewed the standards and noted that the Conditional Use would not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare: S he said that the Conditional Use would not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, 0 r value 0 f 0 ther properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. The Petitioner's request to construct a drive-thru bank requires Conditional Use approval for the drive-thru lanes. The proposed bank has been designed to meet current building material regulations and the overall site development will meet all Building, Fire, and Development Code requirements. Access to the drive-thru lanes and new parking spaces have been designed so the adjacent retail center traffic is not adversely impacted. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner's request to construct a drive-thru bank meets the standards for a Conditional Use: the bank will not have a detrimental impact on the adjacent retail center and the manner in which the parking lot will be reconfigured will not impair the use or value of the adjacent uses. The use, a bank, complies with the Comprehensive Plan and will be constructed according to Village Codes. The standards for a Variation are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The standards relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. T he bank structure complies with zoning regulations, however the bypass lane would encroach eight feet into the required parking/landscape setback. The Zoning Ordinance permits driveways to encroach into a required side yard and does not require a ten-foot setback. In this case, the proposed two-foot setback is adjacent to green space that will most likely remain undeveloped. Therefore, the proposed setback would not adversely impact other properties, the neighborhood character, or the public welfare. The size of the Subject Property and its location make it somewhat challenging to develop a drive-thru bank that would have minimal impact on the existing center and surrounding properties. The Petitioner explored alternative designs and found that locating the bypass lane along the north lot line provided the safest and most cohesive overall design. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval of the petitioner's requests for: 1) a Conditional Use to construct a bank with four drive-thru lanes and 2) relief from zoning regulations to allow a two (2) foot landscape setback along the north lot line as indicated on the site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Develop the site in accordance with the plans prepared by Valerio Dewalt & Train dated January 22, 2004 but revised to reflect the following: . A photometric plan that complies with the Village's Lighting Regulations; . A landscape p Ian that includes at least 50% non-deciduous plant material in addition tot he materials shown on the plan; Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-04 Page 4 . A sign package that demonstrates the proposed signs will comply with all Village regulations. 2. The Petitioner shall complete a traffic study and submit all necessary infonnation to the Illinois Department of Transportation to detennine if a traffic signal is warranted on Elmhurst Road. The Petitioner agrees to pay a proportionate share of the cost to install the signal at such time that mOT approves the installation. ,T he petitioner shall work w ith (h~ V illage and the 0 Wiler 0 f t he adjacent shopping center to finalize an appropriate cost-sharing program (potentially based on trip generation and/or a square foot calculation) for the installation of a traffic signal. The Village shall act as the final arbitrator in detennining the cost allocation for the signal and the petitioner agrees to comply with such detennination. The Planning & Zoning Commission asked Ms. Connolly several questions regarding the location of the drive- thru lanes, parking lot lighting, and street lights on Elmhurst Road 1 Rte. 83. Ms. Connolly said the Police Department had reviewed and approved the proposed drive-thru location based on security reasons. She said that JeffWulbecker, Village Engineer, would address the Rte. 83 questions. Jeff Wulbecker came forward and spoke. He said that there is always a problem with providing lighting at one area of an !DOT road because the source must be extended from another area. The Village would be responsible for installing and maintaining the streetlights. Mr. Wulbecker suggested referring the request for additional streetlights on Rt. 83 to the Safety Commission. Ms. Juracek asked the petitioners to stand to be sworn in and identify themselves when they spoke individually. George Drost, 111, Dunton, Arlington Hts., an attorney representing Harris Bank, spoke first. He said that they were there to clarify some issues and he would introduce several individuals, starting with the designer, Brad Pausha. Brad Pausha, 500 N. Dearborn, Chicago, Valeria DeWalt & Train, stepped forward and said he would do a walk through the presentation to show the exterior, the site plan, the landscape & signage program. He introduced the next speaker. Amy Flairty, Pugsley Architects, 738 Constitution Dr., #3, Palatine, IL, presented the landscape plan. She pointed out plantings of winter character to be used on all sides ofthe property. The P&Z Commissioners asked whether the 50% more evergreens requested by staff had been added. Ms. Flairty said it had not. P&Z members agreed with the Staff recommendation that more evergreens be added to the landscape plan. George Schober, V3 Infrastructure Services, 7325 Jones Ave., #100, Woodridge, IL, asked ifthere were specific traffic questions. Ms. Juracek askèd about cars coming in the property south to north. Mr. Schober said that was a potential conflict point although the site lines approaching those lanes is wide open and there is no landscaping to impede the view of cars entering those lanes. Discussion on lane usage followed. Mr. Drost suggested John Frieburg corne forward to speak about operations at this time. John Frieburg, President of the Arlington-Meadows Harris Bank, 3225 Kirchoff Rd., Rolling Meadows, I L, testified that hours of operation will be 7am-7pm at the drive-thru, with volumes being heaviest in the a.m. and p. m. T he Rolling Meadows I ayout is similar to the proposed Elmhurst Rd. layout and they have not raffic problems. Jeff Wulbecker spoke about the north driveway being right-in only, which would be taken care of through the Engineering Department in the design stage. There was discussion by P&Z members and staff about whether to allow the petitioner a Variance for brighter parking lot lighting in order to provide more lighting at Elmhurst Rd. It was finally decided that the petitioner Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-02-04 Page 5 should design and build the parking lot lighting to meet current code requirements and modify the site later if needed. Linda LaBarge addressed the Commission and said they would increase low-growing evergreens along the Elmhurst Road frontage and would submit a new plan for Staff review. She noted that they do not want to modify the proposed landscape materials along the north property line and would work with CornEd to obtain their approval to install the proposed plants in the CornEd right-of-way. Ms. Juracek closed the hearing at 9:05 pm. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for a Conditional Use for a drive-thru with the conditions imposed by staff and: 1. Develop the site in accordance with the plans prepared by Valerio Dewalt & Train dated January 22, 2004, but revised to reflect the following: a. A photometric plan that complies with the Village's Lighting Regulations, but includes a fixture in the northeast comer of the property that could be adjusted in the future if the Village determines additional lighting is needed; b. A more defined right-in curb-cut for the northernmost driveway; and c. A landscape plan that includes additional year-round/evergreen materials along the east lot line. Joe Donnelley seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve a Variation to allow a two (2)-foot landscape setback along the north lot line. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Floros, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 9:40 p.m, Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Michael Jacobs, AICP Deputy Director, Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner H:IPLANIPlanning & Zoning COMMlP&Z 2004\MinutesIPZ-02-04 1450 S Elmhurt Rd Harris Bankdoc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-03-04 Hearing Date: January 22, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 501 db Drive PETITIONER: Niagara Cultural Center PUBLICATION DATE: January 7, 2004 PIN#: 08-23-402-010 REQUEST: Conditional Use (amend Ordinance 5363, which granted Conditional Use approval for a Community Center) - modify the approved floor plans and the hours of operation MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Eric Koyuncu Kevin Oksuz Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 11, 2003 meeting, but modified to have Merrill Cotten's name spelled correctly. Leo Floros seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as corrected 7-0. At 9:06, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-03-04, a request for Conditional Use approval to amend Ordinance 5363, which granted Conditional Use approval for a Community Center, in order to modify the approved floor plans and the hours of operation. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Subject Property is located on db Drive, a cul-de-sac street on the west side of Elmhurst Road, between Algonquin Road and Oakton Street. The Subject Property contains an existing one-story office/warehouse building with related improvements. A portion of the existing building is currently occupied by db Sound, while the remaining portion of the building will be converted into a two-story Community Center. The Subject Property is zoned B3 Community Shopping and is bordered to the north and east by the B3 District, and to the south and west by the R4 Multi-Family Residential District. Ms. Connolly said that the Village Board recently approved the Petitioner's request to operate a Community Center within a portion of the existing building at 501 db Drive. She said that the approval tied the Petitioner to specific floor plans t hat were to be followed when t he building was converted to the proposed Community Center. Following Village Board approval, the Petitioner has indicated a desire to include additional guest rooms in the Community Center. The proposed increase in guest rooms deviates from the originally approved floor plans, and requires the Petitioner to obtain formal approval from the Village Board to modify the previously approved Conditional Use. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-03-04 Page 2 Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner proposes to offer the same services and evenJs as specified in their original request. However, the Petitioner would like to increase the number of guest rooms from seven to 16 in order to establish the facility as a conference center and obtain membership in a "Reciprocal Club Network". By providing the additional guest rooms, the Petitioner feels the Community Center would be more successful. Ms. Connolly noted that in addition to adding guest rooms, the Petitioner is seeking to extend the hours of operation. She said that the facility was originally approved to operate from 6:00 am - 10:00 pm Monday through Saturday and 10:00 am - 10:00 pm on Sundays. The Petitioner is seeking extended hours in order to accommodate wedding receptions and special programs. The requested hours of operation are 6:00 am - 12:00 midnight Monday through Saturday and 6:00 am - 11 :00 pm on Sundays. Ms. Connolly said that although the Subject Property abuts primarily commercial uses, the extended hours proposed by the Petitioner could adversely impact the nearby apartment complex. She clarified that the Subject Property's existing parking lot is located approximately 50-feet from the closest apartment, and the installation of mature, evergreen type landscaping would help minimize spillover noise. Ms. Connolly reviewed the parking requirements and confirmed that the site would provide more parking spaces than the amount that is required by the Zoning Ordinance. She noted that the increase in the number of guest rooms requires that the building comply with different 0 r more stringent c ode regulations than the previous request since the proposed modifications meet the definition ofa mixed group use facility. Ms. Connolly reviewed the standards for a Conditional Use. She said that the Subject Property is zoned for commercial use; however, the Zoning Ordinance lists Community Centers as a Conditional Use in the B3' . District. The Petitioner is not changing the footprint of the building and proposes minor exterior improvements. Also, the site provides more parking spaces than are required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner will be required to comply with all related Village Codes. Limiting the intensity of the proposed activities to the hours listed on the Petitioner's application, which are Monday - Saturday 6am to 12 Midnight and Sunday 6am to 11 pm, and planting additional mature evergreen landscaping should minimize the potential impacts of the proposed use 0 n t he adjacent multi-family residential property. A Iso, the current number 0 f parking spaces would help minimize adverse impacts of occasional large-scale events. She said that it is important to note that should the midnight closing time become an issue, the Village has the option of revisiting the Conditional Use permit and reviewing the situation to determine whether the Community Center continues to meet the standards for a Conditional Use. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed Community Center meets the Conditional Use standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance, subject to complying with the following conditions: 1. The hours of operation shall be limited to 6am-12 midnight Monday - Saturday and 6am - 11 pm on Sundays, with the understanding that the Village may review the hours of operation and modify them accordingly should Village Staff determine that the hours of operation create a noise nuisance; Events and activities shall not deviate from those listed in the Petitioner's application: a. Cultural, educational, and sport programs; b. Wedding receptions; c. Community meetings. The site will be developed in accordance with the landscape plan, floor plan, and elevations prepared by Kostak Associates, P.C., dated December 10, 2003, and revised to reflect additional landscaping as required by Article 23 ofthe Village's Zoning Ordinance and the installation of 5- foot tall (minimum) evergreen type landscaping lining the perimeter of the northwest and southeast portions of the parking lot. The development shall meet all applicable Development, Fire, Building, and Village Codes. 2. 3. 4. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-03-04 Page 3 Based on these findings, she said that Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve changes to the Conditional Use permit (Ord. 5363) for a Community Center for the property at 501 db Drive, PZ-03-04. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. The Planning & Zoning Commission asked Ms. Connolly why the request was being handled as a Community Center when it had many of the same characteristics of a hotel. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner could clarify the project and she noted that hotels were also Conditional Uses in the B3 zoning district. Kevin Oksuz and Eric Koyuncu, 2601 N. Meade, Chicago were sworn in. Mr. Oksuz explained that the Community Center was different from a hotel and stated that only members and their guests could use the guest rooms. He went on to provide examples of existing clubs that Niagara was trying to be like and presented a brochure of the clubs to the P&Z Commissioners for their reView. Mr. Koyuncu added that hotels do not provide community programs and that the Niagara guest rooms were not open to the general public. Merrill Cotten asked for confirmation whether people using the meeting rooms and conference rooms had to be members. Mr Oksuz said that the facility was only available to members and their guests. There was general discussion regarding the facility and its uses. Ms. Juracek clarified her understanding that club membership would be limited and controlled. There was discussion regarding modifying the hours of operation. Mr. Koyuncu said that they wanted to err on the side of caution in case a wedding reception ran a little later than expected. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience had questions. As there were none, she closed the hearing at 9:35 pm. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve the Conditional Use to operate a Community Center at 501 db Drive as specified in the Petitioner's application, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff memo. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Cotten, Rogers, Sledz Motion was approved 4-3. At 9:40 p.m, Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Michael Jacobs, AICP Deputy Director, Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner H:IPLANIPlanning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2004\MinutesIPZ-03-04 501 db Dr Niagara Educational Svces.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-41-03 Hearing Date: February 12,2004 PETITIONERS: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: January 28, 2004 REQUEST: Various Text Amendments to the Village Code MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Leo Floros Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Sledz STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: None Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting too rder at 7 :33 p.m. M s. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-4l-03, saying this would be one case proposing approximately 16 text amendments to the Village Code and that the Village Board's decision would be final for all of the amendments. She said each amendment.'Yolllgbe.discussed separately and voted on before discussing the next, leaving those they were stymied on for last. Michael Jacobs noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission had previously reviewed these various amendments during their public workshop meetings on October 9, 2003 and January 8, 2004. Following the January 8, 2004 meeting the P&Z Commission directed Staff to prepare specific language for their review during tonight's public hearing. Mr. Jacobs noted the first issue to consider was amendments to the Village Code regarding permitted fence locations. He noted that the proposed amendments have been designed to allow some greater flexibility for property owners within the Village. Mr. Jacobs stated that the current interpretation of the Village Code requires that fences be located on the property line, and that no more than one fence can be located along a property line. The proposed amendments will address both interior and comer lots. The proposed amendments regarding interior lots will allow fences to be located anywhere on the property except within the required front yard, and for those who do not wish to place their fence along a property line, sufficient access to the area must be maintained to allow for proper maintenance. Mr. Jacobs noted that the 0 nly change tor egulations regarding corner lots relates tot hose circumstances where a property's exterior side yard abuts the front yard of a neighboring property. The Code currently allows fences within the exterior side yard regardless of its location. This existing regulation has allowed fences to be located in an exterior side yard even though it abuts a neighboring property's front yard. Allowing fences in these locations can have a detrimental impact on the adjoining property as well as the overall character of the neighborhood. To address this issue the proposed fence amendments will continue to. allow fences within an exterior side yard, except if the exterior side yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot. In those instances where the exterior side yard abuts a front yard then a fence will not be allowed any closer to the exterior side yard lot line than either the building line established by the principal structure or the front yard established for the adjacent lot, whichever is less. Mr. Jacobs then reviewed the proposed amendment that would allow double fences along a common property line or multiple fences on a single property. He indicated that the only remaining concern with the proposed amendments related to the issue of dog runs, and the fact that the proposed regulations would allow someone to create an enclosed Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-4l-03 Page 2 area to serve as a dog run. Mr. Jacobs suggested that if the Commission was uncomfortable with the proposed regulations the issue of multiple fences and dog runs could be continued to the next meeting, providing staff some additional time to review the issue. Keith Youngquist had a question regarding dog runs and said he was not opposed to language specifically prohibiting dog runs. Richard Rogers suggested adding a sentence disallowing dog runs. Ms. Juracek suggested dealing with the fence locations at this meeting and deferring the double fence issue to another meeting. The Commission members agreed. Ms. Juracek noted for the record that no audience member came to address the issue. Joe Donnelly made a motion to approve the permitted fence locations and Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek made a motion to table the double fence location until the next meeting and Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced the proposed amendments regarding outdoor storage on residential properties. Mr. Jacobs noted that outdoor storage is often the main issue when addressing complaints regarding property maintenance. The Village Code currently contains limited language to address outdoor storage on residential properties. In response, specific language has been proposed that will limit what types of items can be stored outdoors on residential properties. Mr. Jacobs stated that the proposed language would permit outdoor storage of the following items: lawn and garden equipment and materials, garbage cans, grills and portable fireplaces, patio furniture, household tools, children's play equipment and other items similar to these as determined by the Community Development Director. Mr. Jacobs noted that these proposed regulations would not apply to vehicles, recreational vehicles and/or trailers, and recreational equipment. Commission members discussed many items usually found stored outside and some not usually found stored on private property. Mr. Youngquist asked if the amendment couldn't be interpreted to mean junk could be stored on private property in thirty or more garbage cans. Members ventured the opinion that "household tools" could be widely interpreted. Mr. Cotten said a gasoline-powered generator could be considered in that category today. Ms. Juracek said the Commission's previous discussions had generally focused on going with the proposed language, noting that the issue of vehicular and recreational vehicle storage would be discussed as part of another section within the Code. The Commissioners requested that the proposed language be modified to cross-reference the appropriate sections within the Code regarding vehicle storage. Richard Rogers made a motion and Keith Youngquist seconded it. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced the home occupation segment of the text amendments. j Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-4l-03 Page 3 Mr. Jacobs stated that the Village Code currently contains specific regulations regarding home occupations. He noted there have been several recent issues regarding employees showing up to a home occupation to then be dispatched to another site. This practice is not adequately addressed in the current regulations, thus Staff has proposed some additional language be included within the Code's home occupation regulations. Specifically, the proposed language would prohibit employees, other than those persons residing on the premises, from reporting to work at or near the premises, either for work to be completed within the residence or to be dispatched to work at another location. Commission members confirmed that service workers such as baby sitters, home care nurses, etc., were not affected by this ruling. Ms. Juracek observed that all members seemed to be in agreement with this amendment and asked for a motion. Mr. Rogers so moved and Mr. Youngquist seconded. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek then introduced the next section regarding daycare regulations. Mr. Jacobs said that the Village's existing regulations contain some inconsistencies with regard to terms, definitions, and conflict with the home occupation regulations. Mr. Jacobs noted that the proposed amendments to the daycare regulations relate to two different issues. The first part of the proposed amendments relate to the existing definition of Limited Residential Daycare. The second portion of the proposed amendments would eliminate Daycare Centers as a Conditional Use in the residential districts since they conflict with the Village's regulations regarding home daycare and are not in keeping with the character ofthe Village's residential neighborhoods. Ms. Juracek asked if someone wanted a Daycare Center in a residential area would they have to request a variation. Mr. Jacobs said that the proposed amendments would prohibit daycare centers from residential districts and the only means of relief from that in the future would be a text amendment. Mr. Jacobs reiterated that no more than 8 children would be allowed in a daycare facility in a residential district. Ms. Juracek poiIlted outtbismight preclude churches from operating daycare facilities for more than 8 children and be more drastic than actually intended by this amendment. Mr. Jacobs agreed this might need to be revisited. Mr. Floros asked what change would be included in the revised amendment. It was suggested that the definition of Daycare Center be amended to read "a non-residential building...". Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to adopt the proposed definition of Daycare Center with the addition of the word non-residential, to adopt staffs definition of Limited Daycare Facility and to not adopt Staffs disallowance of daycare centers in the Village's residential districts. Joe Donnelly so moved and Keith Younquist seconded. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs said the next item related to maintenance and replacement of landscaping materials. Mr. Jacobs noted that the Village's existing property maintenance regulations require the maintenance of landscaping in non-residential districts. The code, however, does not differentiate between maintenance and removal. To help maintain the benefits of the existing landscaping within the Village's non single-family residential properties, Staff has suggested the Code be amended to require the replacement of dead or damaged materials in similar kind and quantity rather than allowing them to be simply removed. . Ms. Juracek said landscaping should be similar, not identical. Mr. Rogers said landscaping design changes through the years and flexibility is needed. Mr. Youngquist said residents could not be required to replace a dead tree with the same size tree. Ms. Juracek said all members were in agreement with this amendment and asked for a motion. Richard Rogers moved to approve the amendment and Keith Youngquist seconded. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-4l-03 Page 4 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros; Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs introduced the next item by saying that there were two issues to consider regarding attached garages. The first relates to an inconsistency within the code that lists "single-family dwellings, including dwellings with an attached 3-car garage" as a permitted use in some of the residential districts while only "single-family dwellings" are listed as a permitted use in other residential districts. To address this issue Staffreçommencis thecodebeamepdeci t9 include "Single-Family dwellings, with attached or detached garages" as a permitted use in all of the single-family residential zoning districts. The second issue relates to limiting the size of garages in single-family residential districts. Based on the Commission's previous discussions the proposed amendments will allow attached garages fronting public rights-of- way, not exceeding an exterior appearance of a three car garage while there would be no limitation on the size of an attached garage that did not front a public right-of-way. Ms. Juracek noted the proposed revision of "single-family dwellings, with attached or detached garages" could be interpreted as requiring all single-family homes to have a garage. Mr. Jacobs said the Code currently requires homes to provide off-street parking but not necessarily a garage. He said the Code has existing regulations regarding the permitted size of detached garages. Much discussion ensued as to whether a garage should be required. Richard Rogers made motion to approve staffs definition 0 f single-family dwellings as written, with attached or detached garages as a permitted use, seconded by Merrill Cotten. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES Donnelly, Floros, and Juracek NAYS: Cotten, Rogers, Youngquist Motion was tied 3-3. Motion was not approved. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to amend the wording to read with or without attached or detached garage as a permitted use, seconded by Richard Rogers. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Juracek. Motion was approved 5-1. Joseph Donnelly moved that if there are two public rights-of-way there can only be three garage doors total facing those right-of-ways, Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Driveway width was the next subject. Mr. Jacobs said that based on the proposed amendments regarding attached garages, corresponding amendments would be required for the Village's driveway width regulations. Mr. Jacobs summarized the proposed amendments, indicating that in most cases the regulations would not change except for those garages that would exceed the standard driveway width regulations. In those cases a maximum driveway would be allowed to have a width the same as the width of the garage within 15 feet of the garage's front elevation. The garage width would be determined by measuring the width of the garage doors, the separation between the doors, plus an additional 2 feet on either side. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-4l-03 Page 5 Merrill Cotten asked iftuming radius was checked when 15' the width was detennined.Mr. Jacobs said that the most common configurations were considered but it was difficult to think of every scenario. Mr. Cotten said large SUVs and Hummers might not be accommodated by this size of driveway. Mr. Jacobs said someone could request a variation in that case. Mr. Younquist said 15 feet would be adequate unless someone owned a school bus. Mr. Rogers agreed. Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve the amendment as written, Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced the next subject, pavement separation between various sections of allowed pavement. Mr. Jacobs noted that Staff had initially recommended an amendment to the Village Code that would require a specified separation between paved areas that were intended for different uses, such as a driveway and patio. Mr. Jacobs stated that although Staff supported an amendment the Planning & Zoning Commission determined it was not necessary. Due to these circumstances the Commission did not recommend any amendments to the Code regarding this matter. Ms. Juracek introduced the next section, unenclosed front porches. Mr. Jacobs said that the Village Code currently requires Conditional Use approval for front porches that are to be located within a required front yard. To help expedite the review process it has been suggested that the Planning & Zoning Commission be the final review body on these requests, thus eliminating