Loading...
2009-01-07 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 01/07/2009 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION January 7, 2009 Village Zoning Ordinance and Development Ordinance Review of driveway regulations in residential districts Plan Commission 2008 Annual Report—Review Acting Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Mr. Smith Mr. Bocek Mr. Khan Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Mr. Weinstein Commissioners absent: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Teplinsky Ms. Myer Also present: Ms. Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Manager Mr. Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner for Operations Mr. Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES—None COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Smith attended the Village Board meeting on January 5, 2009 where the ordinance adopting the revised appearance plan provisions was approved. The issue was deferred to the January 19, 2009 meeting. There was some concern was some of the language regarding the recommendations for green building. They were concerned that it was not mandated and was simply recommended. PLAN COMMISSION 2008 ANNUAL REPORT—REVIEW Mr. Pfeil noted that the Commission completed the review of the Land & Lakes plans and the Board annexed the property. The El Pollo Loco restaurant required a lot of work by the Commission, including site access planning and appearance review. Due to economic issues, the project did not proceed. This site is currently being re—planned by the property owner. Affinity Healthcare on Busch Parkway was a nice project in terms of the quality of the building and the site planning. The Commission did a great job working on the access connections with adjacent properties. The Waterbury Place replan is reflective of the real estate market and the need to adjust to consumer housing preferences. Moved by Commissioner Weinstein, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to accept the annual report of the Buffalo Grove Plan Commission for 2008 dated January 2, 2009. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. VILLAGE ZONING ORDINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE — REVIEW OF DRIVEWAY REGULATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Ms. Ghida Neukirch stated staff has been working at looking at a number of different issues in the zoning ordinance. One is the driveway regulations we have which are referenced in both the zoning ordinance and development ordinance. Ms. Neukirch reviewed existing regulations noting the apron for one and two garages has a maximum permitted paved surface is 18 feet at the sidewalk in or adjacent to the public way and 3 feet greater at the curb. A three car garage apron has a maximum of 27 feet and 3 feet greater at the curb. For the driveway for a one or two car garage the maximum is 18 feet at the curb line and 27 feet for a three car garage. There is a regulation which sets forth that alteration is not allowed within 5 feet of the property line, within any drainage way or in any easement. The driveway may taper at a ratio of 1 foot to 1 foot. However, the front yard cannot be in excess of 40 percent for impervious surface which includes the driveway or apron. Ms. Neukirch reviewed the process a resident would be required to follow for any construction, extension or replacement of their driveway. They would require a permit from the building department and they would be required to provide three copies of their plat or survey, fill out a permit application and once that is approved, the engineering department would send someone out to do a pre-pour inspection to make sure the dimensions of what is being planned meets the Village regulations and are consistent with code. The contractor would do the pouring or brick work. Thereafter, a representative of the building department would conduct a final inspection to make sure the work was done in accordance with code and per the permit. Ms. Neukirch stated that unfortunately, after the final inspection, the contractor or homeowner will conduct non-permitted or approved alterations to the driveways. We do not have the manpower to check every single property and many times these alterations are just based on reports received from neighbors. People many times are using 2-3 different types of materials when they are extending their driveway. Ms. Neukirch stated staff is proposing modifications to serve two purposes. First, they want to be responsive to residents. It is possible that residents are finding our regulations to be too stringent so we want to provide them greater flexibility to accommodate larger SUV's or larger vehicles and greater space and drivers in their family. At the same time the Village wants to maintain an appropriate amount of green space on a front yard and make sure that the Village's regulations are being enforced correctly and adhered to. Ms. Neukirch stated they are recommending expanding the maximum driveway width from 18 feet to 24 feet for a one or two car garage. For a three car garage it would remain the same at 27 feet. Another element they would like to include in an ordinance is that the driveway shall not obstruct or shall be set back from any tree, fire hydrant, street lights, etc. as shall be determined by the Village Forester or Engineer and that no more than two materials may be used. Ms. Neukirch further stated the regulations are not only in the zoning ordinance but also in the development ordinance. Once again, staff is suggesting a modification from 18 feet to 24 feet maximum for a one or two car garage. Where it is a 1 to 1 taper we would be looking at a proportional regulation so that we can continue with the same proportion going down and extending through the bottom of the apron. The three car garage regulations would remain the same. Ms. Neukirch noted they would like the Plan Commission's feedback. She stated the number of non-compliant driveways in the community is unknown. They have identified well over 200 such driveways and they have been keeping a log of addresses of every driveway found to be non-compliant. They have also done an extensive amount of measurement just to find out how much non-compliance is there. However, they have not been a complete inventory of the community. The second question they have is whether the proposed regulations are appropriate. In some follow up studies they have determined that based on an initial number of properties they looked at the proposed regulations of 24 feet would bring about one-third of the samples they looked at into compliance. However, staff does believe 24 feet to be reasonable. Staff has also questioned if an inventory of all properties should be considered. They felt that doing an inventory of every residential property would be very costly on a staff resource basis and it would take a great deal of time. Also, by the time they finished that inventory it would be outdated. She noted it would be difficult to get a complete accurate and up to date inventory of all properties. She further noted they did talk about starting to take a photograph of every finished work to be kept in the permit file. This would be a record of what was done at the time of final inspection. Then if there is a complaint from a neighbor who wants the same driveway which is now non-compliant we would have proof and the ability to enforce the regulations. Also they are looking at the feasibility of a software program which we have in house. This program can zero in on properties and can be used as a second means to find out how a driveway was constructed. She also noted the fourth element here is promotion. They feel it is very important that if these modifications are supported and if the Board concurs and approves an ordinance then they need to do an extensive amount of work to relay this information to the public. We are being responsive to them and giving them a bit more generous regulations to accommodate their needs and we want to get the information out there. People also need to know that you do need a permit to do this work. Ms. Neukirch stated some of the promotion possibilities they have available is the Village newsletter which is mailed to every residential and business property in the community. On occasion they have created good neighbor videos where one of the inspectors does a video which is replayed on the government access channel on a number of different safety and health issues. They can also include information about the new regulations in every water bill. Commissioner Bocek asked why they are making it wider as it is clearly not an aesthetic enhancement. Are vehicles are bigger with more SUVs or is it because there are more people living in the house. She stated she is OK with updating the Village's requirements but she does not want the requirement to make non-compliant people compliant. That would send a bad message. In that regard she wonders how we could find out why people are making their driveways bigger. Ms. Neukirch stated the experience they have had is that someone comes in with plans for a driveway that is bigger than regulations and we tell them no. Then they point to ten driveways and show their neighbors have done it. The feedback on why they want to go larger has been more drivers in the household or more cars and they want more space on the driveway for additional cars. Commissioner Bocek noted that even if you enlarge the regulations it will still not satisfy the issue with more drivers in the household and they will still make the driveways larger than the 24 feet. Commissioner Weinstein stated he is not sure that expansion to 24 feet really provides a benefit if only one third of the people who have already expanded are brought into compliance. That still leaves two thirds of the people non-compliant and you will still have the same issue with people coming in and saying their neighbors are larger. Even getting up to 24 feet may not have that big of an impact. Do we want to go bigger than that or just leave it as is? Then the question becomes one of enforcement for the people who are non-compliant. Ms. Neukirch stated if a property is in violation now based on a recent permit we have them tear it out and come into compliance. However, it has been a challenge if a driveway has been that way for quite some time or if they moved in and the driveway was this way. That was why they have been thinking of grandfathering those properties. Now based on the software record and the photo record that we would take from this point forward of permits we can say from now on we are offering more generous regulations but you must come into compliance with that. Based on more aggressive follow up we would make people take out non-compliant driveways. Commissioner Weinstein asked if there is a definition for what materials constitute driveway. He noted he has heard the argument made that certain brick pavers and certain rocks do not count because that is landscape material. Mr. Sheehan stated people do bring that up, but the problem is that in order to park the car legally it must be parked on the driveway or improved surface. He further noted that one of the reasons you see the infill with the different materials is when they create the 45 degree angle, one to one taper, they cannot make the maneuver and they tend to drive over the grass which eventually becomes just a pile of mud and then a rut and full of water so they just fill it in. They do need a proper surface to park on in any of those infill materials. They are not landscape improvements and are considered part of the driveway. Commissioner Khan stated people have more cars now as they move back home especially with the economy as it is. Mr. Pfeil stated that statistically most of the issues are in the R6 and R5 areas where the lot width is 60 feet and the front yard is 25 feet. Driveways that have been built larger than what is currently allowed, and taper areas that have been filled in are concentrated in the neighborhoods with narrower lots and smaller front yards. Commissioner Khan stated in some towns code enforcement is under the police department. He further noted that when someone is reconstructing a driveway it seems somewhat cumbersome to have to call two different departments for inspections. Ms. Neukirch stated the resident only has one point of contact with the building department. The building department coordinates with engineering and advises them when pre-pour is ready to go out and do an inspection. Mr. Sheehan stated once engineering does the inspection they send an e-mail list to him of the inspections done and then he assigns an inspector to go out and follow up. The resident does not have to call for the final inspection. Ms. Neukirch stated it is working well with the coordination of our staff but the larger concern is what the residents are doing after Village staff leaves. Commissioner Cohn asked if other communities have been looked at who have a similar issue to see how they have dealt with the problem. He stated he would be interested to know what some of the other communities surrounding our Village are going about this problem. He noted he is less concerned about the width of the driveways and more concerned about different materials used together. The other problem is a centering one. When the driveways were built they were centered on a two car garage and it just looks awkward. Ms. Neukirch stated they can have that kind of municipal review done for the next meeting. Commissioner Smith asked why this is a Plan Commission issue. Mr. Pfeil stated it is a Plan Commission responsibility to amend the zoning ordinance. The variation process does go to the ZBA, and they need to be knowledgeable about this process if the Zoning Ordinance standards are modified. Commissioner Smith asked what staff wants the Plan Commission to do. Ms. Neukirch stated they will follow up with the additional research and they would like Plan Commission insight in terms of the 24 feet being appropriate. Mr. Pfeil noted the Plan Commission will have to conduct a public hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Smith asked if another workshop is necessary or if this should go to public hearing. Ms. Neukirch asked for some additional time and then they will go for a public hearing. Commissioner Weinstein stated perhaps the width should either be left as is or perhaps go up to 26 feet as that would encompass roughly another one third of the properties on the non-compliant list. Commissioner Weinstein asked if there are any repercussions on the contractors who ignore the guidelines. Mr. Sheehan stated currently we do not do anything along those lines but those are all avenues being looked at going forward. Commissioner Bocek stated for the most part contractors are very careful about their licenses and it is the homeowners who are doing it on their own. She asked what people can do with their cars if they still do not have enough room on their driveways. If this issue can be addressed it would be a better solution. Commissioner Khan stated going from 18 feet to 26 feet it will look like a parking lot in front of a single family home. It is way too wide. He asked what will be accomplished by widening to 24 feet. Mr. Pfeil stated the arithmetic indicates that at 24 feet 60—foot wide lots still are comply with the 40 percent lot coverage in the front yard and that is part of the rationale. When the driveway is wider than 24 feet, many lots in R-5 and R6 districts will exceed the 40 percent coverage of pavement in the front yard. Commissioner Stark asked if the pre-pour inspection includes getting a copy of the contract which specifies the width and the materials used or is it just the outline of the proposed driveway. Mr. Sheehan stated generally when they go out they use the approved plans. The forms should be out there and ready to go. He stated they do not look at the contract per se which may or may not be available. Commissioner Cohn asked what the rationale behind the 40 percent rule is and should we be considering lessening that to accommodate this or is there some planning guidance that 40 percent is the magic number. Mr. Pfeil commented that the late 1980's some of the houses were being built with three—car garages and homeowners wanted to be able to access all of the garage bays directly from the street. This resulted in a Zoning Ordinance amendment allowing a 27—foot wide driveway at the property line, and a larger apron. This amount of pavement is acceptable for larger lots, but it does not work so well when lots are narrower with smaller front yards. The Plan Commission at that time had a lot of discussion about the impacts of allowing wider driveways. The 40 percent front yard pavement coverage standard seemed appropriate for most situations. Commissioner Cohn noted that we can say now that the needs are different than they were in the 80's and maybe 40 percent is not the right number. We need to be thinking about the 40 percent rule as it has a lot of play in what can be done with the width. Maybe it is more appropriate in certain circumstances to increase to 45 percent to accommodate a 27 foot wide width. Mr. Pfeil noted it then begins to look like a parking lot especially in neighborhoods where the lots are 60 feet wide. Commissioner Cohn commented that it may be necessary to reevaluate that number with the width discussion to see what current values are about pavement cover and driver widths and area coverage. Commissioner Smith asked what the trend is for this now. Has it peaked or are requests for these types of driveways still high. Mr. Sheehan stated it is pretty much continual. Ms. Neukirch stated that of about 160 to 180 driveway permits issued every year, the first question by many property owners is what is the biggest driveway they are allowed to construct. Commissioner Cohn noted the Village ordinance of no parking on the street can be relaxed for the evening parking rule to help mitigate some of this issue. Ms. Neukirch stated the police department would not favor that as they want cars off the street in order to have a clear view of all the homes. Commissioner Cohn noted perhaps people can get a special parking permit so people do not have to widen their driveways. Mr. Sheehan noted that this time of year with snow removal is always a problem. Commissioner Smith noted a public hearing will be next on this matter. CHAIRMAN'REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil said the next meeting is scheduled for January 21, 2009. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cohn, seconded by Commission Khan and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ERIC SMITH, Acting Chair