Loading...
2001-06-06 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 06/06/2001 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION June 6, 2001 Development Ordinance (Section 16.50.080.A.2.b.) and Zoning Ordinance (Section 17.36.030.f.4.b.), consideration of amendments concerning driveway width and driveway apron width Zoning Ordinance, consideration of amendments to Section 17.36.040 Concerning parking requirements and Chapter 17.44— Business Districts, B-1 through B-4 Chairman Ottenheimer 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: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Trilling Ms. Dunn Mr. Feldgreber Mr. Panitch Mr. Smith Ms. Kenski-Sroka Ms. Bocek Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Jeffrey Berman, Village Trustee APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Trilling, seconded by Commissioner Dunn to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 18, 2001. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Kenski-Sroka abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Trilling stated he attended the Village Board meeting on June 4, 2001 where the following items were discussed: 1. The Arboretum Golf Course maintenance building project is moving ahead 2. Referral of the issue relative to family community residences in the Village. This would relate to people who are in need of assistance due to disabilities and are in need of group homes to facilitate their livelihood. Commissioner Trilling noted they are asking for approval of up to six residents and two staff people in a group residence. Presently the ordinance is written allowing only up to six people, including staff. Mr. Pfeil commented that Federal fair housing regulations mandate that local zoning regulations cannot treat a group of persons with developmental disabilities differently than other families in terms of their right to reside in a dwelling unit. He noted the Village Attorney is reviewing the considerable data presented by Mr. Brian Rubin and should be available to the Commission for briefing. Commissioner Trilling noted that apparently under the American with Disabilities Act, the Village does not have the authority to tell them where they can be located and where they cannot locate. 3. Proposal by Jacobs Homes for a multi-family development near Route 22 and Prairie Road Commissioner Samuels stated he attended the Village Board meeting of May 21, 2001 where the Board referred the driveway ordinance change. DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (SECTION 16.50.080.A.2.B.) AND ZONING ORDINANCE (SECTION 17.36.030.F.4.B), CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS CONCERNING DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND DRIVEWAY APRON WIDTH Mr. Pfeil stated the changes to driveway apron widths was initiated at the board level by one particular property, but the Board feels there may be a number of properties that this amendment could address and benefit. The current Development Ordinance regulations for driveway apron width and the Zoning Ordinance allow for a two-car garage and an 18-foot driveway at the property line. For types of construction that would be larger than a standard two-car garage, a driveway and apron wider than 18 feet would be needed. It might be up in the 22-foot range for a newer type of two-car garage with nine-foot doors and perhaps spacing in between the doors and some side on the garage beyond the doors. Basically, the request is to amend the Ordinances to allow some appropriate number such as 22 feet for driveway and apron width. Commissioner Samuels stated he would like to see driveway and apron widths of this type treated as variances. He stated he has reservations about increasing the width, since tapering can be used in many situations. If curbs cuts continue to get larger, more and more off street parking is being taken away and there could be insufficient parking in some areas due to the increased driveway widths. Mr. Pfeil noted that three-car garages are allowed full 27-feet and this would obviously be less than that. He said that there does not appear to be any specific information concerning how many two-car driveways larger than 18 feet in width may be requested. Commissioner Samuels noted that 18 feet at the property line is sufficient for someone to get out of their driveway. A foot wider on either side at the house where the driveway hits the garage door would be fine. Then taper to the 18 feet which should be sufficient, especially with the flare at the end of the driveway. He said that by going to 22 feet, the curb cut will bring it up to 25 to 26 feet, which does not seem necessary. Chairman Ottenheimer noted the ordinance would certainly apply to new construction and a number of remodeled homes. Commissioner Samuels asked why the resident on Horatio Boulevard in Prairie View needs approval by the Village for the proposed apron. Mr. Pfeil said that Horatio Boulevard is fully within the Village, so the apron is located on Village right-of-way even though the driveway and house are unincorporated. The Village requires a permit to construct the apron and to access a Village street. The design for the driveway apron must comply with the standards of the Village Development Ordinance. Commissioner Trilling asked if there is any way to make this a variance only for this particular property. Mr. Pfeil replied affirmatively. Commissioner Trilling stated he does not want to make 22 feet the standard width for two-car driveways. Commissioner Samuels stated he does not see why there should be a distinction in the amount of driveway between a big or small two-car garage, especially when someone who does have a two-car garage has to put the third space on while tapering severely to comply with the ordinance. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that the Commission has not been presented with a request for a variance. The current request is to consider amendment of the Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance concerning a standard that would apply generally to properties in the same situation. Trustee Berman stated this item was originally discussed relative to a variation versus an ordinance text amendment. He stated in his opinion it is not good policy to amend statutes to address a single person's unique, isolated issue, which is really a variance. He noted the Plan Commission does have the authority to hear and recommend a variance. As part of a rejection of the text amendment, if chosen, the Commission could recommend a variance after a hearing to address the person's unique circumstances. Commissioner Samuels agreed with Trustee Berman. Commissioner Trilling noted that the Zoning Ordinance limits impervious surface in a front yard to 40 percent of the required yard area, and this is another reason that a general text amendment is not advisable. The consensus of the Plan Commission is not to move forward with any text amendments. Commissioner Samuels noted in support of the Commission's feelings that it is generally not a good policy to amend an ordinance on the basis of the request of an individual who is claiming a hardship. The ordinance is meant to apply to the overall community. If the ordinance standards are valid, an amendment should not be used to address an individual property owner's difficulty in meeting the standards. When text amendments are considered there may be other issues that should be included within the discussion, and the current request is very narrow in scope. In summary, it is probably best to leave the ordinance in its current form unless a more comprehensive proposal for amendments is ready for review and discussion. ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 17.36.040 CONCERNING PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 17.44 — BUSINESS DISTGRICTS, B-I THROUGH B-4 Mr. Pfeil reviewed the memo of June 4, 2001 noting the two main points are the revised standards for parking and a conceptual discussion of outdoor storage for businesses of seasonal or temporary merchandise. Mr. Pfeil noted the table of proposed parking standards was reviewed last year, without many changes. The auto graveyard use was eliminated. These standards came from research and discussion over some period of time and most of these proposed standards can be tied to various ordinances that are fairly recent. Therefore, the Zoning Ordinance Review Sub-committee (ZORS) believes there is a good methodology to support these recommendations. In the residential category, a standard is being added requiring guest or visitor parking at 0.3 spaces per unit for residences other than single-family detached. The revisions also upgrade the standard for assisted living units. The parking standard for manufacturing and warehouse uses is more specific. For example, an office component to a manufacturing or industrial use is calculated separately based on the floor area of the office use. Mr. Pfeil noted there is a significant change in the parking standards for retail businesses and shopping centers. For shopping centers that are large, the standard of 1 parking space per 220 square feet of floor area would be retained. For centers that are smaller, the more stringent standard of 1 space per 200 square feet is recommended. He noted that a more stringent standard of 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet is recommended for convenience stores, which reflects current practice in a number of ordinances. The proposed standards address restaurants, including a parking requirement for outdoor dining areas. The stacking space dimension for fast-food restaurants drive-through lanes is specified as 22 feet in length. Mr. Pfeil noted that the method for calculating public assembly uses and schools and child daycare centers is more fully specified in the proposed revisions. The current standard does not adequately address actual conditions for peak periods, so the new standard correlates required parking to the number of teachers and the student enrollment rather than just the square footage of a building. For certain type of offices such as real estate agents, a more stringent standard is recommended based on the employment level. Mr. Pfeil noted that the changes proposed in the entertainment and cultural uses now use "rated design capacity," which correlates to the number of persons or seats in a facility. Mr. Pfeil noted there are some recommended changes for public open space uses. A standard is also recommended for health and fitness club facilities. Commissioner Feldgreber asked if the definition of parking referred to regular parking and not special events parking. Mr. Pfeil stated that was correct and noted the proposed changes did not contemplate valet parking or queued parking. Commissioner Feldgreber noted that cellular communication facilities should have a minimum of one space. Most of these sites have no