the need for the requests to be forwarded to the Village Board for review and approval. Richard Rogers made motion to accept the proposed amendments and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced the next subject, flags and flagpoles. Mr. Jacobs indicated that the Village Code currently contains limited regulations regarding flags and flagpoles. The proposed regulations would create specific regulations regarding flags and flagpoles for residential and non-residential zoning districts. For residential districts the proposed regulations would permit a maximum of one flagpöle per lot, containing no more than two flags. The maximum height for flagpoles in residential districts shall not exceed 20 feet. With regards to non-residential districts the proposed regulations would allow a maximum of three poles, with no more than two flags per pole. The maximum height shall not exceed the district's height limitations for the principal structure. In addition to the specific district restrictions, the proposed regulations include limitations on location. Flagpoles and flag supports shall not be located within a requited yard interior side yard, and shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from any property line. Roofmounted flagpoles or flag supports shall be prohibited. With regards to the total number of flags, no more than two flags shall be displayed on a single-family residential property at one time. Richard Rogers noted the exhibit that indicated a maximum size of 3 feet by 5 feet for flags on single-family residential properties. Mr. Jacobs noted that the size restriction of 3 feet by 5 feet should also be considered as part of the proposed amendments. Richard Rogers made a motion that flags on residential property shall not exceed 3 'x5', Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-4l-03 Page 6 NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Merrill Cotten made a motion to accept the amendments proposed on flags and flagpoles by staff, seconded by, Richard Rogers. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs introdùced the proposed amendments to service walks and sidewalk limitations. After some questions by Merrill Cotten on step and stoop widths, Keith Youngquist moved to accept the proposed amendment and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs reviewed the proposed amendments to administrative subdivisions. Mr. Rogers asked if the Chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission would sign the Plat of Subdivision if it were approved by administration. Mr. Jacobs said the Village Manager or Director of Community Development would sign it. Ms. Juracek said many of these subdivisions are so perfunctory it is time-consuming to have people go through the complete process. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the proposed amendment and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs introduced the proposed amendment for the conversion of garages to living spaces. Commission members thought residents should not be required to change the outside appearance of the house if they convert the garage to living space because a future residentmay reconvert the space. The amendment was tabled. Mr. Jacobs reviewed the next segment, commercial trailers in residential districts. Keith Youngquist made a motion to accept Staff's amendment to require commercial trailers to be kept inside garages in residential districts. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Richard Rogers made amotion that the Village Board consider limiting the amount of time a boat or recreational trailer may be kept on a residential driveway. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. ;¡¡ Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-4l-03 Page 7 Mr. Jacobs introduced the amendment to the segment on arbors and trellises. Commission members agreed that in certain cases trellises would be allowed in a front yard. Ms. Juracek thought a Community Development discretionary clause would be helpful to this segment. Commission members agreed that wording should be added that in situations where you could have a fence, such as an interior side yard, you could have a trellis or arbor. Richard Rogers made motion to accept the amendment with that change in wording and Merril1 Cotten seconded the motion. . UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs introduced the last issue, FAR and some related definitions. Commission members discussed sizes and heights of various new construction projects in the Vil1age and as it compares to other Codes in other areas of the country. Keith Youngquist said he thought garages were used mainly for storage and not for cars. Mr. Jacobs said they could vote separately on any portion of the amendment, the basement, the height, etc., or the entire a mendment at 0 nee. Jo e D onnelley mad a motion to a pprove all phases 0 f t he FAR amendment. Richard Rogers seconded the motion UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek summarized by saying the Commission had tabled the fence amendments as they relate to dog runs and recommended to Village Board to address recreational trailers and vehicles. At 9:50 p.m Richard Rogers made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Michael Jacobs, AICP Deputy Director Community Development H:IPLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2003IMinutesIPZ-41-03 VaMP Various Text Amendments.doc