employees, but service vehicles should have a paved space instead of just pulling up on the grass. Commissioner Trilling noted under restaurants and fast food, further clarification might be in order to specify that although there may be three drive through windows, there is still only one stacking lane. Also, he noted that there is 1 space per 3 seats for churches and synagogues based on the rate of design capacity, plus 50 percent of the spaces otherwise required for accessory uses. He noted that it might be beneficial to find out whether school is actually in session when services are actually occurring on an ongoing basis in order to determine any parking requirements. He asked how the accessory uses would be evaluated in a chapel, church, synagogue or temple. Trustee Berman stated the proposal calls for 1 space per employee and one per two classrooms. This would not be a driving force in the calculation for parking. Commissioner Samuels asked what kind of data was used for the parking standards for real estate offices. He stated he would like to look at tying the figure to either desks or employees. He noted that beauty shops and day spas also seem to generate tremendous amounts of long-term parking and needs to be looked into. Mr. Pfeil reviewed the previous changes in outdoor storage uses. He noted that several years ago propane sales were of great concern to the Trustees and specific requirements were added to the ordinance concerning the types of businesses that are allowed to store and sell propane. At the same time outdoor display of merchandise was discussed. This issue needs to be re-visited, and updated standards need to be developed. Mr. Pfeil noted that the current B-3 regulations allow "temporary display of merchandise." In the B-1 and B-2 Districts uses are required to be in an enclosed building which clearly is not the practice at various gas stations. New standards are needed to provide uniformity in terms of what can be stored outside and to allow for effective administration of the regulations. Chairman Ottenheimer stated that as a general rule he does not like the way out outdoor storage looks, but looking at some businesses, like Zimmerman's Hardware, it does seem natural to put propane tanks or seasonal items out for display. He does not care for the large pallets and banners in front of gas stations, but it could be said that it is an accessory to a permitted or special use. Commissioner Panitch stated he likes the 10 percent rule used in Libertyville and the maximum height of five feet for propane tanks. He stated he likes these guidelines for certain specific issues. Commissioner Samuels asked if it is proper for the Commission to address maintenance and appearance of these areas in the ordinance. He asked if there is an objective standard that can be delineated. He noted that he does not know if the objection is so much to the existence of the storage, but how well it is maintained and policed. Mr. Pfeil stated that generally property maintenance is relevant and the Village has the right to regulate properties for the public good. He stated he would ask the Village Attorney and Mr. Schar for additional comments. Commissioner Samuels stated he realized some of these are permitted uses, which would be a difficult to regulate. He further noted that the language stating "not interfering with parking" should also have "nor sidewalk accesses" added to the language. Pedestrian should not be forced off of the curb or sidewalk area in front of a store into the parking lot because of stored goods blocking the sidewalk. Commissioner Panitch asked if the word"temporary" could be defined. Mr. Pfeil stated the staff recommendation is to use the concept of "seasonal" rather than "temporary." Commissioner Panitch asked what items are under discussion. He asked if these are saleable entities or are these outdoor storage of excess inventory. Mr. Pfeil stated he believes the intent of the ordinance in the B-1, B-2 and B-3 Districts is that items should be sold and carried off the premises. In the B-4 district there is the additional aspect of allowing materials to be stored. Commissioner Trilling stated the issues to be resolved are: 1. Stacking items neatly 2. Stacking items in a safe manner 3. Protection of items out in the open to prevent deterioration and promote attractiveness 4. No obstruction of the path of egress or the line of sight for pedestrians and motorists Mr. Pfeil commented that he and Mr. Schar believe this type of merchandise display should be adjacent to a building, and items should not be allowed at the perimeter of a property or on islands in a parking lot. There might also be some parameters as to how much of linear footage of the building could have things in front as well as some parameters as to the permissible size of the area allowed for displaying items. Commissioner Feldgreber asked who would enforce the ordinance. Mr. Pfeil stated the Building Department is proactive and Mr. Schar's philosophy is to advise businesses if they are not in compliance with applicable standards. Mr. Schar will enforce the standards, but enforcement is more effective if there are clear standards and regulations set forth in Village ordinances. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next meeting would be June 20, 2001. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Feldgreber, seconded by Commissioner Dunn and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair